Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:11:41.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual variability and environmental characteristics influence older adults' abilities to manage everyday technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Camilla Malinowsky ,
Ove Almkvist ,
Louise Nygård  and
Anders Kottorp
Camilla Malinowsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Ove Almkvist
Affiliation:
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Louise Nygård
Affiliation:
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Anders Kottorp
Affiliation:
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Camilla Malinowsky, Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Box 23200, S-141 83 Huddinge, Sweden. Phone: +46 (8) 524 837 52; Fax: +46 (8) 34 50 14. Email: camilla.malinowsky@ki.se.
Get access

Abstract

Background: The ability to manage everyday technology (ET), such as computers and microwave ovens, is increasingly required in the performance of everyday activities and participation in society. This study aimed to identify aspects that influence the ability to manage ET among older adults with and without cognitive impairment.

Methods: Older adults with mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment and without known cognitive impairment were assessed as they managed their ET at home. Data were collected using the Management of Everyday Technology Assessment (META). Rasch-based measures of the person's ability to manage ET were analyzed. These measures were used as dependent variables in backward procedure ANOVA analyses. Different predefined aspects that could influence the ability to manage ET were used as independent variables.

Results: Three aspects had a significant effect upon the ability to manage ET. These were: (1) variability in intrapersonal capacities (such as “the capacity to pay attention and focus”, (2) environmental characteristics (such as “the impact of the design”) and (3) diagnostic group.

Conclusions: Variability in intrapersonal capacities seems to be of more importance than the actual level of intrapersonal capacity in relation to the ability to manage ET for this sample. This implies that investigations of ability to manage ET should also include intraperson variability. Additionally, adaptations in environmental characteristics could simplify the management of ET to support older adults as technology users.

Keywords

Alzheimer's diseasemild cognitive impairmentADLIADL
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , March 2012 , pp. 484 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (1995). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th edn (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Artero, S. et al. (2008). Risk profiles for mild cognitive impairment and progression to dementia are gender specific. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 79, 979–984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, T. G. and Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Sankaran, N. N., Rogers, W. A. and Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21, 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, K., Carreon, D. and Stump, C. (2000). The therapeutic design of environments for people with dementia: a review of the empirical research. The Gerontologist, 40, 397–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emiliani, P. L. (2006). Assistive Technology (AT) versus Mainstream Technology (MST): the research perspective. Technology and Disability, 18, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farias, S. T., Mungas, D., Reed, B. R., Harvey, D., Cahn-Weiner, D. and DeCarli, C. (2006). MCI is associated with deficits in everyday functioning. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 20, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giovannetti, T., Bettcher, B. M., Libon, D., Brennan, L., Sestito, N. and Kessler, R. K. (2007). Environmental adaptations improve everyday action performance in Alzheimer's disease: empirical support from performance-based assessment. Neuropsychology, 21, 448–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtzer, R., Verghese, J., Wang, C., Hall, C. B. and Lipton, R. B. (2008) Within-person across-neuropsychological test variability and incident dementia. JAMA, 300, 823–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kielhofner, G. (2008). A Model of Human Occupation: Theory and Application (4th edn). Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Lewis, T., Langdon, P. M. and Clarkson, P. J. (2008). Prior experience of domestic microwave cooker interfaces: a user study. In Langdon, P., Clarkson, J. and Robinson, P. (eds.), Designing Inclusive Futures (pp. 95–106). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (1987–2006). FACETS: Many-faceted Rasch Measurement Computer Program (Version 3.61). Chicago: MESA.Google Scholar
Lövdén, M., Li, S-C, Shing, Y. L. and Lindenberger, U. (2007). Within-person trial-to-trial variability precedes and predicts cognitive decline in old and very old: longitudinal data from the Berlin Aging Study. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2827–2838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malinowsky, C., Almkvist, O., Kottorp, A. and Nygård, L. (2010). Ability to manage everyday technology: a comparison of persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5, 462–469.Google ScholarPubMed
Malinowsky, C., Nygård, L. and Kottorp, A. (2011) Psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of the ability to manage technology in everyday life for persons with or without cognitive impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 18, 26–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D. and Stadlan, E. M. (1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. Neurology, 34, 939–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygård, L. (2008). The meaning of everyday technology as experienced by people with dementia who live alone. Dementia, 7, 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nygård, L. and Starkhammar, S. (2007). The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: mapping out the difficulties. Aging & Mental Health, 11, 144–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pereira, F. S., Yassuda, M. S., Oliveira, A. M. and Forlenza, O. V. (2008). Executive dysfunction correlates with impaired functional status in older adults with varying degrees of cognitive impairment. International Psychogeriatrics, 20, 1104–1115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perneczky, R. et al. (2006). Complex activities of daily living in mild cognitive impairment: conceptual and diagnostic issues. Age & Ageing, 35, 240–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, R. C. (2004). Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. Journal of Internal Medicine, 256, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, L., Kottorp, A., Winblad, B. and Nygård, L. (2009). Perceived difficulty in everyday technology use among older adults with or without cognitive deficits. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16, 216–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royall, D. R., Lauterbach, E. C., Kaufer, D., Malloy, P., Coburn, K. L. and Black, K. J. (2007). The cognitive correlates of functional status: a review from the Committee on Research of the American Neuropsychiatric Association. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 3, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., Furlong, J. and Madden, L. (2003). Older adults’ use of information and communication technology in everyday life. Ageing & Society, 23, 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slegers, K., van Boxtel, M. P. J. and Jolles, J. (2007). The effects of computer training and Internet usage on the use of everyday technology by older adults: a randomized controlled study. Educational Gerontology, 33, 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topo, P. (2009). Technology studies to meet the needs of people with dementia and their caregivers: a literature review. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 28, 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hooren, S. A. H., van Boxtel, M. P. J., Valentijn, S. A. M., Bosma, H., Ponds, R. W. H. M. and Jolles, J. (2005). Influence of cognitive functioning on functional status in an older population: 3- and 6-year follow-up of the Maastricht Aging Study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 883–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winblad, B. et al. (2004). Mild cognitive impairment – beyond controversies, toward a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Internal Medicine, 256, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar