| 1. |
- Brandt, Ase, et al.
(author)
-
Towards an instrument targeting mobility-related participation: Nordic cross-national reliability
- 2008
-
In: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1651-2081 .- 1650-1977. ; 40:9, s. 766-772
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: To investigate test-retest reliability and internal consistency of a new instrument for evaluation of mobility device interventions. Material and methods: The instrument comprised 4 scales and one summed index. Two test-retest interviews involved 147 mobility device users (mean age 60 years) with a broad range of functional limitations, living at home. Results: For 2 scales and the summed index the reliability was substantial or almost perfect (K 0.71/ K-W 0.76/intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93; confidence interval = 0.90-0.95). The reliability of one scale was moderate (K-w 0.4 1), but after reduction of grades and combination with another scale, it was substantial (K-w 0.66). The reliability of the fourth scale was moderate (K-w 0.55). The internal consistency of 3 scales varied from a 0.63 to 0.76. Conclusion: Even thou,,h the test-retest reliability of all but one of the scales of the new instrument was substantial to almost perfect, this study demonstrated that revision is required. The challenges identified were probably due to the highly complex relationship between outdoor participation while using mobility devices and accessibility to the outdoor physical environment. Thus. based on the results of this study the instrument will be revised and subsequently launched as the "Nordic mobility-related participation outcome evaluation of assistive device intervention" (NOMO instrument). More research on the concept of mobility-related participation and the psychometric qualities of the instrument is required.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Brandt, Åse, et al.
(author)
-
Reliability test-retest of the Nordic Assisted Mobility Evaluation (NAME 1.0)
- 2007
-
In: Challenges for Assistive Technology. - 9781586037918 ; , s. 85-87
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This paper describes preliminary results from the test-retest of the NAME 1.0. Four scales were tested: Mobility-related participation frequency; Mobility ease/difficulty; Mobility dependence; Extent of assistance in mobility. The test was conducted in the five Nordic countries. In all 147 mobility device users took part in the study, mean age 60 years (range 19 - 93). Each participant was interviewed twice by means of the NAME 1.0 with seven days' interval (SD 4) by interviewers trained in using the instrument. The reliability of two scales was good, and the reliability of one scale became good after it had been regrouped into fewer grades. The reliablity of the Mobility ease/difficulty scale was only moderate. Possible reasons for this are discussed. There is a need for further research.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Fristedt, Sofi, 1969-, et al.
(author)
-
"Am I representative (of my age)? No, I'm not"-Attitudes to technologies and technology development differ but unite individuals across rather than within generations
- 2021
-
In: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLOS). - 1932-6203. ; 16:4
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- While a broad spectrum of technologies is integrated in everyday life and routines, most research on ageing, health and technology has focused on attitudes toward and adoption of digital technologies including e-health, or home based monitoring systems. The aim of this study was to explore differences and similarities in attitudes and experiences with different types of technologies and development within and between three generations. We applied a qualitative, descriptive design and recruited a purposeful sample of participants from three generations (30-39, 50-59, 70-79 year old). The 25 participants took part in 3 x 2 focus groups. Forming four categories, the findings show that technologies enable as well as complicate everyday life. Participants expressed trust as well as uncertainty about risks when using technology and stated that use of digital services is required while support is limited. They identified that technology development is inevitable but not always in the service of users. In conclusion, experiences of and attitudes towards technologies and technology development are not limited to generation; perspectives sometimes unite individuals across rather than within generations. Thus future technologies and technology development, as well as services and policies aiming to support the use of said technologies should consider individual user perspectives including needs, desires, beliefs or goals neglected in the existing technology models, and involve users beyond generations defined by chronological age. Such strategies are likely to be more successful in supporting development of technologies usable for all.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
