The reliability of a VISION COACH task as a measure of psychomotor skills.

The VISION COACH™ interactive light board is designed to test and enhance participants' psychomotor skills. The primary goal of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of the Full Field 120 VISION COACH task. One hundred eleven male and 131 female adult participants completed six trials where they responded to 120 randomly distributed lights displayed on the VISION COACH interactive light board. The mean time required for a participant to complete a trial was 101 seconds. Intraclass correlation coefficients, ranging from 0.962 to 0.987 suggest the VISION COACH Full Field 120 task was a reliable task. Cohen's d's of adjacent pairs of trials suggest learning effects did not negatively affect reliability after the third trial.

Evaluation of four steering wheels to determine driver hand placement in a static environment.

While much research exists on occupant packaging both proprietary and in the literature, more detailed research regarding user preferences for subjective ratings of steering wheel designs is sparse in published literature. This study aimed to explore the driver interactions with production steering wheels in four vehicles by using anthropometric data, driver hand placement, and driver grip design preferences for Generation-Y and Baby Boomers. In this study, participants selected their preferred grip diameter, responded to a series of questions about the steering wheel grip as they sat in four vehicles, and rank ordered their preferred grip design. Thirty-two male participants (16 Baby Boomers between ages 47 and 65 and 16 Generation-Y between ages 18 and 29) participated in the study. Drivers demonstrated different gripping behavior between vehicles and between groups. Recommendations for future work in steering wheel grip design and naturalistic driver hand positioning are discussed.

Examination of overbed tables: healthcare provider and user preferences.

OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study examined the preferences of healthcare providers and patients with respect to overbed table features and functions, as well as how the devices tend to be used. BACKGROUND: In order to improve the design of overbed tables, it is important to understand which features and functions of existing models are valued by healthcare providers and patients. METHODS: A sample of overbed table models was presented to volunteers, who were asked to choose which models' implementation of specific features and functions they preferred. Structured interviews incorporating both forced choice and free response questions were administered to the volunteers-healthcare providers and patients at a rehabilitation hospital. RESULTS: While the overbed tabletop and extendable tray are heavily used, all other features of the overbed table models are rarely used. Usability of the models exhibits the potential for improvement. Healthcare providers' and patients' feature preferences differ and occasionally conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Existing overbed tables are valued primarily for the top surface. Other features and functions of the overbed table present opportunities for refinement of design, durability, and usability. There are strong patterns of agreement and disagreement in the preferences of healthcare providers and patients with respect to overbed table design, use, features, and functionality. There is potential to improve overbed table designs from both the perspectives of the staff and the patient. KEYWORDS: Evidence-based design, hospital, human factors, patient-centered care, quality care, technology.

Group differences in preferences for a novel nightstand.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple user groups (patients and employees at a rehabilitation facility, community-dwelling seniors, and university students) participated in a study that examined their preferences for the features and functions of three novel nightstand prototypes. BACKGROUND: It is valuable to get input from different user groups in order to improve furniture usefulness and usability, especially furniture prevalent in clinical settings where users of all age groups are found. METHODS: Feedback was obtained from different user groups in both clinical (rehabilitation facility) and nonclinical (university) settings. This was done using structured interviews to ask participants about multiple features of the novel nightstand designs. RESULTS: There were several features that all groups preferred. There were also some distinctly opposing opinions between groups. In general, the patient group showed the most similarities to the other groups. CONCLUSION: This research explores differences and similarities in preferences for nightstand design across a variety of user groups. It yields ideas for improving the nightstand design to be useful for a wider group of people.