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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |