Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research

Assistive Technology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 129-138

  Lenker, James A ^a   Fuhrer, Marcus J ^b   Jutai, Jeffrey W ^c   Demers, Louise ^d   Scherer, Marcia J ^e   Deruyter, Frank ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

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

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^d CENTRE DE RECHERCHE   (Canada)

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

^f DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

assistive technology; evidence based practice; outcomes research; treatment fidelity; treatment specification; treatment theory

Indexed keywords

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; TREATMENT FIDELITY; TREATMENT SPECIFICATION; TREATMENT THEORY;

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; SPECIFICATIONS; TECHNOLOGY;

RESEARCH;

ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RESEARCH; SELF HELP; THEORETICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RESEARCH; SELF-HELP DEVICES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78049444851     PISSN: 10400435     EISSN: 19493614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10400430903519910     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Anderson, R., & Newman, J. F. (1972). Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 51, 95-124.
2. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Social cognition models and health behaviour: A structured review. Psychology and Health, 15, 173-179.
3. Auger, C., Demers, L., Gelinas, I., Jutai, J. W., Fuhrer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2008). Powered mobility for middle-aged and older adults: Systematic review of outcomes and appraisal of published evidence. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87, 666-680.
4. Becker, S., Wahl, H.-W., Schilling, O., & Burmedi, D. (2005). Assistive device use in visually impaired older adults: Role of control beliefs. The Gerontologist, 45, 739-746.
5. Belle, S. H., Czaja, S. J., Schulz, R., Zhang, S., Burgio, L. D., Gitlin, L. N., et al. (2003). Using a new taxonomy to combine the uncombinable: Integrating results across diverse interventions. Psychology and Aging, 3, 396-405.
6. Billingsley, F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
7. Borrelli, B., Sepinwall, D., Bellg, A. J., Breger, R., DeFrancesco, C., Sharp, D. L., et al. (2005). A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 852-860.
8. Clancy, C. M., & Eisenberg, J. M. (1998). Outcomes research: Measure the end results of health care. Science, 282, 245-246.
9. Collins, M. P., Souza, P. E., O'Neill, S., & Yueh, B. (2007). Effectiveness of group versus individual hearing aid visits. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 44, 739-750.
10. Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (2002). Assistive technologies principles and practice (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
11. Cook, A. M., & Miller Polgar, J. (2008). Cook & Hussey's assistive technologies: Principles & practice (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier.
12. Corcoran, M. (2008). Five years in review: Clinical scholarship revisited. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 263-264.
13. DeJong, G., Horn, S. D., Gassaway, J. A., Slavin, M. D., & Dijkers, M. P. (2004). Toward a taxonomy of rehabilitation interventions: Using an inductive approach to examine the "black box" of rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 678-686.
14. Demers, L., Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Lenker, J. A., Depa, M., & DeRuyter, F. (2009). Development of a conceptual framework for understanding assistive technology outcomes experienced by caregivers. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 645-658.
15. DeRuyter, F. (1997). The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technology and Disability, 6, 89-104.
16. Domholdt, E. (2000). Physical therapy research: Principles and applications (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.
17. Donabedian, A. (1966). Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44, 166-203.
18. Duncan, P. W., Hoenig, H., Samsa, G., & Hamilton, B. (1997). Characterizing rehabilitation interventions. In M. J. Fuhrer (Ed.), Assessing medical rehabilitation practices: The promise of outcomes research. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
19. Efthimiou, J., Gordon, W. A., Sell, G. H., & Stratford, C. (1981). Electronic assistive devices: Their impact on the quality of life of high level quadriplegic persons. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 62, 131-134.
20. Fuhrer, M. J. (1997). Evaluating the outcomes of assistive technologies and related services: The roles of program management-oriented and rehabilitation science-oriented outcomes research. In G. Anogianakis (Ed.), Advancements of assistive technology. Fairfax, VA: IOS Press.
21. Fuhrer, M. J. (2001). Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 528-535.
22. Fuhrer, M. J. (2003). Overview of clinical trials in medical rehabilitation: Impetuses, challenges, and needed future directions. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82 (Suppl. 10), S8-S15.
23. Fuhrer, M. J. (2007). Assessing the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of assistive technology interventions for enhancing mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2, 149-158.
24. Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modeling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 1243-1251.
25. Gelderbloom, G. J., & de Witte, L. P. (2002). Special issue: The assessment of assistive technology outcomes effects and costs. Technology and Disability, 14, 89-145.
26. Gitlin, L. N. (2002). Assistive technology in the home and community for older people: Psychological and social considerations. In M. J. Scherer (Ed.), Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27. Granlund, M., & Bjorck-Akesson, E. (2005). Participation and general competence: Do type and degree of disability really matter? In R. Traustadottir, A. Gustavsson, J. Tossebro, & J. T. Sandvin (Eds.), Change, resistance and reflection: Current Nordic disability research. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
28. Hebert, P. (1995). Treatment. In R. L. Kane (Ed.), Understanding health care outcomes research. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
29. Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102, 284-304.
30. Heinemann, A. (2008). State of the science on postacute rehabilitation: Setting a research agenda and developing an evidence base for practice and public policy. An introduction. Assistive Technology, 20, 55-60.
31. Hoenig, H., Landerman, L. R., Shipp, K. M., Pieper, C., Richardson, M., Pahel, N., et al. (2005). A clinical trial of a rehabilitation expert clinician versus usual care for providing manual wheelchairs. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53, 1712-1720.
32. Jutai, J. W. (2002). Occupational therapy and assistive technology: The research challenge. Israel Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11, E3-E22.
33. Jutai, J. W., Fuhrer, M. J., Demers, L., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2005). Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 294-302.
34. Keith, R. A. (1997a). The role of treatment theory. In M. J. Fuhrer (Ed.), Assessing medical rehabilitation practices: The promise of outcomes research. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
35. Keith, R. A. (1997b). Treatment strength in rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78, 1298-1304.
36. Lawton, M. P. (1986). Environment and aging (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: Center for the Study of Aging.
37. Lenker, J. A., & Jutai, J. W. (2002). Assistive technology research and practice: What role for ICF? Paper presented at the 8th North American Collaborating Center Conference on ICF, Toronto.
38. Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L. (2003). A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15, 1-15.
39. Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L. (2004). A new conceptual model for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 16, 1-10.
40. Lenker, J. A., Scherer, M. J., Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., & DeRuyter, F. (2005). Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technology, 17, 7-22.
41. Lipsey, M. W. (1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. In L. B. Sechrest & A. G. Scott (Eds.), Understanding causes and generalizing about them. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
42. Mann, W. C., Ottenbacher, K. J., Fraas, L., Tomita, M., & Granger, C. V. (1999). Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 210-217.
43. Minkel, J. L. (1996). Assistive technology and outcome measurement: Where do we begin? Technology and Disability, 5, 285-288.
44. Moncher, F. J., & Prinz, R. J. (1991). Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 247-266.
45. Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1995). Effects of speech synthesis on the proofreading efficiency of post-secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141-158.
46. Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R. (2000). Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 44-50.
47. Roelands, M., Van Oost, P., Depoorter, A., & Buysse, A. (2002). A socialcognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. The Gerontologist, 42, 39-50. (Pubitemid 34142168)
48. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.
49. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1-28.
50. Rust, K., & Smith, R. O. (2005). Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes: A review and analysis of instruments. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 780-793.
51. Saladin, S. P., & Hansmann, S. (2008). Psychosocial variables in the adoption of assistive technology among employees at the Texas School for the Deaf. Assistive Technology, 20, 36-47.
52. Scherer, M. J. (1998). Matching person and technology. Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person & Technology.
53. Scherer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Fuhrer, M. J., Demers, L., & DeRuyter, F. (2007). A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2, 1-8.
54. Schlosser, R. W. (2002). On the importance of being earnest about treatment integrity. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 36-44.
55. Schlosser, R. W., Blischak, D. M., Belfiore, P. J., Bartley, C., & Barnett, N. (1998). Effects of synthetic speech output and orthographic feedback on spelling in a student with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 309-319.
56. Schlosser, R. W., Koul, R., & Costello, J. (2007). Asking well-built questions for evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 225-238.
57. Scott, A. G., & Sechrest, L. B. (1989). Strength of theory and theory of strength. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 329-336.
58. Sechrest, L. B., West, S. G., Phillips, M. A., Redner, R., & Yeaton, W. (1979). Some neglected problems in evaluation research: Strength and integrity of treatments. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 4, 15-35.
59. Smith, R. O. (1996). Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: Challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology, 8, 71-81.
60. United States Department of Education. (1997). Definitions for USDE grants. Federal Register, 62, 5711-5721.
61. Verbrugge, L. M., & Jette, A. M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science & Medicine, 38, 1-14.
62. Warren, C. G. (1993). Cost effectiveness and efficiency in assistive technology service delivery. Assistive Technology, 5, 61-73.
63. Whyte, J. (2003). Clinical trials in rehabilitation: What are the obstacles? American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82 (Suppl.), S16-S21.
64. Whyte, J. (2006). Using treatment theories to refine the designs of brain injury rehabilitation treatment effectiveness studies. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 21, 99-106.
65. Whyte, J., & Hart, T. (2003). It's more than a black box; it's a Russian doll: Defining rehabilitation treatments. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 639-652.
66. Zimmer, Z., & Chappell, N. L. (1994). Mobility restriction and the use of devices among seniors. Journal of Aging and Health, 6, 185-208.