Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 147–160 | Cite as

Comprehensive assessment for motor and visually impaired people using a hierarchical model

  • Awais Ahmad Khan
  • Ghassan Ali Kbar
  • Naveed Ahmad
Long Paper


The evolution of various modern technologies has inspired researchers to assess the effectiveness of these technologies for people with diversified disabilities. In this article, a comprehensive and effective assessment method for motor and visually impaired people has been accomplished using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). In the first phase, the proposed evaluation is based on the comparative judgment of the clinical experts using the AHP rating scale. In the second phase, the evaluation is authenticated by incorporating user judgment scores based on multi-weighted scoring model (MWSM). The MWSM output values are then converted to the AHP scale. The AHP algorithm is applied on the basis of average scores obtained from both evaluations. The technique successfully explores the essential, supporting and optional technologies for various people with disabilities (PwD) as well as identifying the criteria weight used for assessing research articles and existing solutions. Moreover, the assessment criteria are used by MWSM to assess research papers related to motor and visual impairment conditions. The assessment techniques have successfully identified the relevant criteria that can be used to assess technological research papers. It also reports the suitability of the various technological solutions and explores the limitations of the designed technological solutions for PwDs.


Motor and visual impairment AHP MWSM People with disabilities 



Funding was provided by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (Grant No. 12-ELE3220–02).

Supplementary material

10209_2017_523_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 42 kb)
10209_2017_523_MOESM2_ESM.docx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 39 kb)


