Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Validation of the PTPI Scale for Technology Products Among Users with Disabilities

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (HCII 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14020))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1239 Accesses

Abstract

The Perceptions of Technology Product Inclusivity (PTPI) Scale was previously validated to assess perceptions of inclusivity with a wide variety of technology products and users. This study explores the use of the PTPI with a specific population, technology product users with disabilities, to determine if the scale appropriately assesses their perceptions of technology product inclusivity. The PTPI was administered via Qualtrics to 201 participants who self-reported having a disability. The technology products evaluated in this study covered 23 categories and contained a variety of products within those categories. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess model fit. The CFA results indicated that the PTPI has acceptable model fit for all five subscales: Personal Connection, Product Challenges, Confidence in Usage, Meets Expectations, and Company Empathy. Thus, the PTPI is appropriate to use with technology product users with disabilities. Future research can be done to show how the validated 5-factor PTPI varies across technology products targeted to disabled users to identify design characteristics contributing to perceptions of inclusivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Coelho, P.S., Henseler, J.: Creating customer loyalty through service customization. Eur. J. Mark. (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sashi, C.M.: Customer engagement, buyer‐seller relationships, and social media. Manage. Decision (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, D., Coelho, P.S., Vilares, M.J.: Service personalization and loyalty. J. Serv. Mark. (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bock, D.E., Mangus, S.M., Folse, J.A.G.: The road to customer loyalty is paved with service customization. J. Bus. Res. 69(10), 3923–3932 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shin, S.-A., Jang, J.-O., Kim, J.-K., Cho, E.-H.: Relations of conspicuous consumption tendency, self-expression satisfaction, and SNS use satisfaction of Gen Z through SNS activities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18(22), 11979 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lee, Y.: A study on the effects of the SNS use focused on the social relationships on the self-expression in SNS, off-line activity, and the life satisfaction. J. Convergen. Culture Technol. 6(1), 301–312 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Holmes, K.: Mismatch: How Inclusion Shapes Design. The MIT Press (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rowlands, L.: ‘Ugly’ hearing aid ad leaves parents fuming. Stuff (2015). https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/baby/caring-for-baby/68919793/ugly-hearing-aid-ad-leaves-parents-fuming. Accessed 12 Sept 2022

  9. Van Ommen, C., Chaparro, B.S., Keebler, J.R., Batra, S., Lu, M.: Development and validation of a scale to assess consumer perceptions of technology product inclusivity (PTPI). Manuscript submitted for publication (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Erickson, W., Lee, C., von Schrader, S.: Disability Statistics from the American Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Yang-Tan Institute (YTI). Retrieved from Cornell University Disability Statistics (2022). www.disabilitystatistics.org

  11. Yin, M., Shaewitz, D., Overton, C., Smith, D.-M.: A hidden market: the purchasing power of working-age adults with disabilities. American Institutes for Research (2018). Retrieved January 18, 2023, from https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Hidden-Market-Spending-Power-of-People-with-Disabilities-April-2018.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2023

  12. The Nielsen Company. Reaching prevalent, diverse consumers with disabilities (2016). http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reportsdownloads/2016-reports/reaching-prevalent-diverse-consumers-with-disabilities.pdf

  13. Business Disability Forum. (Technology and entertainment media: What disabled consumers choose to buy and why (2022). https://businessdisabilityforum.org.uk/knowledge-hub/resources/technology-what-disabled-consumers-choose-to-buy-and-why/. Accessed 18 Jan 2023

  14. Brooke, J.: SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usabil. Evalu. Indust. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Finney, S.J., DiStefano, C.: Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: Hancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O. (eds.) Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, 2nd edn, pp. 269–314. IAP, Charlotte, NC (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bentler, P.M.: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107(2), 238 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Steiger, J.H.: Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tucker, L., Lewis, C.: A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38, 1–10 (1973)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Hu, L., Bentler, P.M.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. SEM. 6(1), 1–55 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R.: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, vol. 154, pp. 136–136 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., Strahan, E.J.: Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 4, 272–299 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gaskin, J.: ValidityMaster, Stats Tools Package (2016). http://statwiki.gaskination.com. Accessed 7 Feb 2023

  23. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R.: Multivariate data analysis 7th edn.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Van Ommen, C., & Chaparro, B. S.: Assessing video game satisfaction of gamers with disabilities. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 822–826. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Sage CA (2021)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a fellowship awarded to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University by Google to study factors contributing to perceptions of inclusive design of technology. The fellowship provided stipend and tuition to CVO. Participant compensation was provided through funding by Google.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Factors and Behavioral Neurobiology, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, 32114, USA

    Carmen Van Ommen, Barbara S. Chaparro & Joseph R. Keebler

  2. Google LLC., User Research, Devices and Services, Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA

    Sanjay Batra & Mei Lu

Authors
  1. Carmen Van Ommen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara S. Chaparro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph R. Keebler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sanjay Batra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mei Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara S. Chaparro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Foundation for Research and Technology, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Margherita Antona

  2. Foundation for Research and Technology, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Constantine Stephanidis

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 PTPI

Instructions: Please rate the following statements on a scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. If a statement does not apply, select “N/A” (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Rating Scale

Full size image

Personal Connection

  1. 1.

    I have a sense of belonging when I use this product.

  2. 2.

    The look of this product allows me to feel like I belong.

  3. 3.

    I feel a personal connection to this product.

  4. 4.

    When using this product, I feel my choices express my “true self”.

Product Challenges

  1. 5.

    This product is emotionally demanding to use.

  2. 6.

    This product is mentally demanding to use.

  3. 7.

    This product is physically demanding to use.

  4. 8.

    For this product to work, I had to make changes to it beyond my expectations.

  5. 9.

    It’s hard for me to use this product on my own.

  6. 10.

    When using this product, I struggle to do things I should be good at.

  7. 11.

    When using this product, I feel like my actions had unintended consequences.

Confidence in Usage

  1. 12.

    I am confident that I know how to use this product.

  2. 13.

    It is easy for me to learn how to use this product.

  3. 14.

    I am good at using this product.

  4. 15.

    I feel very capable using this product.

  5. 16.

    It’s easy for me to remember how to use this product.

Meets Expectations

  1. 17.

    This product meets my expectations.

  2. 18.

    This product is reliable.

  3. 19.

    I consider my product usage experience a success.

  4. 20.

    This product works well for me.

  5. 21.

    I feel in control of my product experience.

  6. 22.

    There is a good fit between what this product offers me and what I am looking for in this product.

Company Empathy

  1. 23.

    Overall, the company that made this product is trustworthy.

  2. 24.

    The company that made this product makes good-faith efforts to address the concerns of customers like me.

  3. 25.

    I feel like the company considered the needs of customers like me when designing this product.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Van Ommen, C., Chaparro, B.S., Keebler, J.R., Batra, S., Lu, M. (2023). Validation of the PTPI Scale for Technology Products Among Users with Disabilities. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. HCII 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14020. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35681-0_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35681-0_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35680-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35681-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics