Children's Satisfaction With Assistive Technology Solutions for Schoolwork Using the QUEST 2.1: Children's Version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the levels of satisfaction children 8–18 years experienced with assistive technology items used to assist them in their schoolwork. Modified from the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction (QUEST 2.0), the QUEST 2.1: Children's Version was developed to enable scoring by children with or without parent assistance. The QUEST 2.1: Children's Version used a seven-point smiley face scale (1 = “delighted”). A mailed survey to a convenience sample of 703 children with physical disabilities was undertaken with 156 responses (22.5% response rate) yielding 98 valid QUEST 2.1 questionnaires. Children had a mean age of 12 years 6 months (SD 3.0 years), 60.2% were boys, and 80.6% resided in metropolitan or peri-urban areas. For data analysis, assistive technology items were grouped as communication devices, computer hardware, computer software, and other. High levels of satisfaction were reported overall on the QUEST 2.1: Children's version (total score mean 2.66, SD 1.09). Variations between different groups of assistive technology items, and between items indicated as most or lest favorite are reported and discussed. Advice given for selection, reliability, and ease of use were identified as the most important satisfaction items.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".