arm which carries more of the force during a transfer than does the leading arm when moving toward a new surface. Additionally, from Figure 7 it can be seen that some study participants did not transfer entirely within the boundaries of the transfer station. The space needed by the study participants was compared to a turning space dimension as described in the ADA-ABA standards (60x60 inch space). All of the study participants were able to transfer within the 60 inch depth, in fact the largest depth dimension required by anyone subject was 55.5 inches. However, when looking at Protocol A for the maximum height transfer only 65% of the population could transfer entirely inside of the 60 x 55.5 inch defined space. For the transfer to a lower platform that number decreased to 53% when moving to the station and 56% when coming back to the station. (Protocol A). A similar trend for participants requiring more space to transfer lower versus higher was found for the other protocols as well (B and C). The reason that subjects may have used more space to transfer lower than higher may be that they needed more clearance space to accommodate the pivoting swing of the buttocks and increased knee and hip flexion that occurs when moving their body closer towards the ground than when moving their body further from the ground (e.g decreased knee and hip flexion). Increasing the width of the clear floor space an additional 12 inches to 72 inches would accommodate 75-77% of users who would be expected to transfer higher or lower than their seat to floor height. In order to accommodate 95% of the study population transferring higher and lower than their mobility device seat, the total width would need to be increased to 92 inches total. As mentioned previously, the right side of the transfer station was preferred by the study participants. Shifting the clear floor square area requirement more towards the right may accommodate more people and minimize the overall amount of space required around transfer
arm which carries more of the force during a transfer than does the leading arm when moving toward a new surface. Additionally, from Figure 7 it can be seen that some study participants did not transfer entirely within the boundaries of the transfer station. The space needed by the study participants was compared to a turning space dimension as described in the ADA-ABA standards (60x60 inch space). All of the study participants were able to transfer within the 60 inch depth, in fact the largest depth dimension required by anyone subject was 55.5 inches. However, when looking at Protocol A for the maximum height transfer only 65% of the population could transfer entirely inside of the 60 x 55.5 inch defined space. For the transfer to a lower platform that number decreased to 53% when moving to the station and 56% when coming back to the station. (Protocol A). A similar trend for participants requiring more space to transfer lower versus higher was found for the other protocols as well (B and C). The reason that subjects may have used more space to transfer lower than higher may be that they needed more clearance space to accommodate the pivoting swing of the buttocks and increased knee and hip flexion that occurs when moving their body closer towards the ground than when moving their body further from the ground (e.g decreased knee and hip flexion). Increasing the width of the clear floor space an additional 12 inches to 72 inches would accommodate 75-77% of users who would be expected to transfer higher or lower than their seat to floor height. In order to accommodate 95% of the study population transferring higher and lower than their mobility device seat, the total width would need to be increased to 92 inches total. As mentioned previously, the right side of the transfer station was preferred by the study participants. Shifting the clear floor square area requirement more towards the right may accommodate more people and minimize the overall amount of space required around transfer