Athletes with disability’ satisfaction with sport wheelchairs: an Italian cross sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physical activity is essential for health and well-being. People with physical disability often experience barriers in performing sports due to the lack of appropriate assistive technologies. The present research aimed to investigate athletes with disability satisfaction when using sports wheelchairs and to explore clinometric properties of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight athletes were involved in the present study. Data on sport discipline and wheelchair provision were collected with qualitative approach. Internal consistency and reliability of QUEST were respectively analyzed with Cronbach's Alpha and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Validity was investigated with the correlation of the Wheelchair Use Confidence Scale for Manual users. RESULTS: Results revealed good internal consistency (.858) and moderate inter-rater reliability for service subscale (.664) and for the total score (.675), while for device subscale (.802) reliability was high. Validity revealed moderate correlation (.300) with a p < 0.05. Qualitative analysis highlighted economic barriers as primary social determinant who affect participation in sport activities. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms preliminary evidence of the QUEST for athletes with disability. The research group also recommends an international effort to promote a comprehensive evaluation of sports wheelchair involving rehabilitation professionals, sport technicians and people with disability.Implications for rehabilitationEconomic factors linked to the purchase of a wheelchair seem being the main barrier for practising sportThe Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology is a useful tool to measure athletes' satisfaction using a wheelchairRehabilitation professionals and sport technicians should collaborate together with people with disability in determining how choose appropriate sport wheelchairs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".