Page 165 - THE DUTCH TALKING TOUCH SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE

Evoluation of the Dutch and Turkish version
than those in the Dutch TTSQ study. The explanation for this can be found in the fact that, compared to the Dutch study, the population of this study was less educated, had lower health literacy, and had less experience with using tablet computers. In the current study, no participant was completely satisfied or dissatisfied with the overall ease of use of the Turkish TTSQ, while, in the Dutch TTSQ study, the participants were not only very satisfied but their expectations of ease of use of the tool were exceeded [20]. In contrast to the Dutch TTSQ study, not all Turkish participants had the sense of self- efficacy to be able to complete the Turkish TTSQ, no matter what improvements might be made. The results of the Dutch TTSQ study showed that participants with lower education and less experience in using mobile technology were less able to operate it effectively [20]. This is confirmed by the results of the current study.
Two earlier studies were found in which usability was part of the assessment of a direct translation of a Talking Touchscreen (TT) questionnaire, both published by Hahn et al. [44,45]. In the 2003 study, the usability components ‘satisfaction’ and ‘efficiency’ were tested. In this study, thirty Spanish-speaking patients with cancer completed a TT which contained the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) [46] and the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF36) [47]. Fifty percent of the participants had lower than 7th grade education. Satisfaction with ease of use and efficiency were tested by presenting evaluation questions on the use of the TT followed by a short debriefing interview. What is noticeable about the satisfaction and efficiency results is that all thirty participants reported that they thought of the tool as ‘very easy’ or ‘easy to use’ and the completion ‘did not take too long’, while 57% (8/15) of participants with less than 7th grade education and 14% (2/15) of the participants with more than 7th grade education preferred an interviewer orally conducting the questionnaire to use of the talking touchscreen. Hahn et al. interpreted these results in a positive way and reported that “many patients either preferred using the touchscreen rather than having an interviewer ask the questions, or had no preference”. While true for the more educated participants, the majority of the less educated participants did not prefer using the TT. Hahn et al. concluded their paper by stating that “the ‘Talking Touchscreen’ will allow Latino patients with varying literacy skills to be included more readily in clinical trials, clinical practice research and QOL studies.” This conclusion may be too one dimensional, given
159
4.3