Table 2.
Importance of exoskeleton design features
| Exoskeleton design features | Mean importance | Standard deviation | Median importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimizes risk of falling | 4.54 | 0.828 | 5 |
| Purchase cost | 4.39 | 0.912 | 5 |
| Comfort | 4.38 | 0.838 | 5 |
| Repair and maintenance cost | 4.34 | 0.844 | 4 |
| Ease of putting on and taking off the device | 4.25 | 1.033 | 5 |
| Range of battery life | 4.23 | 0.859 | 4 |
| Ability to walk on uneven surfaces | 4.22 | 0.922 | 4 |
| Amount of energy needed for use | 4.15 | 1.015 | 4 |
| Ability to carry out daily tasks while standing | 4.13 | 0.946 | 4 |
| Portability of the device | 4.09 | 0.942 | 4 |
| Ability to toilet | 4.05 | 1.071 | 4 |
| Ability to use to get in and out of a car | 3.97 | 1.033 | 4 |
| Ability to climb stairs | 3.91 | 1.029 | 4 |
| Ability to use without arm crutches | 3.71 | 1.006 | 4 |
| Walking speed | 3.64 | 0.985 | 4 |
| Length of training to become proficient | 3.34 | 1.082 | 3 |
| Overall appearance | 3.23 | 1.177 | 3 |
| Valid N = 405 |
Descriptive statistics used to illustrate the difference in importance between ratings of 17 potential design features. These features were ranked by respondents on a Likert scale from 1 – Very Unimportant, to 5 – Very Important.