Tradução e validação do Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) para o idioma português do Brasil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traduzir e validar o Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) para o idioma Português do Brasil. Tradutores juramentados traduziram e retrotraduziram o Quest. A validade do conteúdo (IVC) foi determinada por cinco especialistas e, após a versão final do B‐Quest, foi aplicado um pré‐teste a usuários de cadeiras de rodas manuais, andadores e muletas. As propriedades psicométricas foram testadas como garantia da validade dos itens, confiabilidade e estabilidade da escala. Foram obtidos dados de 121 usuários dos dispositivos mencionados. Nosso es‐tudo demonstrou um IVC de 91,66% e uma análise de fatores satisfatória com referência à estrutura bidimensional do instrumento, o que assegurou a representatividade dos itens. Os coeficientes alfa de Cronbach dos itens «dispositivo», «serviços» e «escore total» do B--Quest foram 0,862, 0,717 e 0,826, respectivamente. A estabilidade de teste‐reteste, reali‐zada após terem transcorrido dois meses, foi analisada com o uso do teste de correlação de Spearman, tendo sido demonstrada elevada correlação (ρ>0,6) para a maioria dos itens. Conclusão: O estudo sugere que o B‐Quest é um instrumento confiável, representativo e válido para a medição da satisfação de usuários de tecnologia assistiva no Brasil. To translate and validate the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) into Brazilian Portuguese. Certified translators translated and back‐translated Quest. Content validity (CVI) was determined by 5 experts and, after the final version of B‐Quest, a pre‐test was applied to users of manual wheelchairs, walkers and crutches. The psychometric properties were tested to assure the validity of items and the reliability and stability of the scale. Data were obtained from 121 users of the above‐mentioned devices. Our study showed a CVI of 91.66% and a satisfactory factor analysis referent to the two‐dimensional structure of the instrument that ensured the representativeness of the items. The Cron‐bach's alpha of the items device, service and total score of B‐Quest were 0.862, 0.717 and 0.826, respectively. Test‐retest stability conducted after a time interval of 2 months was analyzed using Spearman's correlation test, which showed high correlation (ρ >0.6) for most items. The study suggests that the B‐Quest is a reliable, representative, and valid instrument to measure the satisfaction of users of assistive technology in Brazil.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it