Use of assistive technology devices in mainstream schools: Students' perspective

American Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 63, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 463-472

  Hemmingsson, Helena ^a   Lidström, Helene ^a   Nygård, Louise ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Consumer satisfaction; Disabled children; Early intervention (education); Mainstreaming (education); Self help devices

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CURRICULUM; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; HANDICAPPED CHILD; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SELF HELP; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; CHILD; DISABLED CHILDREN; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MAINSTREAMING (EDUCATION); MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SELF-HELP DEVICES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 68949144606     PISSN: 02729490     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5014/ajot.63.4.463     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bain, B. K., &Leger, D. (1997). Assistive technology interdisciplinary approach. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
2. Bogdan, R., &Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
3. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. (1997). Enabling occupation: An occupational therapy perspective. Toronto, Ontario: CAOT Publications.
4. Carey, D., &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.
5. Coupley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11 (4), 229-243.
6. Craddock, G. (2006). The AT continuum in education: Novice to power user. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1 (1-2), 17-27.
7. Creswell, J. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Curtin, C. (2000). Eliciting children's voices in qualitative research. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 295-302.
9. Curtin, M., &Fossey, E. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54, 88-94.
10. Davis, J. (1998). Understanding the meaning of children: A reflexive process. Children and Society, 12, 325-335.
11. Derer, K., Polsgrove, L., &Rieth, H. (1996).A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 62-80.
12. Freeman, A., MacKinnon, J., &Miller, L. (2004). Assistive technology and handwriting problems: What do occupational therapists recommended?Canadian Journal of Occupation Therapy, 71 (3), 150-160.
13. Gillette, Y. (2006). Assistive technology and literacy partnerships. Topics in Language Disorders, 26 (1), 70-84.
14. Graneheim, U. H., &Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105-112.
15. Harris, M., &Alley, S. (1999). Measuring knowledge of school-based occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54 (2), 189-196.
16. Hemmingsson, H., Gustavsson, A., &Townsend, E. (2007). Students with disabilities participating in mainstream schools: Policies that promote and limit teacher and therapist cooperation. Disability and Society, 22 (4), 383-398.
17. Hocking, C. (1999). Function of feelings: Factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technology and Disability, 11, 3-11.
18. Isabelle, S., Bessey, F., Lawrence Dragas, K., Blease, P., Shephard, J., &Lane, S. (2002). Assistive technology for children with disabilities. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 16 (4), 29-51.
19. Korpela, R. A., &Koivikko, M. J. A. (1992). Regional survey of technical aids used by handicapped children in day care and at school. Disability and Rehabilitation, 14, 16-22.
20. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214-222.
21. Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsinteryjun[The qualitative research interview]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
22. Larsson Lund, M., &Nygård, L. (2003). Incorporating or resisting assistive devices: Different approaches to achieving a desired occupational self-image. OTJR: Occupation, Participation, and Health, 23 (2), 67-75.
23. Law, M. (1998). Client-centered occupational therapy. Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
24. Lenker, J. A., &Paquet, V. L. (2003).A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15, 1-15.
25. Long, T., Woolverton, M., Perry, D., &Thomas, J. (2007). Training needs of pediatric occupational therapists in assistive technology. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 345-354.
26. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Philips, B., &Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5, 36-45.
28. Scherer, M. (2000). Living in the state of stuck: How assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
29. Scherer, M., &Craddock, G. (2002). Matching Person and Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology and Disability, 14, 125-131.
30. Scherer, M., &Galvin, J. (1994). Matching people with technology. Rehab Management, 7, 128-130.
31. Scott, S. B. (1997). Comparison of service delivery models influencing teachers' use of assistive technology for students with severe disabilities. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 11 (1), 61-75.
32. Seymore, W. (2005).ICT and disability: Exploring the human dimensions of technological engagement. Technology and Disability, 17, 195-204.
33. Skär, L. (2002). Disabled children's perceptions of technical aids, assistance, and peers in play situations. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 16 (1), 27-33.
34. Skär, L., &Tamm, M. (2000). How children with restricted mobility perceive their technical aids. Nordisk Fysioterapi, 4, 3-12.
35. Smith, R. O. (2001). Research over the next century: Impact of technology. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55 (2), 233-234.
36. Swinth, Y. (2001). Assistive technology: Computers and augmentative communication. In C. Case-Smith (Ed.), Occupational therapy for children (4th ed., pp. 571-608). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
37. Todis, B., &Walker, H. (1993). User perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Exceptional Children Education Resources, 26 (3), 1-14.
38. Unsworth, C., &Townsend, M. (1997). Occupational therapists' skills and attitudes regarding use of computers and assistive technology. Occupational Therapy International, 4 (1), 52-65.
39. Wehmeyer, M. (1997). Self-determination as an educational outcome: A definitional frame-work and implications for interventions. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 9 (3), 175-209. (Pubitemid 127503024)
40. Wessels, R., Dijicks, B., Soede, M., Gelderblom, G. J., &De Witte, L. (2003). Nonuse of provided assistive technology devices: A literature overview. Technology and Disability, 15, 231-238.