Measuring the assistive technology match

Assistive Technology Assessment Handbook

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 49-65

  Corradi, F ^a   Scherer, M J ^b,c   Presti, A Lo ^d  

^a Leonarda Vaccari Inst for Rehabilitation Integration and Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities   (Italy)

^b Institute for Matching Person and Technology Inc ^*  (United States)

^c SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85128082194     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (45)

1. Bausch, M., and Ault, M. (2008). Assistive technology implementation plan: A tool for improving outcomes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(1), 6-14. Retrieved from http://cec.metapress.com/ content/K57165H1X52W5731
2. Bernd, T., Van Der Pijl, D., and De Witte, L. P. (2009). Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16(3), 146-158. doi:10.1080/11038120802449362
3. Brown, D. L. (1997). Personal implications of functional electrical stimulation standing for older adolescents with spinal cord injuries. Technology and Disability, 6(3), 199-216. doi:10.1016/ s1055-4181(96)00038-6
4. Brown, D. L., and Merbitz, C. (1995). Comparison of Technology Match between Two Types of Functional Electrical Stimulation Hand Grasp Systems. Paper presented at the RESNA '95 Annual Conference: RECREAbility. Recreation and Ability: Explore the Possibilities!, Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id = d1BRAAAAMAAJ
5. Caudrey, D. J., and Seeger, B. R. (1983). Rehabilitation engineering service evaluation: A follow-up study of device effectiveness and patient acceptance. Rehabilitation Literature, 44(3-4), 80-85.
6. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., and Ska, B. (1996). Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8(1), 3-13. doi:10.1080/10 400435.1996.10132268
7. Dijcks, B. P. J., De Witte, L. P., Gelderblom, G. J., Wessels, R. D., and Soede, M. (2006). Non-use of assistive technology in The Netherlands: A non-issue? Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1(1-2), 97-102. doi:10.1080/09638280500167548
8. Endler, N. S., and Parker, J. D. A. (1999). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): Manual (2nd ed.). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
9. Federici, S., and Borsci, S. (2011). The use and non-use of assistive technology in Italy: A pilot study. In G. J. Gelderblom, M. Soede, L. Adriaens, and K. Miesenberger (Eds.), Everyday Technology for Independence and Care: AAATE 2011 (Vol. 29, pp. 979-986). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-814-4-979
10. Federici, S., Corradi, F., Mele, M. L., and Miesenberger, K. (2011). From cognitive ergonomist to psy-chotechnologist: A new professional profile in a multidisciplinary team in a centre for technical aids. In G. J. Gelderblom, M. Soede, L. Adriaens, and K. Miesenberger (Eds.), Everyday Technology for Independence and Care: AAATE 2011 (Vol. 29, pp. 1178-1184). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-814-4-1178
11. Federici, S., Corradi, F., Lo Presti, A., & Scherer, M. J. (2009). The Adaptation and Use of the Italian Version of the Matching Assistive Technology and CHild (MATCH) Measure. In P. L. Emiliani, L. Burzagli, A. Como, F. Gabbanini, and A.-L. Salminen (Eds.), Assistive Technology from Adapted Equipment to Inclusive Environments: AAATE 2009 (Vol. 25, pp. 562-566). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-042-1-562
12. Federici, S., Scherer, M. J., Micangeli, A., Lombardo, C., and Olivetti Belardinelli, M. (2003). A cross-cultural analysis of relationships between disability self-evaluation and individual predisposition to use assistive technology. In G. M. Craddock, L. P. McCormack, R. B. Reilly, and H. T. P. Knops (Eds.), Assistive Technology-Shaping the Future (pp. 941-946). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
13. Gatti, N., Matteucci, M., and Sbattella, L. (2004). An adaptive and predictive environment to support augmentative and alternative communication. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler, and D. Burger (Eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs (Vol. 3118, pp. 624-631). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27817-7_144
14. Goodman, G., Tiene, D., and Luft, P. (2002). Adoption of assistive technology for computer access among college students with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1-3), 80-92. doi:10.1080/09638280110066307
15. Judge, S. (2002). Family-centered assistive technology assessment and intervention practices for early intervention. Infants and Young Children, 15(1), 60-68. doi:10.1097/00001163-200207000-00009
16. Jutai, J., and Day, H. (2002). Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability, 14(3), 107-111. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/2rc2plwxwbhtcyta/
17. Karlsson, P. (2010). ICF: A Guide to Assistive Technology Decision-Making. Paper presented at the ARATA 2010 National Conference, Hobart, Tasmania. Retrieved from http://www.arata.org.au/arataconf10/index.html
18. Kittel, A., Di Marco, A., and Stewart, H. (2002). Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1-3), 106-114. doi:10.1080/0963828011006678 5
19. Lauer, A., Longenecker Rust, K., and Smith, R. O. (2006, August 18). ATOMS Project technical report-Factors in assistive technology device abandonment: Replacing "abandonment" with "discontinuance." Retrieved from http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/atoms/archive/technicalre-ports/tr-discontinuance.html
20. Law, M., Baptiste, S., McColl, M. A., Polatajko, H., and Pollock, N. (2005). Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (4th ed.). Ottawa, Canada: COAT.
21. Lenker, J. A., and Paquet, V. L. (2004). A new conceptual model for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 16(1), 1-10. doi:10.1080/10400435.2004.10132069
22. Pasqualotto, E., Federici, S., Simonetta, A., and Olivetti Belardinelli, M. (2011, August 31-September 2). Usability of Brain Computer Interfaces. Paper presented at the 11th European Conference for the Advancement of Assistive Technology: AAATE 2011, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.aaate2011.eu/
23. Philips, B., and Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5(1), 36-45. doi:10.1080/10400435.1993.10132205
24. Ryan, S., Campbell, K. A., Rigby, P., Germon, B., Chan, B., and Hubley, D. (2006). Development of the new Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 29(3), 195-200. doi:10.1097/01.mrr.0000210051.94420.1b
25. Scherer, M. J. (1997). Matching Assistive Technology and Child: A Process and Series of Assessments for Selecting and Evaluating Technologies Used by Infants & Young Children. Webster, NY: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.
26. Scherer, M. J. (1998). Matching Person & Technology. A Series of Assessments for Evaluating Predispositions to and Outcomes of Technology Use in Rehabilitation, Education, the Workplace & Other Settings. Webster, NY: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.
27. Scherer, M. J. (2005). Living in the State of Stuck: How Technologies Affect the Lives of People with Disabilities (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
28. Scherer, M. J. (Ed.). (2002). Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29. Scherer, M. J., and Craddock, G. (2002). Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology & Disability, 3(14), 125-131. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/g0eft4mnlwly8y8g
30. Scherer, M. J., and Cushman, L. A. (1995). Differing therapist-patient views of assistive technology use and implications for patient education and training. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76(6), 595. Retrieved from http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/ journals/0003-9993/PIIS0003999395805214.pdf
31. Scherer, M. J., Cushman, L. A., and Federici, S. (2004, June 1-10). Measuring Participation and the Disability Experience with the "Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment." Paper presented at the North American Collaborating Center 10th Annual Conference on ICF: NACC 2004, Halifax, Canada. Retrieved from http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/10NACC_ Conf_Report_FINAL_e.pdf
32. Scherer, M. J., Federici, S., Tiberio, L., Pigliautile, M., Corradi, F., and Meloni, F. (Early Online). ICF core set for Matching Older Adults with Dementia and Technology. Ageing International. doi:10.1007/s12126-010-9093-9
33. Scherer, M. J., and Glueckauf, R. (2005). Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50(2), 132-141. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.50.2.132
34. Scherer, M. J., and Sax, C. L. (2010). Measures of assistive technology predisposition and use. In E. Mpofu and T. Oakland (Eds.), Rehabilitation and Health Assessment. Applying ICF Guidelines (pp. 229-254). New York: Springer.
35. Scherer, M. J., Sax, C. L., Vanbiervliet, A., Cushman, L. A., and Scherer, J. V. (2005). Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 27(21), 1321-1331. doi:10.1080/09638280500164800
36. Verza, R., Carvalho, M. L., Battaglia, M. A., and Uccelli, M. M. (2006). An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Multiple Sclerosis, 12(1), 88-93. doi:10.1191/1352458506ms1233oa
37. Vincent, C., and Morin, G. (1999). L'utilisation ou non des aides techniques: Comparaison d'un modèle américain aux besoins de la réalité Québécoise. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(2), 92-101.
38. Wessels, R. D., Persson, J., Lorentsen, Ø., Andrich, R., Ferrario, M., Oortwijn, W., et al. (2002). IPPA: Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 141-145. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/2bm793b7pbdah9bw/
39. World Health Organization (WHO). (2001). ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
40. World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf
41. World Health Organization (WHO). (2004). A Glossary of Terms for Community Health Care and Services for Older Persons. (WHO/WKC/Tech.Ser./04.2). Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/wkc/2004/WHO_WKC_Tech.Ser._04.2.pdf
42. World Health Organization (WHO). (2006). Disability and Rehabilitation WHO Action Plan 2006-2011. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/disabilities/publications/dar_action_plan_2006to2011.pdf
43. World Health Organization (WHO), and World Bank. (2011). World Report on Disability. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
44. Zimmer, Z., and Chappell, N. L. (1999). Receptivity to new technology among older adults. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21(5-6), 222-230. doi:10.1080 /096382899297648
45. Zola, I. K. (1982). Disincentives to Independent Living. Kansas City, KS: University of Kansas.