Primary Image

Rehab Measures Image

Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment

Purpose

The ATD-PA is a subjective measure assessing one's perceived quality of life in relation to using assistive technology.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym ATD-PA

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Life Participation
Functional Mobility
Quality of Life

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Computer

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$89.95

Cost Description

Available here: http://www.matchingpersonandtechnology.com/orderform.html

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Limb Loss + Impairment
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Parkinson's Disease + Neurologic Rehabilitation
  • Spinal Cord Injury
  • Stroke Recovery

Key Descriptions

  • The ATD-PA consists of two forms.
  • The Person Form consists of 54 items across three domains:
    1) Section A (9 items): The patients ratings of functional abilities (5-point Likert scale)
    2) Section B (12 items): quality of life / subjective well-being in the context of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains of Activity and Participation (5-point Likert scale)
    3) Section C (33 items): The patient's personal and psychosocial characteristics comprised of eight sub scales: Mood, Self-Esteem, Self-determination, Autonomy, Family Support, Friend Support, Therapist and Program Reliance, and Motivation to Use Support.
  • The Device Form includes 12 items asking patients to assess their predisposition in using a particular Assistive Technology.
  • A score of 60 is interpreted to mean that the patient expects to experience maximum benefit from the use of an Assitive Technology.

Number of Items

66

Equipment Required

  • Computer

Time to Administer

1 hours

May take an hour or longer

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

ICF Domain

Participation

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living

Considerations

Translation available: English, North America English, Ireland, French, Italian, Brazilian Portuguese, Greek, Korean, German, Hungarian, Spanish (Spain).

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Normative Data

Vocational Rehabilitation: (Scherer et al, 2005; n = 159; done as part of a training program; patients were either drawn from the students case-load or were friends of the student; respondents reported functional limitations in mobility, upper and lower extremity control, eyesight, hearing, and speech communication issues)

Normative Data Across Various Diagnosis::

 

 

Age

   

Gender

 

Cohort

n

Mean

S.D.

Range

Male

Female

2002

91

37.59

14.40

17 – 75

41

33

2004

68

38.09

15.40

17 – 77

20

37

 

Test/Retest Reliability

Vocational Rehabilitation (Scherer et al, 2005)

Internal Consistency Across ATD-PA Domains::

Domain

Items

2002

2004

QOL

12

0.89

0.88

Family Support

11

0.80

0.81

Motivation for AT Use

14

0.82

0.83

Self-Determination

14

0.82

0.84

Therapist-Program Reliance

12

0.81

0.73

Mood

15

0.82

0.85

Friend Support

12

0.80

0.81

Autonomy

13

0.80

0.76

Self-Esteem

13

0.80

0.83

Greek Rehabilitation Hospital: (Koumpouros et al. 2017; n=115)

  •  Excellent interrater reliability (ICC=0.981, ranging from 0.973-0.987)

Internal Consistency

Vocational Rehabilitation: (Scherer et al, 2005)

Internal Consistency Across ATD-PA Domains:

Domain

Items

Strength

2002

Strength

2004

QOL

12

Excellent

0.89

Excellent

0.88

Family Support

11

Excellent

0.80

Excellent

0.81

Motivation for AT Use

14

Excellent

0.82

Excellent

0.83

Self-Determination

14

Excellent

0.82

Excellent

0.84

Therapist-Program Reliance

12

Excellent

0.81

Adequate

0.73

Mood

15

Excellent

0.82

Excellent

0.85

Friend Support

12

Excellent

0.80

Excellent

0.81

Autonomy

13

Excellent

0.80

Adequate

0.76

Self-Esteem

13

Excellent

0.80

Excellent

0.83

Cronbach’s alpha

Greek Rehabilitation Hospital: (Koumpouros et al. 2017; n=115)

  • Adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha =0.701, ranging from 0.605-0.701)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Vocational Rehabilitation: (Scherer et al, 2005)

Participants were asked 3 to 4 months after their first assessment to rate how well the selected Assisitve Technology (AT) matched their needs. On a 10 point scale participants in the 2002 cohort gave a mean rating of 6.2, while the 2004 cohort reported a mean rating of 8.1. These results provide preliminary support for the measure's ability to predict how well an AT matches the needs and preferences of participants.

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity

Greek Rehabilitation Hospital: (Koumpouros et al. 2017; n=115)

  • Adequate-Excellent construct validity for items in the Adaptablility subscale (r=0.537 to 0.783)
  • Excellent construct validity for items in the Fit to Use subscale (r= 0.691 to 0.801)
  • Adequate-Excellent construct validity for items in the Socializing (r= 0.498 to 0.767)

Discriminant Validity 

Greek Rehabilitation Hospital: (Koumpouros et al. 2017; n=115)

  • Low correlation coefficients between each subscale, indicating subscales measure unique constructs

Subscale

Adapatbility

Fit to Use

Socialization

Adaptability

1

0.087

0.191

Fit to Use

-

1

0.08

Socialization

-

-

1

Content Validity

The ATD PA was developed by incorporating the experiences of technology users and non-users providing evidence of content validity.

Face Validity

The ATD-PA was developed with the imput of users of Assistive Devices

Spinal Injuries

back to Populations

Normative Data

Acute SCI: (Scherer et al, 2001; n = 20; mean age = 51.05 (16.44) years; 13 = paraplegia (4 complete), 7 = tetraplegia (1 complete))

 

ATD PA Sections B and C

Item

Mean (SD)

10

3.15 (1.14)

11

4.10 (0.85)

12

2.95 (1.10)

13

3.25 (1.12)

14

3.20 (1.15)

15

2.50 (1.32)

16

3.05 (1.32)

17

3.00 (1.30)

18

3.55 (1.10)

19

1.75 (1.21)

20

1.95 (1.47)

Construct Validity

Acute SCI: (Scherer et al, 2001)

Correlations Between Measure of Quality of Life:

Variable

BSIdep

SWLS-total

ATD-PA QOL Items

BSIdep

1.00

   

SWLS-total

- 0.64**

1.00

 

QOL-total

- 0.71**

0.89**

1.00

** p < 0.01

Brief Symptom Inventory=  BSIdep

Satisfaction with Life Scale = SWLS-total

ATD-PA (Sections B and C)

Bibliography

Koumpouros Y, Papageorgiou E, Karavasili A, Alexopoulou, D. (2017). 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,12(5). Find it here

Scherer, M. J. (2005). "Assessing the benefits of using assistive technologies and other supports for thinking, remembering and learning." Disabil Rehabil 27(13): 731-739. Find it on PubMed

Scherer, M. J. and Cushman, L. A. (2001). "Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: a validation study of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment." Disabil Rehabil 23(9): 387-393. Find it on PubMed

Scherer, M. J. and Cushman, L. A. (2002). "Determining the content for an interactive training programme and interpretive guidelines for the Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment." Disabil Rehabil 24(1-3): 126-130. Find it on PubMed

Save now, read later.