Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes

References

• Scherer MJ. The impact of assistive technology on the lives of people with disabilities. In: Gray DB, Quatrano LA, Lieberman ML, eds. Designing and using assistive technology: the human perspective. Baltimore (MD): Paul H. Brookes; 1998:99–115
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modeling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:1243–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:294–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeRuyter F. Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technol 1995;7:3–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith RO. Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assistive Technol 1996;8:71–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lenker JA, Scherer MJ, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technol 2005;17:7–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batavia A, Hammer G. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990;27:424–36
   Google Scholar
• Lane JP, Usiak DJ, Stone VI, Scherer MJ. The voice of the customer: consumers define the ideal battery charger. Assistive Technol 1997;9:130–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. ICF: International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: Author; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Rust KL, Smith RO. Assistive technology in the measurement of rehabilitation and health outcomes: a review and analysis of instruments. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:780–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, et al. Treatment theory, intervention specification, and treatment fidelity in assistive technology outcomes research. Assistive Technol 2010;22:129–38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ. Assessing the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of assistive technology interventions for enhancing mobility. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2007;2:149 – 58
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Craddock G. The AT continuum in education: novice to power user. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2006;1:17–27
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Finlayson M, van Denend T. Experiencing the loss of mobility: perspectives of older adults with MS. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:1168–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammel J, Finlayson M, Lastowski S. Using participatory action research to examine outcomes and effect systems change in assistive technology financing. J Disabil Policy Stud 2003;4:98–102
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1321–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackstone SW, Williams MB, Joyce M. Future AAC technology needs: consumer perspectives. Assistive Technol 2002;14:3–16
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcomes measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring (MD): Author; 2009. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf [last accessed 15 Jan 2013]
   Google Scholar
• DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care 2007;45:S12–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, Morgan KA. Participation survey/mobility: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:189–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann A, Tulsky D, Dijkers M, et al. Issues in participation measurement in research and clinical applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S72–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rackensperger T, Krezman C, McNaughton D, et al. “When I first got it, I wanted to throw it off a cliff”: the challenges and benefits of learning AAC technologies as described by adults who use AAC. Augment Alter Commun 2005;21:165–86
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammel J, Magasi S, Heinemann A, et al. What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:1445–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers M. Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S5–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pape TLB, Kim J, Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:5–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haggblom-Kronlof G, Sonn U. Use of assistive devices -- a reality full of contradictions in elderly persons’ everyday life. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2007;2:335–45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Jonge DM, Rodger S. Consumer-identified barriers and strategies for optimizing technology use in the workplace. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2006;1:79–88
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lane JP, Usiak DJ, Moffat JA. Consumer criteria for assistive devices: operationalizing generic criteria for specific ABLEDATA categories. Proceedings of the RESNA Annual Conference; 1996; Salt Lake City, UT:146–8
   Google Scholar
• Aaronson D, Gabias P. Computer use by the visually impaired. Behav Res Methods, Instrum Comput 1987;19:275–82
   Google Scholar
• Brienza D, Angelo J. Consumer participation in identifying research and development priorities for power wheelchair input devices and controllers. Assistive Technol 1995;7:55–62
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gitlin LN, Mount J, Lucas W, et al. The physical costs and psychosocial benefits of travel aids for persons who are visually impaired or blind. J Visual Impair Blindness 1997;91:347–59
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aminzadeh F, Edwards N. Exploring seniors’ views on the use of assistive devices in fall prevention. Public Health Nurs 1998;15:297–304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN, Luborsky MR, Schemm RL. Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist 1998;38:169–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickerson S, Stone VI, Panchura C, Usiak DJ. The meaning of communication: experiences with augmentative communication devices. Rehabil Nurs 2002;27:215–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Magasi S, Hammel J, Heinemann A, et al. Participation: a comparative analysis of multiple rehabilitation stakeholders’ perspectives. J Rehabil Med 2009;41:936–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris F, Sprigle S, Sonenblum SE, Maurer CL. The Participation and Activity Measurement System: an example application among people who use wheeled mobility devices. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2010;5:48–57
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harris F. Conceptual issues in the measurement of participation among wheeled mobility users. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2007;2:137–48
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoenig H, Giacobbi P, Levy CE. Methodological challenges confronting researchers of wheeled mobility aids and other assistive technologies. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2007;2:159–68
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Law M, Cooper B, Strong S, et al. The Person-Environment Occupation Model: a transactive approach to occupational performance. Can J Occup Ther 1996;63:9–23
   Google Scholar
• Morgan DL. Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 1996;22:129–52
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottum B. Focus groups and new product development. Marketing News 1996;30:H26
   Google Scholar
• Lane JP. Consumer contributions to technology evaluation and transfer. Technol Disabil 1998;9:103–18
   Google Scholar
• Murray PJ. Using focus groups in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 1997;7:542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin A, Hauser JR. The voice of the customer. Marketing Sci 1993;12:1–27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Story MF. Focus groups with participants who have disabilities. HCI International, 2005 July 22–27; Las Vegas, NV
   Google Scholar
• Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH, eds. Guidelines for conducting NGT meetings. In: Group techniques for program planning. Middleton (WI): Green Briar Press; 1986:40–107
   Google Scholar
• Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1988
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ. Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:481–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton MP. Measures of quality of life and subjective well-being. Generations 1997:45–7
   Google Scholar
• Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull 1984;95:542–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardol J, DeJong B, Ward CD. On autonomy and participation in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:970–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid D, Angus J, Mckeever P, Miller KL. Home is where their wheels are: experiences of women wheelchair users. Am J Occup Ther 2003;57:186–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker DJ, Reid D, Cott C. Acceptance and meanings of wheelchair use in senior stroke survivors. Am J Occup Ther 2004;58:221–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teitelman J, Copolillo A. Psychosocial issues in older adults’ adjustment to vision loss: findings from qualitative interviews and focus groups. Am J Occup Ther 2005;59:409–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourret EM, Bernick LG, Cott CA, Kontos PC. The meaning of mobility for residents and staff in long-term care facilities. J Adv Nurs 2002;37:338–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Social Psychol 1986;51:1173–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraemer HC, Stice E, Kazdin A, et al. How do risk factors work together? Mediators, moderators, and independent, overlapping, and proxy risk factors. Am J Psychiatry 2001;158:848–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich R, Ferrario M, Moi M. A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil 1998;20:1–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris F, Sprigle S. Cost analyses in assistive technology research. Assistive Technol 2003;15:16–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich R. The SCAI instrument: measuring the costs of individual assistive technology programmes. Technol Disabil 2002;14:95–9
   Google Scholar
• Gitlow L, Sanford T. Assistive technology education needs of allied health professionals in a rural state. J Allied Health 2003;32:46–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Long TM, Woolverton M, Perry DF, Thomas MJ. Training needs of pediatric occupational therapists in assistive technology. Am J Occup Ther 2007;61:345–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson DB, Murray GC. Ethics and assistive technology service provision. Disabil Rehabil: Assistive Technol 2006;1:59–67
   PubMedGoogle Scholar