Design and Management Features of Everyday Technology That Challenge Older Adults

Abstract

Difficulties in managing everyday technology Little is known about the specific features that might make an ET more or less difficult to handle during its use. Previous research focused on the difficulties

Can the everyday technology use questionnaire predict overall functional level among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or mild‐stage alzheimer's disease? – a pilot study

“…In this study, the amount of relevant ETs was positively associated with the overall functional level, but this relationship is probably not as simple as having more ETs equalling higher overall function. Since ETs could be more or less difficult to use and carry different meanings for the individual , different ETs can probably also be more or less associated with the overall functional level. Studies aimed at obtaining a deeper understanding of the relationships between ET and overall functional level require other methodological approaches than this cross‐sectional design, for example qualitative designs that allow a more in‐depth exploratory approach.…”

“…As technological development proceeds, the proportion of technological objects encountered in our daily life activities is growing . This development has facilitated the performance of many ADLs, but has also made them more complex and demanding . Technological objects differ from other kinds of objects since they are not only the object in itself, but also give access to technological services and systems; for example, when doing bank‐related tasks online, you use a technological object (computer) to get access to the online services and systems provided by the bank.…”

Experienced usability of assistive technology for cognitive support with respect to user goals

“…They have been acknowledged to some extent in previous studies, both including persons with cognitive impairment and the elderly in general. They can be exemplified with features such as displays with constant visible information, a thoughtful limitation of information only to comprise relevant information (Rosenberg & Nygård, 2012;Patomella, Kottorp & Nygård, 2013), specific spoken reminders (McGee-Lennon, 2012), the possibility to confirm a reminder, understandable signs on buttons, and delivery of feedback to the user (Patomella et al, 2013).…”

“…It is a difficult task to decide how the features should be designed in order to make the AT easy to maintain for a person with cognitive impairment. For example, to what extent should indicators for faulty AT, coverage and battery level be provided given that it is not promoting to overload the AT with information (Patomella, et al, 2013)? The findings from this study indicated strongly, however, that leaving the user with scarce information about the overall functions of the AT decreased control, safety, and effectiveness.…”

Gender and diagnostic impact on everyday technology use: a differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ)

“…Our research has shown that technology also may be a hindrance in these people's everyday lives and repeated studies have shown that people with more severe cognitive impairment have more difficulties to use technology than those with mild impairment, good recovery or no known cognitive impairment [12][13][14][15]. In a few studies, the challenge levels of common everyday technologies have also been investigated in samples with and without dementia or MCI [2,[16][17][18][19] and samples with ABI [5]. Even though research has shown that people's perceptions of a technology's level of difficulty is related to the severity of cognitive decline, we do not yet know if people with different cognitively disabling diagnoses perceive everyday technologies to be similarly easy or challenging, or if it varies across diagnoses.…”