Classification of assistive technology services: Implications for outcomes research

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: Lenker, James A.^{a; *} | Shoemaker, Laura L.^b | Fuhrer, Marcus J.^c | Jutai, Jeffrey W.^d | Demers, Louise^{e; f} | Tan, Chuan Hoh^a | DeRuyter, Frank^g

Affiliations: [a] Department of Rehabilitation Science, School of Public Health & Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA | [b] Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, Wascana Rehabilitation Centre, Adult Program, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada | [c] The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Columbia, MD, USA | [d] Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | [e] Research Center, Montreal Geriatric University Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada | [f] School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada | [g] Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Division of Speech Pathology & Audiology, Durham, NC, 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: [*] Corresponding author: James A. Lenker, Ph.D., University at Buffalo, 501 Kimball Tower, 3435 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14214-3079, USA. Tel.: +716 829 6726; Fax: +716 829 3217; E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract: This paper evaluates four classifications of assistive technology (AT) services for their ability to support outcomes research. The evaluation involved classifications intended for various purposes, including those created to support practitioner education and third-party reimbursement decisions. Each was analyzed according to a common framework: a) purpose, b) completeness, c) granularity, and d) research application. Each classification addresses the gamut of service provision steps, including client intake, assessment, and training, as well as device maintenance and repair. The classifications differed markedly in the granularity with which each step is described. None of the classifications attempts to dimensionalize the service provision steps in terms of intensity, duration, frequency, or other indicators of service quality. The findings suggest that existing AT service classifications do not fully meet the needs of AT outcomes researchers. A common taxonomy of AT services is thus needed to advance the science of AT device outcomes research. A preliminary classification of services is presented as a basis for future development.

Keywords: Classification, taxonomy, assistive technology services, assistive technology devices, outcomes research

DOI: 10.3233/TAD-2012-0334

Journal: Technology and Disability, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 59-70, 2012