| |
About
News
Activities
Products
Links
Search
Contact Us
R2D2 Center
CHS Home
UWM Home
|
|
Technical
Report - History of Assistive Technology Outcomes (Version 1.0)
Roger O. Smith, PhD, OT, Kathy Longenecker Rust, MS, OTR, April Lauer,
BS, OTS & Erin Boodey, BS, OTS
Figures
Rationale for field scan
The purpose of this field scan was to place assistive technology outcomes
measurement in the context of time. We understood that AT outcomes
measurement activity has been a relatively new phenomenon. It seemed
that publications and services discussions have only occurred in
the past decade or so. We also saw that measuring the outcomes of
assistive technology has become a significant concern for AT practitioners
and the research community. This field scan reviews the literature
from an historical perspective and summarizes major events related
to AT and AT outcomes.
Description of scope of scan
This field scan reviews publications from the last thirty years.
The resulting chronology lists significant events that have either
precipitated
AT outcomes work or contributed directly as an AT outcomes publication.
The chronology includes years, descriptions, significance, and references.
Then we divide the events into two groups: 1) outcomes predecessors
and 2) outcomes focus. We then categorize the service delivery contexts
of these publications by: a) medical, b) educational, c) vocational,
and d) independent living areas. The final categorization of the events
divides them into: a) Legal Policies & Standards, b) Publications,
and c) Outcome Measurement Instruments.
Data collection procedures
The ATOMS project team launched the field scan with a series of internal
interviews. We then followed up with a literature search of recommended
sources, evaluating reference lists and bibliographies of key papers
and a review of Science Citation key sources. Listed events were
sorted into a chronological order and categorized.
Findings
The chronological list is presented in two displays; the
first is set-up as a two-dimensional
array (PDF 0.50MB) that lists events and respective
codes. The second is set-up as a time-line
horizontal chart (PDF 0.42MB) labeled
by key descriptors.
Discussion
The precursors to AT outcomes work began in the area of legal policy
standards starting with the Institute of Medicine in 1970. It wasn’t
until the mid 1990’s that publications and outcome measurement
instruments emerged. This field of interest is young. Six specific
summary observations follow.
- Federal laws and regulations seem
to serve as precursors to AT outcomes measurement development.
- This chronology speaks to AT outcomes measurement not AT outcomes
research that might follow a parallel, but distinct path.
- All four
service areas (medicine, education, vocational rehabilitation, and
independent living) are represented with highly interdisciplinary
efforts.
- The field of AT outcomes measurement is very young, with
focused works mostly published since the mid 1990’s.
- Many Federal
agencies and organizations have prominently shown interest and
encouraged progress in AT outcomes measurement research.
Perhaps
this has occurred on the wave of socio-political interest related
to accountability.
- Little outcomes measurement to date has dealt
with cost, although mention of the need is increasing.
Conclusions
The field of assistive technology remains young, maybe in its infancy.
This field scan organized published interdisciplinary contributions
into a single source detailing the major events in AT outcomes.
References
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. (n.d.). Assistive technology
outcomes. Retrieved September 25, 2003, from http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/reference/atoutcomes/index.html.
Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Pub. L. 101-336, July 26, 1990,
104 Stat. 327 Short title, see 42 U.S.C. 12101 note.
Andrich, R. (2002). The SCAI instrument: Measuring costs of individual
assistive technology programmes. Technology and Disability, 14(3),
95-99.
Assistive Technology Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-394, Nov. 13,
1998, 112 Stat. 3627 Short title, see 29 U.S.C. 3001 note.
Assistive
Technology in the Community. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2003, from
http://enablemob.wustl.edu/Research/NIDRR/at_community.htm.
ATOMS
Project, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. (2001). Assistive technology
outcomes measurement system. Retrieved September 25, 2003,
from http://www.uwm.edu/CHS/atoms.
CARF (2001). Employment and community
services: Standards Manual July 2001-June 2002. Tucson: Commission
on Accreditation of Rehabilitation
Facilities.
CATOR (n.d.). Consortium for assistive technology outcomes
research. Retrieved September 25, 2003, from http://www.atoutcomes.org.
Committee
on Assessing Rehabilitation Science and Engineering. (1997). Enabling
America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and
engineering. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine.
Community Research
for Assistive Technology (CR4AT). (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2003,
from http://www.atnet.org/CR4AT/home.html.
Community Research for Assistive
Technology. (2001). NIDRR program directory: Disability and rehabilitation
research projects. Retrieved
October 2, 2003, from http://www.naric.com.
Cook, A., Hussey, S. (1995).
Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. California: Mosby
Year-Book, Inc.
Cook, A., Hussey, S. (2001). Assistive technologies:
Principles and practice (2nd ed.). California: Mosby Year-Book, Inc.
