Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index

Objectives: To validate the WOMAC 3.1 in a touch screen computer format, which applies each question as a cartoon in writing and in speech (QUALITOUCH method), and to assess patient acceptance of the computer touch screen version. Methods: The paper and computer formats of WOMAC 3.1 were applied in random order to 53 subjects with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The mean age of the subjects was 64 years ( range 45 to 83), 60% were male, 53% were 65 years or older, and 53% used computers at home or at work. Agreement between formats was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Preferences were assessed with a supplementary questionnaire. Results: ICCs between formats were 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.96) for pain; 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97) for stiffness, and 0.96 ( 0.94 to 0.98) for function. ICCs were similar in men and women, in subjects with or without previous computer experience, and in subjects below or above age 65. The computer format was found easier to use by 26% of the subjects, the paper format by 8%, and 66% were undecided. Overall, 53% of subjects preferred the computer format, while 9% preferred the paper format, and 38% were undecided. Conclusion: The computer format of the WOMAC 3.1 is a reliable assessment tool. Agreement between computer and paper formats was independent of computer experience, age, or sex. Thus the computer format may help improve patient follow up by meeting patients' preferences and providing immediate results.

Successes and failures in assessing acquired language disorders using an Internet-based telerehabilitation system

We have used a telerehabilitation system (eREHAB) to remotely assess acquired language disorders via the Internet. The system was used to establish a 128 kbit/s videoconference between two sites and allowed a remote language assessment to be conducted using the standardized Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE). The system had the capacity to display text and images, and could play pre-recorded instructions to the participant via various built-in tools. A touch screen allowed tasks involving picture identification to be completed easily. Eighteen participants with a diagnosis of an acquired language disorder were simultaneously assessed using the eREHAB system, and in the traditional face-to-face manner by two speech pathologists. There was very high agreement between the two assessors, with weighted kappa scores of 0.8–1.0 for 88% of the sub-tests of the BDAE. There was also high agreement (80–100%) and high kappa scores (0.67–0.90) between assessors on the six rating scales relating to language characteristics. The agreement between the two assessors for the diagnosis of the type of aphasia was 83%. Limitations of the system related mainly to problems inherent in IP videoconferencing. The inability to maintain the preferred speed of 128 kbit/s for the duration of the videoconference and the resultant increase in video and audio breakup and latency affected the clinician’s ability to administer the BDAE with the same ease and accuracy as in face-to-face administration. These difficulties were exacerbated when participants presented with a moderate to severe language disorder, auditory comprehension deficits or significant hearing loss. Despite these limitations, a valid assessment of language disorder was found to be feasible via this telerehabilitation application.