Crucial design issues for special access technology; a Delphi study

References

• Oliver M, Sapey B. Social work with disabled people. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macillan; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacker, RR. Assistive technology use and abandonment among college students with disabilities. Intl Electronic J Leadership Learn 1999;3:1–14
   Google Scholar
• Ried SMD, Strong GP, Wright LBS, et al. Computers, assistive devices, and augmentative communication aids: technology for social inclusion. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1995;10:80–1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoppestad B. Essential elements for assessment of persons with severe neurological impairments for computer access utilizing assistive technology devices: a Delphi study. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2006;1:3–16
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hersh MA, Johnson MA. On modelling assistive technology systems – part I: modelling framework. Technol Disabil 2008;20:193–215
   Google Scholar
• National Council on Disability. Study on the financing of assistive technology devices and services for individuals with disabilities. Washington; 1993. Available from: http://www.ncd.gov/publications/1993/Mar41993 [last accessed 26 Sep 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Pennsylvania's Initiative on Assistive Technology. Preliminary report on assistive technology: use, needs and experiences of Pennsylvanians with disabilities. Pennsylvania (PA): Institute on Disabilities/UAP, Temple University; 1995
   Google Scholar
• Taylor H. National organization on disability/harris survey of americans with disabilities. Washington, DC: National Press Club; 2004. Available from: http://nod.org/what_we_do/research/surveys/harris/ [last accessed 26 Sep 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Wehmeyer ML. National survey of the use of assistive technology by adults with mental retardation. Mental Retard 1998;36:44–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alper S, Raharinirina S. Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Spec Educ Technol 2006;21:47–64
   Google Scholar
• Lane JP, Leahy JA. Knowledge from research and practice on the barriers and carriers to successful technology transfer for assistive technology devices. Assist Technol Outcomes Benefits 2010;6:72–86
   Google Scholar
• Rehman S, Guenov MD. A methodology for modelling manufacturing costs at conceptual design. Comput Indus Eng 1998;35:623–6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath ME. Product strategy for high technology companies: accelerating your business to web speed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol 1993;5:36–45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacker RR. Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil 2000;66:44–50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations 1995;19:41–7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luborsky MR. Sociocultural factors shaping technology usage: fulfilling the promise. Technol Disabil 1993;2:71–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoppestad BS. Inadequacies in computer access using assistive technology devices in profoundly disabled individuals: an overview of the current literature. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2007;2:189–99
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Batavia AI, Hammer GS. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 1990;27:425--36
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pine BJ. Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition. Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press; 1993
   Google Scholar
• Franke N, Schreier M, Kaiser U. The “I Designed It Myself” effect in mass customization. Manage Sci 2009;56:125--40
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch A, DePaula RA. A framework for the adoption of assistive technology. In: Bodine C, ed. SWAAAC 2002: supporting learning through assistive technology. Winter Park (CO): Assistive Technology Partners; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Galvin JC. An outcomes perspective of quality pathways to most appropriate technology. In: Scherer MJ, Galvin JC, eds. Evaluating, selecting and using appropriate assistive technology. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers Inc.; 1996:1–26
   Google Scholar
• Shah SGS, Robinson I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:131–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyng AM. Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design. Commun ACM 1991;34:65–73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell AJ, Cooper RG. Do customer partnerships improve new product success rates? Indus Market Manage 1999;28:507–19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacey G, Slevin F. Putting the user at the centre of the design process. In abstracts of proceedings of the International Conference on Technology and Aging, 12–14 Sept 2001
   Google Scholar
• Rohracher H. The role of users in the social shaping of environmental technologies. Innovation. Eur J Soc Sci Res 2003;16:177–92
   Google Scholar
• Poulson D, Richardson, S. USERfit – a framework for user centred design in assistive technology. Technol Disabil 1998;9:163–71
   Google Scholar
• Bridgelal Ram M, Grocott PR, Weir HCM. Issues and challenges of involving users in medical device development. Health Expect 2008;11:63–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allsop MJ, Holt RJ, Levesley MC, Bhakta B. The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: identifying methodology. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2010;5:1–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shah SGS, Robinson I, AlShawi S. Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: a theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:514–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bühler C. Approach to the analysis of user requirements in assistive technology. Int J Indus Ergonomics 1996;17:187–92
