Development and utility of the QUEST 2.1 Children’s
Version
Sonya Murchland and Helen Dawkins
Novita Children’s Services
Adelaide, South Australia
1. Abstract
Assistive technology is often recommended to assist children with physical
disabilities to participate in school activities. For the purpose of a research study
exploring the utility, satisfaction and cost of assistive technology, the QUEST 2.0
was adapted for use by children and re-named QUEST 2.1: Children’s Version.
The questionnaire was pilot tested with children during its initial development and
tested for test-retest reliability. A pilot study was conducted prior to the QUEST
2.1 being used in a larger study which used mailed postal survey method. 98
valid QUEST 2.1 questionnaires were returned. The questionnaire was most
commonly completed by the child with a parent or carer. High levels of
satisfaction were reported. The QUEST 2.1 is suitable for use as a mailed survey
for use by children and their parents/carers. The QUEST 2.1 is a reliable and
flexible outcome measurement tool for gathering information about children’s
satisfaction with assistive technology items and services.
Key words
Assistive technology, outcome measure, satisfaction, survey, questionnaire,
children with disabilities.
2. Introduction
The need for service providers to evaluate the outcomes of assistive technology
provision is well documented (DeRutyer, 1995; Heaton & Bamford, 2001;
Gelderblom & DeWitte, 2002). A range of client centered outcome measurement
tools have been developed for the purpose of assistive technology outcome
measurement.
More researchers are recognising the value of seeking children’s views and
perspectives rather than substituting parents’ proxy responses which has been
common practice in the past (Beresford, 1997). Assistive technology outcome
researchers have attempted to measure the outcomes of assistive technology
from the child’s perspective. However at the commencement of this study there
was no assistive technology outcome measurement tool that had been
developed specifically for children.
3. Body of paper
3.1 QUEST 2.0 and QUEST 2.1 Children’s Version
The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST
2.0) is a reliable and valid self-administered questionnaire designed to evaluate
user satisfaction. It consists of 12 questions related to satisfaction with an
assistive technology device and satisfaction with assistive technology service
provision (Demers, Weiss-Lambrou, & Ska, 2002). The QUEST 2.0 has been
used to evaluate children’s satisfaction using face to face administration
(Benedict, Lee, Marrujo, & Farel, 1999;
Routhier, Vincent, Morissette & Desaulniers, 2001) and telephone interview
administration (Benedict, Lee, Marrujo, & Farel, 1999). Goodacre and Turner
(2005) used the QUEST in postal survey targeting older adults, however no
evidence of the use of QUEST in a postal survey targeting children could be
found.
For the purpose of a research study exploring the utility, satisfaction and cost of
assistive technology, the QUEST 2.0 was adapted for use by children. With the
permission of the author it was re-named QUEST 2.1: Children’s Version. The
QUEST 2.0 required adapting to;

allow children to complete it independently,

be child friendly in appearance,

be specific to computer based assistive technology, and

be suitable for use in a mailed survey.
The QUEST 2.1 Children’s Version has simple language and includes a seven
point smiley face scale to enable children to report responses with visual cues.
The smiley face scale was adapted from a scale cited by Andrews and Withey
(1976) to be a colour scale with variation in facial expressions. The QUEST 2.1:
Children’s Version has been pilot tested for content and test-retest reliability
(Beakley, Lane & Murchland, 2007) and an additional description on how to use
the smiley face rating scale was included following feedback from this study. A
pilot of the mail survey method was conducted prior to the QUEST 2.1 being
used in a larger study.
Table 1 summarises the changes made to the QUEST 2.0 in developing the
QUEST 2.1 Children’s Version.
Table 1
QUEST 2.0
QUEST 2.1 Children’s Version
5 point scale
7 point scale
Numerical scale
Smiley face scale
12 Satisfaction items
12 Satisfaction items
Dimensions
Size
Weight
Weight
Adjustments
How easy it is to move
Safety
How it looks
Durability
Time it takes to set up
Easy to use
How easy it is to use
Comfort
Reliability
Effectiveness
Meets your needs
Service delivery
Advice given on what technology is best
Repairs/servicing
Help given if it is not working properly
Professional service
Time it took to get
Follow-up services
Advice given on how to use it
3.2 Mailed survey of children with physical disabilities in SA
The QUEST 2.1 Children’s version was mailed to all active Novita clients who
were aged between 8-18 on 1 May 2007. 703 children met the above criteria and
were included in the postal survey. 98 valid QUEST 2.1 questionnaires were
returned. Almost half of the questionnaires (46.9%, n=46) were completed by the
child together with a parent or carer. 28.6% (n=28) were completed by a parent
or carer on behalf of the child and 24.5 % (n=24) were completed by the child by
themselves. For the majority of diagnostic groups the questionnaires were
completed by the child with a parent or carer. The exception was children with
intellectual disability where a parent or carer completed it in the majority of cases
(n=7, 87.5%) and children with spinal injury or disability who were more likely to
complete it independently (n=4, 66.7%).
High levels of satisfaction were reported. QUEST 2.1 scores for technology items
ranged from 1 to 7 (where 1=delighted and 7=terrible) with an average of 2.66
(SD=1.09). QUEST 2.1 scores for services ranged from 1 to 5.75 (mean=2.71,
SD=1.12). The most important satisfaction items identified by respondents are
reliability, how the technology meets needs, how easy the technology is to use,
and how easy the technology is to move.
4. Conclusion
The QUEST 2.1 is suitable for use as a mailed survey for use by children and
their parents/carers. The QUEST 2.1 is a flexible outcome measurement tool for
gathering information about children’s satisfaction with assistive technology items
and services.
5. Correspondence
Sonya Murchland
Profession Leader Occupational Therapy
Novita Children’s Services
171 Days Road
Regency Park SA 5010
T: +61 8 8243 8213
sonya.murchland@novita.org.au
6. References
Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S.B. (1976), Social Indicators of Wellbeing. New
York: Plenum Press.
Beakley, E., Lane, A., & Murchland, S. (2007), Evaluating children's satisfaction
with assistive technology: preliminary test-retest reliability of the QUEST 2.1,
Children's Version.
Benedict, R. E., Lee, J. P., Marrujo, S. K., & Farel, A. M. (1999), Assistive
devices as an early childhood intervention: evaluating outcomes. Technology &
Disability, 11(1/2), 79-90.
Beresford, B. (1997), Personal Accounts: Involving disabled children in research,
Social Policy Research Unit.
Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002), The Quebec User Evaluation
of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent
progress. Technology & Disability, 14(3), 101-105.
DeRutyer, F. (1995), Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: do we
understand the commitment? Assistive Technology 7, 3-16.
Gelderblom, G. J. and de Witte, L.P. (2002), The assessment of assistive
technology outcomes, effects and costs. Technology & Disability 14(3), 91-94.
Heaton, J. and Bamford, C. (2001), Assessing the outcomes of equipment and
adaptations: Issues and approaches. British Journal of Occupational Therapy
64(7), 346-356.
Routhier, F., Vincent, C., Morissette, M. J., & Desaulniers, L. (2001), Clinical
results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at
the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute. Prosthetics & Orthotics International, 25(2),
119-131.
7. Summary
The paper describes and discusses the development and use of the QUEST 2.1:
Children’s Version, a questionnaire for measuring children’s satisfaction with
assistive technology. The use of the questionnaire in a mailed survey is
described.