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.

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.

No abstract

No abstract

People with disabilities or special needs can benefit from AI-based conversational agents, which are used in competence training and well-being management. Assessment of the quality of interactions with these chatbots is key to being able to reduce dissatisfaction with them and to understand their potential long-term benefits. This will in turn 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. We systematically reviewed the literature on methods of assessing the perceived quality of interactions with chatbots, and identified only 15 of 192 papers on this topic that 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. Systematic procedures based on reliable and valid methodologies continue to be needed in this field. The current lack of reliable tools and systematic methods for assessing chatbots for people with disabilities and special needs is concerning, and may lead to unreliable systems entering the market with disruptive consequences for users. Three major conclusions can be drawn from this systematic analysis: (i) researchers should adopt consolidated and comparable methodologies to rule out risks in use; (ii) the constructs of satisfaction and acceptability are different, and should be measured separately; (iii) dedicated tools and methods for assessing the quality of interaction with chatbots should be developed and used to enable the generation of comparable evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

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.