Background. Handwriting difficulties for students are a common reason for referral to occupational therapy. Little research evidence is available concerning the factors guiding technology recommendations for these children. Purpose. The objective of this survey research was to describe the technology-related recommendations and factors involved in the decisions made by Canadian occupational therapists for these students. Results. More therapists recommended the use of keyboard-based strategies (93%) than dictation-based strategies (72%). Experienced therapists were more likely to prescribe technology tools. Dictation to a scribe (93%) and desktop computers (89%) were the strategies most frequently recommended. Equipment cost and availability of funding, and the availability of support in the school for the student were the most influential factors, respectively, on the keyboard and dictation strategy type prescribed. Practice Implications. The results confirmed that occupational therapists prescribe a range of technology solutions. Factors influencing these recommendations differ depending on the nature of the technology, the person, environment or occupation. Knowing the factors guiding occupational therapist technology recommendations will help provide valuable information about the practical implications of the available technologies.
AmundsonS., & WeilM. J. (2001). Prewriting and handwriting skills. In Case-SmithJ. (Ed.), Occupational therapy for children (4th ed., pp. 545–570). St. Louis: Mosby.
2.
AnsonD. (2001). The future of computer access. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 106–108.
3.
BakerD. E. (2000). The effects of speech recognition software and word processing on the written expression of students with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
4.
Bangert-DrownsR. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69–93.
5.
BenbowM., HanftB., & MarshD. (1992). Handwriting in the classroom: Improving written communication. In RoyeenC. B. (Ed.), Classroom applications for school-based practice (pp. 1–60). Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
6.
BerningerV. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.
7.
BerningerV. W., MizokawaD. T., & BraggR. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57–79.
8.
ChaseC. (1986). Essay test scoring: Interaction of relevant variables. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 33–41.
9.
Cochran-SmithM. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107–155.
10.
Cochran-SmithM., KahnJ., & ParisC. L. (1988). When word processors come into the classroom. In HootJ. L. & SilvernS. B. (Eds.), Writing with computers in the early grades (pp. 43–74). New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
12.
CrealockC., & SitkoM. (1990). Comparison between computer and handwriting technologies in writing training with learning disabled students. International Journal of Special Education, 5, 173–183.
13.
De La PazS. (1999). Composing via dictation and speech recognition systems: Compensatory technology for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 173–182.
14.
De La PazS., & GrahamS. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203–222.
15.
DillmanD. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
16.
DunnB., & ReayD. (1989). Word processing and the keyboard: Comparative effects of transcription on achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 237–245.
17.
Education Development Center. (2000). Speaking to write: Realizing the potential of speech recognition for secondary students with disabilities. Retrieved 10 December, 2001, from http://www.edc.org/spk2wrt
ElliotL. B., FosterS., & StinsonM. (2003). A qualitative study of teachers' acceptance of a speech-to-text transcription system in high school and college classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18 (3), 45–59.
20.
Faris-ColeD., & LewisR. B. (2001). Exploring speech recognition technology: Children with learning and emotional/behavioral disorders. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11 (1), 3–12.
21.
FederK., MajnemerA., & SynnesA. (2000). Handwriting: Current trends in occupational therapy practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 197–204.
22.
FollansbeeB., & McCloskey-DaleS. R. (2000). Speech recognition in schools: An update from the field. Paper presented at the Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved 10 April, 2001, from http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2000/proceedings/csun00.htm.
23.
FreemanA. R., MacKinnonJ. R., & MillerL. T. (In Press). Keyboarding for students with handwriting problems: A literature review. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics.
24.
GaitoJ. (1980). Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 564–567.
25.
GalvinJ. C., & SchererM. J. (1996). Evaluating, selecting, and using appropriate assistive technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.
26.
GardnerM. (2002, October 14). Using speech dictation software as an occupational therapy medium. OT Practice, 7, 20–21.
27.
GrahamS. (1990). The role of production features in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.
28.
GrahamS., HarrisK. R., & FinkB. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620–633.
29.
GrahamS., & MacArthurC. A. (1988). Improving learning disabled students' skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. Journal of Special Education, 22, 133–152.
30.
HardyC. (2000). Information and communications technology for all. London: David Fulton.
31.
HartleyJ., SottoE., & PennebakerJ. (2003). Speaking versus typing: A case-study of the effects of using voice-recognition software on academic correspondence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 5–16.
32.
HigginsE. L., & RaskindM. H. (1995). Compensatory effectiveness of speech recognition on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 159–174.
33.
HoneycuttL. (2003). Researching the use of voice recognition writing software. Computers and Composition, 20, 77–95.
34.
JutaiJ. (1999). Quality of life impact of assistive technology. Rehabilitation Engineering, 14, 2–7.
35.
KerchnerL. B., & KistingerB. J. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 329–335.
36.
LawM., CooperB., StrongS., StewartD., RigbyP., & LettsL. (1996). The Person-Environment-Occupational model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 9–23.
37.
LewisR. B. (2000). Musings on technology and learning disabilities on the occasion of the new millennium. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15 (2), 5–12.
38.