Day,
H., & Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the psychosocial impact
of assistive devices: The PIADS. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation,
9, 159-168.
Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (1996). Development
of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology
(QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8, 3-13.
DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating
outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment?
Assistive Technology, 7(1), 3-16.
Education for All Handicapped Children
Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-142, Nov. 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 773 Short title,
see 20 U.S.C. 1400 note.
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments
of 1986, Pub. L. 99-457, Oct. 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 1145 Short title,
see 20 U.S.C. 1400 note.
Edyburn, D. (Ed.) (2000). Technology and assessment
[Special issue]. Diagnostique, 25(4).
Edyburn, D. (Ed.) (2001). What
types of outcomes should be expected when students use assistive and
instructional technologies?
Special
Education Technology Practice, 3(1).
Federal Register/Department of
Education/National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR); Notices of Final Long-Range Plan
for Fiscal Years 1999-2004. (1999).
Fougeyrollas, P., Noreau, L., Bergeron,
H., Cloutier, R., Dion, S., & St-Michel,
G. (1998). Social consequences of long tem impairments and disabilities:
Conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. International Journal
of Rehabilitation Research 21, 127-41.
Hammel, J. & Finlayson, M.
(2003). Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 12(2), 66-129.
IDEA reauthorization,
Pub. L. 105-17, June 4, 1997, 111 Stat. 37 Short title, see 20 U.S.C.
1400 note.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Pub.
L. 102-119, Oct. 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 587 Short title, see 20 U.S.C.
1400 note.
Information Technology for Independence. (2001). Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh, Health Information Management.
NATRI. (2000). National Assistive Technology Research Institute: Mission
and Overview. Retrieved December 23, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
http://natri.uky.edu/.
Pressman, H., Blackstone, S. (1996). Alliance
'96 portfolio: Outcomes measurement in assistive technology. California:
Augmentative Communication
Inc.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, Pub L. 99-506, Oct. 21,
1986, 100 Stat. 1807 Short title, see 29 U.S.C. 701 note.
Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. 102-569, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4344
Short title, see 29 U.S.C. 701 note.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of
1998, Pub. L. 105-220, title IV, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1092 Short
title, see 29 U.S.C. 701 note.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112,
Sept. 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 355 Short title, see 29 U.S.C. 701 note.
Research
Plan for the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. (1993).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health
Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development.
RESNA. (1998). Volume I: RESNA Resource
guide for assistive technology outcomes: Measurement tools. Arlington,
VA: author.
RESNA. (1998). Volume II: RESNA Resource guide for assistive
technology outcomes: Assessment instruments, tools, & checklists
from the field. Arlington, VA: author.
RESNA. (1998). Volume III: RESNA
Resource guide for assistive technology outcomes: Developing domains
of need and criteria of services. Arlington,
VA: author.
RESNA. (n.d.). RESNA policy on the qualification of service
providers in assistive technology. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from
http://www.resna.org/PracInAT/CertifiedPractice/Qualifications.html.
RESNA.
(1992). Assistive technology and the individualized education program.
Washington DC: RESNA Technical Assistance Project.
RESNA. (1997). Guidelines
for knowledge of skills for provision of the specialty technology.
Virginia: author.
Scherer, M., & Craddock, G. (2002). Matching person and technology
(MPT) assessment process. Technology and Disability, 14, 125-131.
Schwartzberg,
J. G., Kakavas, V. K., Furey, P., Malkind, S., & Change,
C. (1994). Guidelines for the use of assistive technology: Evaluation
referral prescription. Chicago: American Medical Association.
Smith,
R. O. (Ed.) (1996). Assistive Technology, 8(2).
Smith, R.O. (1993).
Assessing the impact of assistive technology using OT FACT version
2.0. Proceedings of the 16th Annual RESNA Conference,
Arlington, VA.
Technology-Related Assistance Act for Individuals with
Disabilities, Pub. L. 100-407, Aug. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 1044 Short
title, see 29
U.S.C. 2201 note.
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, Feb.
8, 1996, 110 Stat. 56 Short title, see 47 U.S.C. 609 note.
Thomas, P.
W., & Davis, L. S. (2003). Access to assistive technologies:
Improving health and well-being for people with disabilities: American
Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Retrieved January
12, 2004, from http://www.aapmr.org/hpl/legislation/AT03.htm.
TI:CBRC.
(2002). Technology for independence: A community-based resource center.
Retrieved December 23, 2003, from http://disability.law.uiowa.edu/cbrc/.
Trachtmann,
L. (1994). Outcome measures: Are we ready to answer the tough questions?
Assistive Technology, 6, 91-92.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1982). Technology
and handicapped people. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
University of Kentucky Department of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Counseling. (n.d.). Quality indicators for assistive
technology
services in school settings. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from
www.qiat.org.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification
of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland:
author.
|
