Validación de la versión en español de la evaluación de Quebec de usuarios con tecnología de asistencia (Quest 2.0) / Validity of the spanish version of Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (Quest 2.0)
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
Se ha documentado el abandono en un tercio de los pacientes usuarios de tecnología de asistencia, principalmente, en relación con la percepción por parte del paciente de no ser tenidos en cuenta en el momento de la prescripción. Una de las formas de aproximarse a las expectativas individuales es a través de cuestionarios. Existe un instrumento el QUEST 2.0 que evalúa la satisfacción de usuarios de tecnología de asistencia, pero no se dispone de una versión validada en idioma español. Objetivo: realizar la validación de la versión en español de la Evaluación de Satisfacción de Usuarios con tecnología de asistencia (QUEST Versión 2.0) con el propósito de contar con un instrumento acorde para la prescripción y seguimiento de tecnología de asistencia. Diseño: estudio para validación de escalas. Resultados: se incluyeron 57 pacientes mayores de 18 años, usuarios de tecnología de asistencia con tiempo de uso superior a 6 meses. El 82.5% fueron hombres, la edad promedio fue de 47 años, la principal alteración fue amputación transtibial (31.6%). El puntaje promedio de satisfacción fue 3.7 correspondiente a “mas o menos satisfecho”. El instrumento presento buena validez interna (alfa de cronbach 0.8) y adecuada correlación con la apreciación del observador Spearman = 0.7 (P< 0.000). \nConclusión: la versión en español del Quest 2.0 presenta adecuada validez interna en su fase inicial, se requiere adicionar la evaluación de confiabilidad. / Abstract. Abandonment have been documented in one third of patients assistive technology users, mainly in relation to the perception by the patient not to be taken into account when prescribing. One way to approach individual expectations is through questionnaires. There is a QUEST 2.0 instrument that assesses satisfaction assistive technology users, but do not have a version validated in Spanish language. \nObjective: to validate the Spanish version of then Evaluation of User Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST Version 2.0) for the purpose of having an instrument according to the prescription and monitoring of assistive technology. Design: validation of scales Results: we included 57 patients over 18 years, assistive technology users with airtime than 6 months. The 82.5% were men, average age was 47 years, the main alteration was transtibial amputation (31.6%). The average satisfaction score was 3.7 corresponding to "more or less satisfied." The instrument has good internal validity (Cronbach's alpha 0.8) and adequate correlation with the assessment of observer Spearman = 0.7 (P <0.000). Conclusion: the Spanish version of Quest 2.0 introduces adequate internal validity in its initial phase, is required to add the assessment of reliability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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