Use of a Modified Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for Assistive Technology Outcomes in Postsecondary Education

References

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (West 1990).
   Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Simmons C. D, & Favreau M. (2012). Exploring occupational justice in consumer perspectives on assistive technology. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(5), 309–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assistive Technology Act of 2004, 29 U.S.C. § 3002 et seq. (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Bottos M, Bolcati C, Sciuto L, Ruggeri C, & Feliciangeli A. (2001). Powered wheelchairs and independence in young children with tetraplegia. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 43, 769–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carswell A, McColl MA, Baptiste S, Law M, Polatajko H, & Pollock N. (2004). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: A research and clinical literature review. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(4), 210–222.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheesman MF, Jennings MB, & Klinger L. (2013). Assessing communication accessibility in the university classroom: Towards a goal of universal hearing accessibility. Work, 46, 139–150.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook AM, & Polger JM. (2008). Cook and Hussey's assistive technologies; Principles and practice (3rd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper BA, & Stewart D. (1997). The effect of a transfer device in the homes of elderly women. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 15(2), 61–77.
   Google Scholar
• Day SL, & Edwards BJ. (1996). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(5), 486–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Wessels RD, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B, & DeWitte LP. (1999). An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Occupational Therapy International, 6(3), 159–175.
   Google Scholar
• Di Rezze B, Wriht V, Curran CJ, Campbell KA, & Macarthur C. (2008). Individualized outcome measures for evaluating life skill groups for children with disabilities. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(5), 282–287.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Draffan EA, Evans DG, & Blenkhorn P. (2007). Use of assistive technology by students with dyslexia in postsecondary education. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(2), 105–116.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ. (2001). Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 80(7), 528–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, & Day H. (2002). Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability, 14, 107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Law M, Baptiste S, Carswell A, McColl MA, Polatajko H, & Pollock N. (2005). Canadian occupational performance measure (4th ed.). Ottawa: Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists.
   Google Scholar
• Petty LS, McArthur L, & Treviranus J. (2005). Clinical report: Use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in vision technology. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(5), 309–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Portney LG, & Watkins MP. (2000). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Raskind MH, & Higgins EL. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 27–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93–112, § 504, 87 Stat. 394. (1973).
   Google Scholar
• Reid DT. (2002). Benefits of a virtual play rehabilitation environment for children with cerebral palsy on perceptions of self-efficacy: A pilot study. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 5(3), 141–148.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roberts GI, Derkach-Ferguson AF, Siever JE, & Rose M. (2014). An examination of the effectiveness of Handwriting Without Tears® instruction. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 81(2), 102–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. (1996). Outcomes of assistive technology use on the quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18(9), 439–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt AJ, McCallum E, Hennessey J, Lovelace T, & Hawkins RO. (2012). Use of reading pen assistive technology to accommodate post-secondary students with reading disabilities. Assistive Technology, 24, 229–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpe MN, Johnson DR, Izzo M, & Murray A. (2005). An analysis of instructional accommodations and assistive technologies used by postsecondary graduates with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman M, Grogan K, & Smith RO. (2003). Scoring and interpretation directions School Function Assessment Assistive Technology Supplement (SFA-AT). Retrieved from http://www.r2d2.uwm.edu/oats/sfa-atdirections.html
   Google Scholar
• Smith RO. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in education. Diagnostique, 25(4), 273–290.
   Google Scholar
• Stodden RA, Roberts KD, Picklesimer T, Jackson D, & Chang C. (2006). An analysis of assistive technology supports and services offered in post-secondary educational institutions. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24, 111–120.
   Google Scholar
• Tam C, Archer J, Mays J, & Skidmore G. (2005). Measuring the outcomes of word cueing technology. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(5), 301–308.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tam C, Reid D, Naumann S, O'Keefe B. (2002). Perceived benefits of word prediction intervention on written productivity in children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Occupational Therapy International, 9(3), 237–255.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar