Review Article

A Systematic Review on Existing Measures for the Subjective Assessment of Rehabilitation and Assistive Robot Devices

Table 1

Summary of review results.

Robot device usedRegion/countryAuthor/organization
(year of publication),
publisher [ref. number]
Number of patients/end usersType of
end users
Location of the surveySubjective
measure
used
Language of scale usedValid/reliable scaleNumber of scale’s items

A sensory system and upper limb biomechanical model combined with a graphical interfaceOntario, CanadaAbdullah et al. (2011),
J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [17]
20PatientsInpatient Stroke Rehabilitation UnitUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—2
Robotic exoskeleton armItalyAmbrosini et al. (2014),
Robotica [43]
149 patients + 5 healthyVilla Beretta Rehabilitation CentreTSQ-WT, SUSItalian?/?, ?/?TSQ-WT (), SUS ()
Hand/wrist exoskeletonUnited Kingdom, Netherlands, ItalyAmirabdollahian et al. (2014), Robotica [44]12PatientsNot definedSUSEnglishV/R10
H2 robotic exoskeletonNot definedBortole et al. (2015),
J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [18]
3PatientsNot definedUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—1
Haptic human-robot partnered steppingAtlanta, GA, USAChen et al. (2015), PLoS ONE [19]10HealthyHealthcare Robotics LabUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—14
Direct physical interface for nursing assistant robotsAtlanta, GA, USAChen and Kemp (2010),
HRI 2010 [20]
18Healthy (nurses)Healthcare Robotics LabUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—11, 10
Robot suit HAL (Hybrid Assistive Limb)Tokyo, JapanChihara et al. (2016),
Neurol. Med. Chir. [39]
15PatientsKyoto University HospitalInterviews
Robot “El-E”Atlanta, GA, USAChoi et al. (2008), ASSETS ’08 [21]8PatientsHealthcare Robotics LabUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—8
SAM robotic aid system (a mobile Neobotix base equipped with a semiautomatic vision interface and a Manus robotic arm)FranceCoignard et al. (2013), Annals of Phys. and Rehab. Med. [22]29 + 3429 patients + 34 healthy (control group)Hopale Foundation in Berck-sur-Mer and the Kerpape Rehabilitation Centre in PloemeurUnknown (developed by themselves)French—/—9 (technical aspects), 7 (acceptability and usage)
Hybrid FES-robot (exoskeleton)Spaindel-Ama et al. (2014), J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [48]4PatientsNot definedQUESTEnglishV/R7 from 12
Wheelchair mounted robotic assisted transfer devicePittsburgh, USAGrindle et al. (2015),
BioMed Res. Int. 2015 [23]
18Patients2011 National Veteran Wheelchair GamesUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—4, 7
iCat robotNetherlandsHeerink et al. (2010),
Int. J. Soc. Robot. [24]
30HealthyNot definedUnknown (based on the UTAUT questionnaire)English—/—41
ARM, HEXAR-KR40PSouth KoreaKim et al. (2014),
Int. J. Precis. Eng. Man. [25]
80PatientsNot definedUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—1
A-gear: wearable dynamic arm supportNetherlandsKooren et al. (2015),
J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [26]
43 patients + 1 healthyRadboud UMC Outpatient ClinicUnknown (developed by themselves)Not defined—/—Not defined
Grasping robotFranceLaffont et al. (2009),
Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. [27]
20 + 2420 patients + 24 healthy (control group)Four French departments of physical and rehabilitation medicineUnknown (developed by themselves)French—/—3
Haptic-robotic platform for upper limbCanadaLam et al. (2008),
J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [28]
8Healthy (physical and occup. therapists)Not definedUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—9
Teleoperated robot system Telenoid R3JapanLiu et al. (2015), HRI 2015 [29]20Healthy (college students)ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Labs, KyotoUnknown (developed by themselves)Japanese—/—2
LEGO robotSpainLopez-Samaniego et al. (2014), Bio-Med. Mater. Eng. [30]9PatientsNot definedUnknown (developed by themselves), SUSSpanish—/—, ?/?Not defined, SUS (10)
InMotion 2 robotic systemItalyMazzoleni et al. (2014), Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. [31]34PatientsNot definedUnknown (developed by themselves)Italian—/—7
Personal Transport Assistance Robot (PTAR)JapanOzaki et al. (2013),
Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. [32]
8PatientsFujita Health UniversityUnknown (developed by themselves)Japanese—/—2
Rehabilitation robotCanadaPineau et al. (2010), Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing [33]7Healthy (university students)Not definedUnknown (developed by themselves)Not defined—/—Not defined
Amadeo robotItalySale et al. (2012),
Stroke Res. Treat. [41]
7PatientsDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele PisanaCOPM
Robot-enhanced repetitive treadmill therapy (ROBERT)GermanySchroeder et al. (2014),
Dev. Med. Child Neurol. [13]
83PatientsNot definedCOPM
Robot companion (artificial health advisor)Germanyvon der Pütten et al. (2011), ICMI '11 [40]6HealthyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenSemistructured interviews
Personal Mobility and Manipulation Appliance (PerMMA)USAWang et al. (2013),
Med. Eng. Phys. [34]
15PatientsCenter for Assistive Technology, University of PittsburghUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—12
Kompaï (indoor assistive robot)FranceWu et al. (2014),
Clin. Interv. Aging [35]
11PatientsLiving labUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—25
ASIBOT (portable robot to aid patients)Spain Jardón et al. (2011), Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. [49]6PatientsNot definedQUESTSpanishV/R12
Intelligent wheelchairPortugal Mónica Faria et al. (2013), Assist. Technol. [45]46Healthy (students)School of Allied Health Sciences of PortoSUSPortuguese?/?10
Socially assistive robot (Nao)AustriaWerner and Krainer (2013), ICSR 2013 [36]14HealthySenior Citizen Centre SchwechatUnknown (developed by themselves)German—/—Not defined
Reo Therapy SystemIsraelTreger et al. (2008), Eur. J. Phys. Rehab. Med. [37]10PatientsLoewenstein Rehabilitation CentreUnknown (developed by themselves)Not defined—/—15
Robotic and electrical stimulation therapyUnited KingdomHughes et al. (2011), Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. [38]5PatientsNot definedUnknown (developed by themselves)English—/—Not defined

Note: TSQ-WT = Telehealthcare Satisfaction Questionnaire-Wearable Technology, SUS = System Usability Scale, QUEST = Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, UTAUT = Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, ? = unknown value, — = not valid (if it appears in the first position of the column “Valid/reliable scale”)/not reliable (if it appears in the second position of the column “Valid/reliable scale”), V = valid scale, and R = reliable scale.