Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Evaluation Tools for Assistive Technologies: A Scoping Review.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Jun; 101(6):1025-1040.AP

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.

Authors+Show 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.GF Strong Rehabilitation Research Lab, Vancouver Coastal Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia; Department of Integrated Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.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.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. Electronic address: jrobilla@mail.ubc.ca.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

32059944

Citation

Tao, Gordon, et al. "Evaluation Tools for Assistive Technologies: a Scoping Review." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 101, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1025-1040.
Tao G, Charm G, Kabacińska K, et al. Evaluation Tools for Assistive Technologies: A Scoping Review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(6):1025-1040.
Tao, G., Charm, G., Kabacińska, K., Miller, W. C., & Robillard, J. M. (2020). Evaluation Tools for Assistive Technologies: A Scoping Review. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 101(6), 1025-1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.01.008
Tao G, et al. Evaluation Tools for Assistive Technologies: a Scoping Review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(6):1025-1040. PubMed PMID: 32059944.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation Tools for Assistive Technologies: A Scoping Review. AU - Tao,Gordon, AU - Charm,Geoffrey, AU - Kabacińska,Katarzyna, AU - Miller,William C, AU - Robillard,Julie M, Y1 - 2020/02/12/ PY - 2019/12/12/received PY - 2020/01/02/accepted PY - 2020/2/16/pubmed PY - 2020/9/29/medline PY - 2020/2/16/entrez KW - Health care quality KW - Outcome assessment, health care KW - Rehabilitation KW - Self-help devices KW - access, and evaluation SP - 1025 EP - 1040 JF - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation JO - Arch Phys Med Rehabil VL - 101 IS - 6 N2 - 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. SN - 1532-821X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32059944/Evaluation_tools_for_assistive_technologies:_a_scoping_review. DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -