Measuring the Outcomes of Assistive Technology: Challenge and Innovation

Assistive Technology

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 71-81

  Smith, Roger O ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Assistive technology; Evaluation; Measurement; Outcomes

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; EVALUATION; MEDICAL PROBLEMS; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

ASSESSMENT; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; OUTCOMES;

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

MEASUREMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DATA COLLECTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0030447603     PISSN: 10400435     EISSN: 19493614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.1996.10132277     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Angelo, J., & Smith, R O. (1989). The critical role of occupational therapy in augmentative communication services. In Technology Review’89. Rockville, MD; American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.
2. Davel, N. & Smith, R. O. (1996). Functional impact of assistive technology on people with hemiplegia from stroke. Proceedings of the RESNA Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, 95-97, Arlington, VA: RESNA Press.
3. Demers, L., Lambron, R. W., & Ska, B. (1996). Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (quest). Assistive Technology, 8, 3-13.
4. DePape, D., & Smith, R. O. (1987, October). Case study: Augmentative communication for persons with physical impairments. Invited speaker at Augmentative Communication: Working Together conference sponsored by American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation, Communication Aids Manufacturers Association, and International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Denver, CO
5. DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technology, 7, 3-8
6. Fisher, A. G. (1992a). Functional measures, part 1: What is function, what should we measure, and how should we measure it? The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 183-185
7. Fisher, A. G. (1992b). Functional measures, part 2: Selecting the right test, minimizing the limitations. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 278-281
8. Fleishman, E., & Quaintance, M. (1984). Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks. New York, NY: Academic Press
9. Galvin, J. C. (1995). Comments on DeRuyter’s “Evaluatingoutcomes in assistive technology.” Assistive Technology, 7, 12-13
10. Garber, S. L., & Gregario, T. L. (1990). Upper extremity assistive devices: Assessment of use by spinal cord-injured patients with quadriplegic. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44, 126-131
11. Johnstone, M. V., Ottenbacher, K., & Reichardt, C. S. (1995). Strong quasi-experimental designs for research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74 (5), 383-392
12. Jutai, J., Ladak, N., Schuller, R., Naumann, S., & Wright, V. (1996). Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: An institutional case study. Assistive Technology, 8.2, 110-120
13. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. New York: John Wiley and Sons
14. Law, M. (1987). Measurement in occupational therapy: Scientific criteria for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 133-138
15. Law, M., Baptiste, S., McColl, M., Opzoomer, A., Polatajko, H., & Pollock, N. (1990). The Canadian occupational performance measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 8287
16. Law, M., Baptiste, S., Carswell-Opzoomer, A., McColle, M., Polatajko, H., & Pollock, N. (1991). Canadian occupational performance measure. Toronto, ON: CAOT Publications Ace
17. Oldridge, N. B. (1996). Outcomes measurement: Health related quality of life. Assistive Technology, 8.2, 82-93
18. Patrick, D., & Erickson, P. (1993). Health status and policy: Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York: Oxford University Press
19. Pollock, N. (1993). Client-centered assessment. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 298-301
20. Portney, G. L., & Watkins, M. P. (1993). Foundations of clinical research; Applications to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Appleton and Lange
21. Rodgers, B L. (1985). A future perspective on the holistic use of technology for people with disabilities. (Available from the Trace R&D Center, Waisman Center, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53705.)
22. Rogers, J. C., & Holm, M. B. (1992). Assistive technology device use in patients with rheumatic disease: Literature review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 120-127
23. Scherer, M J. (1994). Matching person and technology: A series of assessments for selecting and evaluating technologies used in rehabilitation, education, the workplace and other settings. (Available from Marcia J. Scherer, 486 Lake Road, Webster, NY 14580.)
24. Silva, F. (1993). Psychometric foundations and behavioral assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
25. Smith, R. O. (1987a). Models of service delivery in rehabilitation technology. In RESNA (Ed.), Rehabilitation technology service delivery: A practical guide, 7-26. Washington, DC: RESNA, The Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology
26. Smith, R. O. (1987b). Using the occupational therapy comprehensive functional assessment (OTCFA) to evaluate the efficacy of technological intervention in rehabilitation. Proceedings of the RESNA Conference, San Jose, CA, 341-343. Arlington, VA: RESNA Press
27. Smith, R. O. (1991a). Technological approaches to performance enhancement. In C. Christiansen & C. Baum (Eds.), Occupational therapy: Overcoming human performance deficits. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Publishers
28. Smith, R. O. (1991b). Impact of computer technology on functional assessment. Symposium on Measurement and Assessment: Directions for Research in Occupational Therapy for AOTF, University of Illinois at Chicago
29. Smith, R. O. (1992). The science of occupational therapy assessment (guest editorial). Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 12, 3-15
30. Smith, R. O. (1992-1995). OT FACT. [Computer software]. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association
31. Smith, R. O. (1993). Assessing the impact of assistive technology using OT FACT Version 2.0. Proceedings of the RESNA Conference, Washington, DC, 186-188. Arlington, VA: RESNA Press
32. Smith, R. O., Benge, M., & Hall, M. (1994). Technology for selfcare. In C. Christiansen (Ed.), Ways of living: Self-care strategies for special needs, 379-422. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association
33. Spilker, B. (Ed.). (1990). Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press
34. Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation (UDS). (1995). Functional independence measures (Version 4.0). Buffalo, NY: Buffalo General Hospital, State University of New York
35. U.S. Department of Education. (1995). National Institute on Disability & Rehabilitation Research program directory fiscal year 1995. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education
36. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1993). Research plan for the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health
37. von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. London: Cambridge University Press
38. Warren, C. G. (1993). Cost effectiveness and efficiency in assistive technology service delivery. Assistive Technology, 5(2), 61-65
39. World Health Organization (WHO). (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO