Promoting a standard for assistive technology service delivery

Technology and Disability

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 39-48

  Bauer, Stephen ^a   Elsaesser, Linda Jeanne ^b   Scherer, Marcia ^c   Sax, Caren ^d   Arthanat, Sajay ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b Pi   (United States)

^c Matching Person Technology ^*  (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

Author keywords

action research; Assistive technology; diffusion of innovation; ICF; interdisciplinary; knowledge translation; process standard; service delivery; social responsibility; transaction space

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;

EID: 84940904698     PISSN: 10554181     EISSN: 1878643X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3233/TAD-140403     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE) and European Assistive Technology Information Network (EASTIN). Service Delivery System for Assistive Technology in Europe: Position Paper [Internet]. 2012 Oct [cited 2013 Jan 27] Available from: http://www.aaate. net/sites/default/files/ATServiceDelivery-PositionPaper.pdf.
2. Jans L, Scherer M. Assistive technology training: diverse audiences and multidisciplinary content. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2006; 1(1-2): 69-77.
3. Long T, Woolverton M, Perry D, Thomas M. Training needs of pediatric occupational therapists in assistive technology. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2007; 61(3): 345-354.
4. Long TM, Perry DF. Pediatric physical therapists' perceptions of their training in assistive technology. Physical Therapy. 2008; 88: 629-639.
5. Zapf, S. Predictive Validity of the Matching Assistive Technology to Child-Augmentative Communication Evaluation Simplified (MATCH-ACES) Assessment Protocol. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy: Pediatric. Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, 2012.
6. Johnson J, Inglebret E, Jones C, Ray J. Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2006; 22(2): 85-99.
7. Assistive Technology Industry Association. The critical need for knowledge and usage of AT and AAC among speechlanguage pathologists: Survey white paper; 2012 [cited 2013 Jan 20]. Available from: http://www.atia.org.
8. Estrada-Hernandez N, Wheaton J, Dawson R, Krispinsky M. Current status of assistive technology education in rehabilitation counseling programs. Rehabilitation Education. 2007; 21(2): 117-123.
9. Kanny EM, Anson DK. Current trends in assistive technology education in entry-level occupational therapy curricula. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1998; 52 (7): 586-591.
10. AAPM&R/The Foundation for PM&R (American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation/The Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation). 2003. Access to Assistive Technologies: Improving Health and Well-Being for People with Disabilities. Available from: http://www.aapmr. org/zdocs/hpl/atoutcomes0503.pdf.
11. US GAO. Students with disabilities: Better federal coordination could lessen challenges in the transition from high school. (#GAO-12-594). Washington, DC; 2012.US GAO. Students with disabilities: Better federal coordination could lessen challenges in the transition from high school. (#GAO- 12-594). Washington, DC, 2012.
12. US GAO. Helping California youths with disabilities transition to work or postsecondary education. (#GAO-06-759SP). Washington, DC.
13. US GAO. Helping California youths with disabilities transition to work or postsecondary education. (#GAO-06-759SP). Washington, DC.
14. Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE ) [homepage in the Internet]. Standards and Interpretive Guidelines; 2012 Aug [cited 2013 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.aota.org/Educate/Accredit/Standards Review/guide/42369.aspx?FT=.pdf.
15. Commission on Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE ). [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2013 Jan 25] Available from: http://www.capteonline.org/home.aspx.
16. American Psychological Association [homepage on the Internet]. Guidelines for Assessment of and Intervention with Persons with Disabilities. [cited 2013 Jan 25]. Available from: http://www.apa.org/pi/disability/resources/assessmentdisabilities. aspx.
17. American Speech Language Hearing Association [homepage on the Internet]. Washington DC: Standards for Accreditation of Graduate Education Programs in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology; 2008. [1997-2013; cited 2013 Jan 9] Available from: http://www.asha.org/academic/accredi tation/accredmanual/section3/.
18. Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE). [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2013 Jan 25] Available from: http://www.corerehab. org/.
19. GPO [Internet] Assistive Technology Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-364.118 Stat. 1707. 2004. Available from GPO Access database http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ364/ pdf/PLAW-108publ364.pdf.
20. Institute of Medicine. The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering costs and improving outcomes. In: Pierre L, Yong, and Leigh Anne Olsen, editors. Roundtable on value & science-driven health care. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.
21. National Summit on Disability Policy [homepage on the Internet]. Washington D.C.: National Summit on Disability Policy; 2010 [cited 2013 Jan 30] Available from http://www.newedi tions.net/ncd2010/papers.html.
22. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) [homepage on the Internet] Washington D.C.: Long- Range Plan for Fiscal years 2005-2009; 2006 [cited 2011 Jan 31]. Available from: http://www.ncddr.org/new/ann ouncements/lrp/fy2005-2009/.
23. Elsaesser L, Bauer S. Provision of assistive technology services method (ATSM) according to evidence-based information and knowledge management. Disability & rehabilitation: Assistive technology. 2011; 6(5): 386-401.
24. Gibbons, M. Why is knowledge translation important? Grounding the conversation. [Internet]. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR). Focus technical brief, No.21. 2004 [updated 2012 October 2012; cited 2013 Jan 25]. Available from: http://www.ncddr.org/kt/ products/focus/focus21/.
25. World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
26. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) (1996). Guidelines for Knowledge and Skills for Provision of Assistive Technology Products and Services. Author. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://resna.org/resnaresources/resna-publications.
27. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) (1997a). Guidelines for Knowledge and Skills for Provision of the Specialty Technology: Access, Integration, and Control of Computer-Based Technology. Author. Retrieved January 31, 2011 from http:// resna.org/resnaresources/resna-publications.
28. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) (1997b). Guidelines for Knowledge and Skills for Provision of the Specialty Technology: Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Author. Retrieved January 28, 2011 from http://resna.org/resnare sources/resna-publications.
29. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) (1997c). Guidelines for Knowledge and Skills for Provision of the Specialty Technology: Job Accommodation. Author. Retrieved January 18, 2011 from http://resna.org/resnaresources/resna-publications.
30. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) (1997d). Guidelines for Knowledge and Skills for Provision of the Specialty Technology: Seating and Mobility. Author. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://resna.org/resnaresources/resna-publications.
31. Rehabilitation Research Design and Disability Center (R2D2) [homepage on the Internet] Milwaukee: IMPACT2 Model; 2004 [cited 2014 Jan 1]. Available from: http://www.r2d2. uwm.edu/archive/impact2model.html.
32. Bauer, S, Elsaesser, L, & Arthanat, S. An assistive technology device classification based upon the International Classification System of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Dis and Rehab: AT. 2011; 6(3): 243-259.
33. International Standardization Organization [homepage on the Internet]. ISO9999: 2011 Assistive Products for Persons with Disability: Classification and terminology. [cited 2013 Jan 13]. Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalo gue-tc/catalogue-detail.htm?csnumber=50982.
34. Scherer, M, editor. Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation. Washington (DC): APA Books, 2002.
35. Scherer, M, Jutai, J, Fuhrer, M, Demers, L, DeRuyter, F. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2007; 2(1), 1-8.
36. Scherer, M. The Matching Person & Technology (MPT) Model Manual and Assessments, 5th edition [CD-ROM]. Webster (NY), 2005.
37. Sax, C, Elsaesser L, Scherer, M. Advancing Assistive Technology Service Delivery: Look, Think, Act. Presented at: 12th European Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE) Conference; 2013 Sep 19-22; Algarve, Portugal.
38. Elsaesser, L, Sax, C, Scherer, M, Arthanat, S, Bauer, S. Evidence-based assistive technology services. Instructional course at the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) Annual Conference; 2013; Jun 19-24; Seattle WA.
39. Elsaesser, L. Translating research into practice: The Assistive Technology Service Method (ATSM). Presented at: Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) conference; 2013 Jan 30-Feb 2; Orlando FL.
40. Scherer, M, Elsaesser, L, Bauer, S. Assistive Technology Service Method (ATSM). Presented at: Italian Network of Independent Information and Communication Technology-AT Centres; 2012 Sep 10; Bologna, Italy.
41. Hubbard, J, Bauer, S, Elsaesser, L, et al. Methods and Models toward Universal Design (UD) Based Outcomes. Presented at: National Disability Authority, Centre for Excellence in Universal Design/National Disability Authority; 2011 Sep 5; Dublin, Ireland.
42. Elsaesser, L, Bauer, S, Scherer, M. Service Delivery Strategies: Assistive Technology Service Method (ATSM). Presented at: Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE) Conference; 2011 Aug 31-Sept 2; Maastricht, the Netherlands.
43. Craddock, L, Hubbard, J, Elsaesser, L, Bauer, S, Scherer, M. Integrating Universal Design for QoL Technology and AT services. Presented at Third International Symposium on Quality of Life (QoL)/RESNA Annual Conference; 2011 June 5-11; Toronto Canada.
44. Elsaesser, L. Assistive Technology Service Method (ATSM). Presented at: II International Meeting on Technology and Innovation for the Persons with Disability; 2010 October 21-23; Sao Paulo, Brazil.
45. Bauer, S, Scherer, M, Simpson R, Elsaesser, L. A Framework to Integrate Emerging Technologies and Service Delivery. Presented at: Second International Symposium on Quality of Life Technology; 2010, Jun 28-30; Las Vegas Nevada.
46. Elsaesser L, Bauer S. Integrating medical, assistive, and universally design products and technologies: Assistive Technology Service Method (ATSM). Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2011; 1-5. DOI: 10.3109/17483 107.2011.635331.
47. International Organization for Standards. [homepage on the Internet] ISO 26000: 2010 Guidance on social responsibility. [cited 2014 Jan 1]. Available from: http://www.iso.org/ iso/cataloguedetail?csnumber=42546.
48. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) [homepage on the Internet]. Austin (TX): Focus technical brief, No.21. [updated 2012 Oct 4; cited 2011 Feb 1] Available from: http://www.ncddr.org/kt/produ cts/focus/focus21/.
49. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.) New York: Free Press, 2003.
50. Orr, G. Diffusion of innovations, by Everett Rogers (1995). [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2013 Jan 25]. Available from: http:// www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/Diffusion%20of%20 Innovations.htm.
51. Lave J, E. Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
52. Pickard, M. The new Bloom's taxonomy: An overview for family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education. 2007; 25(1), 45-55.
53. Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-on-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6) 4-16.
54. Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
55. Meyers, C., Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting active learning: strategies for the college classroom. Wiley Publishing. ISBN: 978-1-55542-524-1.
56. Svinicki, M., McKeachie, W. J. (2010). Mckeachie's teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN-10: 0495809292.
57. Robinson, L. A summary of diffusion of innovations. [Internet] 2009 [cited 2013 Jan 25]. Available from: www. enablingchange. com.au/Summary-Diffusion-Theory.pdf.
58. Cheng J, Kao L, Lin J. An investigation of the diffusion of online games in Taiwan: An application of Roger's diffusion of innovation theory. Journal of American Academy of Business. 2004; 5(1/2); 439-445.
59. Stringer, E. Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1996.
60. Stringer, E. Action research (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 2007.