Development of a standardized instrument to assess the performance of computer tasks by students with low vision

Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness

Volumn 97, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 5-16

  Vincent, Claude ^b   Dumont, Claire ^a   Bouchard, Danièle ^a   Lespérance, Françoise ^a  

^a INSTITUT DE RÉADAPTATION EN DÉFICIENCE PHYSIQUE DE QUÉBEC   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ASSESSMENT OF COMPUTER TASK PERFORMANCE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FUNCTION TEST; HUMAN; MALE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL DISORDER;

EID: 0037230766     PISSN: 0145482X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0145482x0309700102     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Beumer, J. J., de Haan, A., & van der Ven, J. (2000). Implications of computer-mediated communication for people who are visually impaired in dealing with complex visualization tasks. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 7, 453-456.
2. Bevan, J., Lovie-Kitchin, J., Hein, B., Ting, E., Brand, P., Scott, M., & Fotkou, P. (2000). The effect of relative size magnification vs. relative distance magnification on the reading performance of children with low vision. In C. Stuen, A. Arditi, A. Horowitz, M.A. Lang, B. Rosenthal, & K. Seidman (Eds.), Vision rehabilitation, assessment, intervention and outcomes (pp. 428-432). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
3. Brodin, J., & Lonson, U. (2000). Computer play centers for children with disabilities. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 23, 125-128.
4. Cahill, H., Linehan, C., McCarthy, J., Bormans G., & Engelen, J. (1996). Blind and partially sighted students' access to mathematics and computer technology in Ireland and Belgium. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 2, 105-114.
5. Cardona, M., Martinez, A. L., & Hinojosa, J. (2000). Effectiveness of using a computer to improve attention to visual analysis activities of five preschool children with disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 7(1), 42-55.
6. Carey, D. M., & Sale, P. (1994). Practical considerations in the use of technology to facilitate the inclusion of students with severe disabilities. Technology and Disability, 3(2), 77-86.
7. Clark, E. (2000). Programme d'entrainement aux habiletés à pointer à l'ordinateur destiné aux enfants avec une déficience motrice [Training program for computer pointing tasks for children with motor impairments]. Revue québécoise d'ergothérapie [Quebec Journal of Occupational Therapy], 9(1), 6-10.
8. den Brinker, B. P. L. M., van Delden, M., & Goudsbloem, M. (2000). What makes graphical user interfaces so difficult for visually impaired people and what to do about it. In C. Stuen, A. Arditi, A Horowitz, M. A. Lang, B. Rosenthal, & K. Seidman (Eds.). Vision Rehabilitation, Assessment, Intervention and Outcomes (pp. 860-866). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
9. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development. Theory and applications. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 6. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10. Deyo, R. A., Diehr, P., & Patrick, D. L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12, 142-158.
11. Dumont, C., & Dionne, C. (2000). Validation d'un instrument de mesure pour évaluer l'accès à l'ordinateur chez les personnes ayant une déficience physique [Validation of an instrument assessing computer access for people with physical impairments]. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 173-183.
12. Dumont, C., Vincent, C., & Maser, B. (2002). Development of a standardized instrument to assess computer task performance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 60-68.
13. Fleiss, J. L., & Shrout, P. E. (1978). Approximate interval estimation for a certain correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 43, 259-262.
14. Fortuin, F. T. J. M., & Omta, S. W. F. (2000). Designing universal interfaces: The application of universal design rules to eliminate information barriers for the visually impaired and the elderly. In C. Stuen, A. Arditi, A Horowitz, M. A. Lang, B. Rosenthal, & K. Seidman (Eds.), Vision Rehabilitation, Assessment, Intervention and Outcomes (pp. 855-859). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
15. Gill, J. (2000). Design features and terminals to improve accessibility by visually impaired persons. In C. Stuen, A. Arditi, A. Horowitz, M. A. Lang, B. Rosenthal, & K. Seidman (Eds.), Vision Rehabilitation, Assessment, Intervention and Outcomes (pp. 853-854). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
16. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
17. MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in language disorders, 8, 85-99.
18. Maser, B., Dumont, C., & Vincent, C. (2002). The assessment of computer task performance for children. Submitted for publication.
19. Mioduser, D., Lahav, O., & Nachmias, R. (2000). Using computers to teach remedial spelling to a student with low vision: A case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 1, 15-25.
20. Scherer, M. J. (1994). Matching person and technology. New York: Webster.
21. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Interclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
22. Sleeuwenhoeck, H. C., Boter, R. D., & Vermeer, A. (1995). Perceptual-motor performance and the social development of visually impaired children. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89, 359-367.
23. Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.