The Segway Personal Transporter as an Alternative Mobility Device for People With Disabilities: A Pilot Study

Session 1 

The first training session lasted approximately 90 minutes. The physiotherapist collected demographic information from the participants and used specific functional assessments to determine their cognition, balance, functional mobility, muscle strength, and hand-grip strength. Training on the Segway included learning basic skills (eg, getting on and off, going forward and backward, turning). Subjects wore a cycling helmet and 2 spotters were with them at all times. Participants were helped on and off the device if help was needed.

Session 2 

If the participant wanted to continue in the study, he/she returned within 1 week for a second training session. This 30-minute session included review of skills learned in session 1 and training in more advanced skills, such as traveling up and down ramps and negotiating varied terrain (eg, grass, curb cuts, tree roots, bumps, and uneven pavement and terrain). During this session, tasks were done indoors (gym) and outdoors (courtyard area at the rehabilitation center). Skills were taught on an incremental basis, from relatively easy to more difficult. Curb ascents and descents were optional.

Session 3 

The third session was approximately 40 minutes long and took place within 1 week of the second session. The participants had 15 minutes of skill review and then completed the Segway Task Assessment administered by investigators (BS, ID) who were blinded to each subject’s progress during training. Each item on the task list was scored and a total “capability” score was tabulated. Participants were then given the questionnaire that asked about their experiences on the Segway.

Berg Balance Scale 

The range of scores for the BBS was 7 to 56, which is a substantial range in balance ability. The median score was 42.13. Of the 3 participants with the lowest Berg scores, 2 were paraplegic and the other had a spinal cord lipoma. These 3 participants did not use their mobility aids (knee-ankle-foot orthoses and forearm crutches) during the assessment in order that we could obtain a true reflection of their function. Three other participants, however, were permitted to wear their aids (prostheses and a Swedish knee cage to prevent hypertension of the knee) during the BBS assessment because they would use the device when operating the Segway. Table 2 summarizes the assessment scores.

Table 2. Evaluation of Preliminary Assessments

	Evaluation Tool	Range	Median	Normative Values
	BBS	7−56	42.13	57
	Hand strength (kg)
	Right	0.00−56.67	32.07	37 (women)
	Left	7.33−53.33	27.67	63 (men)
	Manual muscle testing
	Quadriceps
	Right	0−5	4.25	5
	Left	0−5	4.18	5
	Hamstrings
	Right	0−5	3.48	5
	Left	0−5	3.28	5
	Gluteals
	Right	0−5	3.89	5
	Left	0−5	3.61	5
	Gastrocnemius
	Right	0−5	3.57	5
	Left	0−5	3.38	5
	TUG test (s)	7.9−93	19.12	10
	CCSE	26−30	29.22	30
	Segway Task Assessment
	Required elements	22−24	23.73	24
	Advanced skills	3−8	7	8

Grip strength 

The range of grip strength for the right hand was 0.00 to 56.67kg (median, 32.07kg), and for the left hand it was 7.33 to 53.33kg (median, 27.67kg). The Segway’s hand control is on the left side and requires grip strength to steer the device. By moving the hand control to the right side, it was possible for 1 participant with very weak left hand grip strength to steer the Segway with his right hand.

Manual muscle testing 

The ranges of scores for manual muscle testing were between 0 and 5 for all muscles used in standing (quadriceps, hamstrings, gluteals, gastrocnemius). Two participants, both with SCI (T5, T9-10), felt no contractile activity in the gravity-eliminated position. Two participants had bilateral lower-extremity amputations and therefore, manual muscle testing was not applicable for these subjects.

TUG test 

The results from the TUG test also had a wide range of 7.9 to 93 seconds. Thirteen participants used mobility aids during the assessment and 10 did not.

Cognitive Capacity Screening Examination 

The range for the CCSE was from 26 to 30 (median, 29.22). No participants were excluded from the study based on their CCSE.

Segway Task Assessment 

The range of scores for the Segway Task Assessment was 22 to 24 (median, 23.73). The range of scores for the “optional skills” was 3 to 8, with a median score of 7.

Nine participants were completely independent in getting on and off the Segway; 10 had to lean the device on a wall for stability; and 4 needed the therapist’s assistance.

Questionnaire 

Twenty participants returned their questionnaires. The frequencies of responses for each Likert question are presented in figure 1.

View Large Image Download to PowerPoint

Fig 1. Frequency of answers for Likert scale questions. (A) I see the Segway as a highly useful mobility aid. (B) A Segway sells for $5000 to $7000. I am considering buying a Segway. (C) Some people state that they feel “less disabled” when using the Segway when compared to other mobility aids. Do you agree? (D) I see limitations to the Segway as a mobility device. Legend: 1, strongly agree; 5, strongly disagree. NOTE. One participant did not answer question D.

Assessment data 

A statistician was consulted after 23 participants were enrolled and it was discovered that the Segway Task Assessment tool had reached a ceiling effect. All participants, regardless of their scores on the preliminary assessments, completed the mandatory Segway tasks successfully.

Because there was no variability in the Segway score of the 23 subjects, the statistician suggested the study be terminated early because the addition of more subjects would not enhance the results. Thus, we did not do a regression analysis of the pre-assessment scores and the Segway Task Assessment scores.

Questionnaire data 

Four main themes emerged from the data: usability of the Segway; benefits of the Segway; barriers to using a Segway; and performance of the Segway when compared with current mobility options.

Usability of the Segway 

Results from the Segway Questionnaire revealed that all participants felt that the device is a highly useful mobility aid. Participants reported that they would use it for a variety of activities in which they were currently limited because of their disability. These activities included shopping, working, going to school, and going to appointments. Many recreational uses for the Segway were also suggested, such as going to the park, going for walks, going camping, visiting family and friends, and going to a coffee shop. These comments indicated that participants felt that the Segway could promote independence in self-care, productivity, and leisure and might enable them to become more involved in meaningful occupations.

Benefits of the Segway 

The benefits of using the Segway as perceived by the participants were consistent with personal accounts previously described by other users with disabilities.6, 7 Our participants believed that their disability was less visible when they were riding the Segway and that they were, at times, able to forget their mobility impairments. Some participants stated that minimizing the visibility of their disability increased their self-esteem and gave them a greater sense of independence. One person dramatically summed up his experience on the Segway by declaring it was “In a word—freedom.”

Similar to previous personal accounts regarding posture on the Segway,7 many of our participants reported that standing on the mobility aid was a huge benefit, compared with sitting when using their current mobility device. They stated that it was good to be standing because they could “look people in the eye,” as well as see everything around them. One subject also felt that “being higher up than a scooter or a wheelchair helped with self-esteem.”

Barriers to using the Segway 

The Segway Questionnaire also asked about barriers that the subjects experienced when using the Segway.

Many participants stated that the device’s cost and the lack of funding by insurers was a major limitation to using the Segway. One subject concluded that it was too expensive to purchase, stating, “There are other mobility devices that are less costly, though [the Segway] is the best mobility device I’ve seen.”

The Segway’s design also presented limitations. Some participants had difficulty getting on and off it, while others experienced leg weakness and felt that they did not have the standing tolerance to use it for long periods of time. Other barriers included a lack of storage for carrying items, its weight and size (for storage and portability), the life of its battery, and terrain and weather limitations. The risks of theft, loss, and repair were also mentioned as obstacles to owning a Segway. One final issue raised by participants was that of civic bylaws governing the use of the Segway in public spaces (ie, on public transit systems, on sidewalks). For the Segway to become a viable mobility aid for people with disabilities, these limitations will need to be addressed. The obstacles discussed in this study can enlighten people involved in Segway research and reveal further research opportunities.

Performance of the Segway 

The performance of the Segway when compared with other mobility devices was another important theme that emerged from this study. Most participants believe that the Segway has features that make it more desirable than their current mobility options. Several wheelchair users thought the Segway was more maneuverable than their wheelchairs. One person stated that it had “the ability to turn on a dime.” Participants also thought that they could go farther and faster on the Segway and felt that it was more stable than other mobility aids. One subject stated, “I can move with speed and agility without having to care about my balance. I am 10 times more stable on a Segway than with my walker.” Some of these claims of enhanced performance may stem from the fact that several subjects used manual mobility aids and therefore were not accustomed to the freedom a power mobility option can provide. The results, however, indicate that the Segway should be considered as a mobility option for people with disabilities because it offers improvements over other available mobility aids.