A survey of assistive technology service providers in the USA

References

• Assistive Technology Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-364.118 Stat. 1707 [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2016 Mar 31]. GPO Access database. Available from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ364/pdf/PLAW-108publ364.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Long T, Woolverton M, Perry D, et al. Training needs of pediatric occupational therapists in assistive technology. Am J Occup Ther. 2007;61:345–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long T, Perry D. Pediatric physical therapists’ perceptions of their training in assistive technology. Phys Ther. 2008;88:629–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards B, Lewis S. The use of technology in programs for students with visual impairments in Florida. J Vis Impair Blind. 1998;92:302–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abner G, Lahm E. Implementation of assistive technology with students who are visually impaired: teachers’ readiness. J Vis Impair Blind. 2002;96:98–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Z, Ajuwon P, Smith D, et al. Assistive technology competencies for teachers of students with visual impairments: a national study. J Vis Impair Blind. 2012;106:656–665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapf SA. Predictive validity of the matching assistive technology to child-augmentative communication evaluation simplified (MATCH-ACES) assessment protocol [dissertation]. Provo, UT: Department of Pediatric Science, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson JM, Inglebret E, Jones C, et al. Perspectives of speech language pathologist regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augment Altern Commun. 2006;2:85–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA). The critical need for knowledge and usage of AT and AAC among speech-language pathologists [Internet]. Survey White Paper [cited 2016 Mar 21]. Available from: http://www.atia.org/files/public/ATIA%20SLP%20White%20Paper_9-18-12.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Carlson D, Ehrlich NJ. US Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Assistive Technology and Information Technology Use and Need by Persons With Disabilities in the United States, Washington, DC; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Noll A, Owens L, Smith R, et al. Survey of state vocational rehabilitation counselor roles and competencies in assistive technology. Work. 2001;27:413–419.
   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
• Gitlow L, Dininno D, Choate L, et al. The provision of assistive technology by occupational therapists who practice in mental health. Occup Ther Mental Health. 2011;27:178–190.
   Google Scholar
• Ault M, Bausch M, McLaren E. Assistive technology service delivery in rural school districts. Rural Spec Educ Quart. 2013;32:15–22.
   Google Scholar
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, 118 STAT. 2647 [Internet]. [cited 2016 Mar 31]. GPO Access database. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ446/pdf/PLAW-108publ446.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barlett JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC. Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Inform Technol Learn Perform J. 2001;19:43.
   Google Scholar
• RESNA Practice Guidelines. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA). Guidelines for knowledge and skills for provision of the specialty technology: seating and mobility [Internet]. RESNA; 1997 [cited 2011 Feb 1]. Available from: http://resna.org/resnaresources/resna-publications
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AL, Polgar MJ, Cook and Hussey’s assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education. Standards and interpretive guide August 2015 interpretive guide version [Internet]. [cited 2016 Mar 31] Available from: http://www.aota.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Accredit/Standards/2011-Standards-and-Interpretive-Guide.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Commission on Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2016 Mar 31]. Available from: http://www.capteonline.org/home.aspx
   Google Scholar
• American Speech Language Hearing Association [Internet]. Washington (DC): Standards for Accreditation of Graduate Education Programs in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology; 2008 [1997–2013; cited 2016 Mar 31]. Available from: http://www.asha.org/academic/accreditation/accredmanual/section3/
   Google Scholar
• Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2016 Mar 31] Available from: http://www.corerehab.org/
   Google Scholar
• Kanny EM, Anson DK. Current trends in assistive technology education in entry-level occupational therapy curricula. Am J Occup Ther. 1998;52:586–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estrada-Hernandez N, Wheaton J, Dawson R, et al. Current status of assistive technology education in rehabilitation counseling programs. Rehab Educ. 2007;21:117–123.
   Google Scholar
• Brady R, Long T, Richards J, et al. Assistive technology curriculum structure and content in professional and content in professional preparation service provider programs. J Allied Health. 2007;36:183–192.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• QIAT Leadership Team. Quality indicators of assistive technology: indicators [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2016 May 18]. Available from: http://www.qiat.org/indicators.html
   Google Scholar
• Elsaesser LJ, Bauer SM. Provision of assistive technology services method (ATSM) according to evidence-based information and knowledge management. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6:386–401.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bauer S, Elsaesser LJ. Integrating medical, assistive, and universally designed products and technologies: assistive technology device classification (ATDC). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7:350–355.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, et al. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:21–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koumpouros Y, Karavasili A, Papageorgiou E, et al. Validation of the Greek version of the device subscale of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0). Assist Technol. 2016;28:152–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Won-Jeong H, Sujin H, Yijung C. Test–retest reliability of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology 2.0-Korean version for individuals with spinal cord injury. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27:1291–1293.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J, Campbell K. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:31–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orellano EM, Jutai JW. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Device Scale (PIADS) for Puerto Rican assistive technology users. Assist Technol. 2013;25:194–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chae S, Jo S. Development and validation of Korean Version of Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale. Assist Technol. 2014;26:45–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Institute of Matching Person and Technology. Matching person and technology (MPT) assessment process [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 22]. Available from: http://www.matchingpersonandtechnology.com/mptdesc.html
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Disabilities. New Editions Consulting, Inc. National Summit on Disability Policy 2010. National Council on Disability, Working Paper, Technology [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2015 Feb 23]. Available from: http://neweditions.net/products/disability-policy-working-paper-series
   Google Scholar
• Smith RO. Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assist Technol. 1996;8:71–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fuhrer M. Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80:528–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrer M, Jutai J, Scherer M, et al. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:1243–1251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Fuhrer M, 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
• Lenker J, Paquet V. A new conceptual model for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol. 2004;16:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith RO, Lenker JA, Assistive technology outcomes summit. Annual Conference of the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America; 2016 Jul.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Technology adoption, acceptance, satisfaction and benefit: integrating various assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology (GATE) [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/technology/gate/en/
   Google Scholar