The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review

References

• Khasnabis C, Mirza Z, MacLachlan M. Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities. Lancet. 2015;386:2229–2230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York (NY): UN General Assembly; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, 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
• Lenker JA, Scherer MJ, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assist Technol. 2005;17:7–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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
• European Commission. Education and training: monitor. Luxembourg City: Publications Office of the European Union; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of education statistics 2016. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Education; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Huang I, Sugden D, Beveridge S. Children’s perceptions of their use of assistive devices in home and school settings. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4:95–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Watson AH, Ito M, Smith RO, et al. Effect of assistive technology in a public school setting. Am J Occup Ther. 2010;64:18–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne R, McAnaney D, MacKeogh T, et al. Assistive technology/equipment in supporting the education of children with special educational needs – what works best? Trim (Ireland): National Council for Special Education; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Hauschildt K, Gwosć C, Netz N, et al. Social and economic conditions of student life in Europe: synopsis of indicators eurostudent 2012–2015. Germany: W. Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH & Co. KG; 2015. Available from: https://www.uhr.se/globalassets/_uhr.se/lika-mojligheter/eurostudent/evsynopsisofindicators.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Riddell S. The inclusion of disabled students in higher education in Europe: progress and challenges. Proceedings of the Italian University Conference of Delegates for Disabilities; 2016 May 12–14; Torino, Italy: University of Turin.
   Google Scholar
• Hadjikakou K, Polycarpou V, Hadjilia A. The experiences of students with mobility disabilities in Cypriot higher education institutions: listening to their voices. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2010;57:403–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullins L, Preyde M. The lived experience of students with an invisible disability at a Canadian university. Disabil Soc. 2013;28:147–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shevlin M, Kenny M, McNeela E. Participation in higher education for students with disabilities: an Irish perspective. Disabil Soc. 2004;19:15–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berggren U, Rowan D, Bergbäck E, et al. Disabled students’ experiences of higher education in Sweden, the Czech Republic, and the United States–a comparative institutional analysis. Disabil Soc. 2016;31:339–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs D, Schreuer N. Inclusion of students with disabilities in higher education: performance and participation in student’s experiences. Disabil Stud Q. 2011;31.
   Google Scholar
• Barnard-Brak L, Lectenberger D, Lan WY. Accommodation strategies of college students with disabilities. Qual Rep. 2010;15:411–429.
   Google Scholar
• Claiborne LB, Cornforth S, Gibson A, et al. Supporting students with impairments in higher education: social inclusion or cold comfort? Int J Inclus Educ. 2011;15:513–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lourens H, Swartz L. Experiences of visually impaired students in higher education: bodily perspectives on inclusive education. Disabil Soc. 2016;31:240–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernd T, Van Der Pijl D, De Witte LP. Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scand J Occup Ther. 2009;16:146–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Joode E, van Heugten C, Verhey F, et al. Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24:701–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagohara DM, van der Meer L, Ramdoss S, et al. Using iPods® and iPads® in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34:147–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorah ER, Parnell A, Whitby PS, et al. A systematic review of tablet computers and portable media players as speech generating devices for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45:3792–3804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perelmutter B, McGregor KK, Gordon KR. Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2017;114:139–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pino M, Mortari L. The inclusion of students with dyslexia in higher education: a systematic review using narrative synthesis. Dyslexia. 2014;20:346–369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi M, Bickenbach J, Ustun TB, et al. The definition of disability: what is in a name? Lancet. 2006;368:1219–1221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frantzen KK, Fetters MD. Meta-integration for synthesizing data in a systematic mixed studies review: insights from research on autism spectrum disorder. Qual Quant. 2016;50:2251–2277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. 2nd ed. Los Angeles (CA): Sage; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P. Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual Quant. 2013;47:659–676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, et al. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:45–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lucas PJ, Baird J, Arai L, et al. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:6–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, et al. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Rev. 2017;6:61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pluye P, Robert E, Cargo M, et al. Proposal: a mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. 2011. Available from: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com
