Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Healthcare Engineering
Volume 2016, Article ID 1048964, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1048964
Review Article

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

Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Department of Informatics, Agiou Spyridonos, Aigaleo, 12243 Athens, Greece

Received 27 February 2016; Revised 5 April 2016; Accepted 6 April 2016

Academic Editor: Yinkwee Ng

Copyright © 2016 Yiannis Koumpouros. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. B2B International, “Customer Satisfaction Survey: How to Measure Satisfaction,” 2016, https://www.b2binternational.com/publications/customer-satisfaction-survey/.
  2. ESOMAR, “Customer satisfaction studies [Internet]. ESOMAR World Research Codes & Guidelines,” 2005, https://www.esomar.org/uploads/public/knowledge-and-standards/codes-and-guidelines/ESOMAR_Codes-and-Guidelines_CustomerSatisfaction.pdf.
  3. Mckinsey.com, “The three Cs of customer satisfaction: consistency, consistency, consistency,” January 2016, http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/consumer_and_retail/the_three_cs_of_customer_satisfaction_consistency_consistency_consistency.
  4. A. Gustafsson, M. D. Johnson, and I. Roos, “The effects of customer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 210–218, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. D. de Sá, “Improving user satisfaction in VO through systems usability,” in Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual Organizations, pp. 694–699, IGI Global, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  6. L. Suskie, “What are good assessment practices?” in Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide, L. Suskie, Ed., Anker, Bolton, Mass, USA, 1st edition, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  7. Y. Koumpouros, Information and Communication Technologies & Society, New Technologies, Athens, Greece, 2012.
  8. Matia Robotics, “Matia Robotics,” 2016, http://www.matiarobotics.com/.
  9. MIT News, MIT-Manus Robot Aids Physical Therapy of Stroke Victims, 2016, http://news.mit.edu/2000/manus-0607.
  10. Y. Koumpouros, Information and Communication Technologies in Healthcare, Hellenic Academic Libraries Link, Athens, Greece, 2015.
  11. C. van Campen, H. Sixma, R. D. Friele, J. J. Kerssens, and L. Peters, “Quality of care and patient satisfaction: a review of measuring instruments,” Medical Care Research and Review, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 109–133, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. “Cohrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6,” in The Cochrane Library, J. P. T. Higgins and S. Green, Eds., no. 4, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2006.
  13. A. S. Schroeder, R. Von Kries, C. Riedel et al., “Patient-specific determinants of responsiveness to robot-enhanced treadmill therapy in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy,” Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 1172–1179, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. The Rehabilitation Measures Database, Rehab Measures: Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke, 2016, http://www.rehabmeasures.org/lists/rehabmeasures/dispform.aspx?ID=908.
  15. B. C. Craven and A. R. Morris, “Modified ashworth scale reliability for measurement of lower extremity spasticity among patients with SCI,” Spinal Cord, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 207–213, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. C. Collin, D. T. Wade, S. Davies, and V. Horne, “The Barthel ADL index: a reliability study,” International Disability Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 61–63, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. H. A. Abdullah, C. Tarry, C. Lambert, S. Barreca, and B. O. Allen, “Results of clinicians using a therapeutic robotic system in an inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 8, no. 1, article 50, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. Bortole, A. Venkatakrishnan, F. Zhu et al., “The H2 robotic exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation after stroke: early findings from a clinical study,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 12, no. 1, article 54, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. T. L. Chen, T. Bhattacharjee, J. L. McKay et al., “Evaluation by expert dancers of a robot that performs partnered stepping via haptic interaction,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 5, Article ID e0125179, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. T. L. Chen and C. C. Kemp, “Lead me by the hand,” in Proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '10), pp. 367–374, Osaka, Japan, March 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. Y. S. Choi, C. D. Anderson, J. D. Glass, and C. C. Kemp, “Laser pointers and a touch screen: intuitive interfaces for autonomous mobile manipulation for the motor impaired,” in Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '08), pp. 225–232, October 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. P. Coignard, J. P. Departe, O. Remy Neris et al., “ANSO study: evaluation in an indoor environment of a mobile assistance robotic grasping arm,” Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 56, no. 9-10, pp. 621–633, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. G. G. Grindle, H. Wang, H. Jeannis, E. Teodorski, and R. A. Cooper, “Design and user evaluation of a wheelchair mounted robotic assisted transfer device,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2015, Article ID 198476, 9 pages, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M. Heerink, B. Kröse, V. Evers, and B. Wielinga, “Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 361–375, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. M. J. Kim, D. H. Lee, T. Kim et al., “Lower extremity exercise of knee osteoarthritis patients using portable assistive robot (HEXAR-KR40P),” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 2617–2622, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. P. N. Kooren, A. G. Dunning, M. M. H. P. Janssen et al., “Design and pilot validation of A-gear: a novel wearable dynamic arm support,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 12, no. 1, article 83, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. I. Laffont, N. Biard, G. Chalubert et al., “Evaluation of a graphic interface to control a robotic grasping arm: a multicenter study,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 90, no. 10, pp. 1740–1748, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. P. Lam, D. Hebert, J. Boger et al., “A haptic-robotic platform for upper-limb reaching stroke therapy: preliminary design and evaluation results,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 5, no. 1, article 15, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. C. Liu, C. T. Ishi, and H. Ishiguro, “Bringing the Scene Back to the Tele-operator: auditory scene manipulation for tele-presence systems,” in Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '15), pp. 279–286, Portland, Ore, USA, March 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. L. Lopez-Samaniego, B. Garcia-Zapirain, and A. Mendez-Zorrilla, “Memory and accurate processing brain rehabilitation for the elderly: LEGO robot and iPad case study,” Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 3549–3556, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. S. Mazzoleni, G. Turchetti, I. Palla, F. Posteraro, and P. Dario, “Acceptability of robotic technology in neuro-rehabilitation: preliminary results on chronic stroke patients,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 116–122, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. K. Ozaki, H. Kagaya, S. Hirano et al., “Preliminary trial of postural strategy training using a personal transport assistance robot for patients with central nervous system disorder,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 59–66, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. J. Pineau, A. Atrash, R. Kaplow, and J. Villemure, “On the design and validation of an intelligent powered wheelchair: lessons from the SmartWheeler project,” Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing, vol. 83, pp. 259–268, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. H. Wang, J. Xu, G. Grindle et al., “Performance evaluation of the personal mobility and manipulation appliance (PerMMA),” Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1613–1619, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. Y.-H. Wu, J. Wrobel, M. Cornuet, H. Kerhervé, S. Damnée, and A.-S. Rrigaud, “Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human-robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting,” Clinical Interventions in Aging, vol. 9, pp. 801–811, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. F. Werner and D. Krainer, “A socially assistive robot to support physical training of older people—an end user acceptance study,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR '13), pp. 562–563, Springer, Bristol, UK, October 2013.
  37. I. Treger, S. Faran, and H. Ring, “Robot-assisted therapy for neuromuscular training of sub-acute stroke patients. A feasibility study,” European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 431–435, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. A.-M. Hughes, J. Burridge, C. T. Freeman et al., “Stroke participants' perceptions of robotic and electrical stimulation therapy: a new approach,” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 130–138, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. H. Chihara, Y. Takagi, K. Nishino et al., “Factors predicting the effects of hybrid assistive limb robot suit during the acute phase of central nervous system injury,” Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 33–37, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. A. M. von der Pütten, N. C. Krämer, and S. C. Eimler, “Living with a robot companion: empirical study on the interaction with an artificial health advisor,” in Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI '11), pp. 327–334, November 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. P. Sale, V. Lombardi, and M. Franceschini, “Hand robotics rehabilitation: feasibility and preliminary results of a robotic treatment in patients with hemiparesis,” Stroke Research and Treatment, vol. 2012, Article ID 820931, 5 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. COPM, “Learn to Use the COPM,” 2013, http://www.thecopm.ca/learn/.
