| Literature DB >> 35206858 |
Tsen-Yao Chang1, Shao-Wei Huang2.
Abstract
By the end of 2020, a total of 34 multifunctional Assistive Technology Resources Centers (ATR centers) were set up in 22 counties and cities in Taiwan. This study examines the perceptions of the users and their caregivers of the government-established ATR centers in Taiwan and examines the impact on the reputation of the public institution. The research framework and hypotheses were developed by examining the factors of "service convenience", "center-related factors", "justice", and "perceived value" and using "perceived value" as a mediating variable. The data were collected through a questionnaire survey, and the structural equation model was used to test the model and verify the hypotheses. Research data was collected in various townships in Yunlin County A total of 320 questionnaires were collected. Of these respondents, 22% were aged 51-60. All the research hypotheses were positively and significantly verified. Of these, justice was the most important factor affecting the value of the ATR center's services compared to convenience and center-related factors. Of convenience, service value and justice, service value was the most important factor affecting the perceived reputation of the public institution. According to the findings of this study, it is beyond expectation that the convenience of ATR is not the main factor influencing the service value, but rather the perceived justice is the most important factor. Therefore, ATR should be prioritized from the perspective of the service recipient, especially the perceived justice of the service, in order to best enhance the value of the service and improve the reputation of the public institution.Entities:
Keywords: assistive technology resources center; assistive technology services; public institution reputation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206858 PMCID: PMC8872573 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10020243
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Taichung City South District Assistive Resource Center (the image was shot by the authors).
Figure 2Assistive Resource Center in Yunlin County (the image was shot by the authors).
Figure 3Assistive aid assessment at school (the image was shot by the authors).
Figure 4Research Model.
Demographic data.
| Variable | Value Label |
|---|---|
| Gender | Male |
| Female | |
| Age | 21–30 years old |
| 31–40 years old | |
| 41–50 years old | |
| 51–60 years old | |
| 61–70 years old | |
| 71–80 years old | |
| 81 years or above | |
| Physical and Mental Disorders Qualifications | People with disabilities |
| “No” physical or mental disability eligibility-“Yes” used long term care services | |
| “No” physical or mental disability eligibility-“No” use of long-term care services | |
| Physical and Mental Disorders Category | Category 1–Category 8 |
| Physical and mental impairment level | Others |
| “No” physical or mental disability qualification | |
| Mild | |
| Moderate | |
| Severe or above | |
| No physical or mental disability qualification | |
| Identity of the respondent | Aid device users themselves |
| Caregiver or family member | |
| Others |
Frequency distribution table.
| Variable | Value Label | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 114 | 39.6 |
| Female | 174 | 60.4 | |
| Age | 21–30 years old | 35 | 12.2 |
| 31–40 years old | 33 | 11.5 | |
| 41–50 years old | 50 | 17.4 | |
| 51–60 years old | 64 | 22.2 | |
| 61–70 years old | 32 | 11.1 | |
| 71–80 years old | 33 | 11.5 | |
| 81 years or above | 41 | 14.2 | |
| Physical and Mental Disorders Qualifications | People with disabilities | 121 | 42.0 |
| “No” physical or mental disability eligibility-“Yes” used long term care services | 57 | 19.8 | |
| “No” physical or mental disability eligibility-“No” use of long-term care services | 110 | 38.2 | |
| Physical and Mental Disorders Category | Category 7 | 82 | 28.5 |
| Physical and mental impairment level | Others | 39 | 13.5 |
| “No” physical or mental disability qualification | 167 | 58.0 | |
| Mild | 31 | 10.8 | |
| Moderate | 37 | 12.8 | |
| Severe or above | 53 | 18.4 | |
| No physical or mental disability qualification | 167 | 58.0 | |
| Identity of the respondent | Aid device users themselves | 75 | 26.0 |
| Caregiver or family member | 203 | 70.5 | |
| Others | 10 | 3.5 |
Service received from the ART center.
| Service | N | Percentage | Observation Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Consulting | 139 | 21.5% | 48.3% |
|
Lending | 127 | 19.6% | 44.1% |
|
Assessment | 126 | 19.5% | 43.8% |
|
Subsidy Application | 114 | 17.6% | 39.6% |
|
Repairing | 77 | 11.9% | 26.7% |
|
Recycling | 27 | 4.2% | 9.4% |
|
Fitting & Training | 25 | 3.9% | 8.7% |
|
Others | 12 | 1.9% | 4.2% |
| Total | 647 | 100.0% | 224.7% |
Note: N = Number of respondents answering the question option.
Types and locations of assistive device services in Yunlin County.
| Service Type and Location | N | Percentage | Observation Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
|
ATR centers (Douliu and Beigang) | 243 | 63.6% | 87.7% |
|
Assistive technology service bases (Tukou Health Center, Taisi Health Center, Yunji Hospital, Beima Hospital, Rouser Hospital, and Huwei Complex) | 103 | 27.0% | 37.2% |
|
Assistive technology convenience stations (ownship health center) | 36 | 9.4% | 13.0% |
| Total | 382 | 100.0% | 137.9% |
Note: N = Number of respondents answering the question option.
Results for the measurement model.
| Construct | Item | Significance of Estimated Parameters | Item Reliability | Construct Reliability | Convergence Validity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstd. | S.E. | Unstd./S.E. | Std. | SMC | CR | AVE | |||
| SEC | SEC1 | 1.000 | 0.846 | 0.716 | 0.932 | 0.698 | |||
| SEC2 | 0.979 | 0.064 | 15.276 | 0.000 | 0.751 | 0.564 | |||
| SEC3 | 1.161 | 0.068 | 17.138 | 0.000 | 0.811 | 0.658 | |||
| SEC4 | 1.114 | 0.075 | 14.926 | 0.000 | 0.743 | 0.552 | |||
| SEC5 | 1.128 | 0.052 | 21.504 | 0.000 | 0.923 | 0.852 | |||
| SEC6 | 1.105 | 0.052 | 21.396 | 0.000 | 0.920 | 0.846 | |||
| CRF | CRF1 | 1.000 | 0.780 | 0.608 | 0.913 | 0.677 | |||
| CRF2 | 0.989 | 0.059 | 16.735 | 0.000 | 0.869 | 0.755 | |||
| CRF3 | 0.936 | 0.065 | 14.294 | 0.000 | 0.808 | 0.653 | |||
| CRF4 | 0.911 | 0.067 | 13.655 | 0.000 | 0.783 | 0.613 | |||
| CRF5 | 0.887 | 0.058 | 15.341 | 0.000 | 0.869 | 0.755 | |||
| JUS | JUS1 | 1.000 | 0.766 | 0.587 | 0.917 | 0.690 | |||
| JUS2 | 0.981 | 0.072 | 13.647 | 0.000 | 0.752 | 0.566 | |||
| JUS3 | 1.009 | 0.072 | 14.051 | 0.000 | 0.774 | 0.599 | |||
| JUS4 | 1.148 | 0.067 | 17.214 | 0.000 | 0.927 | 0.859 | |||
| JUS5 | 1.105 | 0.065 | 17.014 | 0.000 | 0.915 | 0.837 | |||
| PEV | PEV1 | 1.000 | 0.938 | 0.880 | 0.964 | 0.868 | |||
| PEV2 | 1.010 | 0.030 | 33.848 | 0.000 | 0.955 | 0.912 | |||
| PEV3 | 0.945 | 0.031 | 30.037 | 0.000 | 0.927 | 0.859 | |||
| PEV4 | 0.942 | 0.034 | 27.787 | 0.000 | 0.907 | 0.823 | |||
| RIP | RIP1 | 1.000 | 0.866 | 0.750 | 0.915 | 0.685 | |||
| RIP2 | 0.978 | 0.045 | 21.763 | 0.000 | 0.904 | 0.817 | |||
| RIP3 | 1.005 | 0.062 | 16.317 | 0.000 | 0.775 | 0.601 | |||
| RIP4 | 1.086 | 0.084 | 12.853 | 0.000 | 0.668 | 0.446 | |||
| RIP5 | 1.018 | 0.048 | 21.355 | 0.000 | 0.900 | 0.810 | |||
Note: Unstd. = Unstandardized factor loadings; Std = Standardized factor loadings; SMC = Square Multiple Correlations; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; SEC = Service Convenience; CRF = Center-related Factors; JUS = Justice; PEV = Perceived Value; RIP = Public Institution Reputation.
Discriminant validity for the measurement model.
| AVE | SEC | CRF | JUS | PEV | RIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC | 0.698 |
| ||||
| CRF | 0.677 | 0.531 |
| |||
| JUS | 0.690 | 0.511 | 0.569 |
| ||
| PEV | 0.868 | 0.467 | 0.559 | 0.583 |
| |
| RIP | 0.685 | 0.642 | 0.580 | 0.751 | 0.745 |
|
Note: The items on the diagonal on bold represent the square roots of the AVE; off-diagonal elements are the correlation estimates. SEC = Service Convenience; CRF = Center-related Factors; JUS = Justice; PEV = Perceived Value; RIP = Public Institution Reputation. The bold numbers in the diagonal direction represent the square roots of AVEs.
Model fit.
| Fit Indices | Criteria | Model Fit | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-square | 715.753 | ||
| Degree of freedom | 266 | ||
| CFI | >0.9 | 0.936 | Pass |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.077 | Pass |
| TLI | >0.9 | 0.927 | Pass |
| GFI | >0.9 | 0.902 | Pass |
| NFI | >0.9 | 0.902 | Pass |
| χ2/ | <3 | 2.688 | Pass |
| AGFI | >0.8 | 0.874 | Pass |
Regression coefficient.
| DV | IV | Unstd | S.E. | Unstd./S.E. | Std. | R2 | f2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEV | SEC | 0.150 | 0.068 | 2.217 | 0.027 | 0.135 | 0.428 | 0.012 |
| CRF | 0.284 | 0.066 | 4.278 | 0.000 | 0.287 | 0.070 | ||
| FAI | 0.388 | 0.073 | 5.322 | 0.000 | 0.351 | 0.108 | ||
| POR | SEC | 0.234 | 0.041 | 5.772 | 0.000 | 0.259 | 0.754 | 0.154 |
| FAI | 0.349 | 0.048 | 7.350 | 0.000 | 0.386 | 0.313 | ||
| PEV | 0.326 | 0.039 | 8.324 | 0.000 | 0.399 | 0.325 |
Note: SEC = Service Convenience; CRF = Center-related Factors; JUS = Justice; PEV = Perceived Value; RIP = Public Institution Reputation
Figure 5SEM model analysis.
The analysis of indirect effects.
| Effect | Point Estimate | Bootstrap 1000 Times | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias-Corrected 95% | |||||
| S.E. | Z-Value | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||
| Total effect | |||||
| SEC→RIP | 0.283 | 0.223 | 1.269 | 0.027 | 0.853 |
| Total indirect effect | |||||
| SEC→PEV→RIP | 0.049 | 0.097 | 0.501 | −0.008 | 0.515 |
| Direct effect | |||||
| SEC→RIP | 0.234 | 0.189 | 1.241 | 0.031 | 0.749 |
| Total effect | |||||
| CRF→RIP | 0.093 | 0.172 | 0.54 | 0 | 0.716 |
| Total indirect effect | |||||
| CRF→PEV→RIP | 0.093 | 0.172 | 0.54 | 0 | 0.716 |
| Total effect | |||||
| JUS→RIP | 0.476 | 0.327 | 1.454 | 0.125 | 1.12 |
| Total indirect effect | |||||
| JUS→PEV→RIP | 0.127 | 0.155 | 0.817 | 0.026 | 0.838 |
| Direct effect | |||||
| JUS→RIP | 0.349 | 0.329 | 1.062 | 0.031 | 1.08 |
Note: SEC = Service Convenience; CRF = Center-related Factors; JUS = Justice; PEV = Perceived Value; RIP = Public Institution Reputation.