Assistive technology: Choosing the right tool for the right job

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 73-80

  Gamble, Mandy J ^a   Dowler, Denetta L ^a   Orslene, Louis E ^a,b  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Assistive technology; Workplace accommodation

Indexed keywords

ALLERGY; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVICE; ASTHMA; BRAIN INJURY; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; EMPLOYMENT; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HUMAN; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; OBESITY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; REVIEW; SENSORY DYSFUNCTION; SLEEP APNEA SYNDROME; VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION; WORKPLACE;

EID: 33645006192     PISSN: 10522263     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Adaptive Technology Resource Center (n.d.), Assistive technology outcomes, Retrieved April 13, 2005, from http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/ reference/atoutcomes/ATOTools.html.
2. S.H. Allaire, W. Li and M.P. LaValley, Work barriers experienced and job accommodations used by persons with arthritis and other rheumatic diseases, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 46 (2003), 47-156.
3. Assistive Technology Act, 29 U.S.C. β3003 (2004). Assistive Technology - What Employees Say. (2001, May 10). Empowerment, p. 2.
4. Y. Bat-Chava, E. Deignan and D. Martin, Rehabilitation counselors' knowledge of hearing loss and assistive technology, Journal of Rehabilitation 68 (2002), 33-41.
5. J.T. Brett, Working for people with disabilities, Connection: New England's Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development 15 (2000), 25-28.
6. S.E. Butler, A. Crudden, W.A. Sansing and B.J. LeJuene, Employment barriers: Access to assistive technology and research needs, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 96 (2002), 664-667.
7. A. Crudden and C.K. Fireison, Employment retention after vision loss: Intensive case studies, Mississippi State: Mississippi State University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision, 1997.
8. H. Day, J. Jutai, W. Woolrich and G. Strong, The stability of impact of assistive devices, Disability and Rehabilitation 23 (2001), 400-404.
9. L. Demers, R. Weiss-Lambrou and B. Ska, Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST), Assistive Technology 8 (1996), 3-13.
10. T. Hart, R. Buchhofer and M. Vaccaro, Portable electronic Devices as Memory and Organizational Aids After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Consumer Survey Study, Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 19 (2004), 351-365.
11. ICDI, Analysis of RSA data: AT report, Unpublished manuscript. Morgantown, WV: International Center for Disability Information, 2005.
12. JAN, Preliminary Report of Findings: Employer Survey. Unpublished report, Morgantown, WV; Job Accommodation Network (2004).
13. J. Jutai and H. Day, Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS), Technology and Disability 14 (2002), 107-111.
14. H.S. Kaye, Disability and the digital divide, (Disability Statistics Abstract Rep. No. 22). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2000.
15. J.W. Madaus, L.M. Ruban, T.E. Foley and J.M. McGuire, Attributes contributing to the employment satisfaction of university graduates with learning disabilities, Learning Disability Quarterly 26 (2003), 159-169.
16. P. Mondak, The Americans With Disabilities Act and information technology access, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 15 (2000), Retreived from Ebsohost, February, 2005.
17. N.S. Ofiesh, C.J. Rice, E.M. Long, D.C. Merchant and A.H. Gajar, Service delivery for postsecondary students with disabilities: A survey of assistive technology use across disabilities, College Student Journal 36 (2002), Retrieved from Ebscohost, Februrary, 2005.
18. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (n.d.). RESNA policy on the qualification of service providers in assistive technology. Retrieved April 13, 2005, from http://www.resna.org/PracInAT/CertifiedPractice/Qualifications.html.
19. RESNA Technical Assistance Project, Tech act projects creating systems change through policies, practices, laws, regulations, procedures, and organizational structures. Arlington, VA: Author, 1998.
20. M.L. Riemer-Reiss and R.R. Wacker, Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities, Journal of Rehabilitation 66 (2000), 44-50.
21. R.T. Roessler, PD. Rumrill and S.M. Fitzgerald, Predictors of employment status for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 47 (2004), 96-103.
22. M.J. Scherer, The change in emphasis from people to person, Disability and Rehabilitation 24 (2002), 1-4.
23. M.J. Scherer and G. Craddock, Matching Person and Technology (MPT) assessment process, Technology and Disability 14 (2002), 125-131.
24. The US Technology-Related Assistance For Individuals With Disabilities Act of 1988, Section 3.1. Public Law 100-407, August 9, 1988 (renewed in 1998 in the Clinton Assistive Technology Act).
25. VECAP, (1997), Vocational Evaluation and Career Assessment Professionals position paper on the role of assistive technology in assessment and vocational Evaluation. Retrieved April 13, 2005 from http://www.vecap.org/atrole.html.