Assistive technology effects on the employment outcomes for people with cognitive disabilities: A systematic review

Abstract

Purpose. This systematic review examines the effects of assistive technology (AT) use on employment outcomes for people with cognitive disabilities (CD). AT is a necessary tool for gaining and maintaining skills for people with CD. Research suggests that AT can assist this population in performing tasks with greater ease and independence.

Method. A literature search was conducted to examine the evidence supporting AT use in the workforce. Search criteria included: subjects with CD, use of an AT tool or device and participation in a vocational training program or active employment. The search results yielded nine articles focused on AT interventions used in vocational settings for people with CD.

Results. AT interventions demonstrated positive outcomes on job performance. Positive outcomes were measured as a higher rate of accuracy and task completion, increased independence and generalization of skills. We found a trend in the literature over the past 25–30 years, moving from low- to high-tech visual and auditory cuing systems.

Conclusion. Future research should focus on producing evidence to support the use of AT tools for this population, and provide guidelines for incorporating them in vocational training programs in schools and community settings.

Keywords:

• Employment
• vocational
• assistive technology
• transition planning
• cognitive disabilities
• developmental disabilities
• job performance

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance and mentoring of Maureen Melonis and Shelly Elfner from the Assistive Technology Partners at the University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus for their mentorship and guidance through conducting this systematic review. This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Education grant H325040122-05. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Education.