Validating a measure to assess factors that affect assistive technology use by students with disabilities in elementary and secondary education

References

• Scherer MJ. Assessing the benefits of using assistive technologies and other supports for thinking, remembering and learning. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;7:731–739.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. From people-centered to person-centered services, and back again. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9:1–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Living in the state of stuck: how assistive technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. Cambridge (MA): Brookline Books; 1993, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacker RR. Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil. 2000;66:44–59.
   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
• Alper S, Raharinirina S. Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Spec Education Technol. 2006;21:47–64.
   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
• Copley J, Ziviani J. Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occup Ther Int. 2004;11:229–243.
   PubMedGoogle 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, Sax C, Vanbeirvliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:1321–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Sax C. Measures of assistive technology predisposition and use. In: Mpofu E, Oakland, T editors. Rehabilitation & health assessments: applying ICF guidelines. Chapter 11. New York (NY): Springer; 2010. p. 229–254.
   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
• Graves D, Scherer M, Sax, C. Dimensional structure of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment. Archives of Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:E23.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil. 2002;14:125–131.
   Google Scholar
• Chun-Huanh I Sugden D., Beveridge. Children's perceptions of their use of assistive devices in home and school settings. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4:95–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Craddock G. The AT continuum in education: novice to power user. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1:17–27.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Scherer MJ. Matching person and technology (MPT) model manual and accompanying assessments. 3rd ed. Webster (NY): Institute for Matching Person and Technology, Inc.; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Matching sssistive technology & child (MATCH) for early intervention. Webster, NY: The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Federici S, Corradi F, Lo Presti A, et al. The adaptation and use of the Italian version of the Matching Assistive Technology and CHild (MATCH) Measure. In: Emiliani PL, Burzagli L, Como A, et al., editors. Assistive technology from adapted equipment to inclusive environments. Vol. 25. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Pres; 2009. p. 562–566.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M, Zapf S. Developing a measure to appropriately match students with disabilities and assistive technology devices. Archives Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:E21.
   Google Scholar
• Zapf S, Scherer MJ. The matching assistive technology to child assessment process: a pilot study: (Centers for Disease Control final report). 2012. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Portney GL, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research applications to practice, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• McBride, D. Augmentative communication evaluation simplified (ACES) module. Greenwood (CO): AAC Tech Connect; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Polgar JM, Reg OT, Barlow I. Measuring the clinical utility of an assessment: the example of the Canadian occupational performance measure. [cited 2010 Jan 5]. Available from: https://doi.org/www.seatingandmobility.ca.
   Google Scholar
• Technology-related assistance for individuals with disabilities Act of 1988, Pub. L.100–407, 29 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.
   Google Scholar
• Individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004. Pub L. 108–446, 20, U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
   Google Scholar
• National Education Agency. Truth in labeling-disproportionality in special education. 2007; [cited 2009 Jan 3]. Available from: https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/EW-TruthInLabeling.pdf.
   Google Scholar