Examining the impact of familiarity on faucet usability for older adults with dementia

BMC Geriatrics

Table 4 Faucets ranked by the odds of a person requiring any assistance and the odds of committing no errors when using the faucet to turn on the water for handwashing

Group	Odds based rank	Required assistance			Committed no errors
Group	Odds based rank	Faucet	Odds	P^*<0.05	Faucet	Odds	P^*<0.05
Aware/Mild^†,§	1	Crosshead	-		Dual Lever	-	-
	2	Single Lever	-	-	Crosshead	36.67	I, PW
	3	Infrared	-	-	Single Lever	18.50	I, PW
	4	Dual Lever	0.01	PW	Infrared	3.58	C, SL
	5	Plastic Wand	0.14	DL	Plastic Wand	2.00	C, SL
Moderate	1	Dual Lever	0.17	C, PW	Dual Lever	6.50	C, SL, I, PW
	2	Infrared	0.24	C, PW	Single Lever	2.33	DL, I, PW
	3	Single Lever	0.25	PW	Crosshead	1.62	DL, PW
	4	Crosshead	0.41	DL, I, PW	Infrared	0.91	DL, SL
	5	Plastic Wand	0.80	C, DL, I, SL	Plastic Wand	0.64	C, DL, SL
Severe^‡	1	Dual Lever	7.57	SL, I	Dual Lever	19.00	C, SL, I, PW
	2	Crosshead	8.50	I	Crosshead	3.07	DL, PW
	3	Single Lever	8.67	DL	Infrared	1.86	DL, PW
	4	Infrared	19.00	C, DL	Single Lever	1.64	DL, PW
	5	Plastic Wand	-	-	Plastic Wand	0.33	C, DL, SL, I

^* Wald Chi-sq P-values were calculated using pairwise comparisons run between faucet types within the same dementia group; C=crosshead, SL=Single Lever, DL=Dual Lever, I=Infrared, PW=Plastic Wand.
^† P-values could not be calculated for the crosshead, single lever, or infrared for the aware/mild group regarding assistance as these faucets required no assistance with these faucets.
^‡ P-values could not be calculated for the plastic wand regarding assistance with the severe group as all participants required assistance with this faucet.
^§ A pairwise comparison could not be done with the dual lever regarding errors with the aware/mild group as no participants committed an error using this faucet.

ISSN: 1471-2318