The Validity and Applicability of the Chinese Version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology for People With Spinal Cord Injury
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
The Quebec User Evaluation With Assistive Technology (Version 2.0; QUEST 2.0) has become an important outcome assessment to capture user satisfaction in the field of assistive technology. The purpose of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the QUEST 2.0 (C-QUEST) in terms of content and substantive and factor validity and to explore its applicability on user satisfaction on mobility and equipment among Chinese people with spinal cord injury. A group of six expert members were invited to evaluate the content validity and translation quality of the 12-item C-QUEST. The revised version, along with the brief version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF [HK]), was administered on user satisfaction of people with spinal cord injury in the community. The content validity and item performance were evaluated to be satisfactory. Exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation agreed with the bidimensional structure of Device and Services in the construct of user satisfaction (61.06% variance explained). Items in WHOQOL-BREF (HK) were shown to have positive and moderate correlations with C-QUEST Device items (r = .412-.567, p < .05) but no significant associations with the Services items (p > .05). The 12-item C-QUEST was shown to be a valid and relevant instrument to capture the user satisfaction among Chinese people with spinal cord injury in the context of mobility and seating equipment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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