A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs)

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-8

  Scherer, Marcia ^a   Jutai, Jeffrey ^b   Fuhrer, Marcus ^c   Demers, Louise ^d   Deruyter, Frank ^e  

^a Institute for Matching Person and Technology   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

^e DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

assessment; Assistive device; assistive technology; disability; Disability and Health; International Classification of Functioning; model; outcome; rehabilitation; theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; DISABLED PERSON; ENVIRONMENT; HUMAN; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SELF HELP;

CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DECISION MAKING; DISABLED PERSONS; ENVIRONMENT; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SELF-HELP DEVICES;

EID: 62749206671     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17483100600845414     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehab 2003;25(22):1243-1251.
2. World Health Organization. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: Author; 2002. Retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm
3. Arthanat S, Lenker J. Evaluating the ICF as a framework for clinical assessment of persons for assistive technology device recommendation. Paper presentation, Advancing a research agenda for ICF: 10th North American Collaborating Center (NACC) Conference on ICF, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 2 June 2004. [http://www.icfconference.com/downloads/Sajay Arthanat.pdf].
4. Craddock GM. The impact of assistive technology on the quality of life and participation, self-esteem and autonomy of students with disabilities transitioning from second level to post second level education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University College Dublin, Ireland; 2003.
5. Lenker JA, Jutai JW. Assistive technology outcomes research and clinical practice: what role for ICF? 8th North American Collaborating Center Conference on ICF, Toronto, 2-4 June 2002. Retrieved December 16, 2004 from http://www.icis.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/icf-jun02-presentations-26-e.pdf
6. Lenker JA, Scherer MJ, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, DeRuyter F. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assist Technol 2005;17(1):7-22. (Pubitemid 44783441)
7. Cushman LA, Scherer MJ. Measuring the relationship of assistive technology use, functional status over time, and consumer-therapist perceptions of ATs. Assist Technol 1996; 8(2):103-109. (Pubitemid 27009902)
8. Ü stün TB, Chaterji S, Bickenbach J, Kastanjsek N, Schnieder M. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: A new tool for understanding disability and health. Disabil Rehab 2003;25:565-571. (Pubitemid 36806189)
9. Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol 2003;15(1):1-15. (Pubitemid 38252270)
10. Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehab 2005;84(4):294-302. (Pubitemid 40389071)
11. De Jonge DM, Rodger SA. Consumer-identified barriers and strategies for optimizing technology use in the workplace. Disabil Rehab: Assist Technol 2006;1(1-2):79-88.
12. Dijcks BPJ, De Witte LP, Gelderblom GJ, Wessels RD, Soede M. Non-use of assistive technology in The Netherlands: A nonissue? Disabil Rehab: Assist Technol 2006;1(1-2):97-102.
13. Wielandt T, Mckenna K, Tooth L, Strong J. Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT). Disabil Rehab: Assist Technol 2006;1(1-2):29-40.
14. Kittel A, Di Marco A, Stewart H. Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehab 2002;24(1-3): 106-114. (Pubitemid 34105682)
15. Scherer MJ, McKee BG. But will the assistive technology device be used? Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference: Technology for the Next Decade. RESNA, Washington, DC; 1989. pp 356-357.
16. Scherer MJ. Policy issues in evaluating and selecting assistive technology and other resources for persons with disabilities. Bridging gaps: Refining the disability research agenda for rehabilitation and the social sciences.Washington,DC:National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research; 2002.
17. Mendelsohn S, Fox HR. Evolving legislation and public policy on disability and assistive technology. In: Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books; 2002. pp 17-28.
18. Craddock G, McCormack L. Delivering an AT service: A client-focused, social and participatory service delivery model in assistive technology in Ireland. Disabil Rehab 2002; 24(1-3):160-170. (Pubitemid 34105688)
19. Leininger M. Transcultural nursing: Concepts, theories, research, and practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc; 1995.
20. Louise-Bender Pape T, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disabil Rehab 2002;24(1-3):5-20. (Pubitemid 34105673)
21. Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: How technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books; 2005.
22. Judge SL, Parette HP, editors. Assistive technology for young children with disabilities: A guide to providing family-centered services. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books; 1998.
23. Parette HP, Huer MB, Scherer M. Effects of acculturation on assistive technology service delivery. J Spec Educ Technol 2004;19(2):31-41. Also available on-line at http://jset.unlv. edu/19.2/parette/first.html
24. Parette HP, Brotherson MJ, Hoge DR, Hostetler SA. Familycentered augmentative and alternative communication issues: Implications across cultures. Paper presented to the International Early Childhood Conference on Children with Special Needs, Phoenix, AZ; 1996.
25. Smith-LewisM.What is mental retardation? Perceptions from the African American community. Unpublished manuscript, Hunter College, New York; 1992.
26. Misra A. Partnership with multicultural families. In Alper SK, Schloss PJ, Schloss CN, editors. Families of students with disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1994. pp 143-179.
27. Lahm EA, Sizemore L. Factors that influence assistive technology decision-making. J Spec Educ Technol 2002;17:15-25.
28. Parette HP, VanBiervliet A, Hourcade JJ. Family-centered decision-making in assistive technology. J Spec Educ Technol 2000;15(1):45-55.
29. Jans L. Use of assistive technology: Findings from national surveys. Berkeley, CA: InfoUse; 2000.
30. National Council on Disability. Federal Policy Barriers to Assistive Technology. 31 May 2000 [Retrieved 7 January 2005 from http://www.ncd.gov].
31. Scherer MJ. Connecting to learn: Educational and assistive technology for people with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA) Books; 2004.
32. Wessels R, Dijcks B, Soede M, Gelderblom GJ, De Witte L. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices: A literature overview. Technol Disabil 2003;15(4):231-238. (Pubitemid 38165427)
33. Brandt A, Iwarsson S, Stahl A. Satisfaction with rollators among community-living users: A follow-up study. Disabil Rehab 2003;25(7):343-353. (Pubitemid 36626488)
34. Burton AK, Tillotson KM, Main CJ, Hollis S. Psychosocial predictors of outcome in acute and subchronic low back trouble. Spine 1995;20(6):722-728.
35. Dunbar-Jacob J, Erlen JA, Schlenk EA, Ryan CM, Sereika SM, Doswell WM. Adherence in chronic disease. Ann Rev Nurs Res 2000;18:48-90.
36. Gilmore JD, Lash SJ, Foster MA, Blosser SL. Adherence to substance abuse treatment: Clinical utility of two MMPI-2 scales. J Personality Assess 2000;77(3):524-540. (Pubitemid 34019973)
37. Leombruni P, Orofino G, Carosella S, Fassino S. Personality profile and adherence in HIV outpatients. Int Conf AIDS, 7-12 July 2002;14:(abstract no. B10557).
38. O'Brien MK, Petrie K, Raeburn J. Adherence to medication regimens: Updating a complex medical issue. Med Care Rev 1992;49(4):435-454.
39. Kraskowsky LH, Finlayson M. Factors affecting older adults' use of adaptive equipment: Review of the literature. Am J Occupat Ther 2001;55(3):303-310. (Pubitemid 33661639)
40. Roelands M, Van Oost P, Depoorter A, Buysse A. A socialcognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. Gerontologist 2002;42(1):39-50. (Pubitemid 34142168)
41. Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: APA Books; 2002.
42. Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, Cushman LA, Scherer JV. Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehab 2005; 27(21):1321-1331. (Pubitemid 41823742)
43. Scherer MJ, Glueckauf R. Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation. Rehab Psychol 2005;50(2):132-141. (Pubitemid 40770594)