  1. 1.
    Phillison, D.K.: Rapid prototyping machine selection programme. In: 6th European Conference on Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing, Nottingham, UK (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Phamand, D.T., Gault, R.S.: A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 38, 1257–1287 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S.: Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 169(1), 1–29 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanumaiah, N., Ravi, B., Mukherjee, N.P.: Rapid hard tooling process selection using QFD-AHP methodology. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 17(3), 332–350 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanumaiah, N., Ravi, B., Mukherjee, N.P.: Rapid tooling manufacturability evaluation using fuzzy-AHP methodology. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45(5), 1161–1181 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, C.W., Kwak, N.K.: Information resource planning for a health-care system using an AHP-based goal programming method. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 50, 1191–1198 (1999)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singpurwalla, N., Forman, E., Zalkind, D.: Promoting shared health care decision making using the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 33(4), 277–299 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forgionne, G.A., Kohli, R.: A multi-criteria assessment of decision technology system and journal quality. Inf. Manag. 38(7), 421–435 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tadisina, S.K., Troutt, M.D., Bhasin, V.: Selecting a doctoral programme using the analytic hierarchy process—the importance of perspective. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 42, 631–638 (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Byun, D.H.: The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model. Inf. Manag. 38(5), 289–297 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., Ulukan, Z.: Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist. Inf. Manag. 16(6), 382–394 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang, P.T., Yu-Ting, L.: Modelling of job-shop scheduling with multiple quantitative and qualitative objectives and a GA/TS mixture approach. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 14(4), 367–384 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hersh, M.A.: The Design and evaluation of assistive technology products and devices part 3: outcomes of assistive product use. In: Stone, J.H., Blouin, M. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation (2010). http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/312/
  14. 14.
    Day, H., Jutai, J., Campbell, K.A.: Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil. Rehabil. 24, 31–37 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fuhrer, M.J., Jutai, J.W., Schererand, M.J., Deruyter, F.: A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil. Rehabil. 25(22), 1243–1251 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gelderblom, G.J., de Witteand, L.P., Wessels, R.D.: European instruments for assistive technology outcome assessment. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, pp 777–781, ICCHP 2002 Linz, Austria, 15–20 July, 2002. doi: 10.1007/3-540-45491-8_154
  17. 17.
    Kbar, G., Bhatia, A., Abidi, M.H., Alsharawy, I.: Assistive technologies for hearing, and speaking impaired people: a survey. Disabil. Rehabil.: Assist. Technol. (2016). doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1129456 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ho, W.: Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications–a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 186(1), 211–228 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saaty, T.L.: The ANALYTIC Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw Hill. International, Translated to Russian, Portuguese, and Chinese, Revised editions, Paperback (1996, 2000), RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1980)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anacan, R., Alcayde, J.G., Antegra, R., Luna, L.: Eye-GUIDE (Eye-gaze user interface design) messaging for physically-impaired people. Int. J. Distrib. Parallel Syst. (IJDPS) 4(1), 41 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strassel, S.,Miller, D., Walker, K., Cieri, C.: Shared resources for robust speech-to-text technology. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Geneva, 2003Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yella Reddy, G., Reddy, M.R.: Design of ultrasonic spectacles, flex sensor based voice generation and speech to text (Data) conversion techniques for physically disable people. Int. J. Res. Electron. Commun. Eng. 1(2), 12–22 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peixoto, N., Nik, H.G., Charkhkar, H.: Voice controlled wheelchairs: fine control by humming. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 112, 156–165 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Omar, C., Akce, A., Johnson, M., Bretl, T., Maclin, E., McCormick, M., Coleman, T.P.: A Feedback Information-theoretic approach to the design of brain-computer interfaces. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 27(1), 5–23 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deshpande, S., Betke, M.: RefLink: an interface that enables people with motion impairments to analyze web content and dynamically link to references. Technical Report BUCS-TR-2009-008, Computer Science Department, Boston University, 11 March, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/2144/1732. Accessed 2 Jan 2016
  26. 26.
    Connor, C., Yu, E., Magee, J., Cansizoglu, E., Epstein, S., Betke, M.: Movement and recovery analysis of a mouse-replacement interface for users with severe disabilities. Univers. Access Hum.-Comput. Interact. 56, 493–502 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Betke, M., Mullally, W., Magee, J.: Active detection of eye scleras in real time. In: Proceedings of Human Modeling, Analysis and Synthesis, IEEE CVPR Workshop, June, 2000Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Magee, J., Betke, M.: HAIL: hierarchical adaptive interface layout. In: Proceedings of International conference on Computers helping people, vol. 1, pp. 139–146. Berlin, 2010Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Magee, J., Chennamaneni, Z.H., Epstein, S., Diane, H.T., Betke, M.: Towards a multi-camera mouse-replacement interface. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop of Pattern Recognition in Information Systems, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, 8–12 June, 2010Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang, C.H., Huang, H.C., Chuang, L.Y., Yang, C.H.: A mobile communication aid system for persons with physical disabilities. Math. Comput. Model. 47, 318–327 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krishnamurthy, G., Ghovanloo, M.: Tongue drive: a tongue operated magnetic sensor based wireless assistive technology for people with severe disabilities. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium of Circuits and Systems, pp. 5551–5554. Greece, 21–24 May 2006Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gautam, G., Sumanth, G., Karthikeyan, K.C., Sundar, S., Venkataraman, D.: Eye movement based electronic wheel chair for physically challenged persons. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 3(1), 206–212 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Renteria, A., Dominguez, A., Muñoz, J.A., Lorente, J.L.: Mobile systems for guidance of dependent people: integration of user requirements and location based services. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Haptimap Pervasive, Finland, 2010Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang, Q., Gollakota, S., Taskar, B., and Rao, R.P.N.: Non-intrusive tongue machine interface. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2555–2558. Toronto, Canada, 2014Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rabiner, R.L.: A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proc. IEEE 77(2), 257–286 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harper, S., Yesilada, Y., Chen, T.: Mobile device impairment … similar problems, similar solutions? Beh. Inf. Technol. 30(5), 673–690 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Biswas, P., Robinson, P.: Evaluating interface layout for visually and mobility impaired users through simulation. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 12(1), 1–18 (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lancioni, G.E., O’Reilly, M.F., Singh, N.N., Sigafoos, J., Oliva, D., Alberti, G., Lang, R.: Two adults with multiple disabilities use a computer-aided telephone system to make phone calls independently. Res. Dev. Disabil. 32, 2330–2335 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shinoda, K., Watanabe, Y., Iwata, K., Liang, Y., Nakagawa, R., Furui, S.: Semi-synchronous speech and pen input for mobile user interfaces. Speech Commun. 53(3), 283–291 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kbar, G., Daraiseh, A., Aly, A., Abidi, M., Syed, M.: Assessment of technologies relevant for people with motor hearing and speaking impairment. IETE Technical Review, Apr 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Awais Ahmad Khan
    • 1
  • Ghassan Ali Kbar
    • 2
  • Naveed Ahmad
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Engineering and TechnologyLahorePakistan
  2. 2.Riyadh Techno ValleyKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering DepartmentUniversity of Engineering and TechnologyLahorePakistan
  4. 4.Princess Fatima Alnijiris’s Research Chair for Advanced Manufacturing Technology (FARCAMT)King Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations