Iranian translation and psychometric of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with Assistive technology (QUEST2.0) on wheelchair users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: QUEST2.0 is a practical tool specifically applied to assessing the satisfaction for awide array of assistive technology in a standard manner. Therefore, this study set to translate and evaluate the validity and reliability of the Iranian version of the QUEST2.0in Persian-speaking users of manual and electronic wheelchairs in Iran. METHODS: The present study recruited 130 users of manual and electric wheelchairs. Psychometric properties, including; content validity and construct validity and internal consistency and test-retest reliability, were testified. RESULTS: The content validity index of the questionnaire was 92%. The internal consistency was determined to be 0.89,0.88 and 0.74, respectively, for the whole questionnaire and dimensions of the device, and services. The test-retest reliability was 0.85, 0.80, and 0.94, respectively, for the whole questionnaire and dimensions of the device and services. Factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure of the questionnaire. In the two-factor model, 57.75% of the total variance was explained by these two factors, of which 45.8% pertained to the first factor (device) and 11.95% to the second factor (service). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that QUEST2.0 had both valid and reliable for measuring satisfaction with assistive technology among wheelchair users. The assessment will also help facilitate the quality improvement processes in using assistive technology devices.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".