title: Durability, value, and reliability of selected electric powered wheelchairs.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the durability, value, and reliability of selected electric powered wheelchairs (EPWs), purchased in 1998.
  
  
  METHODS
  Engineering standards tests of quality and performance.
  
  
  METHODS
  A rehabilitation engineering center.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifteen EPWs: 3 each of the Jazzy, Quickie, Lancer, Arrow, and Chairman models.
  
  
  METHODS
  Not applicable.
  
  
  METHODS
  Wheelchairs were evaluated for durability (lifespan), value (durability, cost), and reliability (rate of repairs) using 2-drum and curb-drop machines in accordance with the standards of the American National Standards Institute and Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The 5 brands differed significantly (P<or=.05) in durability, value, and reliability, except in terms of reliability of supplier repairs. The Arrow had the highest durability, value, and reliability in terms of the number of consumer failures, supplier failures, repairs, failures, consumer repairs and failures, and supplier repairs and failures. The Lancer had the poorest durability and reliability, and the Chairman had the lowest value. K0014 wheelchairs (Arrow, Permobil) were significantly more durable than K0011 wheelchairs (Jazzy, Quickie, Lancer). No significant differences in durability with respect to rear-wheel-drive (Arrow, Lancer, Quickie), mid-wheel-drive (Jazzy), or front-wheel-drive (Chairman) wheelchairs were found.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The Arrow consistently outperformed the other wheelchairs in nearly every area studied, and K0014 wheelchairs were more durable than K0011 wheelchairs. These results can be used as an objective comparison guide for clinicians and consumers, as long as they are used in conjunction with other important selection criteria. Manufacturers can use these results as a guide for continued efforts to produce higher quality wheelchairs. Care should be taken when making comparisons, however, because the 5 brands had different features. Purchased in 1998, these models may be used for several more years. In addition, problem areas in these models may still be present in newer models.
authors.affiliation: Departments of Rehabilitation Science & Technology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Megan V
authors.initials: MV
authors.lastname: Fass
authors.forename: Rory A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Cooper
authors.forename: Shirley G
authors.initials: SG
authors.lastname: Fitzgerald
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schmeler
authors.forename: Michael L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Boninger
authors.forename: S David
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Algood
authors.forename: William A
authors.initials: WA
authors.lastname: Ammer
authors.forename: Andrew J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Rentschler
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Duncan
mesh_terms: D004560:Electricity; D004867:Equipment Design; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D008422:Materials Testing; D014910:Wheelchairs / Q000191:economics* / Q000592:standards*