UTAUT2-based questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation to Canadian French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extended version of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) aims to better understand acceptance of technology. The objective of this study was to translate the English UTAUT2-based questionnaire to Canadian French. The translation included five steps: (1) Forward translation, (2) Synthesis of the translated versions, (3) Backward translation, (4) Synthesis by a multidisciplinary committee and proposal of the Pre-final Canadian French version, and (5) Cognitive debriefing. Cognitive debriefing included the assessment of the questionnaire items’ clarity by (1) a sample of workers, and (2) rehabilitation professionals. Any item not reaching an 80% inter-rater agreement for clarity or relevance was re-evaluated. The multidisciplinary committee included six researchers and clinicians from four different backgrounds. Twelve workers and 12 experts participated in the cognitive debriefing. Each item (n = 40) was judged as “clear” by at least 92% of the worker sample. Six and four items were reviewed following clarity and relevance assessments. The final version was approved unanimously. A Canadian French version of the UTAUT2-based questionnaire has been developed. Studies are necessary to examine cultural and semantic equivalence of the original and translated versions, and the cultural appropriateness of the questionnaire.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThere is an exponential growth in technology, including in the rehabilitation field.Implementing rehabilitation technology into clinical practice remains a challenge.The UTAUT model, and its extension, help to better understand the acceptance of technology before its implementation.The UTAUT2-based questionnaire evaluates the acceptability of rehabilitation technology prior to implementation. There is an exponential growth in technology, including in the rehabilitation field. Implementing rehabilitation technology into clinical practice remains a challenge. The UTAUT model, and its extension, help to better understand the acceptance of technology before its implementation. The UTAUT2-based questionnaire evaluates the acceptability of rehabilitation technology prior to implementation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".