Approaches Adopted by Researchers to Measure the Quality of the Experience of People Working from Home: a Scoping Review.

Working from home (WFH) remotely is a modality of working that requires the careful design of systems of rules and tools to enable people to exchange information and perform actions. WFH is expected to expand after the COVID-19 pandemic. How to assess and compare in a reliable way the experience of workers with different (sociotechnical) systems of WFH is a central point to supporting the diffusion of acceptable modalities of working. However, the concept of experience and how it can be measured in the domain in WFH is yet to be clearly characterized. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for scoping reviews, we systematically map the approaches used by researchers to assess WFH, identify which aspects are usually investigated, and examine how such aspects are usually measured in terms of questions and tools. Literature is collected using Scopus and Web of Science. Thirty-four records out of 323 focusing either on validating a scale, presenting theoretically the experience of workers or testing this empirically are included in the qualitative synthesis. The results highlight a lack of unified terminology and tools, with assessments of workers' experience mainly characterized by survey approaches and qualitative questions. Clustering together the most investigated aspects in the literature and reviewing how these aspects are assessed, we propose a list of 10 relevant overarching dimensions and attempt to define workers' experience in the domain of WFH remotely. This definition can be used as a tool by researchers aiming to assess the experience of workers in order to inform the design or redesign of the sociotechnical systems that enable WFH. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41347-022-00264-4.

Inside pandora's box: a systematic review of the assessment of the perceived quality of chatbots for people with disabilities or special needs.

Introduction: People with disabilities or special needs can benefit from AI-based conversational agents (i.e., chatbots) that are used for competence training and well-being management. Assessing the quality of interactions with these chatbots is key to being able to reduce dissatisfaction with them and to understanding their potential long-term benefit. This in turn will help to increase adherence to their use, thereby improving the quality of life of the large population of end-users that they are able to serve.Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we systematically reviewed the literature on methods of assessing the perceived quality of interactions with chatbots using the from Scopus and the Web of Science electronic databases. Using the Boolean operators (AND/OR) the keywords chatbot*, conversational agent*, special needs, disability were combined.Results: Revealed that only 15 of 192 papers on this topic included people with disabilities or special needs in their assessments. The results also highlighted the lack of a shared theoretical framework for assessing the perceived quality of interactions with chatbots.Conclusion: Systematic procedures based on reliable and valid methodologies continue to be needed in this field. The current lack of reliable tools and systematic methods to assess chatbots for people with disabilities and special needs is concerning, and ultimately, it may also lead to unreliable systems entering the market with disruptive consequences for people.Implications for rehabilitationChatbots applied in rehabilitation are mainly tested in terms of clinical effectiveness and validity with a minimal focus on measuring the quality of the interactionThe usability and interactive properties of chatbots applied in rehabilitation are not comparable as each tool is measured in different wayThe lack of a common framework to assess chatbots exposes people with disability and special needs to the risk of using unreliable tools.

World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review.

PURPOSE: This systematic review examines research and practical applications of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) as a basis for establishing specific criteria for evaluating relevant international scientific literature. The aims were to establish the extent of international dissemination and use of WHODAS 2.0 and analyze psychometric research on its various translations and adaptations. In particular, we wanted to highlight which psychometric features have been investigated, focusing on the factor structure, reliability, and validity of this instrument. METHOD: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we conducted a search for publications focused on "whodas" using the ProQuest, PubMed, and Google Scholar electronic databases. RESULTS: We identified 810 studies from 94 countries published between 1999 and 2015. WHODAS 2.0 has been translated into 47 languages and dialects and used in 27 areas of research (40% in psychiatry). CONCLUSIONS: The growing number of studies indicates increasing interest in the WHODAS 2.0 for assessing individual functioning and disability in different settings and individual health conditions. The WHODAS 2.0 shows strong correlations with several other measures of activity limitations; probably due to the fact that it shares the same disability latent variable with them. Implications for Rehabilitation WHODAS 2.0 seems to be a valid, reliable self-report instrument for the assessment of disability. The increasing interest in use of the WHODAS 2.0 extends to rehabilitation and life sciences rather than being limited to psychiatry. WHODAS 2.0 is suitable for assessing health status and disability in a variety of settings and populations. A critical issue for rehabilitation is that a single "minimal clinically important .difference" score for the WHODAS 2.0 has not yet been established.

The effectiveness of powered, active lower limb exoskeletons in neurorehabilitation: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This review examines the utility of current active, powered, wearable lower limb exoskeletons as aids to rehabilitation in paraplegic patients with gait disorders resulting from central nervous system lesions. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were used to review literature on the use of powered and active lower limb exoskeletons for neurorehabilitative training in paraplegic subjects retrieved in a search of the electronic databases PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: We reviewed 27 studies published between 2001 and 2014, involving a total of 144 participants from the USA, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Israel, Italy, and Spain. Seventy percent of the studies were experimental tests of safety or efficacy and 29% evaluated rehabilitative effectiveness through uncontrolled (22%) or controlled (7%) clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Exoskeletons provide a safe and practical method of neurorehabilitation which is not physically exhausting and makes minimal demands on working memory. It is easy to learn to use an exoskeleton and they increase mobility, improve functioning and reduce the risk of secondary injury by reinstating a more normal gait pattern. A limitation of the field is the lack of experimental methods for demonstrating the relative effectiveness of the exoskeleton in comparison with other rehabilitative techniques and technologies.