A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes

References

• Gitlin LN. Assistive technology in the home and community for older people: psychological and social considerations. In: MJ Scherer (ed) Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psycho- logical Association, 2002; 109–122.
   Google Scholar
• Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, PL 100-407, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Scherer MJ, De Ruyter F. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology outcomes, submitted.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Education. Final funding priorities for fiscal years 2001–2003 for four disability and rehabilitation research projects. Federal Register, (http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/fin- rule/2001-2/062601d.html), June 26, 2001; 66: 123, 34025–34034.
   Google Scholar
• De Ruyter F. Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technology 1995; 7: 3– 16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Ruyter F. The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technology & Disability 1997; 6: 89– 104.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ. Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001; 80: 528– 535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith RO. Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology 1996; 8: 71– 81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ (ed). Assessing Medical Rehabilitation Practices: The Promise of Outcomes Research. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Keith RA. The role of treatment theory. In: MJ Fuhrer (ed) Assessing Medical Rehabilitation Practices: The Promise of Out- comes Research. Baltimore: Paul H Brooks, 1997; 257–274.
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN. From hospital to home: individual variations in experience with assistive devices among older adults. In: DB Gray, LA Quatrano, ML Lieberman (eds) Designing and Using Assistive Technology: The Human Perspective. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1998; 117–136.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Func- tioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Matching Person & Technology Model and Accom- panying Assessment Forms (3rd edn). Webster, NY: Institute for Matching Person & Technology, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Wessels R, Persson J, Lorentsen O, Andrich R, Ferrario M, Oortwijn W, van Beekum T, Brodin H, de Witte L. IPPA: individually prioritized problem assessment. Technology & Dis- ability 2002; 14: 119– 124.
   Google Scholar
• Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinc- tion in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986; 51: 1173– 1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galvin JC, Scherer MJ (eds). Evaluating, Selecting, and Using Appropriate Assistive Technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Conine TA, Hershler C. Effectiveness: a neglected dimension in the assessment of rehabilitation devices and equipment. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1991; 14: 117– 122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hulin CL. Satisfaction and other job attitudes. In: BB Wolman (ed) International Encyclopedia of Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychoana- lysis & Neurology. New York, NY: Aesculapius, 1977; 10: 12.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. http://www.iso.ch/ iso/en/ISOOnline.openerpage
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ. Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000; 22: 481– 489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Cushman LA. Predicting satisfaction with assistive technology for a sample of adults with new spinal cord injuries. Psychological Reports 2000; 87: 981– 987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002; 24: 31– 37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN. Why Older-People accept or reject assistive technology. Generations-Journal of the American Society on Aging 1995; 19: 41– 46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates PS, Spencer JC, Young ME, Rintala DH. Assistive technology and the newly disabled adult: adaptation to wheelchair use. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1993; 47: 1014– 1021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer JC. Tools or baggage? Alternative meanings of assistive technology. In: DB Gray, LA Quatrano, ML Lieberman (eds) Designing and Using Assistive Technology: The Human Perspective. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1998; 89–98.
   Google Scholar
• Lawton MP, Nahemow L. Ecology and the aging process. In: C Eisdorfer, ML Powell (eds) The Psychology of Adult Development and Aging. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1973; 619–674.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers JC, Holm MB. Task performance of older adults and low assistive technology devices. International Journal of Technology and Aging 1991; 4: 93– 106.
   Google Scholar
• Day HY, Jutai J, Woolrich W, Strong G. The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation 2001; 25: 400– 404.
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Jutai JW. Assistive technology outcomes research and clinical practice: what role for ICF? Paper presented at the 8th North American Collaborating Center Conference on ICF, Toronto, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Canadian Journal of Psychology 1996; 9: 159– 168.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day, H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology & Disability 2002; 14: 107– 111.
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology & Disability 2002; 14: 101– 105.
   Google Scholar
• Consortium on Assistive Technology Outcomes Research (CA- TOR), http://www.atoutcomes.com/ATOCdefault.htm).
   Google Scholar