Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Issue title: Assistive Technology Outcomes Research: Contributions to Evidence-Based Assistive Technology Practice
Guest editors: Åse Brandtx and Jenny Alwiny
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Watson, Anne H.a; c; * | Smith, Roger O.b
Affiliations: [a] Arlington Public Schools, Arlington, VA, USA | [b] Department of Occupational Science and Technology, Rehabilitation Research Design and Disability (R2D2) Center, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI, USA | [c] Towson University, Towson, MD, USA | [x] Danish Centre for Assistive Technology, Department of Research and Development, Århus, Denmark | [y] Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Correspondence: [*] Address for correspondence: A.H. Watson, 1401 North Greenbrier Street, Arlington, VA 22205, USA. E-mail: [email protected]/[email protected].
Abstract: Background:Little research exists on the effectiveness of assistive technology (AT) for children and almost no outcome instruments exist. The Student Performance Profile (SPP) and the School Function Assessment-Assistive Technology (SFA-AT) are instruments %are specifically designed to measure AT outcomes in special education. Purpose:The present study reports on the measurement properties and compares the time needed to use the SFA-AT and the SPP. Materials and methods:The SFA-AT and the SPP were used to measure the effect of AT for 13 children with intellectual, behavioural, or learning disabilities in a public school, and were compared regarding time acceded for their administration, rating and scoring, and measurement properties. Findings:The SPP required less time to administer, score, and analyse than the SFA-AT. Both were sensitive to change in student performance over a four-month period when the conditions of pretest without AT was compared to posttest with AT. The SFA-AT scores did not correlate with the SPP scores at pretest without AT or at posttest with AT. Conclusions:Both the SFA-AT and the SPP have advantages, but the SPP appeared most efficient and sensitive for this population of students in special education. Further studies with larger and alternate participant samples are required.
Keywords: Assistive technology, outcomes, school, children, measurement instrument, Student Performance Profile (SPP), School Function Assessment-Assistive Technology (SFA-AT)
DOI: 10.3233/TAD-2012-0336
Journal: Technology and Disability, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 83-92, 2012
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]