Rehabilitation counsellor perceived importance and competence in assistive technology

References

• Baldassin V, Shimizu HE, Fachin-Martins E. Computer assistive technology and associations with quality of life for individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(3):597–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen BJ, Kim Y, Park K, et al. Improvement in patient-reported quality of life outcomes in severely visually impaired individuals using the aira assistive technology system. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2018;7(5):30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed A. Perceptions of using assistive technology for students with disabilities in the classroom. Int J Spec Educ. 2018;33(1):129–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chukwuemeka EJ, Samaila D. Teachers’ perception and factors limiting the use of high-tech assistive technology in special education schools in North-west Nigeria. Contemp Educ Technol. 2020;11(1):99–109.
   Google Scholar
• McNicholl A, Casey H, Desmond D, et al. The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(2):130–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morash-Macneil V, Johnson F, Ryan JB. A systematic review of assistive technology for individuals with intellectual disability in the workplace. J Spec Educ Technol. 2018;33(1):15–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprong ME, Dallas B, Paul E, et al. Rehabilitation technology services and employment outcomes among consumers using division of rehabilitation services. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(5):445–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinkey L, Savoie C, Hurvitz EA, et al. Patients’ and health care providers’ knowledge of wheelchair transportation issues. Assist Technol. 2009;21(1):35–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evcil AN. Wheelchair accessibility to public buildings in Istanbul. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(2):76–85.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fitzgerald SG, Songer T, Rotko KA, et al. Motor vehicle transportation use and related adverse events among persons who use wheelchairs. Assist Technol. 2007;19(4):180–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verza R, Carvalho ML, Battaglia MA, et al. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler. 2006;12(1):88–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittich W, Granberg S, Wahlqvist M, et al. Device abandonment in deafblindness: a scoping review of the intersection of functionality and usability through the international classification of functioning, disability and health lens. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e044873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugawara AT, Ramos VD, Alfieri FM, et al. Abandonment of assistive products: Assessing abandonment levels and factors that impact on it. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(7):716–723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrie H, Carmien S, Lewis A. Assistive technology abandonment: research realities and potentials. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2018;532–540. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-94274-2_77
   Google Scholar
• Lewis AN, Cooper RA, Seelman KD, et al. Assistive technology in rehabilitation: Improving impact through policy. Rehab Res Pol Educ. 2012;26(1):19–32.
   Google Scholar
• dos Santos AD, Ferrari AL, Medola FO, et al. Aesthetics and the perceived stigma of assistive technology for visual impairment. Disabil Rehabi Assist Technol. 2020;1–7. DOI:10.1080/17483107.2020.1768308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson Ranada Å, Lidström H. Satisfaction with assistive technology device in relation to the service delivery process-a systematic review. Assist Technol. 2019;31(2):82–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer M, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, et al. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (atds). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(1):1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wessels R, Dijcks B, Soede M, et al. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. TAD. 2004;15(4):231–238.
   Google Scholar
• Connor A, Kuo H-J, Leahy MJ. Assistive technology in pre-service rehabilitation counsellor education: a new approach to team collaboration. Rehabil Res Pol Educ. 2018;32(1):20–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langton AJ, Ramseur H. Enhancing employment outcomes through job accommodation and assistive technology resources and services. J Vocational Rehabil. 2001;61(1):27–37.
   Google Scholar
• Riemer-Reiss ML. Rehabilitation professionals’ perceived competencies in assistive technology selection and referral: a preliminary analysis. SGRJARC. 2003;34(2):33–36.
   Google Scholar
• Estrada-Hernandez N, Wheaton JE, Dawson RD, et al. Current status of assistive technology education in rehabilitation counseling programs. Rehab Educ. 2007;21(2):117–123.
   Google Scholar
• Leahy MJ, Chan F, Iwanaga K, et al. Empirically derived test specifications for the certified rehabilitation counselor examination: revisiting the essential competencies of rehabilitation counselors. Rehabil Counsel Bull. 2019;63(1):35–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMahon BT. One veteran counsellor’s take on the future of rehabilitation counselling. Rehabil Counsel Bull. 2009;52(2):120–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels CA, McDermott J. Assistive technology integration in special education teacher preparation: program coordinators’ perceptions of current attainment and importance. J Spec Educ Technol. 2003;18(3):29–44.
   Google Scholar
• Berven NL. The roles and functions of the rehabilitation counselor revisited. Rehabil Counsel Bull. 1979;23(2):84–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin BS. Educators’ perceptions of clinical judgment skill competencies in rehabilitation counseling. Rehabil Res Pol Educ. 2018;32(3):192–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhouse SW, Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika. 1959;24(2):95–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamble MJ, Dowler DL, Orslene LE. Assistive technology: choosing the right tool for the right job. J Vocational Rehabil. 2006;24(2):73–80.
   Google Scholar
• Schmeler MR, Schein RM, McCue M, et al. Telerehabilitation clinical and vocational applications for assistive technology: research, opportunities, and challenges. Int J Telerehabil. 2009;1(1):59–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wallace J. Assistive technology funding in the United States. NeuroRehabilitation. 2011;28(3):295–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Elsaesser L-J, Bauer S. A survey of assistive technology service providers in the USA. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(8):789–800.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard J, Fisher Z, Kemp AH, et al. Exploring the barriers to using assistive technology for individuals with chronic conditions: a meta-synthesis review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;1–19. DOI:10.1080/17483107.2020.1788181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noll A, Owens L, Smith RO, et al. Survey of state vocational rehabilitation counselor roles and competencies in assistive technology. Work. 2006;27(4):413–419.
   PubMedGoogle 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. TAD. 2002;14(3):101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ. Assistive technology: Matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 2002.
   Google Scholar