Advertisement

Evaluation Tools for Assistive Technologies: A Scoping Review

  • Gordon Tao
    Affiliations
    GF Strong Rehabilitation Research Lab, Vancouver Coastal Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia

    Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Geoffrey Charm
    Affiliations
    GF Strong Rehabilitation Research Lab, Vancouver Coastal Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia

    Department of Integrated Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Katarzyna Kabacińska
    Affiliations
    Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
    Search for articles by this author
  • William C. Miller
    Affiliations
    GF Strong Rehabilitation Research Lab, Vancouver Coastal Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia

    Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Julie M. Robillard
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author Julie M. Robillard, PhD, Patient Experience, British Columbia Children’s & Women’s Hospitals, 4480 Oak St, Vancouver, British Columbia V6H 3N1, Canada.
    Affiliations
    Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia

    British Columbia Women's and Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
Published:February 11, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.01.008

      Abstract

      Objective

      Assistive technologies (ATs) support independence and well-being in people with cognitive, perceptual, and physical limitations. Given the increasing availability and diversity of ATs, evaluating the usefulness of current and emerging ATs is crucial for informed comparison. We aimed to chart the landscape and development of AT evaluation tools (ETs; ATETs) across disparate fields in order to improve the process of AT evaluation and development.

      Data Sources

      We performed a scoping review of ATETs through database searching of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, HaPI, PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Compendex as well as citation mining.

      Study Selection

      Articles explicitly referencing ATETs were retained for screening. We included ETs if they were designed to specifically evaluate ATs.

      Data Extraction

      We extracted 5 attributes of ATETs: AT category, construct evaluated, conceptual frameworks, type of end user input used for ATET development, and presence of validity testing.

      Data Synthesis

      From screening 23,434 records, we included 159 ATETs. Specificity of tools ranged from single to general ATs across 40 AT categories. Satisfaction, functional performance, and usage were the most common constructs of 103 identified. We identified 34 conceptual frameworks across 53 ETs. Finally, 36% incorporated end user input and 80% showed validation testing.

      Conclusions

      We characterized a wide range of AT categories with diverse approaches to their evaluation based on varied conceptual frameworks. Combining these frameworks in future ATETs may provide more holistic views of AT usefulness. ATET selection may be improved with guidelines for conceptually reconciling results of disparate ATETs. Future ATET development may benefit from more integrated approaches to end user engagement.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      AT (assistive technology), ATET (assistive technology evaluation tool), ET (evaluation tool), ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health), MeSH (Medical Subject Headings)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Freedman V.A.
        • Agree E.M.
        • Martin L.G.
        • Cornman J.C.
        Trends in the use of assistive technology and personal care for late-life disability, 1992–2001.
        Gerontologist. 2006; 46: 124-127
        • Forducey P.G.
        • Glueckauf R.L.
        • Bergquist T.
        • Maheu M.M.
        • Yutsis M.
        Telehealth for persons with severe functional disabilities and their caregivers: facilitating self-care management in the home setting.
        Psychol Serv. 2012; 9: 144-162
        • Mann W.C.
        • Ottenbacher K.J.
        • Fraas L.
        • Tomita M.
        • Granger C.V.
        Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. A randomized controlled trial.
        Arch Fam Med. 1999; 8: 210-217
        • Hutzler Y.
        • Fliess O.
        • Chacham A.
        • Van den Auweele Y.
        Perspectives of children with physical disabilities on inclusion and empowerment: supporting and limiting factors.
        Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2002; 19: 300-317
        • National Acoustics Laboratories
        Hearing aids.
        (Available at:)
        • Lusardi M.M.
        • Jorge M.
        • Nielsen C.C.
        Orthotics and prosthetics in rehabilitation. 3rd ed.
        Saunders, Philadelphia2013: 865
        • Lange M.L.
        • Minkel J.
        Seating and wheeled mobility: a clinical resource guide.
        Slack Inc, Thorofare2018
        • Cook A.M.
        • Polgar J.M.
        Assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed.
        Mosby, St. Louis2014: 497
        • Broekens J.
        • Heerink M.
        • Rosendal H.
        Amsterdam Machine Learning Lab. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review.
        Gerontechnology. 2009; 8: 94-103
        • Biddiss E.
        • Chau T.
        Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 86: 977-987
        • Federici S.
        • Borsci S.
        Providing assistive technology in Italy: the perceived delivery process quality as affecting abandonment.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016; 11: 22-31
        • Kittel A.
        • Marco A.D.
        • Stewart H.
        Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2002; 24: 106-114
        • Nielsen J.
        Usability engineering.
        Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco1993
        • Jutai J.W.
        • Fuhrer M.J.
        • Demers L.
        • Scherer M.J.
        • DeRuyter F.
        Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 84: 294-302
        • McCreadie C.
        • Tinker A.
        The acceptability of assistive technology to older people.
        Ageing Soc. 2005; 25: 91-110
        • Wessels R.
        • Dijcks B.
        • Soede M.
        • Gelderblom G.J.
        • De Witte L.
        Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview.
        Technol Disabil. 2003; 15: 231-238
        • Parette P.
        • Scherer M.
        Assistive technology use and stigma.
        Educ Train Dev Disab. 2004; 39: 217-226
        • Cowan R.E.
        • Fregly B.J.
        • Boninger M.L.
        • Chan L.
        • Rodgers M.M.
        • Reinkensmeyer D.J.
        Recent trends in assistive technology for mobility.
        J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2012; 9: 20
        • Orpwood R.
        • Chadd J.
        • Howcroft D.
        • et al.
        Designing technology to improve quality of life for people with dementia: user-led approaches.
        Univ Access Inf Soc. 2010; 9: 249-259
        • LeRouge C.
        • Ma J.
        • Sneha S.
        • Tolle K.
        User profiles and personas in the design and development of consumer health technologies.
        Int J Med Inform. 2013; 82: e251-e268
        • Stojmenova E.
        • Imperl B.
        • Žohar T.
        • Dinevski D.
        Adapted user-centered design: a strategy for the higher user acceptance of innovative e-health services.
        Future Internet. 2012; 4: 776-787
        • Poulson D.
        • Richardson S.
        USERfit – a framework for user centred design in assistive technology.
        Technol Disabil. 1998; 9: 163-171
        • Magnier C.
        • Thomann G.
        • Villeneuve F.
        • Zwolinski P.
        Methods for designing assistive devices extracted from 16 case studies in the literature.
        Int J Interact Des Manuf. 2012; 6: 93-100
        • Broadbent E.
        • Stafford R.
        • MacDonald B.
        Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions.
        Int J Soc Robot. 2009; 1: 319-330
        • Eysenbach G.
        • Köhler C.
        How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews.
        BMJ. 2002; 324: 573-577
        • Berke G.M.
        • Fergason J.
        • Milani J.R.
        • et al.
        Comparison of satisfaction with current prosthetic care in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts with major traumatic limb loss.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010; 47: 361-371
        • Goldberg L.
        • Lide B.
        • Lowry S.
        • et al.
        Usability and accessibility in consumer health informatics: current trends and future challenges.
        Am J Prevent Med. 2011; 40: S187-S197
        • Arksey H.
        • O’Malley L.
        Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.
        Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8: 19-32
        • The Joanna Briggs Institute
        Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015.
        The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide, Australia2015: 1-24
        • International Organization for Standardization
        Assistive products for persons with disability: classification and terminology.
        (Available at:) (Accessed July 9, 2018)
        • Lenker J.A.
        • Shoemaker L.L.
        • Fuhrer M.J.
        • et al.
        Classification of assistive technology services: implications for outcomes research.
        Technol Disabil. 2012; 24: 59-70
        • Hanspal R.S.
        • Fisher K.
        • Nieveen R.
        Prosthetic socket fit comfort score.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2003; 25: 1278-1280
        • Smarr C.A.
        • Mitzner T.L.
        • Beer J.M.
        • et al.
        Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential.
        Int J Soc Robot. 2014; 6: 229-247
        • Heerink M.
        • Kröse B.
        • Evers V.
        • Wielinga B.
        Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model.
        Int J Soc Robot. 2010; 2: 361-375
        • Louie W.-Y.G.
        • McColl D.
        • Nejat G.
        Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults.
        Assist Technol. 2014; 26: 140-150
        • Heerink M.
        • Krose B.
        • Evers V.
        • Wielinga B.
        Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit.
        (Available at:)
        • de Witte A.M.
        • Hoozemans M.J.
        • Berger M.A.
        • van der Slikke R.M.
        • van der Woude L.H.
        • Veeger D.H.
        Development, construct validity and test–retest reliability of a field-based wheelchair mobility performance test for wheelchair basketball.
        J Sports Sci. 2018; 36: 23-32
        • Ghossaini S.
        • Spitzer J.
        • Borik J.
        Use of the bone-anchored cochlear stimulator (BAHA) and satisfaction among long-term users.
        Semin Hear. 2010; 31: 3-14
        • Dutt S.N.
        The Birmingham bone anchored hearing aid programme: some audiological and quality of life outcomes.
        Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands2002
        • Dockx K.
        • Alcock L.
        • Bekkers E.
        • et al.
        Fall-prone older people’s attitudes toward the use of virtual reality technology for fall prevention.
        Gerontology. 2017; 63: 590-598
        • Bennett R.J.
        • Jayakody D.M.
        • Eikelboom R.H.
        • Taljaard D.S.
        • Atlas M.D.
        A prospective study evaluating cochlear implant management skills: development and validation of the Cochlear Implant Management Skills survey.
        Clin Otolaryngol. 2016; 41: 51-58
        • Palmieri M.
        • Berrettini S.
        • Forli F.
        • et al.
        Evaluating benefits of cochlear implantation in deaf children with additional disabilities.
        Ear Hear. 2012; 33: 721-730
        • Esser-Leyding B.
        • Anderson I.
        EARS (evaluation of auditory responses to speech): an internationally validated assessment tool for children provided with cochlear implants.
        ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2012; 74: 42-51
        • Amann E.
        • Anderson I.
        Development and validation of a questionnaire for hearing implant users to self-assess their auditory abilities in everyday communication situations: the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI).
        Acta Otolaryngol. 2014; 134: 915-923
        • Hinderink J.B.
        • Krabbe P.F.M.
        • Van Den Broek P.
        Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire.
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000; 123: 756-765
        • O’Neill C.
        • Lutman M.E.
        • Archbold S.M.
        • Gregory S.
        • Nikolopoulos T.P.
        Parents and their cochlear implanted child: questionnaire development to assess parental views and experiences.
        Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004; 68: 149-160
        • Samuel V.
        • Gamble C.
        • Cullington H.
        • et al.
        Brief Assessment of Parental Perception (BAPP): development and validation of a new measure for assessing paediatric outcomes after bilateral cochlear implantation.
        Int J Audiol. 2016; 55: 699-705
        • King N.
        • Nahm E.A.
        • Liberatos P.
        • Shi Q.
        • Kim A.H.
        A new comprehensive cochlear implant questionnaire for measuring quality of life after sequential bilateral cochlear implantation.
        Otol Neurotol. 2014; 35: 407-413
        • Berman M.I.
        • Buckey Jr., J.C.
        • Hull J.G.
        • et al.
        Feasibility study of an interactive multimedia electronic problem solving treatment program for depression: a preliminary uncontrolled trial.
        Behav Ther. 2014; 45: 358-375
        • Corrigan P.J.
        • Basket R.M.
        • Farrin A.J.
        • Mulley G.P.
        • Heath M.R.
        The development of a method for functional assessment of dentures.
        Gerodontology. 2002; 19: 41-45
        • Komagamine Y.
        • Kanazawa M.
        • Kaiba Y.
        • Sato Y.
        • Minakuchi S.
        • Sasaki Y.
        Association between self-assessment of complete dentures and oral health-related quality of life.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2012; 39: 847-857
        • Pace-Balzan A.
        • Cawood J.I.
        • Howell R.
        • Lowe D.
        • Rogers S.N.
        The Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire: a pilot study.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31: 609-617
        • Heikkinen K.
        • Suomi R.
        • Jääskeläinen M.
        • Kaljonen A.
        • Leino-Kilpi H.
        • Salanterä S.
        The creation and evaluation of an ambulatory orthopedic surgical patient education web site to support empowerment.
        Comput Inform Nurs. 2010; 28: 282-290
        • Boyer C.
        • Selby M.
        • Scherrer J.R.
        • Appel R.D.
        The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites.
        Comput Biol Med. 1998; 28: 603-610
      1. Minervation. Category archives: LIDA.
        (Available at:)
        http://www.minervation.com/category/lida/
        Date accessed: April 5, 2019
        • Nahm E.S.
        • Resnick B.
        • Mills M.E.
        Development and pilot-testing of the perceived health web site usability questionnaire (PHWSUQ) for older adults.
        Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006; 122: 38-43
        • Caboral-Stevens M.
        • Whetsell M.V.
        • Evangelista L.S.
        • Cypress B.
        • Nickitas D.
        U.S.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y. framework for older adults.
        Res Gerontol Nurs. 2015; 8: 300-306
        • Bol N.
        • van Weert J.C.
        • de Haes H.C.
        • et al.
        Using cognitive and affective illustrations to enhance older adults’ website satisfaction and recall of online cancer-related information.
        Health Commun. 2014; 29: 678-688
        • Quamar A.
        Systematic development and test-retest reliability of the Electronic Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA) outcome measure.
        (Available at:)
        • Tam C.
        • Rigby P.
        • Ryan S.E.
        • et al.
        Development of the measure of control using electronic aids to daily living.
        Technol Disabil. 2003; 15: 181-190
        • Friesen E.L.
        • Theodoros D.G.
        • Russell T.G.
        Development, construction, and content validation of a questionnaire to test mobile shower commode usability.
        Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2015; 21: 77-86
        • Riemer-Reiss M.L.
        • Wacker R.R.
        Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities.
        J Rehabil. 2000; 66: 44-50
        • Scherer M.J.
        • Cushman L.A.
        Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: a validation study of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2001; 23: 387-393
        • Agree E.M.
        • Freedman V.A.
        A quality-of-life scale for assistive technology: results of a pilot study of aging and technology.
        Phys Ther. 2011; 91: 1780-1788
        • Jalil S.
        • Myers T.
        • Atkinson I.
        A meta-synthesis of behavioral outcomes from telemedicine clinical trials for type 2 diabetes and the Clinical User-Experience Evaluation (CUE).
        J Med Syst. 2015; 39: 28
        • Roelands M.
        • Van Oost P.
        • Depoorter A.
        • Buysse A.
        A social-cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people.
        Gerontologist. 2002; 42: 39-50
        • Mortenson W.B.
        • Demers L.
        • Fuhrer M.J.
        • Jutai J.W.
        • Lenker J.
        • DeRuyter F.
        Development and preliminary evaluation of the caregiver assistive technology outcome measure.
        J Rehabil Med. 2015; 47: 412-418
        • Andrich R.
        • Ferrario M.
        • Moi M.
        A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology.
        Disabil Rehabil. 1998; 20: 1-24
        • Ryan S.E.
        • Campbell K.A.
        • Rigby P.J.
        Reliability of the family impact of assistive technology scale for families of young children with cerebral palsy.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88: 1436-1440
        • Wessels R.
        • de Witte L.
        • Andrich R.
        • et al.
        IPPA, a user-centred approach to assess effectiveness of assistive technology provision.
        Technol Disabil. 2000; 13: 105-115
        • Desideri L.
        • Roentgen U.
        • Hoogerwerf E.J.
        • de Witte L.
        Recommending assistive technology (AT) for children with multiple disabilities: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of models and instruments for AT professionals.
        Technol Disabil. 2013; 25: 3-13
        • Sund T.
        • Brandt A.
        • Anttila H.
        • Iwarsson S.
        Psychometric properties of the NOMO 1.0 tested among adult powered-mobility users.
        Can J Occup Ther. 2017; 84: 34-46
        • Smith R.O.
        OTFACT: multi-level performance-oriented software with an assistive technology outcomes assessment protocol.
        Technol Disabil. 2002; 14: 133-139
        • Jutai J.
        • Day H.
        Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS).
        Technol Disabil. 2002; 14: 107-111
        • Koumpouros Y.
        • Papageorgiou E.
        • Karavasili A.
        Development of a new psychometric scale (PYTHEIA) to assess the satisfaction of users with any assistive technology.
        in: Duffy V.G. Lightner N. Advances in human factors and ergonomics in healthcare. CRC Press, Boca Raton2017: 343-353
        • Demers L.
        • Weiss-Lambrou R.
        • Ska B.
        The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress.
        Technol Disabil. 2002; 14: 101-105
        • Andrich R.
        The SCAI instrument: measuring costs of individual assistive technology programmes.
        Technol Disabil. 2002; 14: 95-99
        • Jette A.M.
        • Slavin M.D.
        • Ni P.
        • et al.
        Development and initial evaluation of the SCI-FI/AT.
        J Spinal Cord Med. 2015; 38: 409-418
        • Arthanat S.
        • Bauer S.M.
        • Lenker J.A.
        • Nochajski S.M.
        • Wu Y.W.B.
        Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2: 235-248
        • Ryan S.E.
        • Klejman S.
        • Gibson B.E.
        Measurement of the product attitudes of youth during the selection of assistive technology devices.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013; 8: 21-29
        • Cox R.M.
        • Alexander G.C.
        The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit: ear and hearing.
        . 1995; 16: 176-186
        • Wong L.L.
        • Hang N.
        Development of a self-report tool to evaluate hearing aid outcomes among Chinese speakers.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014; 57: 1548-1563
        • Dillon H.
        • James A.
        • Ginis J.
        Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids.
        J Am Acad Audiol. 1997; 8: 27-43
        • Cox R.M.
        • Alexander G.C.
        • Xu J.
        Development of the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) scale.
        J Am Acad Audiol. 2014; 25: 727-736
        • Cienkowski K.M.
        • McHugh M.S.
        • McHugo G.J.
        • Musiek F.E.
        • Cox R.M.
        • Baird J.C.
        A computer method for assessing satisfaction with hearing aids.
        Int J Audiol. 2006; 45: 393-399
        • Yueh B.
        • McDowell J.A.
        • Collins M.
        • Souza P.E.
        • Loovis C.F.
        • Deyo R.A.
        Development and validation of the effectiveness of auditory rehabilitation scale.
        Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005; 131: 851-856
        • Cox R.M.
        • Alexander G.C.
        Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome.
        J Am Acad Audiol. 2000; 11: 368-382
        • Driscoll C.
        • Chenoweth L.
        Amplification use in young Australian adults with profound hearing impairment.
        Asia Pac J Speech Lang Hear. 2007; 10: 57-70
        • Gatehouse S.
        Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services.
        J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 24
        • Vreeken H.L.
        • van Rens G.H.
        • Kramer S.E.
        • Knol D.L.
        • van Nispen R.M.
        Effects of a dual sensory loss protocol on hearing aid outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.
        Ear Hear. 2015; 36: e166-e175
        • Walden B.E.
        • Demorest M.E.
        • Hepler E.L.
        Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1984; 27: 49-56
        • Korkmaz M.H.
        • Bayır Ö
        • Er S.
        • et al.
        Satisfaction and compliance of adult patients using hearing aid and evaluation of factors affecting them.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016; 273: 3723-3732
        • Gil-Gómez J.A.
        • Manzano-Hernández P.
        • Albiol-Pérez S.
        • Aula-Valero C.
        • Gil-Gómez H.
        • Lozano-Quilis J.A.
        USEQ: a short questionnaire for satisfaction evaluation of virtual rehabilitation systems.
        Sensors (Basel). 2017; 17: E1589
        • Gil-Gómez J.A.
        • Gil-Gómez H.
