Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology
Also known as: QUEST 2.0, QUEST, Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology, Assistive Technology Satisfaction Measure
The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) is a standardized outcome measure that quantifies how satisfied a user is with an assistive device and with the services surrounding it. Developed by Louise Demers, Rhoda Weiss-Lambrou and Bernadette Ska, the refined 2.0 version comprises twelve items split into a device subscale (eight items, such as comfort, safety, and ease of use) and a services subscale (four items, such as service delivery and follow-up), each rated on a five-point satisfaction scale. Distinctively, QUEST also asks users to identify the three items most important to them, anchoring satisfaction in what the user actually values rather than treating all features as equal.
Key highlights
- Separates device satisfaction from services satisfaction, distinguishing technology problems from delivery problems.
- Generic across assistive-technology categories, enabling comparison of satisfaction across very different devices.
- Personalizes measurement by having users name their three most important items, anchoring satisfaction in user priorities.
- Has established internal consistency and test-retest reliability, supporting use as a repeatable outcome measure.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use QUEST 2.0 when you want a standardized, comparable measure of how satisfied users are with an assistive device and with the services that provided it — for clinical follow-up, device comparison, service evaluation, or assistive-technology research. It applies across device categories, from wheelchairs to communication aids, and is most informative when you need to separate device satisfaction from service satisfaction. It is less suited when the question is about psychosocial impact or function rather than satisfaction (where measures like PIADS or device-specific function tests fit better), when the user cannot reliably self-report, or when you need objective performance data rather than perceived satisfaction.
Strengths & limitations
- Separates device satisfaction from services satisfaction, distinguishing technology problems from delivery problems.
- Generic across assistive-technology categories, enabling comparison of satisfaction across very different devices.
- Personalizes measurement by having users name their three most important items, anchoring satisfaction in user priorities.
- Has established internal consistency and test-retest reliability, supporting use as a repeatable outcome measure.
- Measures perceived satisfaction only, not function, usage, or psychosocial impact, so it captures one facet of assistive-technology outcome.
- Satisfaction ratings are subjective and prone to acquiescence and expectation effects.
- With only twelve items, it offers limited diagnostic detail about specific device shortcomings.
- It assumes a user able to self-report satisfaction, limiting use with some populations without proxy adaptation.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
What is the difference between the device and services subscales?
QUEST 2.0 splits satisfaction into two sources. The device subscale (eight items) covers properties of the technology itself — comfort, safety, durability, ease of use, and so on — while the services subscale (four items) covers how the device was provided and supported, including delivery, repairs, professional service, and follow-up. Separating them is essential because a user can be dissatisfied because of a poor device or because of poor service, and only by distinguishing the two can a provider know what to fix. A single global score would blur this.
Why does QUEST ask users to pick their three most important items?
The importance selection personalizes the measure. Users differ in what they value: one wheelchair user may prioritize weight and portability, another safety and durability. By having each user identify their three most important items, QUEST lets analysts interpret satisfaction in light of priorities, so a low rating on a feature the user considers unimportant is not over-weighted, while dissatisfaction on a high-priority item is flagged. It also reveals, across users, which assistive-technology attributes matter most.
How does QUEST relate to other assistive-technology measures like PIADS?
QUEST measures satisfaction with the device and its services; it does not measure how the device affects the user's life. The Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) measures impact on competence, adaptability, and self-esteem. The two are complementary and frequently used together: QUEST tells you whether the user is satisfied with the product and provision, while PIADS tells you whether the device improved the user's psychosocial functioning. Combining them gives a more complete assistive-technology outcome assessment than either alone.
Sources
- 1.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 and Disability, 14(3), 101-105.
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 23). Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/disability-studies/quebec-user-evaluation-satisfaction-assistive-technology