DEVELOPMENT OF THE USABILITY SCALE FOR POWER WHEELCHAIRS AND ITS APPLICATION IN POWER WHEELCHAIRS USERS IN KOREA
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
More of power wheelchair users’ needs have to be met in the making of power wheelchairs. However, there has been no usability scale for the power wheelchair that is specifically focusing on the users’ needs. The purpose of this study was to test and validate a usability scale for power wheelchairs (USPW). The USPW has been developed through interviews with power wheelchair and consultations with a panel of experts. The USPW consists of four evaluation categories (safety, operation, efficiency, and satisfaction). In order to validate it, its usability and the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction Assistive Technology (QUEST) were also administered to 50 power wheelchair users. The USPW was extracted 12 items from safety, 7 from operation, 5 from efficiency, and 14 from satisfaction, with a total of 38 items. The content validity met the criteria. The total internal consistency (Cronbach’s [Formula: see text]) of the USPW was 0.75. Users of power wheelchair demanded that the safety of moving on the slopes, the satisfaction of storage space for power wheelchairs, and the repair service process would be improved. The correlation between the USPW and the QUEST was significant ([Formula: see text]). The USPW may be very useful to evaluate overall usability of power wheelchair including its safety, operability, efficiency, and satisfaction. The developed usability scale (USPW) may help wheelchair makers become aware of the problems of present power wheelchairs and the users’ needs, allowing them to make better ones.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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