The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire

Antonio Caronni (), Marina Ramella, Pietro Arcuri, Claudia Salatino, Lucia Pigini, Maurizio Saruggia, Chiara Folini, Stefano Scarano and Rosa Maria Converti
Additional contact information
Antonio Caronni: IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Ospedale San Luca, 20122 Milan, Italy
Marina Ramella: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy
Pietro Arcuri: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy
Claudia Salatino: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy
Lucia Pigini: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy
Maurizio Saruggia: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy
Chiara Folini: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy
Stefano Scarano: IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Department of Neurorehabilitation Sciences, Ospedale San Luca, 20122 Milan, Italy
Rosa Maria Converti: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, 20148 Milan, Italy

IJERPH, 2023, vol. 20, issue 2, 1-19

Abstract: This study aims to test the construct validity and reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST)–device, an eight-item questionnaire for measuring satisfaction with assistive devices. We collected 250 questionnaires from 79 patients and 32 caregivers. One QUEST was completed for each assistive device. Five assistive device types were included. QUEST was tested with the Rasch analysis (Many-Facet Rating Scale Model: persons, items, and device type). Most patients were affected by neurological disabilities, and most questionnaires were about mobility devices. All items fitted the Rasch model (InfitMS range: 0.88–1.1; OutfitMS: 0.84–1.28). However, the ceiling effect of the questionnaire was large (15/111 participants totalled the maximum score), its targeting poor (respondents mean measure: 1.90 logits), and its reliability was 0.71. The device classes had different calibrations (range: −1.18 to 1.26 logits), and item 3 functioned differently in patients and caregivers. QUEST satisfaction measures have low reliability and weak construct validity. Lacking invariance, the QUEST total score is unsuitable for comparing the satisfaction levels of users of different device types. The differential item functioning suggests that the QUEST could also be problematic for comparing satisfaction in patients and caregivers.

Keywords: assistive devices assessment; neurological rehabilitation; neurological disability; psychometrics; Rasch analysis; many facets model (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1036/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1036/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1036-:d:1027098

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().