Providing assistive technology in educational settings can be a positive educational intervention. However, it is often difficult to measure assistive technology outcomes because interventions possess many attributes, outcomes affect many domains, and few measurement instruments are available. This paper reviews relevant theory and the practical implications of measuring assistive technology outcomes. Investigations and resources relating to assistive technology not often found in educational literature are also reviewed and future research directions are recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbleData. (2000). Search for assistive technology products. Available from: http//www.abledata.com/text2/search.htm .
2.
American Occupational Therapy Association. ( 1994). Uniform terminology for occupational therapy - 3rd ed. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48(11), 1047-1054.
3.
Andrich, R., Ferrario, M., & Moi, M. (1998). A model for cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation,20(1), 1-24.
4.
Browder, D.M. (1991). Assessment of individuals with severe disabilities: An applied behavior approach to life skills assessment. (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
5.
Christiansen, C. (1991). Occupational therapy intervention for life performance . In C. Christiansen & C. Baum (Eds.), Human performance deficits (pp. 3-43). Thorofare, NJ: Slack Publishers.
6.
The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Programs. [Online] Available from: http://www.carf.org/index.html
7.
Coster, W., Deeny, T., Haltiwanger, J., & Haley, S. (1998). School Function Assessment Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological CorporationHarcourt Brace & Company.
8.
Davel, N.C., & Smith, R.O. (1996). Functional impact of assistive technology on people with hemiplegia from stroke. Paper presented at the RESNA '96, Salt Lake City, UT.
9.
DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment?Assistive Technology,7, 3-8.
10.
Epstein, M. & Munk, M.H. (1999). Strategies for improving home-school communication about homework for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(3), 166-177.
11.
Fennema-jansen, S. (2000). Review of RESNA resource guide for assistive technology outcomes, volumes I, II, III. Diagnostique, 25(4), 353-359.
12.
Fisher, A.G. (1993). The assessment of IADL motor skills: An application of many-faceted Rasch analysis. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(3), 319-329.
13.
Fisher Jr., W.P., Harvey, R.F., Taylor, P.K., Kilgore, K.M., & Kelly, C.K. (1995). Rehabits: A common language of functional assessment . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,76(2), 113-122.
14.
Gustafson, D.H., Cats-Baril, W.L., & Alemi, F. (1992). Systems to support health policy analysis: Theory, models, and uses. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
15.
Harvey, R.F., Silverstein, B., Venzon, M.A., Kilgore, K.M., Fisher, W.P., Steiner, M., & Harley, J.P. (1992). Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: III. Construct validity and predicting level of care. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,73(10), 887-892.
16.
Institute of Medicine. (1997). Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
Kiresuk, T. J., Smith, A. A., & Cardillo, J. E. (Eds.). (1994). Goal Attainment Scaling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
19.
Law, M., Baptiste, S., Carswell-Opzommer, A., McColle, M., Polatajko, H., & Pollock, N. (1991). Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Toronto, ONT: CAOT Publications Ace.
20.
Minkel, J.L. (1996). Assistive technology and outcome measurement: Where do we begin? Technology andDisability, 5, 285-288.
21.
National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. [Online] Available at: http://silk.nih.gov/silk/NCMRR
22.
Oldridge, N.B. (1996a). Outcomes measurement: Health state preferences and economic evaluation. Assistive Technology,8(2), 94-102.
23.
Oldridge, N.B. (1996b). Outcomes measurement: Health-related quality of life. Assistive Technology,8(2), 82-93.
24.
Ottenbacher, K.J., & Cusick, A. (1990). Goal attainment scaling as a method of clinical service evaluation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 44(6), 519-525.
25.
Ottenbacher, K.J., & Cusick, A. (1993). Discriminative versus evaluative assessment: Some observations on goal attainment scaling. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(4), 349-54.
26.
Silva, F. (1993). Psychometric foundations and behavioral assessment . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications .
27.
Silverman, M.K., Stratman, K.F., & Smith, R.O. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in schools using functional assessment. Diagnostique, 25(4), 307-325.
28.
Silverman, M.K., Smith, R.O., Edyburn, D., Taylor, D. (1999). Assistive technology outcomes in the schools: Identifying a valid measure. Proceedings of RESNA Annual Conference, Arlington, VA.
29.
Silverstein, B., Kilgore, K., & Fisher, W. (1989). Implementing patient tracking systems and using functional assessment scales. Wheaton, IL: Marianjoy Rehabilitation Center.
30.
Smith, R.O. (1987). Using the occupational therapy comprehensive functional assessment (OTCFA) to evaluate the efficacy of technological intervention in rehabilitation. Paper presented at the RESNA '87, Washington, DC.
31.
Smith, R.O. (1993a). Assessing the impact of assistive technology using OT FACT Version 2.0. Paper presented at the RESNA '93, Arlington, VA.
32.
Smith, R.O. (1993b). Technology part II: Adaptive equipment and technology . In C. B. Royeen (Ed.), AOTA self-study series: Classroom applications for school-based practice. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association , Inc.
33.
Smith, R.O. (1996). Measuring the outcomes of assisted technology: Challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology,8(2), 71-81.
34.
Smith, R.O. (1998). Accountability in assistive technology interventions: Measuring outcomes. In L. Vitaliti, (Ed), Volume I — RESNA 1998 resource guide for assistive technology outcomes: Measurement tools (pp. 15-42). Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.
35.
Smith, R.O., Benge, M., & Hall, M. (1994). Chapter 14: Technology for Self Care. In C. Christiansen (Ed.), Ways of living self care strategies for special needs (pp. 379-422). Rockville, MD: American Association of Occupational Therapy, Inc.
36.
Wright, B.D., & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press.
Velozo, C.A., Kielhofner, G., & Lai, J.S. (1999). The use of Rasch analysis to produce scale-free measurement of functional ability. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(1), 83-90.
39.
Vitaliti, L. U. (Ed.). (1998). RESNA resource guide for assistive technology outcomes (Vols. 1-3). Arlington, VA: RESNA.
40.
Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. London: Cambridge University Press.
41.
The World Health OrganizationInternational classification of functioning and disability. [Online] Available at: http://www.who.int/icidh/