   Google Scholar
• Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:29–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49:47–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor E, Hignett S. Evaluating evidence: defining levels and quality using critical appraisal mixed methods tools. HERD. 2014;7:144–151.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chan ZC, Chan YT, Lui CW, et al. Gender differences in the academic and clinical performances of undergraduate nursing students: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34:377–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahan-Oliel N, Shikako-Thomas K, Majnemer A. Quality of life and leisure participation in children with neurodevelopmental disabilities: a thematic analysis of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:427–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frantzen KK, Lauritsen MB, Jørgensen M, et al. Parental self-perception in the autism spectrum disorder literature: a systematic mixed studies review. Rev J Autism Dev Disord. 2016;3:18–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husebø AM, Storm M, Våga BB, et al. Status of knowledge on student‐learning environments in nursing homes: a mixed‐method systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27:e1344–e1359.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsimicalis A, Denis-Larocque G, Michalovic A, et al. The psychosocial experience of individuals living with osteogenesis imperfecta: a mixed-methods systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:1877–1896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malcolm MP, Roll MC. The impact of assistive technology services in post-secondary education for students with disabilities: intervention outcomes, use-profiles, and user-experiences. Assist Technol. 2017;29:91–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malcolm MP, Roll MC. Self-reported assistive technology outcomes and personal characteristics in college students with less-apparent disabilities. Assist Technol. 2017;1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malcolm MP, Roll MC. Assistive technology outcomes in post-secondary students with disabilities: the influence of diagnosis, gender, and class-level. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12:857–867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashby CE, Causton-Theoharis J. “Moving quietly through the door of opportunity”: perspectives of college students who type to communicate. Equity Excell Educ. 2012;45:261–282.
   Google Scholar
• Bhardwaj RK, Kumar S. A comprehensive digital environment for visually impaired students: user’s perspectives. Libr Hi Tech. 2017;35:542–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christ T. Technology support services in postsecondary education: a mixed methods study. Technol Disabil. 2008;20:25–35.
   Google Scholar
• Floyd KK, Judge SL. The efficacy of assistive technology on reading comprehension for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits. 2012;8:48–64.
   Google Scholar
• Foley AR, Masingila JO. The use of mobile devices as assistive technology in resource-limited environments: access for learners with visual impairments in Kenya. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:332–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanafin J, Shevlin M, Kenny M, et al. Including young people with disabilities: assessment challenges in higher education. High Educ. 2007;54:435–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harshman J, Bretz SL, Yezierski E. Seeing chemistry through the eyes of the blind: a case study examining multiple gas law representations. J Chem Educ. 2013;90:710–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kernohan L. Access opportunities and issues for students with disabilities at one Ontario college. Coll Q. 2008;11:1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Kuzu A. The factors that motivate and hinder the students with hearing impairment to use mobile technology. Turk Online J Educ Technol. 2011;10:336–348.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson LM, Reynolds TW. Speech recognition, disability, and college composition. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2015;28:181–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt AJ, McCallum E, Hennessey J, et al. Use of reading pen assistive technology to accommodate post-secondary students with reading disabilities. Assist Technol. 2012;24:229–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanners A, McDougall D, Skouge J, et al. Comprehension and time expended for a doctoral student with a learning disability when reading with and without an accommodation. Learn Disabil Multidiscip J. 2012;18:3–10.
   Google Scholar
• Lartz MN, Stoner JB, Stout LJ. Perspectives of assistive technology from deaf students at a hearing university. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits. 2008;5:72–91.
   Google Scholar
• Smith-Osborne A. Perceived influence of adoption of personal electronic response systems by students with and without disabilities and limited English proficiency in small social work classes. J Technol Hum Serv. 2014;32:54–64.
   Google Scholar
• Stinson MS, Elliot LB, Kelly RR, et al. Deaf and hard-of-hearing students’ memory of lectures with speech-to-text and interpreting/note taking services. J Spec Educ. 2009;43:52–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seale J, Wald M, Draffan E. Exploring the technology experiences of disabled learners in higher education: challenges for the use and development of participatory research methods. J Assist Technol. 2008;2:4–15.
   Google Scholar
• Mosia PA, Phasha N. Access to curriculum for students with disabilities at higher education institutions: how does the National University of Lesotho fare? Afr J Disabil. 2017;6:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heiman T, Shemesh DO. Students with LD in higher education: use and contribution of assistive technology and website courses and their correlation to students’ hope and well-being. J Learn Disabil. 2012;45:308–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendricks DJ, Sampson E, Rumrill P, et al. Activities and interim outcomes of a multi-site development project to promote cognitive support technology use and employment success among postsecondary students with traumatic brain injuries. NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;37:449–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice IM, Wong AW, Salentine BA, et al. Differences in participation based on self-esteem in power and manual wheelchair users on a university campus: a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:102–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel RD, Jones D, Blanch CL, et al. Pre-Enrollment considerations of undergraduate wheelchair users and their post-enrollment transitions. J Postsecond Educ Disabil. 2015;28:57–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Algood SD, Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG, et al. Effect of a pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchair on the functional capabilities of persons with tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:380–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank A, Neophytou C, Frank J, et al. Electric-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): users’ views of influence on family, friends and carers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5:327–338.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hwang CS, Weng HH, Wang LF, et al. An eye-tracking assistive device improves the quality of life for ALS patients and reduces the caregivers’ burden. J Mot Behav. 2014;46:233–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theeven P, Hemmen B, Rings F, et al. Functional added value of microprocessor–controlled prosthetic knee joints in daily life performance of Medicare functional classification level–2 amputees. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:906–915.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright FV, Jutai JW. Evaluation of the longer-term use of the David Hart Walker Orthosis by children with cerebral palsy: a 3-year prospective evaluation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1:155–166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Enable Ireland. Assistive technology for people with disabilities and older people: a discussion paper. 2016. Available from: https://www.enableireland.ie/sites/default/files/publication/AT%20Paper%20final%20version.pdf
   Google Scholar
• GDI Hub. Assistive technology scoping research: executive summary. 2018. Available from: https://www.disabilityinnovation.com/uploads/images/GDI-Hub-Assistive-Technology-Scoping-Research.compressed.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Messinger-Willman J, Marino MT. Universal design for learning and assistive technology: leadership considerations for promoting inclusive education in today’s secondary schools. NASSP Bull. 2010;94:5–16.
   Google Scholar
• Rose DH, Hasselbring TS, Stahl S, et al. Assistive technology and universal design for learning: two sides of the same coin. In: Edyburn D, Higgins K, Boone R, editors. Handbook of special education technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay (WI): Knowledge by Design Inc.; 2005. p. 507–518.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Cushman LA. A functional approach to psychological and psychosocial factors and their assessment in rehabilitation. In: Dittmar SS, Gresham GE, editors. Functional assessment and outcomes measurement for the rehabilitation health professional. Gaithersbug (MD): Aspen Publishers; 1997. p. 57–67.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M, Sax C, Vanbiervliet 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
• O’Shea A, Kaplan A. Disability identity and use of services among college students with psychiatric disabilities. Qual Psychol. 2017;5:358–379.
   Google Scholar
• Hitchcock C, Stahl S. Assistive technology, universal design, universal design for learning: improved learning opportunities. J Spec Educ Technol. 2003;18:45–52.
   Google Scholar
• Perry J, Beyer S, Holm S. Assistive technology, telecare and people with intellectual disabilities: ethical considerations. J Med Ethics. 2009;35:81–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond D, Layton N, Bentley J, et al. Assistive technology and people: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13:437–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herts KL, Wallis E, Maslow G. College freshmen with chronic illness: a comparison with healthy first-year students. J Coll Stud Dev. 2014;55:475–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, et al. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:209–215.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar