Cargando…

The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire

This study aims to test the construct validity and reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST)–device, an eight-item questionnaire for measuring satisfaction with assistive devices. We collected 250 questionnaires from 79 patients and 32 caregivers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Caronni, Antonio, Ramella, Marina, Arcuri, Pietro, Salatino, Claudia, Pigini, Lucia, Saruggia, Maurizio, Folini, Chiara, Scarano, Stefano, Converti, Rosa Maria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36673791
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021036
_version_ 1784874347464228864
author Caronni, Antonio
Ramella, Marina
Arcuri, Pietro
Salatino, Claudia
Pigini, Lucia
Saruggia, Maurizio
Folini, Chiara
Scarano, Stefano
Converti, Rosa Maria
author_facet Caronni, Antonio
Ramella, Marina
Arcuri, Pietro
Salatino, Claudia
Pigini, Lucia
Saruggia, Maurizio
Folini, Chiara
Scarano, Stefano
Converti, Rosa Maria
author_sort Caronni, Antonio
collection PubMed
description This study aims to test the construct validity and reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST)–device, an eight-item questionnaire for measuring satisfaction with assistive devices. We collected 250 questionnaires from 79 patients and 32 caregivers. One QUEST was completed for each assistive device. Five assistive device types were included. QUEST was tested with the Rasch analysis (Many-Facet Rating Scale Model: persons, items, and device type). Most patients were affected by neurological disabilities, and most questionnaires were about mobility devices. All items fitted the Rasch model (InfitMS range: 0.88–1.1; OutfitMS: 0.84–1.28). However, the ceiling effect of the questionnaire was large (15/111 participants totalled the maximum score), its targeting poor (respondents mean measure: 1.90 logits), and its reliability was 0.71. The device classes had different calibrations (range: −1.18 to 1.26 logits), and item 3 functioned differently in patients and caregivers. QUEST satisfaction measures have low reliability and weak construct validity. Lacking invariance, the QUEST total score is unsuitable for comparing the satisfaction levels of users of different device types. The differential item functioning suggests that the QUEST could also be problematic for comparing satisfaction in patients and caregivers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9859407
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98594072023-01-21 The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire Caronni, Antonio Ramella, Marina Arcuri, Pietro Salatino, Claudia Pigini, Lucia Saruggia, Maurizio Folini, Chiara Scarano, Stefano Converti, Rosa Maria Int J Environ Res Public Health Article This study aims to test the construct validity and reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST)–device, an eight-item questionnaire for measuring satisfaction with assistive devices. We collected 250 questionnaires from 79 patients and 32 caregivers. One QUEST was completed for each assistive device. Five assistive device types were included. QUEST was tested with the Rasch analysis (Many-Facet Rating Scale Model: persons, items, and device type). Most patients were affected by neurological disabilities, and most questionnaires were about mobility devices. All items fitted the Rasch model (InfitMS range: 0.88–1.1; OutfitMS: 0.84–1.28). However, the ceiling effect of the questionnaire was large (15/111 participants totalled the maximum score), its targeting poor (respondents mean measure: 1.90 logits), and its reliability was 0.71. The device classes had different calibrations (range: −1.18 to 1.26 logits), and item 3 functioned differently in patients and caregivers. QUEST satisfaction measures have low reliability and weak construct validity. Lacking invariance, the QUEST total score is unsuitable for comparing the satisfaction levels of users of different device types. The differential item functioning suggests that the QUEST could also be problematic for comparing satisfaction in patients and caregivers. MDPI 2023-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9859407/ /pubmed/36673791 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021036 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Caronni, Antonio
Ramella, Marina
Arcuri, Pietro
Salatino, Claudia
Pigini, Lucia
Saruggia, Maurizio
Folini, Chiara
Scarano, Stefano
Converti, Rosa Maria
The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire
title The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire
title_full The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire
title_fullStr The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire
title_full_unstemmed The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire
title_short The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire
title_sort rasch analysis shows poor construct validity and low reliability of the quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 (quest 2.0) questionnaire
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36673791
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021036
work_keys_str_mv AT caronniantonio theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT ramellamarina theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT arcuripietro theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT salatinoclaudia theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT piginilucia theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT saruggiamaurizio theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT folinichiara theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT scaranostefano theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT convertirosamaria theraschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT caronniantonio raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT ramellamarina raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT arcuripietro raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT salatinoclaudia raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT piginilucia raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT saruggiamaurizio raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT folinichiara raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT scaranostefano raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire
AT convertirosamaria raschanalysisshowspoorconstructvalidityandlowreliabilityofthequebecuserevaluationofsatisfactionwithassistivetechnology20quest20questionnaire