Implementing a routine outcome assessment procedure to evaluate the quality of assistive technology service delivery for children with physical or multiple disabilities: Perceived effectiveness, social cost, and user satisfaction

References

• Ahtola, S., Heinonen, A., Haikonen, K., & Anttila, H. (2011). Adaptation and validation of the modified KWAZO and EATS-2D instruments into finnish circumstances. Everyday technology for independence and care. Assistive Technology Research Series, 29, 300–307.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich, R. (2002). The SCAI instrument: Measuring costs of individual assistive technology programmes. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 95–99.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich, R., & Caracciolo, A. (2007). Analysing the cost of individual assistive technology programmes. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(4), 207–234. doi:10.1080/17483100701325035
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anttila, H., Samuelsson, K., Salminen, A. L., & Brandt, Å. (2012). Quality of evidence of assistive technology interventions for people with disability: An overview of systematic reviews. Technology and Disability, 24(1), 9–48.
   Google Scholar
• Association for the Advancement of the Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE). (2012). Service delivery systems for assistive technology in Europe (Position paper). Retrieved from http://www.aaate.net/sites/default/files/ATServiceDelivery_PositionPaper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Benedict, R. E., Lee, J. P., Marrujo, S. K., & Farel, A. M. (1999). Assistive devices as an early childhood intervention: Evaluating outcomes. Technology and Disability, 11(1), 79–90.
   Google Scholar
• Bensi, N., Bitelli, C., & Hoogerwerf, E.-J. (2011, August/September). Assistive technologies and other solutions for independence: Cost or investment? Proceedings of the 11th European Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE), p. 270–277. Maastricht, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Besio, S., & Salminen, A. L. (2004). Children and youngsters and technology. Technology and Disability, 16(3), 115–117.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, S. M., Roland, M. O., & Buetow, S. A. (2000). Defining quality of care. Social Science & Medicine, 51(11), 1611–1625. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00057-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, M., McConachie, H., Price, K., & Wood, P. (2001). Speech and language therapy provision for children using augmentative and alternative communication systems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16(1), 41–54. doi:10.1080/08856250150501798
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• de Witte, L., Knops, H., Pyfers, L., Röben, P., Johnson, I., Andrich R., … Forsberg, S. (1994). European service delivery system in rehabilitation technology: A comprehensive description of service delivery systems of 16 European countries. HEART (Horizontal European Activities of Rehabilitation Technology) Line C. Hoensbroek: iRv, Institute for Rehabilitation Research.
   Google Scholar
• Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2000). Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology: QUEST version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.midss.org/sites/default/files/questmanual_final_electronic20version_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Desideri, L., Bitelli, C., Brandan, V., & de Witte, L. (2013a, September). The employment of KWAZO with parents of children with disabilities in an Italian region: Preliminary data on scale adaptation and validation. Proceedings of the 12th Biennial European Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE 2013), pp. 1059–1063, Vilamoura, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Desideri, L., Mingardi, A., Stefanelli, B., Tanzini, D., Bitelli, C., Roentgen, U., & de Witte, L. (2013b). Assessing children with multiple disabilities for assistive technology: A framework for quality assurance. Technology and Disability, 25(3), 159–166.
   Google Scholar
• Desideri, L., Roentgen, U., Hoogerwerf, E. J., & de Witte, L. (2013c). Recommending assistive technology (AT) for children with multiple disabilities: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis of models and instruments for AT professionals. Technology and Disability, 25(1), 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Desideri, L., Ioele, F., Roentgen, U., Gelderblom, G.-J., & de Witte, L. (2014). Development of a team-based method for assuring the quality of assistive technology documentation. Assistive Technology, 26(4), 175–183. doi:10.1080/10400435.2014.905507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desideri, L., Stefanelli, B., Bitelli, C., Roentgen, U., Gelderblom, G.-J., & de Witte, L. (in press). Satisfaction of users with assistive technology service delivery: An exploratory analysis of experiences of parents of children with physical and multiple disabilities. Developmental Neurorehabilitation. doi:10.3109/17518423.2014.988303.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dijcks, B. P., Wessels, R. D., De Vlieger, S. L., & Post, M. W. (2006). KWAZO, a new instrument to assess the quality of service delivery in assistive technology provision. Disability & Rehabilitation, 28(15), 909–914. doi:10.1080/09638280500301527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edyburn, D. L., & Smith, R. O. (2004). Creating an assistive technology outcomes measurement system: Validating the components. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 1, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Federici, S., & Scherer, M. (Eds.), (2012). Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability & Rehabilitation, 25(22), 1243–1251. doi:10.1080/09638280310001596207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelderblom, G. J., & de Witte, L. P. (2002). The assessment of assistive technology outcomes, effects and costs. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 91–94.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, F., & Sprigle, S. (2003). Cost analyses in assistive technology research. Assistive Technology, 15(1), 16–27. doi:10.1080/10400435.2003.10131886
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, S., Skelton, H., & Rosenbaum, P. (2008). Assistive devices for children with functional impairments: Impact on child and caregiver function. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(2), 89–98. doi:10.1111/dmcn.2007.50.issue-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jedeloo, S., De Witte, L., & Schrijvers, G. (2002). A user-centred approach to assess the effectiveness of outdoor mobility devices and services. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 25(2), 137–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko, M. L., McConachie, H., & Jolleff, N. (1998). Outcome of recommendations for augmentative communication in children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 24(3), 195–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H., & Templeton, R. (2008). Ensuring equal access to technology: Providing assistive technology for students with disabilities. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 212–219. doi:10.1080/00405840802153874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker, J. A., Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Demers, L., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2010). Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assistive Technology, 22(3), 129–138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker, J. A., Shoemaker, L. L., Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Demers, L., Tan, C. H., & DeRuyter, F. (2012). Classification of assistive technology services: Implications for outcomes research. Technology and Disability, 24(1), 59–70.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay, S., & Tsybina, I. (2011). Predictors of unmet needs for communication and mobility assistive devices among youth with a disability: The role of socio-cultural factors. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(1), 10–21. doi:10.3109/17483107.2010.514972
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacDonald, S. E., Newburn‐Cook, C. V., Schopflocher, D., & Richter, S. (2009). Addressing nonresponse bias in postal surveys. Public Health Nursing, 26(1), 95–105. doi:10.1111/phn.2009.26.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, L., Lam, R., Wright, V., & Chau, T. (2014). An access technology delivery protocol for children with severe and multiple disabilities: A case demonstration. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17(4), 232–242. doi:10.3109/17518423.2013.776125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murchland, S., Kernot, J., & Parkyn, H. (2011). Children’s satisfaction with Assistive technology solutions for schoolwork using the QUEST 2.1: Children’s version. Assistive Technology, 23(3), 162–176. doi:10.1080/10400435.2011.588990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolson, A., Moir, L., & Millsteed, J. (2012). Impact of assistive technology on family caregivers of children with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 7(5), 345–349. doi:10.3109/17483107.2012.667194
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Østensjø, S. (2009). Assistive devices for children with disabilities. In Söderback, I (Ed.), International handbook of occupational therapy interventions (pp. 141–146). Springer: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Østensjø, S. (2015). Assistive Technology Devices for Children with Disabilities. In Söderback, I (Ed.), International Handbook of Occupational Therapy Interventions (pp. 311–322). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Østensjø, S., Carlberg, E. B., & Vøllestad, N. K. (2005). The use and impact of assistive devices and other environmental modifications on everyday activities and care in young children with cerebral palsy. Disability & Rehabilitation, 27(14), 849–861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parette, H. P., & Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2007). Facilitating student achievement with assistive technology. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 387–397.
   Google Scholar
• Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Smith, S., Gray, T., & Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2006). The state of assistive technology: Themes from an outcomes summit. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 3(1), 15–33.
   Google Scholar
• Parette, P., VanBiervliet, A., & Hourcade, J. J. (2000). Family-centered decision-making in assistive technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 45–55.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, B., & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5(1), 36–45. doi:10.1080/10400435.1993.10132205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pickard, A. S., & Knight, S. J. (2005). Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: A conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Medical Care, 43(5), 493–499. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000160419.27642.a8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) (1998). Volume I: RESNA Resource Guide for Assistive Technology Outcomes: Measurement Tools. Arlington, VA: RESNA.
   Google Scholar
• Salminen, A. L., & Petrie, H. (2004). Impact of computer augmented communication on the daily lives of speech-impaired children. Part II: Services to support computer augmented communication. Technology and Disability, 16(3), 169–177.
   Google Scholar
• Steel, E. J., & de Witte, L. P. (2011). Advances in European Assistive Technology service delivery and recommendations for further improvement. Technology and Disability, 23(3), 131.
   Google Scholar
• Tam, C., Archer, J., Mays, J., & Skidmore, G. (2005). Measuring the outcomes of word cueing technology. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(5), 301–308. doi:10.1177/000841740507200507
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Watson, A. H., & Smith, R. O. (2012). Comparison of two school-based assistive technology outcome instruments. Technology and Disability, 24(1), 83–92.
   Google Scholar
• Wessels, R., de Witte, L., Andrich, R., Ferrario, M., Persson, J., Oberg, B., … Lorentsen, Ø. (2002). IPPA: Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 141–145.
   Google Scholar
• Wessels, R. D., de Witte, L. P., Jedeloo, S., van den Heuvel, W. P., & van den Heuvel, W. J. (2004). Effectiveness of provision of outdoor mobility services and devices in The Netherlands. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(4), 371–378. doi:10.1191/0269215504cr755oa
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, P. H. (2012). Emerging technologies and their impact on disability. The Future of Children, 22(1), 169–191. doi:10.1353/foc.2012.0002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (Ed.), (2007). International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Children & Youth Version: ICF-CY. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar