Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services in School Settings

Abstract

The consideration of assistive technology devices and services is required during the development of every Individualized Educational Program (IEP) according to the Individuals with Disabilities Act, Amendments of 1997 (IDEA'97). Assistive technology devices and services, which the IEP team determines are required by a student in order to benefit from a free appropriate public education (FAPE), must be written into the IEP. Despite this requirement, mere has been no agreed upon description of high quality assistive technology services. This article describes the activities of a national group of assistive technology professionals known as the Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services (QIAT) Consortium. The QIAT Consortium was formed to initiate a nationwide dialogue regarding quality indicators for a variety of assistive technology service areas. The work of the Consortium to date is discussed and the current set of indicators is included. Processes used in the development of the indicators are described. Implications for future use of the indicators and future development activities are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Pub.L. No. 100-633. [On-line] Available: http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/kinder/pages/ada_statute.htm.

Blackhurst

A.E.

, & Lahm

E.A.

(2000). Technology and exceptionality foundations. In Lindsey

J.D.

(Ed.), Technology and Exceptional Individuals, (pp. 3–45). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.;

Blackhurst

A.E.

MacArthur

C.A.

, & Byrom

E.M.

(1987). Microcomputer competencies for special education professors. Teacher Education and Special Education. 10 (4), 153–160.

Blackhurst

A.E.

, & Morse

T.E.

(1996). Using anchored instruction to teach about assistive technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11 (3), 131–141.

Bowser

(December, 1999). Access now participant survey. Unpublished manuscript Roseburg, OR: Oregon Assistive Technology Program

Bowser

Korsten

Reed

, & Zabala

(1999). Quality indicators for effective assistive technology services. TAM Connector, 11 (5), 1–5.

Bowser

, & Reed

(1995). Education TECH points for assistive technology planning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12 (4), 325–338.

Carl

D. F.

Mataya

C. K.

, & Zabala

J. S.

(1994). What's the Big IDEA?: Legal and practical aspects of assistive technology in school settings. Professional development conducted at Closing the Gap Conference on Technology in Special Education and Rehabilitation, Minneapolis, MN.

Cook

A. M.

, & Hussey

S. M.

(1995). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. St. Louis, MO: Mosby

10.

Hutinger

Johanson

, & Stoneburner

(1996). Assistive technology applications in educational programs of children with multiple disabilities: A case study report on the state of the practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13 (1), 16–35.

11.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, PL 101-476. (October 30, 1990), Title 20, U.S.C. 1400 et seq.: U.S. Statutes at Large, 104, 1103-1151.

12.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Amendments of 1997, Public Law No. 105-17, §602, U.S.C. 1401 [On-line). Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA/the_law.htrnl.

13.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

14.

Kentucky Department of Education. (1997). Assistive technology guidelines for Kentucky schools. Frankfort, KY: Author.

15.

McGregor

& Pachuski

(1996). Assistive technology in schools: Are teachers ready, able, and supported? Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(1), 4–15.

16.

Schrag

(1990). OSEP Policy Letter. Washington DC: U.S. Office of Education

17.

Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973. [On-line] Available: http://www.dol.gov/dol/casam/public/regs/statutes/sec504.htm.

18.

Todis

(1996). Assistive technology in educational settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13 (2), 49–61.

19.

Todis

, & Walker

H. M.

(1993). User perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26 (3), 1–16.

20.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twentieth annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act [On-line] Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/OSEP98AnlRpt/

21.

Vocational Rehabilitation Act, Amendments of 1978. [On-line] Available: http://www.eeoc.gpv/35th/thelaw/rehab_amendments_1978.html.

22.

Zabala

J. S.

(1995). The SETT framework: critical areas to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions. Houston, TX: Region IV Education Service Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED381962)

23.

Zabala

J. S.

(1996). SETTing the stage for success: Building success through effective use of assistive technology. Proceedings of the Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference (pp. 129–187). Birmingham, AL: United Cerebral Palsy of Greater Birmingham.