Improving computer usage for students with physical disabilities through a collaborative approach: A pilot study

References

• Hasselbring TS, Glaser CHW. Use of computer technology to help students with special needs. Future Child 2000;10:102–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copley J, Ziviani J. Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occup Ther Int 2004;11:229–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Craddock G. The AT continuum in education: Novice to power user. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006;1:17–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoppestad BS. Inadequacies in computer access using assistive technology devices in profoundly disabled individuals: An overview of the current literature. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:189–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gillette Y. Assistive technology and literacy partnerships. Top Lang Disord 2006;26:70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose DH, Hasselbring TS, Stahl S, Zabala J. Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of the same coin. In; Edyburn D, et al. editors. Handbook of special education technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Carpe A, Harder K, Tam C, Reid D. Perceptions of writing and communication aid use among children with a physical disability. Assist Technol 2010;22:87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodin J, Renblad K. How many positive results on inclusion do we need to make a change? In; Emiliano PL, et al. editors. Assistive technology from adapted equipment to inclusive environments AAATE 2009. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Murchland S, Parkyn H. Using assistive technology for schoolwork: The experience of children with physical disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2010;5:438–47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hemmingsson H, Lidstrom H, Nygard L. Use of assistive technology devices in mainstream schools: Students' perspective. Am J Occup Ther 2009;63:463–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skolinspektionen. Skolsituationen för elever med funktionsnedsättning i grundskolan, kvalitetsgranskning [The school situation for students with disabilities in compulsory school, a quality assessment] 2009;6. Available from http://www.skolinspektionen.se/sv/Tillsyn-granskning/Kvalitetsgranskning/Genomforda-kvalitetsgranskningar/Skolsituationen-for-elever-med-funktionsnedsattning/( in Swedish).
   Google Scholar
• Hemmingsson H, Gustavsson A, Townsend E. Students with disabilities participating in mainstream schools: Policies that promote and limit teacher and therapist cooperation. Disabil Soc 2007;22:383–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum P, Paneth N, Leviton A, Goldstein M, Bax M, Damiano D, et al. A report: The definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl 2007;109:8–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peny-Dahlstrand M, Åhlander AC, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Gosman–Hedström G. Quality of performance of everyday activities in children with spina bifida: A population-based study. Acta Paediatr 2009;98:1674–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemmis BL, Dunn W. Collaborative consultation: The efficacy of remedial and compensatory interventions in school contexts. Am J Occup Ther 1996;50:709–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villeneuve M. A critical examination of school-based occupational therapy collaborative consultation. Can J Occup Ther 2009;76:206–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dettmer P, Dyck N, Thurston LP. Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. Br Med J 2008;337:979–83
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anttila H, Samuelsson K, Salminen AL, Brandt Å. Quality of evidence of assistive technology interventions for people with disability: An overview of systematic reviews. Technol Disabil 2012;24:9–48.
   Google Scholar
• Brodin J, Lindstrand P. What about ICT in special education? Special educators evaluate information and communication technology as a learning tool. Eur J Spec Needs Educ 2003;18:71–87.
   Google Scholar
• Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, Morrill JH. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2010;1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Demers L, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assist Technol 2010;22:129–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidstrom H, Almqvist L, Hemmingsson H. Computer-based assistive technology device for use by children with physical disabilities: A cross-sectional study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2012;7:287–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kiresuk TJ, Smith A, Cardillo JE. Goal attainment scaling: Applications, theory, and measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Sakzewski L, Boyd R, Ziviani J. Clinimetric properties of participation measures for 5- to 13-year-old children with cerebral palsy: A systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007;49:232–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbeek D, Gorter JW, Ketelaar M, Galama K, Lindeman E. Responsiveness of Goal Attainment Scaling in comparison to two standardized measures in outcome evaluation of children with cerebral palsy. Clin Rehabil 2011;25:1128–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palisano RJ. Validity of goal attainment scaling in infants with motor delays. Phys Ther 1993;73:651–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbeek D, Ketelaar M, Galama K, Gorter JW. Goal attainment scaling in paediatric rehabilitation: A critical review of the literature. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007;49:550–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner-Stokes L, Williams H, Johnson J. Goal attainment scaling: Does it provide added value as a person-centred measure for evaluation of outcome in neurorehabilitation following acquired brain injury? J Rehabil Med 2009;41:528–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson I, Ahlström G, Törnquist K. The value of an outdoor powered wheelchair with regard to the quality of life of persons with stroke: A follow-up study. Assist Technol 2007;19:143–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). Technol Disabil 2002;14:107–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkwood BR, Sterne JAC. Essential medical statistics. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Science; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: New guidance. MRC [Internet]. 2008. cited 2012 Jan 10 Available from http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d = MRC004871.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. Br Med J 2007;334:455–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDougall J, Wright V. The ICF-CY and Goal Attainment Scaling: Benefits of their combined use for pediatric practice. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:1362–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar