The Development of an Interview Questionnaire and Guide for the Sustainable Use of Assistive Devices among the Disabled in Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

ABSTRACT

The research topic is clear, well structure and social interest.

The topic is threat in correct form.

In general, the article is very interesting, clarifies the purpose of the study and I consider that the topic is in line with the journal’s research objectives.

INTRODUCTION:

The study objective is well defined and identified, the brief resume of types is well used.  In the introduction, referenced. Clear the aims of the article.

The structure is well defined, and it has enough information in separated areas.

It’s been a good thing the references articles, the structure is well done, clear and focused.

Purpuse and Methods

The structure is well done, clear and focused, with important data.

The structure of this part is clear, with different parts clearly defined and detailing. The figure is clear.

The final questionnaire well-structured and clear, and focused on the topic of the article

The guide is very good help.

Discussion and conclusion

The conclusions and the discussion are well drawn and interesting. Appropriate extra notes in these parts. Well-structured.

An interesting line of research is observed.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed and positive comments. 
We've tried to fix as many things as possible that we missed or didn't write about. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comment 1: Row 188, "the composition of all three questionnaires were inadequate to identify the com-188 plaints or systemic improvements by disability type and assistive device." Is there any quantitative data or statistical analysis to support this "inadequate" conclusion. 

Comment 2: Row 225, "the experts noted that it would be helpful to understand the overall interview context to define each year of the phases after disability's occurrence at the beginning of the interview." Is there any quantitative data or statistical analysis to support this "helpful" conclusion. 

Comment 3: "a pilot test was conducted twice", what are the specific quantitative criteria to evaluate the results of the two pilot study and draw conclusions as to how to revise the questionnaire.   

Comment 4: "in consultation with two experts in occupational therapy and assistive device", it appears that the entire study and research process was guided by empirical subjective opinion instead of objective scientific data and statistical analysis. 

 

Author Response

Thanks for the detailed review. 
We have taken your review into consideration to the best of our ability, and we've listed our responses below.

Comment 1: What I said about "inadequacy" is my subjective opinion as a researcher analyzing the three questionnaires. In order to identify improvements to assistive devices, it is necessary to list the problems of each device, but in the three questionnaires, only the overall data content is analyzed, such as the satisfaction score of the overall assistive device or the satisfaction score of the assistive device by disability type.

Comment 2: This part also reflects the opinions of experts. As this is a qualitative study, it is necessary for the interviewee and the interviewer to form a rapport to grasp the overall context so that the interview can be conducted more smoothly. We would appreciate it if you could understand this as experts opinion in this context.

Comment 3: I apologize for not writing it down in detail in the paper. The pilot test was conducted with 2 people at a time, and a total of 4 people with disabilities participated, 2 people with spinal cord injuries and 2 people with muscular diseases, as we revised the paper. However, it may have been difficult to obtain sufficient results from a pilot test of four people. We wrote about this as a limitation of this study. In addition, there are many studies that suggest interview guide methodologies, but they are often not documented or somewhat implicit to be utilized for direct development, so they do not strictly follow a specific methodology (Kalender, 2023). We list this as a limitation of this study, also.

Comment 4: Research has shown that conducting a pilot test helps to improve many errors and limitations in interview design (Kvale, 2007). Furthermore, some studies suggest that pilot testing should be done with people interested in the research (Daniel, 2010). We invited an expert who has been active in assistive technology for over 14 years. Still, as you pointed out, there is a legitimate concern that expert advice can introduce subjective experience. We have included this as a limitation of this study, and we believe that more expert consultations, such as a Delphi survey, may be necessary in the future.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the authors developed an interview questionnaire to improve the service and products by disability type. Overall, the article seems very interesting.

 

I present my comments and suggestions for changes in relation to the following parts of the article.

 

The grammer of the writing has some errors throughout the manuscript and need to be checked and corrected. This will improve the work greatly and will make it more readable.

- (Line 23-24, Line 39-41, Line 57-59, Line 68-70, Line 275-276) 

 

The study focused on subjects with physical disabilities (spinal injuries and muscle disorders). However, I think it is very important to describe other information (age, disease period, etc.) about the subjects who participated in the study.

 

In the text, the research process is described as developing the final version based on the results of the first and second pilot tests. However, in Figure 1, it does not seem to proceed to the stage of developing the final version after consulting experts on the results of the second pilot test. Please modify Figure 1 for the reader's understanding.

 

I think that the discussion of this paper should be described in more detail by comparing or referring to the results of existing studies. For this, it would be better to separate the discussion and conclusion sections.

 

In the conclusion, the positive aspects of the developed interview questions were discussed. It's a pilot test, but can we expect a positive effect with just the results of the two people?

 

The limitations of the study have not been mentioned. Please, add a limitation section.

The grammer of the writing has some errors throughout the manuscript and need to be checked and corrected. This will improve the work greatly and will make it more readable.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed reviews. 
We have taken your comments as much as possible and have implemented them as follows.

1. We revised the grammar as well as the overall content of the paper. 

2. We have added additional information about the four participants in the pilot test to the 'Research Method'. 

3. It is correct that we developed the interview questionnaire and interview guide after the pilot test and expert consultation. We apologize for any misunderstanding caused by the lack of detail in the original paper. We have added more details about the research process in general as well as Figure 1. 

4. We have separated the conclusions and limitations of the paper and enriched it by referring to existing research papers.

5. I apologize for not writing it down in detail in the paper. The pilot test was conducted with 2 people at a time, and a total of 4 people with disabilities participated, 2 people with spinal cord injuries and 2 people with muscular diseases, as we revised the paper. However, it may have been difficult to obtain sufficient results from a pilot test of four people. We wrote about this as a limitation of this study. 

Reviewer 4 Report

First of all, I want to congratulate the authors of this study. In fact, it is a relevant topic for the academic and scientific community.

I give some observations, which should be taken into account by the authors.

1. Comply with the journal's rules for bibliographic referencing. The entire manuscript should be corrected.

2. Clarify the theoretical framework that supports the study's methodology.

3. What is the impact of this study? And what are its limitations? These aspects should be clarified.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed reviews. 
We have taken your suggestions as much as possible and have implemented them as follows.

1. I re-familiarized myself with the formatting of the paper and revised the rules for references, etc.

2. Many studies suggest interview guide methodologies, but they are often not documented or somewhat implicitly expressed to be utilized for direct development, so they do not strictly follow a specific methodology (Kalender, 2023). This is listed as a limitation of this study.

3. The impacts and limitations of this study are separated and described in the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I think it is well done, thereby making it easy to understand.

 

Congratulations for the work done.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors clarified several questions, that improve the manuscript. 

Accept for publication.