Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment

Vocational Rehabilitation: (Scherer et al, 2005; n = 159; done as part of a training program; patients were either drawn from the students case-load or were friends of the student; respondents reported functional limitations in mobility, upper and lower extremity control, eyesight, hearing, and speech communication issues)

Normative Data Across Various Diagnosis:

It is a strength of ATD PA to observe and describe the particular characteristics of each person requiring assistive technology. The users’ diagnosis and the technology demanded give the professional an important indication of the type of individual functioning and, therefore, their belonging to an epidemiological/normative group. However, studies on the measurement of disability and those on the user experience of technology use, when matched together, give us distinctive and idiosyncratic profiles, which make a user, almost always, a unique case, hardly traceable to average values of a normative group.

Therefore, it is strongly recommended not to rely so much on the normative values of a group as on individual responses over time.

Mixed population: [(Koumpouros et al., 2017); n = 115; age = 62.45, private rehabilitation center in Greece]

• Excellent reliability (ICC = .981)

The stability of the score is not a priority of this measure.  In fact, a strength of the measure is the opportunity to observe change over time.

Greek Rehabilitation Hospital: (Koumpouros et al. 2017; n=115)

•  Excellent interrater reliability (ICC=0.981, ranging from 0.973-0.987)

• Low for Items concerned with user characteristics and incentive to use.

Vocational Rehabilitation: (Scherer et al, 2005)

Internal Consistency Across ATD-PA Domains:

Greek Rehabilitation Hospital: (Koumpouros et al. 2017; n = 115; age = 62.45, private rehabilitation center in Greece).

• Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha =0.701, ranging from 0.605-0.701)

Vocational Rehabilitation: (Scherer et al, 2005)

Participants were asked 3 to 4 months after their first assessment to rate how well the selected Assisitve Technology (AT) matched their needs. On a 10 point scale participants in the 2002 cohort gave a mean rating of 6.2, while the 2004 cohort reported a mean rating of 8.1. These results provide preliminary support for the measure's ability to predict how well an AT matches the needs and preferences of participants.

The ATD PA items differentiated consumer predispositions to assistive technology use as well as assistive device and user match at follow-up.  Differences due to gender, physical locality, or age were not significant.  The study was carried out with the collaboration of 150 trained vocational rehabilitation counselors in 25 states within the U.S.

Convergent Validity

Greek Rehabilitation Hospital: (Koumpouros et al. 2017; n=115)

• Adequate-Excellent construct validity for items in the Adaptablility subscale (r=0.537 to 0.783)
• Excellent construct validity for items in the Fit to Use subscale (r= 0.691 to 0.801)
• Adequate-Excellent construct validity for items in the Socializing (r= 0.498 to 0.767)

Discriminant Validity 

Greek Rehabilitation Hospital: (Koumpouros et al. 2017; n=115)

• Low correlation coefficients between each subscale, indicating subscales measure unique constructs

The ATD PA was developed by incorporating the experiences of technology users and non-users providing evidence of content validity (Scherer, 2005b; Scherer and Cushman, 2001).

The ATD PA was developed with the input of AT users.

Although a ceiling effect can be expected, it has not yet been calculated.

Acute SCI: (Scherer et al, 2001; n = 20; mean age = 51.05 (16.44) years; 13 = paraplegia (4 complete), 7 = tetraplegia (1 complete))

Acute SCI: (Scherer et al, 2001; n = 20; mean age = 51.05 (16.44) years; 13 = paraplegia (4 complete), 7 = tetraplegia (1 complete))

Quality of Life Subscale of the ATD PA was estimated correlating with:

• Diener’s Satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985) with Life Scale  and total of ATD PA Section B and C QoL subset was r = 0.89, p < 0.01;
• Brief Symptom Inventory (Heinrich et al., 1994) with Depression subscale and total of ATD PA Section B and C QoL subset was r = -71, p < 0.01.

Acute Spinal Cord Injury: (Scherer and Cushman, 2001; n = 20; mean age = 51.05)

Concurrent: Significant (p < 0.01) positive correlations between the ATD PA’s QOL subset (Sections B and C) and SWLS and significant (p < 0.01) negative correlations with the BSIdep [r = 0.48 to 0.62; p < 0.01 or 0.05].

Correlations Between Measure of Quality of Life:

** p < 0.01

Brief Symptom Inventory=  BSIdep

Satisfaction with Life Scale = SWLS-total

ATD-PA (Sections B and C)