We welcome your feedback. If you are unable to use the links associated
with each field scan, please email your comments to atomsweb@uwm.edu
or mail your notes using information found in the Contact
Us section.
Field Scan Descriptions by Type
Examination
of current instruments |
# |
Name |
Short Description |
Update Report |
|
Submit Comments |
|
AT Instrument Update and Review |
A comprehensive search of published AT instruments
was performed. The instruments
are primarily those that are available commercially. A searchable database, called ID-AT-Assessments, cataloging the nature of the instruments’ questions
and their purposes is completed. This data set and instrument library
serves as a guide for practitioners to support the selection
of the best measures for their clinical situations.
(updated June 21, 2006)
|
|
Assistive Technology Instrument Update
and Review |
Email
FS1 Comments |
|
Treatment of AT in Current/Emerging Health & Rehabilitation
Outcome Measures |
This field scan identified hundreds of health and rehabilitation
instruments. 100 were selected and critically reviewed in regard
to the inclusion of AT and the measurement issues surrounding the
use of AT. The results are published in the American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (2005) 84 (10), 78-793.
This field scan also worked with the authors of several instruments
under development to identify AT inclusion and scaling issues and
to provide recommendations.
(updated June 21, 2006)
|
FS2 Update |
The
Inclusion of Assistive Technology Outcomes in Current Health and
Rehabilitation Outcome Measures |
Email
FS2 comments |
| Return to top |
| |
# |
Name |
Short Description |
Update Report |
Technical Report |
Submit Comments |
|
Review of Taxonomies Related to Domains of Assistive Technology
Outcomes |
This field scan examines the intersection of performance taxonomies
domains across taxonomies to identify a common language for AT outcomes
discussions. A review of 10 generic taxonomic models including the
Nagi Model (1965), ICIDH (1980, 1993), Rehabilitation Indicators (1983),
NCMRR Research Plan (1993), Quality of Life Taxonomy (Spilker &
Revicki, 1996), Characterization of Rehabilitation Services (Duncan,
Hoenig, Samsa, & Hamilton 1997), Institutes of Medicine Model
(1997), ICIDH-2 draft (1997), and the ICF (2002.) The field scan reveals
a range of acceptance of AT as part of the performance models.
(updated June 21, 2006) |
FS7 Update |
Models and Taxonomies Relating to Assistive Technology |
Email
FS7 Comments |
|
History of Assistive Technology Outcomes |
This field scan was identified and added to place AT outcomes
measurement methodology in context. This literature review provides a chronology of events and publications
relevant to assistive technology outcomes. This field
scan is available as a report with a chronological
event wall chart.
(updated June 21, 2006) |
FS12 Update |
History
of AT Outcomes |
Email
FS12 Comments |
|
Methods to Identify Assistive Technology Device Use |
This field scan was added as an outgrowth of the recognition
that any AT outcomes system must know what devices and services
were provided and how the devices were used. In any outcomes study
these would be the independent variables. This scan has examined
the assistive technology outcome instruments and AT outcomes research
literature to see how the field has historically performed this
function. The results of the field scan indicate that current approaches
to identify AT use do not necessarily ensure that all devices used
by an individual are identified or the method only a priori scrutinizes
one subset of devices. Presented at RESNA, June 2003.
(updated June 21, 2006) |
FS13 Update |
Methods to Identify Assistive Technology Device Use |
Email
FS13 Comments |
|
Review of the Literature on AT Satisfaction Measurement |
This field scan was added to the ATOMS Project in the spring of
2003. Recent interest in using product satisfaction scales prompted
a review of how product satisfaction is viewed from a research and
measurement perspective. While it has consumer perspective in mind,
the quantification of self-satisfaction also poses other measurement
issues as potential limitations. This field scans reviews the advantages
and disadvantages of product satisfaction scales. An article for a refereed journal submission is in progress.
(updated June 21, 2006) |
FS14 Update |
|
Email
FS14 Comments |
| Return to top |
Literature
review and survey |
# |
Name |
Short Description |
Update Report |
Technical Report |
Submit Comments |
|
Outcome Measures Used in AT Research & Development |
Activity Questions: Do assistive technology device developers
use appropriate outcomes instruments and methodologies for their
projects? How severe is the problem? Do product developers perceive
there to be a problem?
This field scan examined 1) the current use of outcomes measures
by Federally funded (2001) investigators of assistive technology
and 2) the use and perception of outcomes measures by commercial
developers of AT. Presented at RESNA, June 2003. An article for a refereed journal submission
is in press.
Rust, K. L. & Smith, R. O. (In press) Perspectives
of outcome data from assistive technology developers. Assistive
Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 3.
(updated December 19, 2006)
|
FS3 Update |
Outcome
Measures Used in AT Research & Development |
Email FS3 Comments |
| Return to top |
Summarizing
issues of legal/policy |
# |
Name |
Short Description |
Update Report |
Technical Report |
Submit Comments |
|
Legal Implications of Assistive Technology Outcomes Instruments |
This field scan examined legal & ethical issues related to
AT outcomes systems. Our team attorney has completed this review discussing
legal, responsible, & ethical data collection procedures; potential
legal ramifications of AT outcomes data (positive and negative); and
implications of AT outcomes for policy-making. An open forum discussed these
issues and strategies at the RESNA 2003 conference. An article for a refereed journal submission
is in progress.
(updated June 21, 2006) |
|
Town Hall Meeting on Legal Issues |
Email
FS9 Comments |
| Return to top |
Summarizing
newer methodologies and instrumentation |
# |
Name |
Short Description |
Update Report |
Technical Report |
Submit Comments |
|
Next Generation Data Collection Technology |
This field scan reviewed current and developing hand held computer
data collection technologies that might be relevant to an outcomes
system. The review of current and emerging technology approaches was
completed based on: a) Content/outcomes, b) Equipment (hardware/software)
characteristics, c) Portability, d) Cost, e) Durability, f) Scaling
potentials, g) Data collection processes/protocol, h) Data handling
protocols, and i) Data Reporting. Presented at RESNA, June 2003
(updated June 21, 2006) |
FS4 Update |
Next Generation Data Collection |
Email
FS4 Comments |
|
Comparison of Cost Outcome Methods |
This field scan reviewed cost the cost comparison literature and
explored how various approaches and methodologies might meet the needs
for AT outcomes measurement procedures that include cost variables. Results have been published in the Assistive Technology, (2003), 15(1), 16-27.
(updated June 11, 2003) |
FS5 Update |
Comparison of Cost Outcome Methods |
Email
FS5 Comments |
|
Use of Multi-attribute (MAU) and Bayes Approaches in Outcomes Data
Collection |
This field scan has reviewed the literature using Multi-attribute
Utility (MAU) Theory and Bayes Theorem to identify the scope in which
they are used and recommends potential applications relevant to AT
outcomes. Articles have been coded into three categories: 1) health,
2) engineering, and 3) general literature.
(updated
June 21, 2006) |
|
Multiattribute Utility Theory |
Email
FS6 Comments |
| Return to top |