        • Lozano-Quilis J.A.
        • Manzano-Hernández P.
        • Albiol-Pérez S.
        • Aula-Valero C.
        SEQ: suitability evaluation questionnaire for virtual rehabilitation systems. Application in a virtual rehabilitation system for balance rehabilitation.
        (Available at:)
        • Gaine W.J.
        • Smart C.
        • Bransby-Zachary M.
        Upper limb traumatic amputees: review of prosthetic use.
        J Hand Surg. 1997; 22: 73-76
        • Mills T.L.
        • Holm M.B.
        • Schmeler M.
        Test-retest reliability and cross validation of the functioning every day with a wheelchair instrument.
        Assist Technol. 2007; 19: 61-77
        • Kazi R.
        • Singh A.
        • Cordova J.D.
        • Clarke P.
        • Harrington K.
        • Rhys-Evans P.
        A new self-administered questionnaire to determine patient experience with voice prostheses (Blom-singer valves).
        J Postgrad Med. 2005; 51: 253-258
        • Dillon H.
        • Birtles G.
        • Lovegrove R.
        Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid User’s Questionnaire (HAUQ).
        J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 67-79
        • Hallam R.S.
        • Brooks D.N.
        Development of the Hearing Attitudes in Rehabilitation Questionnaire (HARQ).
        Br J Audiol. 1996; 30: 199-213
        • Cox R.
        • Hyde M.
        • Gatehouse S.
        • et al.
        Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation.
        Ear Hear. 2000; 21: S106-S115
        • Kearns N.T.
        • Peterson J.K.
        • Smurr Walters L.
        • Jackson W.T.
        • Miguelez J.M.
        • Ryan T.
        Development and psychometric validation of Capacity Assessment of Prosthetic Performance for the Upper Limb (CAPPFUL).
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; 99: 1789-1797
        • West R.L.
        • Smith S.L.
        Development of a hearing aid self-efficacy questionnaire.
        Int J Audiol. 2007; 46: 759-771
        • Desjardins J.L.
        • Doherty K.A.
        Do experienced hearing aid users know how to use their hearing aids correctly?.
        Am J Audiol. 2009; 18: 69-76
        • Cox R.M.
        • Gilmore C.
        Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP).
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1990; 33: 343-357
        • Cox R.M.
        • Alexander G.C.
        Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL scale.
        Ear Hear. 1999; 20: 306-320
        • Korman M.
        • Weiss P.L.
        • Kizony R.
        Living labs: overview of ecological approaches for health promotion and rehabilitation.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2016; 38: 613-619
        • Jerram J.C.
        • Purdy S.C.
        Evaluation of hearing aid benefit using the shortened hearing aid performance inventory.
        J Am Acad Audiol. 1997; 8: 18-26
        • Ching TYC
        • Hill M.
        The Parents’ Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) scale: normative data.
        J Am Acad Audiol. 2007; 18: 220-235
        • Hayward D.V.
        • Ritter K.
        • Grueber J.
        • Howarth T.
        Outcomes that matter for children with severe multiple disabilities who use cochlear implants: the first step in an instrument development process.
        Can J Speech-Lang Pathol Audiol. 2013; 37: 58-69
        • Pruitt S.D.
        • Varni J.W.
        • Setoguchi Y.
        Functional status in children with limb deficiency: development and initial validation of an outcome measure.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996; 77: 1233-1238
        • Pruitt S.D.
        • Varni J.W.
        • Seid M.
        • Setoguchi Y.
        Prosthesis satisfaction outcome measurement in pediatric limb deficiency.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997; 78: 750-754
        • Callaghan B.
        • Johnston M.
        • Condie M.
        Using the theory of planned behaviour to develop an assessment of attitudes and beliefs towards prosthetic use in amputees.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2004; 26: 924-930
        • Cairns N.
        • Murray K.
        • Corney J.
        • McFadyen A.
        Satisfaction with cosmesis and priorities for cosmesis design reported by lower limb amputees in the United Kingdom: instrument development and results.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014; 38: 467-473
        • Gailey R.S.
        • Roach K.E.
        • Applegate E.B.
        • et al.
        The amputee mobility predictor: an instrument to assess determinants of the lower-limb amputee’s ability to ambulate.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83: 613-627
        • Resnik L.
        • Baxter K.
        • Borgia M.
        • Mathewson K.
        Is the UNB test reliable and valid for use with adults with upper limb amputation?.
        J Hand Ther. 2013; 26: 353-359
        • Virginia Wright F.
        • Hubbard S.
        • Jutai J.
        • Naumann S.
        The prosthetic upper extremity functional index: development and reliability testing of a new functional status questionnaire for children who use upper extremity prostheses.
        J Hand Ther. 2001; 14: 91-104
        • Fisher K.
        • Hanspal R.
        Body image and patients with amputations: does the prosthesis maintain the balance?.
        Int J Rehabil Res. 1998; 21: 355-363
        • Gardiner M.D.
        • Faux S.
        • Jones L.E.
        Inter-observer reliability of clinical outcome measures in a lower limb amputee population.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2002; 24: 219-225
        • Houghton A.
        • Allen A.
        • Luff R.
        • McColl I.
        Rehabilitation after lower limb amputation: a comparative study of above-knee, through-knee and Gritti—Stokes amputations.
        Br J Surg. 1989; 76: 622-624
        • Deathe A.B.
        • Miller W.C.
        The L test of functional mobility: measurement properties of a modified version of the timed “up & go” test designed for people with lower-limb amputations.
        Phys Ther. 2005; 85: 626-635
        • Resnik L.
        • Adams L.
        • Borgia M.
        • et al.
        Development and evaluation of the activities measure for upper limb amputees.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 488-494
        • Hart D.L.
        Orthotics and Prosthetics National Office Outcomes Tool (OPOT): initial reliability and validity assessment for lower extremity prosthetics.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 1999; 11: 101
        • Abu Osman N.A.
        • Eshraghi A.
        • Gholizadeh H.
        • Wan Abas W.A.
        • Lechler K.
        Prosthesis donning and doffing questionnaire: development and validation.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017; 41: 571-578
        • Legro M.W.
        • Reiber G.D.
        • Smith D.G.
        • del Aguila M.
        • Larsen J.
        • Boone D.
        Prosthesis evaluation questionnaire for persons with lower limb amputations: assessing prosthesis-related quality of life.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998; 79: 931-938
        • Hafner B.J.
        • Gaunaurd I.A.
        • Morgan S.J.
        • Amtmann D.
        • Salem R.
        • Gailey R.S.
        Construct validity of the prosthetic limb users survey of mobility (PLUS-M) in adults with lower limb amputation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98: 277-285
        • Franchignoni F.
        • Monticone M.
        • Giordano A.
        • Rocca B.
        Rasch validation of the prosthetic mobility questionnaire: a new outcome measure for assessing mobility in people with lower limb amputation.
        J Rehabil Med. 2015; 47: 460-465
        • Grisé M.C.
        • Gauthier-Gagnon C.
        • Martineau G.G.
        Prosthetic profile of people with lower extremity amputation: conception and design of a follow-up questionnaire.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993; 74: 862-870
        • Hagberg K.
        • Branemark R.
        • Hagg O.
        Questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA): initial validity and reliability of a new outcome measure.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004; 41: 695-706
        • Bilodeau S.
        • Hébert R.
        • Desrosiers J.
        [Questionnaire on the satisfaction of people with lower limb amputations in front of their prosthesis: development and validation] [French] Can.
        J Occup Ther. 1999; 66: 23-32
        • Gallagher P.
        • MacLachlan M.
        Development and psychometric evaluation of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES).
        Rehabil Psychol. 2000; 45: 130-154
        • Yodpijit N.
        • Jongprasithporn M.
        • Khawnuan U.
        • Sittiwanchai T.
        • Siriwatsopon J.
        Human-centered design of computerized prosthetic leg: a questionnaire survey for user needs assessment.
        in: Ahram T.Z. Falcão C. Advances in usability, user experience and assistive technology. Springer International Publishing, New York2019: 994-1005
        • Boswell-Ruys C.L.
        • Harvey L.A.
        • Delbaere K.
        • Lord S.R.
        A falls concern scale for people with spinal cord injury (SCI-FCS).
        Spinal Cord. 2010; 48: 704-709
        • Gagnon D.
        • Décary S.
        • Charbonneau M.F.
        The timed manual wheelchair slalom test: a reliable and accurate performance-based outcome measure for individuals with spinal cord injury.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 1339-1343
        • Sauret C.
        • Bascou J.
        • Rmy N. de S.
        • Pillet H.
        • Vaslin P.
        • Lavaste F.
        Assessment of field rolling resistance of manual wheelchairs.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49: 63-74
        • Fliess-Douer O.
        • van der Woude L.
        • Vanlandewijck Y.
        Development of a new scale for perceived self-efficacy in manual wheeled mobility: a pilot study.
        J Rehabil Med. 2011; 43: 602-608
        • Harris F.
        • Sprigle S.
        • Sonenblum S.E.
        • Maurer C.L.
        The participation and activity measurement system: an example application among people who use wheeled mobility devices.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010; 5: 48-57
        • Auger C.
        • Miller W.C.
        • Jutai J.W.
        • Tamblyn R.
        Development and feasibility of an automated call monitoring intervention for older wheelchair users: the MOvIT project.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15: 386
        • Kumar A.
        • Schmeler M.R.
        • Karmarkar A.M.
        • et al.
        Test-retest reliability of the Functional Mobility Assessment (FMA): a pilot study.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013; 8: 213-219
        • Gollan E.J.
        • Harvey L.A.
        • Simmons J.
        • Adams R.
        • McPhail S.M.
        Development, reliability and validity of the Queensland Evaluation of Wheelchair Skills (QEWS).
        Spinal Cord. 2015; 53: 743-749
        • Fliess-Douer O.
        • Van Der Woude L.H.
        • Vanlandewijck Y.C.
        Reliability of the test of wheeled mobility (TOWM) and the short wheelie test.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 761-770
        • DiGiovine M.M.
        • Cooper R.A.
        • Boninger M.L.
        • Lawrence B.M.
        • VanSickle D.P.
        • Rentschler A.J.
        User assessment of manual wheelchair ride comfort and ergonomics.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 81: 490-494
        • Rushton P.W.
        • Miller W.C.
        • Kirby R.L.
        • Eng J.J.
        • Yip J.
        Development and content validation of the wheelchair use confidence scale: a mixed-methods study.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011; 6: 57-66
        • Crytzer T.M.
        • Dicianno B.E.
        • Robertson R.J.
        • Cheng Y.T.
        Validity of a wheelchair perceived exertion scale (wheel scale) for arm ergometry exercise in people with spina bifida.
        Percept Mot Skills. 2015; 120: 304-322
        • Vereecken M.
        • Vanderstraeten G.
        • Ilsbroukx S.
        From “wheelchair circuit” to “wheelchair assessment instrument for people with multiple sclerosis”: reliability and validity analysis of a test to assess driving skills in manual wheelchair users with multiple sclerosis.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: 1052-1058
        • Dharne M.G.
        Reliability and validity of Assistive Technology Outcome Measure (ATOM) version 2.0 for adults with physical disability using wheelchairs.
        (Available at:)
        • Kilkens O.J.
        • Post M.W.
        • van der Woude L.H.
        • Dallmeijer A.J.
        • van den Heuvel W.J.
        The wheelchair circuit: reliability of a test to assess mobility in persons with spinal cord injuries.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83: 1783-1788
        • Kirby R.L.
        • Dupuis D.J.
        • Macphee A.H.
        • et al.
        The wheelchair skills test (version 2.4): measurement properties.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 794-804
        • Mortenson W.B.
        • Miller W.C.
        • Miller-Pogar J.
        Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: development of the wheelchair outcome measure.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2: 275-285
        • Crane B.A.
        • Holm M.B.
        • Hobson D.
        • Cooper R.A.
        • Reed M.P.
        • Stadelmeier S.
        Test-retest reliability, internal item consistency, and concurrent validity of the wheelchair seating discomfort assessment tool.
        Assist Technol. 2005; 17: 98-107
        • Barks L.
        • Luther S.L.
        • Brown L.M.
        • Schulz B.
        • Bowen M.E.
        • Powell-Cope G.
        Development and initial validation of the seated posture scale.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015; 52: 201-210
        • Cress M.E.
        • Kinne S.
        • Patrick D.L.
        • Maher E.
        Physical functional performance in persons using a manual wheelchair.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2002; 32: 104-113
        • Askari S.
        • Kirby R.L.
        • Parker K.
        • Thompson K.
        • O’Neill J.
        Wheelchair propulsion test: development and measurement properties of a new test for manual wheelchair users.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 1690-1698
        • Stanley R.K.
        • Stafford D.J.
        • Rasch E.
        • Rodgers M.M.
        Development of a functional assessment measure for manual wheelchair users.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003; 40: 301-307
        • Lesén E.
        • Björholt I.
        • Ingelgård A.
        • Olson F.J.
        Exploration and preferential ranking of patient benefits of medical devices: a new and generic instrument for health economic assessments.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017; 33: 463-471
        • Loy J.S.
        • Ali E.E.
        • Yap K.L.
        Quality assessment of medical apps that target medication-related problems.
        J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016; 22: 1124-1140
        • Anderson K.
        • Burford O.
        • Emmerton L.
        App chronic disease checklist: protocol to evaluate mobile apps for chronic disease self-management.
        JMIR Res Protoc. 2016; 5 (e204)
        • Schnall R.
        • Cho H.
        • Liu J.
        Health information technology usability evaluation scale (health-ITUES) for usability assessment of mobile health technology: validation study.
        JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018; 6: e4
        • Stoyanov S.R.
        • Hides L.
        • Kavanagh D.J.
        • Zelenko O.
        • Tjondronegoro D.
        • Mani M.
        Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps.
        JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015; 3: e27
        • Martínez-Pérez B.
        • de la Torre-Díez I.
        • Candelas-Plasencia S.
        • López-Coronado M.
        Development and evaluation of tools for measuring the quality of experience (QoE) in mHealth applications.
        J Med Syst. 2013; 37: 9976
        • Jutai J.W.
        End-user participation in developing the Assistive Technology Outcomes Profile for Mobility (ATOP/M).
        Everday Technology for Independence and Care: AAATE 2011 Assistive Technology Research Series. 2011; 10: 1026-1032
        • Magasi S.
        • Wong A.
        • Miskovic A.
        • Tulsky D.
        • Heinemann A.W.
        Mobility device quality affects participation outcomes for people with disabilities: a structural equation modeling analysis.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; 99: 1-8
        • Gray D.B.
        • Hollingsworth H.H.
        • Stark S.
        • Morgan K.A.
        A subjective measure of environmental facilitators and barriers to participation for people with mobility limitations.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2008; 30: 434-457
        • Prajapati C.
        • Watkins C.
        • Cullen H.
        • Orugun O.
        • King D.
        • Rowe J.
        The “S” test - a preliminary study of an instrument for selecting the most appropriate mobility aid.
        Clin Rehabil. 1996; 10: 314-318
        • Hermansson L.
        • Fisher A.
        • Bernspång B.
        • Eliasson A.C.
        Assessment of capacity for myoelectric control: a new rasch-built measure of prosthetic hand control.
        J Rehabil Med. 2004; 1: 166-171
        • Preciado A.
        • Del Río J.
        • Lynch C.D.
        • Castillo-Oyagüe R.
        A new, short, specific questionnaire (QoLIP-10) for evaluating the oral health-related quality of life of implant-retained overdenture and hybrid prosthesis wearers.
        J Dent. 2013; 41: 753-763
        • van Netten J.
        • Hijmans J.
        • Jannink M.
        • Geertzen J.
        • Postema K.
        Development and reproducibility of a short questionnaire to measure use and usability of custom-made orthopaedic shoes.
        J Rehabil Med. 2009; 41: 913-918
        • Jannink M.
        • de Vries J.
        • Stewart R.
        • Groothoff J.
        • Lankhorst G.
        Questionnaire for usability evaluation of orthopaedic shoes: construction and reliability in patients with degenerative disorders of the foot.
        J Rehabil Med. 2004; 36: 242-248
        • Pröbsting E.
        • Kannenberg A.
        • Zacharias B.
        Safety and walking ability of KAFO users with the C-Brace® Orthotronic Mobility System, a new microprocessor stance and swing control orthosis.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017; 41: 65-77
        • Swinnen E.
        • Lafosse C.
        • Van Nieuwenhoven J.
        • Ilsbroukx S.
        • Beckwée D.
        • Kerckhofs E.
        Neurological patients and their lower limb orthotics: an observational pilot study about acceptance and satisfaction.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017; 41: 41-50
        • Heinemann A.W.
        • Bode R.K.
        • O’Reilly C.
        Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003; 27: 191-206
        • Nilsson L.
        • Eklund M.
        • Nyberg P.
        Driving to learn in a powered wheelchair: inter-rater reliability of a tool for assessment of joystick-use.
        Austr Occup Ther J. 2011; 58: 447-454
        • Hasdai A.
        • Jessel A.S.
        • Weiss P.L.
        Use of a computer simulator for training children with disabilities in the operation of a powered wheelchair.
        Am J Occup Ther. 1998; 52: 215-220
        • Kenyon L.K.
        • Farris J.P.
        • Cain B.
        • King E.
        • VandenBerg A.
        Development and content validation of the power mobility training tool.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018; 13: 10-24
        • Larsson P.
        • John M.T.
        • Nilner K.
        • Bondemark L.
        • List T.
        Development of an orofacial esthetic scale in prosthodontic patients.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 23: 249-256
        • Perea C.
        • Preciado A.
        • Río J.D.
        • Lynch C.D.
        • Celemín A.
        • Castillo-Oyagüe R.
        Oral aesthetic-related quality of life of muco-supported prosthesis and implant-retained overdenture wearers assessed by a new, short, specific scale (QoLDAS-9).
        J Dent. 2015; 43: 1337-1345
        • Flores E.
        • Tobon G.
        • Cavallaro E.
        • Cavallaro F.I.
        • Perry J.C.
        • Keller T.
        Improving patient motivation in game development for motor deficit rehabilitation.
        in: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference in Advances on Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM Press, Yokohama, Japan2008: 381
        • Boucher P.
        • Atrash A.
        • Kelouwani S.
        • et al.
        Design and validation of an intelligent wheelchair towards a clinically-functional outcome.
        J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013; 10: 58
        • McDonald R.
        • Surtees R.
        • Wirz S.
        A comparison between parents’ and therapists’ views of their child’s individual seating systems.
        Int J Rehabil Res. 2003; 26: 235-243
        • Fife S.E.
        • Roxborough L.A.
        • Armstrong R.W.
        • Harris S.R.
        • Gregson J.L.
        • Field D.
        Development of a clinical measure of postural control for assessment of adaptive seating in children with neuromotor disabilities.
        Phys Ther. 1991; 71: 981-993
        • Mills T.
        • Holm M.B.
        • Trefler E.
        • Schmeler M.
        • Fitzgerald S.
        • Boninger M.
        Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) instrument.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2002; 24: 38-46
        • Moir L.
        Evaluating the effectiveness of different environments on the learning of switching skills in children with severe and profound multiple disabilities.
        Br J Occup Ther. 2010; 73: 446-456
        • Hirani S.P.
        • Rixon L.
        • Beynon M.
        • et al.
        Quantifying beliefs regarding telehealth: development of the whole systems demonstrator service user technology acceptability questionnaire.
        J Telemed Telecare. 2017; 23: 460-469
        • Demiris G.
        • Speedie S.
        • Finkelstein S.
        A questionnaire for the assessment of patients’ impressions of the risks and benefits of home telecare.
        J Telemed Telecare. 2000; 6: 278-284
        • Bakken S.
        • Grullon-Figueroa L.
        • Izquierdo R.
        • et al.
        Development, validation, and use of English and Spanish versions of the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire.
        J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006; 13: 660-667
        • Yip M.P.
        • Chang A.M.
        • Chan J.
        • MacKenzie A.E.
        Development of the telemedicine satisfaction questionnaire to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine: a preliminary study.
        J Telemed Telecare. 2003; 9: 46-50
        • Finkelstein S.M.
        • MacMahon K.
        • Lindgren B.R.
        • et al.
        Development of a remote monitoring satisfaction survey and its use in a clinical trial with lung transplant recipients.
        J Telemed Telecare. 2012; 18: 42-46
        • World Health Organization
        International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF.
        World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland2001
        • Egilson S.T.
        • Coster W.J.
        School function assessment: performance of Icelandic students with special needs.
        Scand J Occup Ther. 2004; 11: 163-170
        • Giesbrecht E.
        Application of the human activity assistive technology model for occupational therapy research.
        Aust Occup Ther J. 2013; 60: 230-240
        • Scherer M.J.
        • Craddock G.
        Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process.
        Technol Disabil. 2002; 14: 125-131
        • Brandt A.
        • Iwarsson S.
        • Ståhle A.
        Older people’s use of powered wheelchairs for activity and participation.
        J Rehabil Med. 2004; 36: 70-77
        • Chuttur M.
        Overview of the technology acceptance model: origins, developments and future directions.
        Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems. 2009; 9: 23
        • Venkatesh V.
        • Morris M.G.
        • Davis G.B.
        • Davis F.D.
        User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view.
        MIS Quart. 2003; 27: 425-478
        • Shaw T.
        • McGregor D.
        • Brunner M.
        • Keep M.
        • Janssen A.
        • Barnet S.
        What is eHealth (6)? Development of a conceptual model for eHealth: qualitative study with key informants.
        J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19: e324
        • Olla P.
        • Shimskey C.
        mHealth taxonomy: a literature survey of mobile health applications.
        Health Technol. 2015; 4: 299-308
        • Sullivan G.M.
        A primer on the validity of assessment instruments.
        J Grad Med Educ. 2011; 3: 119-120
        • Hahn D.L.
        • Hoffmann A.E.
        • Felzien M.
        • LeMaster J.W.
        • Xu J.
        • Fagnan L.J.
        Tokenism in patient engagement.
        Fam Pract. 2017; 34: 290-295
        • Jagosh J.
        • Macaulay A.C.
        • Pluye P.
        • et al.
        Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice.
        Milbank Q. 2012; 90: 311-346
        • Couvreur L.D.
        • Goossens R.
        Design for (every)one: co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering.
        CoDesign. 2011; 7: 107-121
        • Domecq J.P.
        • Prutsky G.
        • Elraiyah T.
        • et al.
        Patient engagement in research: a systematic review.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14: 89
        • Ocloo J.
        • Matthews R.
        From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement.
        BMJ Qual Saf. 2016; 25: 626-632
        • Velsen L.V.
        • Geest T.V.D.
        • Klaassen R.
        • Steehouder M.
        User-centered evaluation of adaptive and adaptable systems: a literature review.
        Knowl Eng Rev. 2008; 23: 261-281
        • Boger J.
        • Jackson P.
        • Mulvenna M.
        • et al.
        Principles for fostering the transdisciplinary development of assistive technologies.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017; 12: 480-490
        • Robillard J.M.
        • Cleland I.
        • Hoey J.
        • Nugent C.
        Ethical adoption: a new imperative in the development of technology for dementia.
        Alzheimers Dement. 2018; 14: 1104-1113
        • Koumpouros Y.
        A systematic review on existing measures for the subjective assessment of rehabilitation and assistive robot devices.
        J Healthc Eng. 2016; 2016
        • Reed P.R.
        A resource guide for teachers and administrators about assistive technology.
        Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative, Madison2007
        • Beukelman D.R.
        • Mirenda P.
        Augmentative and alternative communication: management of severe communication disorders in children and adults. 2nd ed.
        Brookes Publishing Company, Baltimore1998: 624