Multiple stakeholder perceptions of assistive technology for individuals with cerebral palsy in New Zealand

References

• Mihailidis A, Boger J, Hoey J, et al. Zero effort technologies: Considerations, challenges, and use in health, wellness, and rehabilitation. Synth Lectures Assist Rehabil Health-Preserving Tech. 2011;1:1–94.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Harris F, Taugher M, et al. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8:373–380.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baxter S, Enderby P, Evans, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the use of high‐technology augmentative and alternative communication devices a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47:115–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, et al. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6:225–242.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Light J. “Communication is the essence of human life”: Reflections on communicative competence. Augment Altern Commun. 1997;13:61–70.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton D, Rackensperger T, Benedek-Wood E, et al. “A child needs to be given a chance to succeed”: parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC technologies. Augment Altern Commun. 2008;24:43–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland DE, Gillon GG, Yoder DE. AAC use and service provision: a survey of New Zealand speech-language therapists. Augment Altern Commun. 2005;21:295–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education [Internet]. Assistive technology assessment. 2014 [cited 2016Oct10]. Available from: http://inclusive.tki.org.nz/assets/Uploads/AT+Fact+Sheet+Assessment +Frame+Jan +2014-2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zabala J, Bowser G, Korsten J. SETT and ReSETT: concepts for AT implementation. Closing Gap. 2004;23:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Parette HP Jr, Brotherson MJ, Huer MB. Giving families a voice in augmentative and alternative communication decision-making. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2000;32:177–190.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Light J. Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. Augment Altern Commun. 1989;5:137–144.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson JM, Inglebret E, Jones C, et al. Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augment Altern Commun. 2006;22:85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Living in a state of stuck: how technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Cambridge (MA): Brookline; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Jinks A, Sinteff B. Consumer response to AAC devices: Acquisition, training, use, and satisfaction. Augment Altern Commun. 1994;10:184–190.
   Google Scholar
• Dietz A, Quach W, Lund SK, et al. AAC Assessment and clinical-decision making: the impact of experience. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28:148–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy J. “I prefer contact this close”: perceptions of AAC by people with motor neurone disease and their communication partners. Augment Altern Commun. 2004; 20:259–271.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman DR, Mirenda P. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 4th ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Marvin LA, Montano JJ, Fusco LM, et al. Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of their training and experience in using alternative and augmentative communication. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 2003;30:76–83.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff A, Beukelman D. Preprofessional preparation in augmentative and alternative communication: State-of-the-art report. Augment Altern Commun. 1995;11:61–73.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves S, Mann L, Caunce M, et al. Understanding the effects of problem-based learning on practice: Findings from a survey of newly qualified occupational therapists. Br J Occup Ther. 2004;67:323–327.
   Google Scholar
• Schreuer N, Josman N, Gal E, et al. Incorporating online learning into the occupational therapy curriculum. Isr J Occup Ther. 2006;15:E119–E136.
   Google Scholar
• Costigan FA, Light J. A review of preservice training in augmentative and alternative communication for speech-language pathologists, special education teachers, and occupational therapists. Assist Technol. 2010;22:200–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parette HP, Angelo DH. Augmentative and alternative communication impact on families: trends and future directions. J Spec Educ. 1996;30:77–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelo D, Kokoska S, Jones S. Family perspectives on augmentative and alternative communication: Families of adolescents and young adults. Augment Altern Commun. 1996;12:13–22.
   Google Scholar
• Dawe M. Desperately seeking simplicity: How young adults with cognitive disabilities and their families adopt assistive technologies. In: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst; 2006; New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1143–1152.
   Google Scholar
• Judge S. Family‐centered assistive technology assessment and intervention practices for early intervention. Infants Young Child. 2002;15:60–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson KL, Balandin S, Stancliffe RJ. “It’s got to be more than that”. Parents and speech-language pathologists discuss training content for families with a new speech generating device. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2016;11:375–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch A, DePaula R. A framework for the adoption of assistive technology. J Assist Technol. 2002;1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Hemmingsson H, Lidstrom H. Use of assistive technology devices in mainstream schools: students' perspective. Am J Occup Ther. 2009;63:463–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahm EA, Sizemore L. Factors that influence assistive technology decision making. J Spec Educ Technol. 2001;17:15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Lupton D, Seymour W. Technology, selfhood and physical disability. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:1851–1862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolson A, Moir L, Millsteed J. Impact of assitive technology on family caregivers of children with physical disabilities: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2012;7:345–349.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheshire A, Barlow JH, Powell LA. The psychosocial well-being of parents of children with cerebral palsy: a comparison study. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32:1673–1677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragonesi CB, Chen X, Agrawal S, et al. Power mobility and socialization in preschool: a case study of a child with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2010;22:322–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization [Internet]. Towards A Common Language For Functioning, Disability And Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2002 [cited 2016Oct10] Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/
   Google Scholar
• Story MF. Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assist Technol. 1998;10:4–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar