Background: The World Health Organization claimed that measuring outcomes is necessary to understand the benefits of assistive technology (AT) and create evidence-based policies and systems to ensure universal access to it. In clinical practice, there is an increasing need for standardized methods to track AT interventions using outcome assessments. Objective: This review provides an overview of the available outcome measures that can be used at the follow-up stage of any AT intervention and integrated into daily clinical or service practice. Methods: We systematically searched for original manuscripts regarding available and used AT outcome measures by searching for titles and abstracts in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023. Results: We analyzed 955 articles, of which 50 (5.2%) were included in the review. Within these, 53 instruments have been mentioned and used to provide an AT outcome assessment. The most widely used tool is the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, followed by the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. Moreover, the identified measures addressed 8 AT outcome domains: functional efficacy, satisfaction, psychosocial impact, caregiver burden, quality of life, participation, confidence, and usability. The AT category Assistive products for activities and participation relating to personal mobility and transportation was the most involved in the reviewed articles. Conclusions: Among the 53 cited instruments, only 17 (32%) scales were designed to evaluate specifically assistive devices. Moreover, 64% (34/53) of the instruments were only mentioned once to denote poor uniformity and concordance in the instruments to be used, limiting the possibility of comparing the results of studies. This work could represent a good guide for promoting the use of validated AT outcome measures in clinical practice that can be helpful to AT assessment teams in their everyday activities and the improvement of clinical practice.

Powered wheelchairs are complex and expensive assistive devices that must be selected and configured on the basis of individual user needs, lifestyle, motivation, driving ability, and environment. Providing agencies often require evidence that their financial investment will lead to a successful outcome. The authors surveyed a sample of 79 users who had obtained powered wheelchairs from a Regional Health Service in Italy in the period 2008–2013. Follow-up interviews were conducted at the users’ homes in order to collect information about wheelchair use, and its effectiveness, usefulness, and economic impact. The instruments used in the interviews included an introductory questionnaire, QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology), PIADS (Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale), FABS/M (Facilitators and Barriers Survey/Mobility), and SCAI (Siva Cost Analysis Instrument). The results indicated positive outcomes, especially in relation to user satisfaction and psychosocial impact. A number of barriers were identified in various settings that sometimes restrict user mobility, and suggest corrective actions. The provision of a powered wheelchair generated considerable savings in social costs for most users: an average of about $38,000 per person over a projected 5-year period was estimated by comparing the cost of the intervention with that of non-intervention.

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.

This article presents a novel approach to validate Assistive Technology Devices (ATDs). In order to avoid discontinuance and, to provide feedback on design criteria, it is fundamental to evaluate the performance of these systems and to obtain indications on users acceptability. An assessment protocol addressed a set of elements related to usability, utility, aesthetics, impact on daily habits, obtrusiveness, safety, portability and comfort. Furthermore the protocol aims at determining objective and quantitative parameters that represent information directly traceable by means of numerical values. An overall acceptability level can be obtained by those parameters that make possible a simple and effective quantitative analysis and trade off among different devices designed to fulfill the same functionality. The proposed approach have been tested to evaluate two systems, named SelFeed and Dedalo, developed at the ARTS Lab of Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa to assist disabled people in feeding. It turned out that the evaluation methodology was useful to point out the weaknesses of the systems, thus leading in a natural way to a controlled iterative design cycle.