  43. E. Ambrosini, S. Ferrante, M. Rossini et al., “Functional and usability assessment of a robotic exoskeleton arm to support activities of daily life,” Robotica, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1213–1224, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. F. Amirabdollahian, S. Ates, A. Basteris et al., “Design, development and deployment of a hand/wrist exoskeleton for home-based rehabilitation after stroke—SCRIPT project,” Robotica, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1331–1346, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. B. Mónica Faria, S. Vasconcelos, L. Paulo Reis, and N. Lau, “Evaluation of distinct input methods of an intelligent wheelchair in simulated and real environments: a performance and usability study,” Assistive Technology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 88–98, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. J. Brooke, “SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale,” in Usability Evaluation Industry, P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, and A. I. McClelland, Eds., Taylor and Francis, London, UK, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  47. L. Chiari, R. Van Lummel, C. Becker, K. Pfeiffer, U. Lindemman, and W. Zijlstra, “Classification of the user's needs, characteristics and scenarios—update,” Report from the EU Project (6th Framework Program, IST Contract no. 045622) Sensing and Action to support mobility in Ambient Assisted Living, 2009.
  48. A. J. del-Ama, Á. Gil-Agudo, J. L. Pons, and J. C. Moreno, “Hybrid FES-robot cooperative control of ambulatory gait rehabilitation exoskeleton,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 11, no. 1, article 27, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. A. Jardón, Á. M. Gil, A. I. de la Peña, C. A. Monje, and C. Balaguer, “Usability assessment of ASIBOT: a portable robot to aid patients with spinal cord injury,” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 320–330, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. L. Demers, R. Weiss-Lambrou, and B. Ska, Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST Version 2.0): An Outcome Measure for Assistive Technology Devices, Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Webster, NY, USA, 2000.
  51. E. M. Holz, J. Höhne, P. Staiger-Sälzer, M. Tangermann, and A. Kübler, “Brain-computer interface controlled gaming: evaluation of usability by severely motor restricted end-users,” Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 111–120, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. L. Demers, M. Monette, Y. Lapierre, D. L. Arnold, and C. Wolfson, “Reliability, validity, and applicability of the quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 24, no. 1–3, pp. 21–30, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. Y. Koumpouros, A. Karavasili, E. Papageorgiou, and P. Siavelis, “Validation of the greek version of the device subscale of the quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0),” Assistive Technology, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. A. Steinfeld, T. Fong, D. Kaber et al., “Common metrics for human-robot interaction,” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '06), ACM Proceedings, pp. 33–40, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  55. A. Weiss, R. Bernhaupt, M. Lankes, and M. Tscheligi, “The USUS evaluation framework for human-robot interaction,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (AISB '09), pp. 158–165, Edinburgh, UK, April 2009.
  56. C. Bartneck, D. Kulić, E. Croft, and S. Zoghbi, “Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 71–81, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. M. J. Scherer, Matching Person and Technology Process and Accompanying Assessment Instruments, Revised Edition, The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Webster, NY, USA, 1998.
  58. Y. Koumpouros, E. Papageorgiou, A. Karavasili, and D. Alexopoulou, “Translation and validation of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment in Greek in order to assess satisfaction with use of the selected assistive device,” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. P. Palmer, C. Thursfield, and S. Judge, “An evaluation of the psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale,” in Assistive Technology: From Virtuality to Reality, A. Pruski and H. Knops, Eds., pp. 740–744, IOS Press, Nieuwe Hemweg, The Netherlands, 1st edition, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  60. M. B. Michel-Verkerke and A. M. G. M. Hoogeboom, “Evaluation of the USE IT-questionnaire for the evaluation of the adoption of electronic patient records by healthcare professionals,” Methods of Information in Medicine, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 189–198, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. Y. Koumpouros, E. Papageorgiou, and A. Karavasili, “Development of a new psychometric scale (PYTHEIA) to assess the satisfaction of users with any assistive technology,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, IEEE, July 2016.