Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 373-380

  Lenker, James A ^a   Harris, Frances ^b   Taugher, Mary ^c   Smith, Roger O ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Assistive technology; Focus groups; Outcomes measurement; Participation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COST; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SELF HELP; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; TIME; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 84883593607     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2012.749429     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Scherer MJ. The impact of assistive technology on the lives of people with disabilities. In: Gray DB, Quatrano LA, Lieberman ML, eds. Designing and using assistive technology: the human perspective. Baltimore (MD): Paul H. Brookes; 1998: 99-115.
2. Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modeling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25: 1243-51.
3. Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84: 294-302.
4. DeRuyter F. Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technol 1995;7: 3-8.
5. Smith RO. Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assistive Technol 1996;8: 71-81.
6. Lenker JA, Scherer MJ, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technol 2005;17: 7-22.
7. Batavia A, Hammer G. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990;27: 424-36.
8. Lane JP, Usiak DJ, Stone VI, Scherer MJ. The voice of the customer: consumers define the ideal battery charger. Assistive Technol 1997;9: 130-9.
9. World Health Organization. ICF: International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: Author; 2001.
10. Rust KL, Smith RO. Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes: a review and analysis of instruments. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84: 780-93.
11. Lenker JA, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, et al. Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assistive Technol 2010;22: 129-38.
12. Fuhrer MJ. Assessing the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of assistive technology interventions for enhancing mobility. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2007;2: 149-58.
13. Craddock G. The AT continuum in education: novice to power user. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2006;1: 17-27.
14. Finlayson M, van Denend T. Experiencing the loss of mobility: perspectives of older adults with MS. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 1168-80.
15. Hammel J, Finlayson M, Lastowski S. Using participatory action research to examine outcomes and effect systems change in assistive technology financing. J Disabil Policy Stud 2003;4: 98-102.
16. Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27: 1321-31.
17. Blackstone SW, Williams MB, Joyce M. Future AAC technology needs: consumer perspectives. Assistive Technol 2002;14: 3-16.
18. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcomes measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring (MD): Author; 2009. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf [last accessed 15 Jan 2013].
19. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care 2007;45:S12-21.
20. Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, Morgan KA. Participation survey/mobility: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87: 189-97.
21. Heinemann A, Tulsky D, Dijkers M, et al. Issues in participation measurement in research and clinical applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S72-6.
22. Rackensperger T, Krezman C, McNaughton D, et al. ''When I first got it, I wanted to throw it off a cliff'': the challenges and benefits of learning AAC technologies as described by adults who use AAC. Augment Alter Commun 2005;21: 165-86.
23. Hammel J, Magasi S, Heinemann A, et al. What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30: 1445-60.
24. Dijkers M. Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S5-16.
25. Pape TLB, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24: 5-20.
26. Haggblom-Kronlof G, Sonn U. Use of assistive devices - a reality full of contradictions in elderly persons' everyday life. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2007;2: 335-45.
27. De Jonge DM, Rodger S. Consumer-identified barriers and strategies for optimizing technology use in the workplace. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2006;1: 79-88.
28. Lane JP, Usiak DJ, Moffat JA. Consumer criteria for assistive devices: operationalizing generic criteria for specific ABLEDATA categories. Proceedings of the RESNA Annual Conference; 1996; Salt Lake City, UT: 146-8.
29. Aaronson D, Gabias P. Computer use by the visually impaired. Behav Res Methods, Instrum Comput 1987;19: 275-82.
30. Brienza D, Angelo J. Consumer participation in identifying research and development priorities for power wheelchair input devices and controllers. Assistive Technol 1995;7: 55-62.
31. Gitlin LN, Mount J, Lucas W, et al. The physical costs and psychosocial benefits of travel aids for persons who are visually impaired or blind. J Visual Impair Blindness 1997;91: 347-59.
32. Aminzadeh F, Edwards N. Exploring seniors' views on the use of assistive devices in fall prevention. Public Health Nurs 1998;15: 297-304.
33. Gitlin LN, Luborsky MR, Schemm RL. Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist 1998;38: 169-80.
34. Dickerson S, Stone VI, Panchura C, Usiak DJ. The meaning of communication: experiences with augmentative communication devices. Rehabil Nurs 2002;27: 215-20.
35. Magasi S, Hammel J, Heinemann A, et al. Participation: a comparative analysis of multiple rehabilitation stakeholders' perspectives. J Rehabil Med 2009;41: 936-44.
36. Harris F, Sprigle S, Sonenblum SE, Maurer CL. The Participation and Activity Measurement System: an example application among people who use wheeled mobility devices. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2010;5: 48-57.
37. Harris F. Conceptual issues in the measurement of participation among wheeled mobility users. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2007;2: 137-48.
38. Hoenig H, Giacobbi P, Levy CE. Methodological challenges confronting researchers of wheeled mobility aids and other assistive technologies. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2007;2: 159-68.
39. Law M, Cooper B, Strong S, et al. The Person-Environment Occupation Model: a transactive approach to occupational performance. Can J Occup Ther 1996;63: 9-23.
40. Morgan DL. Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 1996;22: 129-52.
41. Ottum B. Focus groups and new product development. Marketing News 1996;30:H26.
42. Lane JP. Consumer contributions to technology evaluation and transfer. Technol Disabil 1998;9: 103-18.
43. Murray PJ. Using focus groups in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 1997;7:542.
44. Griffin A, Hauser JR. The voice of the customer. Marketing Sci 1993;12: 1-27.
45. Story MF. Focus groups with participants who have disabilities. HCI International, 2005 July 22-27; Las Vegas, NV.
46. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH, eds. Guidelines for conducting NGT meetings. In: Group techniques for program planning. Middleton (WI): Green Briar Press; 1986: 40-107.
47. Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1988.
48. Fuhrer MJ. Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22: 481-9.
49. Lawton MP. Measures of quality of life and subjective well-being. Generations 1997: 45-7.
50. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull 1984;95: 542-75.
51. Cardol J, DeJong B, Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24: 970-4.
52. Reid D, Angus J, Mckeever P, Miller KL. Home is where their wheels are: experiences of women wheelchair users. Am J Occup Ther 2003;57: 186-95.
53. Barker DJ, Reid D, Cott C. Acceptance and meanings of wheelchair use in senior stroke survivors. Am J Occup Ther 2004;58: 221-30.
54. Teitelman J, Copolillo A. Psychosocial issues in older adults' adjustment to vision loss: findings from qualitative interviews and focus groups. Am J Occup Ther 2005;59: 409-17.
55. Bourret EM, Bernick LG, Cott CA, Kontos PC. The meaning of mobility for residents and staff in long-term care facilities. J Adv Nurs 2002;37: 338-45.
56. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Social Psychol 1986;51: 1173-82.
57. Kraemer HC, Stice E, Kazdin A, et al. How do risk factors work together? Mediators, moderators, and independent, overlapping, and proxy risk factors. Am J Psychiatry 2001;158: 848-56.
58. Andrich R, Ferrario M, Moi M. A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 1998;20: 1-24.
59. Harris F, Sprigle S. Cost analyses in assistive technology research. Assistive Technol 2003;15: 16-27.
60. Andrich R. The SCAI instrument: measuring the costs of individual assistive technology programmes. Technol Disabil 2002;14: 95-9.
61. Gitlow L, Sanford T. Assistive technology education needs of allied health professionals in a rural state. J Allied Health 2003;32: 46-51.
62. Long TM, Woolverton M, Perry DF, Thomas MJ. Training needs of pediatric occupational therapists in assistive technology. Am J Occup Ther 2007;61: 345-54.
63. Peterson DB, Murray GC. Ethics and assistive technology service provision. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2006;1: 59-67.