Occupational therapy and assistive technology in school-based practice: Supporting participation

OT Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2006, Pages

  Schoonover, Judith W ^a   Levan, Pamela E ^b   Grove, Rebecca E Argabrite ^a  

^a Loudoun County Public Schools   (United States)

^b Escambia County Public Schools   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845870953     PISSN: 10844902     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Short Survey

References (20)

1. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2002). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 609-639.
2. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2004a). Assistive technology within occupational therapy practice. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 678-680.
3. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2004b). Guidelines for supervision, roles, and responsibilities during the delivery of occupational therapy services. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 663-667.
4. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2004c). Scope of practice. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 673-677.
5. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2005a). Occupational therapy code of ethics (2005). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 639-642.
6. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2005b). Standards for continuing competence. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 661-662.
7. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2005c). Standards of practice for occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 663-665.
8. Bowser, G., & Reed, P. (1998). Educational tech points: A framework for assistive technology planning. Winchester, OR: Coalition for Assistive Technology in Oregon.
9. Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
10. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Pub. L. 94-142, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
11. Lane, C., & Aratani, L. (2005, October 5). High court to hear Maryland special-ed case; parents, Montgomery schools split on who must prove teaching plans will work. The Washington Post, p. B1.
12. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. Pub. L. 101-476, 20 U.S.C Ch 33.
13. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization of 1997. Pub. L. 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
14. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Pub. L. 108-146.
15. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1989). OSERS News in Print, 2, 1.
16. QIAT Consortium. (2005). Quality indicators for assistive technology services (Rev.). Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.qiat.org
17. Reed, P. (2004a). Assistive technology assessment. In The WATI assessment package (p. 12). Retrieved October 10, 2005 from http://www.wati.org/ Materials/pdf/wati%20assessment.pdf
18. Reed, P. (2004b). The WATI assessment package. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://www.wati.org/Materials/pdf/wati%20assessment.pdf
19. Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology Society of North America. (n.d.). RESNA credentialing program. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://www.resna.org/NewCertPract/GettingCertificate.php
20. Zabala, J. (2002). Critical elements of the SETT: Collaboration, communication, multiple perspectives, pertinent information, shared knowledge, flexibility, and on-going processes. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/SETTupdate2002.html