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulson D. User fit: a practical handbook on user-centred design for assistive technology: European Commission, DG XIII, Telematics applications for the integration of the disabled and elderly; 1996
   Google Scholar
• Hersh MA. The design and evaluation of assistive technology products and devices Part 1: design. International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation. Available from: http://cirrie buffalo edu/encyclopedia/en/article/309 [last accessed 2 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Chen CL, Chen HC, Cheng PT, et al. Enhancement of operational efficiencies for people with high cervical spinal cord injuries using a flexible integrated pointing device apparatus. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:866–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley N, Poppen W. Assistive technology, computers and internet may decrease sense of isolation for homebound elderly and disabled persons. Technol Disabil 2003;15:19–25
   Google Scholar
• Houlihan BV, Drainoni ML, Warner G, et al. The impact of internet access for people with spinal cord injuries: a descriptive analysis of a pilot study. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:422–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodwin MG, Star T, Cardoso E. Computer assistive technology for people who have disabilities: computer adaptations and modifications. J Rehabil 2004;70:28–33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong AWK, Chan CCH, Li-Tsang CWP, Lam CS. Competence of people with intellectual disabilities on using human-computer interface. Res Dev Disabil 2009;30:107–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annalee Y. Repetitive strain injuries. The Lancet 1997;349:943–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin M, Butler R. Upper extremity disorders in the workplace: costs and outcomes beyond the first return to work. J Occup Rehabil 2006;16:296–316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilmore JH, Pine, BJ. The four faces of mass customization. Harvard Business Rev 1997;75:91–101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies TC, Chau T, Fehlings DL, et al. Youth with cerebral palsy with differing upper limb abilities: how do they access computers? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:1952–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley; 1975
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Arieh D, Easton T. Product design compromise using consensus models. In: Herrera-Viedma E, et al., eds. Consensual processes. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 2011:405--23
   Google Scholar
• Griffin R. Management. 8th ed. New Delhi, India: Dreamtech Press; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med 2011;8: e1000393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwicky F. The morphological method of analysis and construction. New York: Intersciences Publishers; 1948
   Google Scholar
• Weber RG, Condoor SS. Conceptual design using a synergistically compatible morphological matrix. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Frontiers in Education; 1998:171–6
   Google Scholar
• Powell Kennedy H. A model of exemplary midwifery practice: results of a Delphi study. J Midwif Women's Health 2000;45:4–19
   Google Scholar
• Reid N. The Delphi technique: its contribution to the evaluation of professional practice. In: Ellis R, ed. Professional competence and quality assurance in the caring professions. New York: Croom Helm; 1988:230--62
   Google Scholar
• Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs 1987;12:729–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Hussey SM. Assistive technology: principles and practice. St. Louis, USA: Mosby Inc.; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil 2002;14:125--31
   Google Scholar
• Biernacki P, Waldorf D. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Soc Meth Res 1981;10:141–63
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, et al. Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2007;2:235–48
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Danial-Saad A, Kuflik T, Weiss PL, Schreuer N. Building an ontology for assistive technology using the Delphi method. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2012;1–12 . Available from: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/17483107.2012.723238 [last accessed 2 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Ripat J, Booth A. Characteristics of assistive technology service delivery models: stakeholder perspectives and preferences. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1461–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer MJ, Lane JP. Assessing consumer profiles of ‘ideal’ assistive technologies in ten categories: an integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Disabil Rehabil 1997;19:528–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hersh MA, Johnson MA. A robotic guide for blind people. Part 1. A multi-national survey of the attitudes, requirements and preferences of potential end-users. Appl Bionics Biomechan 2010;7:277–88
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter S, Enderby P, Evans P, Judge S. Barriers and facilitators to the use of high-technology augmentative and alternative communication devices: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Int J Lang Commun Disorders 2012;47:115–29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross N. Descriptive models of creative design: application to an example. Design Stud 1997;18:427–40
   Google Scholar
• Dorst K, Cross N. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Stud 2001;22:425–37
   Google Scholar
• Schön DA. Designing: rules, types and words. Design Stud 1988;9:181–90
   Google Scholar
• Cross N. Expertise in design: an overview. Design Stud 2004;25:427–41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelo J. Factors affecting the use of a single switch with assistive technology devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 2000;37:591--8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar