ArticleBMC psychology2023
Development and validation of a white cane use perceived advantages and disadvantages (WCPAD) questionnaire.
Article in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe white cane is globally an important tool in orientation and mobility for blind and visually impaired people, but it is not often used. The goal of this study was to develop and validate the white cane use perceived advantages and disadvantages (WCPAD) questionnaire for detecting effective factors in the use or non-use of canes.
methodThe initial questionnaire items were extracted through semi-structured interviews with 21 blind or severely impaired vision individuals under two main themes, the perceived advantages, and disadvantages of using a white cane. Linguistic validity and writing evaluation with seven experts, face validity with 23 blind persons, content validity ratio (CVR), and content validity index (CVI) were used for assessment of validity. Internal and external reliability assessment was done using Cronbach's alpha and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Explanatory factor analysis was conducted to identify the factors of the questionnaire; then, corrected item-total correlations, convergent and discriminant validity, and Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were done, and model fit indices were reported. A total of 320 blind and severe visual impaired individuals (138 males and 182 females) participated in the study. The final questionnaire contained 12 questions in perceived advantages and 21 in perceived disadvantages.
resultsThree factors (social participation, mobility, and culture) extracted for perceived advantages which explained 67.95% of the total variance, Cronbach-α for the three extracted factors was between 0.75 and 0.91. Four factors (social, safety, ergonomics, and family) for perceived disadvantages were extracted which explained 50.98% of the total variance. Cronbach-α for the four extracted factors was from 0.75 to 0.88. CFA confirmed the final models for perceived advantages and disadvantages.
conclusionWCPAD questionnaire has good reliability and validity, and the factors obtained from factor analysis can measure the reasons for using or otherwise of white canes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.