臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究之目的為：探討需長期使用者對輔助科技輪椅類重視之使用結果；探討影響需長期使用者使用輪椅類輔助科技之使用結果的因素；為輪椅類輔助科技之「成果管理」建立起使用參考架構，以利發展「品質管理」。
本研究採質性研究設計，資料來源有訪談資料以及次級資料：前者有五位，為需長期並正使用輪椅類輔具者，藉由深度訪談蒐集資料；後者為「長期照護先導計畫」居家無障礙組資料，主要樣本為領有身心障礙手冊，並使用輪椅類輔具者，共46份。以「長期照護先導計畫」自訂問卷蒐集之。訪視資料採逐字編碼進行分析，並配合次級資料之敘述統計圖表歸納出「因素」以及「結果」。
研究發現，使用者表現之使用結果有三部份：效果、滿意度以及使用行為。效果影響滿意度，而滿意度與經濟、產品以及資訊等因子交互作用後，影響使用行為。影響使用結果之因素有輔具以及輔具服務。前者包含耐用、舒適、安全、經濟以及適應等特性；後者有可近性、關懷性、反應性、經濟性、專業性、資訊性。在使用時，上述因素會與個人以及環境因子交互作用，進而影響使用結果。
本研究結果發現，輪椅類輔具常見之「使用結果」以及其「影響因素」與國外確有不同。藉由本研究之結果，未來在台灣，輔助科技之「結果研究」可以有依循之模式，而輔助科技團隊，亦可由此模式中找出自己最適合的角色。

The aims of the study are to explore the outcomes that the people who need wheelchair might be interested and the factors that influence the outcomes of wheelchair usage. The results of the study will help the development of framework for Assistive Technology (AT) outcome management and the quality control research in the future.
Purposeful sampling is used in this qualitative study. Two sources of data are collected: (1) interview data are collected from 5 subjects who have been the wheelchair users for at least 3 years, (2) secondary data of 46 subjects are collected with questionnaires by the Pilot Program for the Deve7lopment of Long Term Care System. After the interview data are analyzed with the coding of the words, they are incorporated with the secondary data that are analyzed with descriptive statistics. The outcomes and the factors that influence the outcomes are generated.
The study identifies three major outcomes that the wheelchair users might be interested: the effectiveness, satisfaction, and the user behaviors. User satisfaction is influenced by the effectiveness of the wheelchair. The interaction between the satisfaction and the economic, product, and information factors influence the user behaviors. The factors that influence the outcomes of wheelchair usage are the AT device itself and the service about AT device. The factors of the AT device include the durability, comfort, safety, economy, and adaptability. The factors of the service include the accessibility, empathy, responsiveness, economy, professional, and the information provided by the service system. The user behavior will be determined by the interaction between the factors that influence the outcomes of wheelchair usage and the personal and environmental factors of the users.
The study explores the most commonly seen outcomes of wheelchair use and the factors that might influence the outcomes. The differences of the outcomes and the factors between Taiwan and other countries exist. The results of the study can serve as the framework for future AT outcome research in Taiwan and enhance the service provided by members of AT team.

第一章 緒論
第一節 動機與背景
第二節 研究目的
第三節 研究流程
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 輔助科技
第二節 輔助科技使用結果之探討
第三節 影響輔助科技「使用結果」之因素
第四節 文獻綜述
第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究設計
第二節 資料蒐集
第三節 資料分析方法
第四節 信度與效度
第四章 分析結果
第一節 樣本描述
第二節 使用結果面
第三節 因素面
第四節 研究發現
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論
第二節 研究建議
第三節 研究限制
參考文獻
附錄

中文
1.Maxwell, J. A. （2002）。質化研究設計：一種互動取向方法（Qualitative research design: an interactive approach） （高熏芳、林盈助、王向葵譯）。台北市：心理（原著1996出版）。
2.Marlow, C. （2001）。社會工作研究方法（第二版）（Research methods for generalist social work）（2nd ed.） （張英陣 校閱）。台北市：洪葉（原著1998出版）。
3.Padgett, D. K. （2000）。質化研究與社會工作（Qualitative Methods In Social Work Research）（張英陣 校閱）。台北市：洪葉（原著1998出版）
4.內政部（1999）。身心障礙者醫療及輔助器具費用補助辦法。行政院公報5（26），83-85。
5.立法院（2003）。身心障礙者保護法。立法院法律系統。上網日期：2004年4月3日。網址：http://npl.ly.gov.tw/www/home.jsp?page_url=./ exposition/exposition.jsp&ex_id=1&folderName=m0
6.台北市政府（2002）。台北市身心障礙者生活輔助器具費用補助標準。台北市：台北市政府
7.台北市政府社會局（2003）。臺北市身心障礙者輔助器具補助統計表。未出版統計資料：台北市
8.行政院主計處（2000）台閩地區八十九年度戶口及住宅普查。行政院主計處：台北市。上網日期2004年2月16。網址：http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/census~n/six/lue5/census_p&h.htm
9.吳武典、王華沛（1999）。加強身心障礙者輔助科技建設。特殊教育期刊72，1-9。
10.吳淑瓊、王正、呂寶靜、莊坤洋、張媚、戴玉慈（2001）。建構長期照護先導計畫-第一年計畫。台北市：建構長期照護先導計畫
11.吳淑瓊、王正、呂寶靜、莊坤洋、張媚、戴玉慈（2002）。建構長期照護先導計畫-第二年計畫期末報告。台北市：建構長期照護先導計畫
12.吳淑瓊、王正、呂寶靜、莊坤洋、張媚、戴玉慈（2003）。建構長期照護先導計畫-第三年計畫。台北市：建構長期照護先導計畫
13.林昭文、劉淑貞（2002）。身心障礙者輔具資源與服務整合之規劃與展望。社區發展季刊97，39-48。
14.祝旭東（2001）。科技輔具--身心障礙者的好幫手。身心障礙者服務資訊網電子報15。上網日期：民92年12月1日。網址：http://disable.yam.com/newsletters.htm#6
15.屏東基督教勝利之家（2000）。輔具資料庫。上網日期2004年2月15日。網址http://www.vhome.org.tw/resource/equipdata/resindex.htm
16.陳怡君（1999）。電腦輔具的認識與應用。高雄啟智教學資料庫。上網日期：民92年12月1日。網址：http://www1.kmsmr.kh.edu.tw/電玩小子/introduction/電腦輔具的認識與應用.htm
17.黃小玲、羅鈞令、張彧、林佳琪、毛慧芬（2003）。復健病患出院後使用輔具之狀況。台灣醫學7（5），681-688。
18.曾倫崇（1999）。從行銷觀點談門診顧客就診考慮因素---以台南地區為例。 The Journal of Health Science 1（1）, pp. 59~74。
19.曾思瑜、李傳房（1999）。老人居家生活輔具供需研究。內政部委託專題研究報告。台北：內政部。
20.鍾高基（1998）。復健工程/輔助性科技。中華醫學工程學刊18（3），147-152。

英文部份
1.ABLEDATA （2002）.The guide to ABALEDATA indexing terms. Retrieved Mar. 15, 2004, from http://www.abledata.com/
2.Andersen, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. （1994）. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53-66.
3.Andersen, R. M. （1995）. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36（1）,1-10.
4.Andrich, R., Ferrario, M., & Moi, M. （1998）. A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation, 20（1）, 1-24.
5.Bodine, C. （2003）. What Is Assistive Technology？ Except Parent Magazine, 33, 32-55.
6.Bromley, B. E. （2001）. Assistive technology assessment: A comparative analysis of five models. Paper presented at the CSUN Conference on Technology and People with Disabilities, Los Angeles, C.A.
7.Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. （2002a）. Introduction and overview. In A. M. Cook & S. M. Hussey （Eds.）, Assistive technologies: Principle and practice （2nd ed., pp. 3-33）. St. Louis: Mosby.
8.Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. （2002b）. Delivering assistive technology services to the consumer. In A. M. Cook, & S. M. Hussey （Eds.）, Assistive technologies: Principle and practice （2nd ed., pp. 92-120）. St. Louis: Mosby.
9.Cushman, L. A., & Scherer, M. J. （1996）. Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs. Assistive Technology, 8（2）, 103-109.
10.Demers, L., Monette, M., & Lapierre, Y. （2002）. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology （QUEST 2.0） for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24（1/2/3）, 21-30.
11.DeRuyter, F. （1995）. Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technology, 7（1）, 3-8.
12.DeRuyter, F. （1997）. The important of outcome measures for assistive technology services delivery system. Technology and disability, 6, 89-104.
13.Edyburn, D. （2003）. Measuring assistive technology outcomes: Key concepts. Journal of special education Technology E-Journal, 18（1） 1-5.
14.Ellwood, P. M. （1988）. Shattuck lecture-Outcomes management: A technology of patient experience. New England Journal of Medicine, 318（23）, 1549-1556.
15.Fuhrer, M. J. （1999）. Assistive technology outcome research: Impressions of an interested newcomer. Paper presented at the International Conference on Outcome Assessment in Assistive Technology. Oslo, Norway.
16.Fuhrer, M. J. （2001）. Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80（7）, 528-535.
17.Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. （2003）. A framework for the conceptual modeling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25（22）, 1243-1251.
18.Garvin, D. A. （1984）. What does "Product quality" really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26（1）,25-43.
19.Gitlin, L., Schemm, R., Landsberg, L., & Burgh, D. （1996）.Factor predicting assistive device use in home by old people following rehabilitation. Journal of Aging and Health,8, 554-575.
20.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. （1998）. Examining your data. In J. F. Hair, R. E. Anderson, L. R. Tatham & W. C. Black （Eds.）. Multivariate data analysis （5thed.）.Upper side river, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
21.Hammel, J. （1996）. What''s the outcome? Multiple variables complicate the measurement of assistive technology outcomes. Rehabilitation Management, 9（2）, 97-99.
22.Hammel, J. B., Lai, J. S., & Leller, T.（2002）.The impact of assistive technology and environmental intervention on function and living situation status with people World Health Organization are ageing with developmental disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation,24（1/2/3）,93-105.
23.Harris, F., & Sprigle, S. （2003）. Cost analyses in assistive technology research. Assistive Technology, 15（1）, 16-27.
24.Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., & Coney, K. A. （2001）. Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. In D. I. Hawkins, R. J. Best, & K. A. Coney （Eds.）, Consumer behavior- Building marketing strategy （8th ed., pp. 3-35）. NY City: Mc Graw Hill.
25.Hoenig, H., Taylor, D. H. Jr., & Sloan, F. A. （2003）. Does assistive technology substitute for personal assistance among the disabled elderly? American Journal of Public Health, 93（2）, 330-337.
26.Hulme, J. B., Shaver, J., Acher, S., Mullette, L., & Eggert, C. （1987）. Effects of adaptive seating device on the eating and drinking of children with multiple handicaps. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41（2）, 81-89.
27.IJzerman, M. J., Reuzel, R. P., & Severens, H. L. （2003）. Pre-assessment to assess the match between cost-effectiveness results and decision makers'' information needs: an illustration using two cases in rehabilitation medicine in The Netherlands. Internal Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19（1）, 17-27.
28.Jedeloo, S., De Witte, L. P., Linssen, B. A., & Schrijvers, A. J. （2002）. Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24（10）, 550-557.
29.Jutai, J., Ladak, N., Schuller, R., Naumann, S., & Wright, V. （1996）. Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: an institutional case study. Assistive Technology, 8（2）, 110-120.
30.Kittel, A., Di, M. A., & Stewart, H. （2002）. Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24（1/2/3）, 106-114.
31.Kohn, J. G., LeBlanc, M., & Mortola, P. （1994）. Measuring quality and performance of assistive technology: results of a prospective monitoring program. Assistive Technology, 6（2）, 120-125.
32.Korpela, R., Seppanen, R. L., & Koivikko, M. （1993）. Rehabilitation service evaluation: A follow-up of the extent of use of technical aids for disabled children. Disability and Rehabilitation, 15（3）, 143-150.
33.Lahm, E. A., & Sizemore, L. （2002）. Factors that influence assistive technology decision making. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17（1）, 15-25.
34.Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L. （2003）. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15（1）, 1-15.
35.Mann, W. C., Ottenbacher, K. J., Fraas, L., Tomita, M., & Granger, C. V. （1999）. Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 210-217.
36.Minkel, J. L. （2002）. Service delivery in assistive technology. In D. A. Olson, & F. DeRuyter （Eds.）. Clinician''s guide to assistive technology （pp. 55-65）. St. Louis: Mosby.
37.Nosek, M. A., & Krouskop, T. A. （1995）. Demonstrating a model approach to independent living center-based assistive technology services. Assistive Technology, 7（1）, 48-54.
38.Oldridge, N. B. （1996a）. Outcomes measurement: Health-related quality of life. Assistive Technology, 8（2）, 82-93.
39.Oldridge, N. B. （1996b）. Outcomes measurement: Health state preferences and economic evaluation. Assistive Technology, 8（2）, 94-102.
40.Pape, T. L., Kim, J., & Weiner, B. （2002）. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24（1/2/3）, 5-20.
41.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. （1988）. SERVAUAL ： A multiple-item scale for measuring customer expectations of service. Journal of Retailing, 64 （1）, 12-40.
42.Phillip, B., & Zhao, H. （1993）. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5（1）, 36-45.
43.Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America（1993）. Comments on Warren''s "cost effectiveness and efficiency in assistive technology service delivery". Assistive Technology, 5（2）, 66-73.
44.Rogers, J. C., & Holm, M. B. （1992）. Assistive technology device use in patients with rheumatic disease: A literature review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46（2）, 120-127.
45.Scherer, M. J. （1996）. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18 （9）, 439-448.
46.Scherer, M. J. （2002）. Matching Consumers with appropriate assistive technologies. In D. A. Olson, & F. DeRuyter （Eds.）. Clinician''s guide to assistive technology （pp. 3-12）. St. Louis: Mosby.
47.Scherer, M. J., & Galvin, J. C. （1996）. An Outcomes perspective of quality pathways to the most appropriate technology. In J. C. Galvin, & M. J. Scherer （Eds.）. Evaluating, selecting, and using appropriate assistive technology （pp. 1-26）. Gaithersburg, M.D. : Aspen Publishers.
48.Scherer, M. J., & Galvin, J. C. （1997）. Outcomes and assistive technology. Rehabilitation Management, 10 , 103-105.
49.Scherer, M. J., & Lane, J. P. （1997）. Assessing consumer profiles of ''ideal'' assistive technologies in ten categories: an integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19 （12）, 528-535.
50.Schindler, P. S., & Cooper, D. R. （2003）. Business Research Methods （8th ed.）.New York, N.Y.: McGRAL HILL
51.Smith, R. O. （1996）. Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology, 8 （2）, 71-81.
52.Stickel, M. S., Ryan, S., Rigby, P. J., & Jutai, J. W. （2002）. Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24 （1/2/3）, 115-125.
53.Tech Connections （2002）.Assistive technology outcomes measurement in Tech Connections Audio Conference, Retrieved Mar. 15 2004 from http://www.techconnections.org/
54.Warren, C. G. （1993）. Cost effectiveness and efficiency in assistive technology service delivery. Assistive Technology, 5 （2）, 61-65.
55.World Health Organization （2001）. International Classification of Functioning disability and health-ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization.