A systematic review of the psychometric properties of Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST).

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Searches were conducted in August 2021 on four electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. Eligible papers included cross-sectional validation studies evaluating the psychometric properties of all QUEST versions. Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient, and comparison tools were reported. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Nineteen studies were included in this systematic review. Results showed that the QUEST and QUEST 2.0 were available in 10 languages, and most validation studies analysed this tool in patients using mobility devices in various clinical conditions. One article analysed the child version (QUEST 2.1) in English. The most analysed psychometric property was Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency in 14 out of 19 studies, with values ranging between 0.74 and 0.79. Overall, 17 out of 19 studies were of adequate quality, though responsiveness was never studied. Our systematic review showed that the QUEST and its subsequent versions are reliable and valid measurement instruments to evaluate satisfaction in patients with different disabilities using various assistive technologies. This study provides useful information on the instrument's psychometric properties in different populations and cultures. This systematic review verify the appropriateness of the "Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology" (QUEST), as a measure of satisfaction; This systematic review allow clinicians to keep up to date with new versions of the tool, new countries of validation and population in which it can be used. This study supports clinicians in making informed decisions when choosing assessment tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]