IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2019 - 34

participation in the postphase, especially those who attended
all of the scheduled sessions. In this sense, they improved
between 1 and 3 points. This demonstrates how patients 1
and 2, with different pathologies (ICP and OBPP, respectively,
in the left limb) and who attended all of the sessions,
improved by 3 and 2 points, respectively. Patients 4 and 7,
who attended only half of the sessions, did not show
improvement in their ranges of motion.
Regarding the QUEST scale, patient 2, who presented an
with ICP in the left limb, showed an improvement of approximately 3 points after attending all of the motor training sessions with the robotic platform. Patient 8, however, who
presented with an ICP in the right limb and attended nearly all
of the sessions (i.e., 13 of 15), showed an improvement of 0.39.
H5 was supported by those participants who registered better
clinical results.

from questionnaires administered to patients, relatives, and
clinical experts. The value items are included in the different
quantitative dimensions previously described in Table 1. In
the case of patients and relatives, the questionnaires were
completed during the three stages defined in the evaluation
procedure, whereas the results of the clinical experts correspond with an evaluation questionnaire answered at the end
of the experimental period.
Quantitative Dimension
For patient satisfaction, Table 5 shows the results obtained
from the evaluation after administering the patient questionnaire for the different quantitative dimensions. The results
refer to the average responses of the eight patients from 0 to 5,
with 0 being the worst and 5 being the best result, and their
deviations for each of the three evaluations defined in the
evaluation design, as shown in Figure 6.
According to the results shown in Table 5, the robotic platform was accepted by patients who considered it useful (I.1),
with a slight improvement (i.e., 4.63 out of 5 in the third evaluation, with an improvement over the second evaluation by
0.38). The patients also considered it easy to use, obtaining an

Usability and Satisfaction Assessment
The second part of the evaluation was focused on usability
and the satisfaction of patients, relatives, and health-care professionals in quantitative and qualitative aspects. Tables 5, 6,
and 7 show the satisfaction and usability results obtained

Table 4. The clinical results in terms of the MACS, Mallet, and QUEST scales.
ID
Number

MACS

Mallet

First

Second

Third

QUEST

First

Second

Third

D

First

Second

Third

D

1

-

2

2

2

-

16

16

19

+3

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

4

4

4

-

17

17

19

+2

-

45.12

45.12

48

+ 2.88

3

-

2

2

2

-

19

19

20

+1

-

-

-

-

-

4

-

2

2

2

-

19

19

19

0

-

-

-

-

-

5

-

2

2

2

-

18

18

19

+1

-

-

-

-

-

6

-

1

1

1

-

18

18

19

+1

-

-

-

-

-

7

-

2

2

2

-

19

19

19

0

-

-

-

-

-

13

8

-

4

4

4

-

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

17.38 ± 17.38 ±
2.07
2.07

14

+1

-

41.09

41.09

41.48

+ 0.39

18.5 ±
1.85

+1.13 ±
0.99

-

43.11 ±
2.85

43.11 ±
2.85

44.74 ±
4.61

+1.64 ±
1.76

Table 5. The patients' results from the Satisfaction and Usability Questionnaire.
Dimension

34

*

Value Item

Evaluation by Patients
First

Second

Third

Perceived utility

I.1

4.25 ± 0.89

4.38 ± 0.74

4.63 ± 0.74

Easy to use

I.3

4.13 ± 0.74

4 ± 1.2

4.38 ± 0.92

I.4

5±0

4.88 ± 0.35

5±0

Facilitating conditions

I.5

4.63 ± 0.52

3.88 ± 1.13

4.25 ± 0.89

Empathy/social interaction

I.6

4.38 ± 0.92

4.63 ± 0.74

4.75 ± 0.46

I.8

4.63 ± 0.74

4.63 ± 0.52

4.75 ± 0.71

I.9

4.63 ± 0.74

4.5 ± 0.93

4.75 ± 0.71

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

*

JUNE 2019
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - June 2019