LewisR. B., GravesA. W., AshtonT. M., & KieleyC. L. (1998). Word processing tools for students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 95–108.
MacArthurC. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorder, 20 (4), 85–100.
41.
MacArthurC. A., & GrahamS. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21 (3), 22–42.
42.
MacArthurC. A., GrahamS., & SchwartzS. (1993). Integrating strategy instruction and word processing into a process approach to writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 22, 671–681.
43.
MacArthurC. A., GrahamS., SchwartzS., & SchaferW. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 278–292.
44.
ManasseN. J., HuxK., & Rankin-EricksonJ. L. (2000). Speech recognition training for enhancing written language generation by a traumatic brain injury survivor. Brain Injury, 14, 1015–1034.
45.
MarrinJ. F. (2000). Introducing continuous speech recognition software to mainstream elementary school students: A case study. Unpublished Masters thesis, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON.
46.
McDowellI., & NewellC. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
McMillanK., & HoneyM. (1993). Year one of Project Pulse: Pupils using laptops in science and English. A final report (No. Technical Report 26; ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 358822). New York: Center for Technology in Education.
48.
MerbitzC., MorrisJ., & GripJ. C. (1989). Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70, 308–312.
49.
MontagueM., GravesA., & LeavellA. (1991). Planning, procedural facilitation, and narrative composition of junior high students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 219–224.
50.
MoroccoC. C., & NeumanS. B. (1986). Word processors and the acquisition of writing strategies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 243–247.
51.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
52.
OkoloC. M., HinseyM., & YousefianB. (1990). Learning disabled students' acquisition of keyboarding skills and continuing motivation under drill-and-practice and game conditions. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 100–109.
53.
OliverC. E. (1990). A sensorimotor program for improving writing readiness skills in elementary-age children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44, 111–116.
54.
OuthredL. (1989). Word processing: Its impact on children's writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 262–264.
55.
PensoD. E. (1990). Keyboard, graphic and handwriting skills: Helping people with motor disabilities. London: Chapman & Hall.
PremingerF., WeissP. L. T., & WeintraubN. (2004). Predicting occupational performance: Handwriting versus keyboarding. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 193–201.
58.
PriceG. (1994). The use of portable computers with dyslexic students (No. Occasional Papers 26; ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 389134). Southampton, UK: Centre for Language in Education, Southampton University.
59.
PriestN., & MayE. (2001). Laptop computers and children with disabilities: Factors influencing success. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 48, 11–23.
60.
RayJ. R., & WardenM. K. (1994). Technology, computers, and the special needs learner. Albany, NY: Delmar.
61.
ReckaseM. D. (1984). Scaling techniques. In GoldsteinG. & HersenM. (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment (pp. 38–53). New York: Pergamon Press.
62.
ReeceJ. E., & CummingsG. (1996). Evaluating speech-based composition methods: Planning, dictation, and the listening word processor. In LevyC. M. & RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 361–380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
63.
ReedB. G., & KannyE. M. (1993). The use of computers in school system practice by occupational therapists. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 13 (4), 37–55.
64.
ReinkingD., & Bridwell-BowlesL. (1991). Computers in reading and writing. In BarrR., KamilM. L., MosenthalP. & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 310–340). White Plains, NY: Longman.
65.
ReismanJ. E. (1991). Poor handwriting: Who is referred?American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 849–852.
66.
RigbyP., & SchwellnusH. (1999). Occupational therapy decision making guidelines for problems in written productivity. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 19, 5–27.
67.
RussellM., & PlatiT. (2000). Mode of administration effects on MCAS composition performance for grades four, eight, and ten. A report of findings submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Education (No. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 456142). Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
68.
SeawelL., SmaldinoS. E., SteeleJ. L., & LewisJ. Y. (1994). A descriptive study comparing computer-based word processing and handwriting on attitudes and performance of third and fourth grade students involved in a program based on a process approach to writing. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5, 43–59.
69.
SpectorP. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park: Sage.
70.
SPSS Inc. (1999). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Chicago, Il: Author.
71.
StreinerD. L., & NormanG. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SuomalaJ., & ShaughnessyM. F. (2000). An interview with Richard E. Mayer: About technology. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 477–483.
74.
SwinthY. (2001). Assistive technology: Computers and augmentative communication. In Case-SmithJ. (Ed.), Occupational therapy for children (4th ed., pp. 571–605). St. Louis: Mosby.
75.
TownsendJ. T., & AshbyF. G. (1984). Measurement scales and statistics: The misconception misconceived. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 394–401.
76.
VaccN. N. (1987). Word processor versus handwriting: A comparative study of writing samples produced by mildly mentally handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 54, 156–165.
77.
WetzelK. (1996). Speech-recognizing computers: A written communication tool for students with learning disabilities?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 371–380.
78.
WoodwardS., & SwinthY. L. (2002). Multisensory approach to handwriting remediation: Perceptions of school-based occupational therapists. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 305–312.
79.
YauM., ZieglerS., & SiegelL. (1990). Lap top computers and the learning disabled student: A study of the value of portable computers to the writing progress of students with fine motor problems (No. Report No. 193; ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 320342). Toronto: Research Section, Toronto Board of Education.
