Search results

In this chapter, we present the findings of the National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI). The institute was funded in October 2000 as a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs to take a comprehensive look at the factors related to the planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of assistive technology (AT) services in schools. We present the data from seven research areas: (1) the status of AT use in schools, (2) policies and procedures in the development and delivery of AT services, (3) AT decision-making by IEP teams, (4) integration of AT use in learning environments (facilitate instruction, access to curriculum), (5) effects of AT use on academic, social, functional performance of students, (6) training and technical support needed by persons implementing AT, and (7) the extent to which institutions of higher education (IHEs) were developing AT knowledge and skills. In each area we summarize the lessons learned as a result of the research to assist policy-makers, researchers, and practitioners in improving AT services and delivery systems.

The term assistive technology (AT) is relatively new but its origins go back a long way. Some of the elements of assistive technology, such as aids and adaptations, have been a feature of policies for many years. Before the late 1990s it was more usual to focus on the most common types ‐ telephones, alarms, aids and adaptations. More recently telemedicine and smart houses have come to the fore in policies and research. What is confusing now is that a variety of other terms are being used. In this paper the development of these terms in recent policies and the changing terminology are traced. It is suggested that a narrow interpretation can play down the important role of AT in enabling older people to maintain their independence but that it must be seen in conjunction with other services, especially housing.

Little is known about how assistive technology standards have been implemented in preservice teacher preparation. This chapter provides a review of the literature concerning the importance of evidence-based practice and the research base supporting assistive technology in order to set the context for reporting the results of a comprehensive national study of the status of assistive technology state standards for teachers in all of the 50 states (plus Washington, DC). This chapter includes the findings of the study, the research that the study was based upon, and a review of relevant research in the fields of assistive technology, educational technology, and evidence-based practice. Only six states reported having AT standards and six states reported having AT competencies. Three states reported having both standards and competencies, yielding nine unique states (out of 51) with AT standards and/or AT competencies. Regression analyses to determine the relationship between the study variables and national reading and math performance of students with disabilities were inconclusive. The implications of the study findings and recommendations for future research are presented.

The ramifications of assistive technology for both current and future service provision are wide. In recent years, policy makers have become increasingly aware of the potential of these services to maintain older and disabled people in their own homes. The purpose of this paper is to report on a literature review and provide illustrations of how the evidence can be used to underpin the development of assistive technology services for older and disabled people and disabled children. The aim is to support the development of user‐focused, accessible services.

Assistive Technology (AT) helps address social and economic barriers and can positively impact the lives of people with disabilities. Single-entry point (SEP) systems have been shown as successful models for reducing barriers encountered when acquiring and using AT. This chapter highlights a mixed method case study in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), which sought to explore barriers consumers faced in acquiring and being satisfied with AT, as well as the potential for an SEP system in NL. NL is an Atlantic Canadian province characterized by a small population dispersed over a large island and remote mainland. Data were collected using individual interviews with disability service providers in community and post-secondary settings across the province and a survey to assess barriers to accessing AT, AT utilization, and satisfaction among consumers with disabilities. Many consumers and service providers demonstrated that they recognized the benefits of AT but expressed dissatisfaction with existing programs and services citing cost, lack of knowledge, training, and funding subsidies as the most significant barriers to access. Improving access to AT is a necessary step toward enhancing education and employment opportunities, facilitating social inclusion, and optimizing overall health for people with disabilities. Investigating the feasibility of SEP programs modeled after American and Australian initiatives should be part of future planning for Canada, especially in small urban, rural, and remote areas where demand for provision of AT is under-resourced.

The UK government is committed to preventative technologies and increasingly they are being incorporated into residential services for people with learning disabilities. This paper describes an evaluation of a sample of settings in which various assistive technology (AT) devices have been installed following the assessment of individual residents' needs. The impact of this on residents' objective quality of life was assessed using a range of quantitative measures and through some qualitative questions. Despite some positive consequences of the AT being reported by staff in response to the qualitative items, there was no significant impact on any of the quantitative measures. In isolation, AT does not appear to be sufficient to significantly improve objective quality of life outcomes for people with learning disabilities in residential services. Equally, AT does not appear to reduce objective quality of life outcomes. The challenge to service providers is to ensure that the introduction of AT and any associated change to staffing levels or support procedures translates into improvements in residents' overall quality of life. To detect such improvements future research might have to broaden the range of quantitative methods used and supplement them with qualitative techniques.

Modern dementia care is increasingly turning to technology to address a wide range of issues. Such developments are argued to improve quality of life, as, for example, technological interventions that reduce risks and increase safety can enable people with dementia to stay in their own homes for longer. However, all interventions in dementia care must strike a balance between doing what is perceived to be for the best and preserving the personhood of people with dementia. Technological interventions run a particularly high risk of crossing the line into doing things to people with dementia, rather than with them. Doing things for people with dementia is also problematic if it takes away their ability to do things for themselves. These issues are examined with reference to electronic tagging, assistive or ‘smart’ technology and interventions to address the psychosocial needs of people with dementia.

The potential of technology for individuals with disabilities has long been recognized by the special education community. However, the rate of marketplace developments has far outstripped the research base documenting the effectiveness of specific applications of assistive and instructional technology. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize critical issues associated with six areas of special education technology: accessibility, assistive technology, professional development, instructional technology, service delivery, and legal/policy issues. Within each topical area, key works defining the current knowledge base will be summarized along with an analysis of important questions that deserve additional research. The implications of these analyses for defining future leadership and research agendas are noted.

Technology, particularly for students with disabilities, is often viewed as “the great equalizer” (Wyer, 2001, p. 1). It is perceived as a means of providing access and opportunity, promoting independence, and encouraging empowerment (Edyburn, Higgins, & Boone, 2005b). Technology can greatly benefit students with disabilities and solve many of the challenges these students face. Perhaps, this was put most profusely by former Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Judy Heumann, “For most of us, technology makes things easier. For a person with a disability, it makes things possible” (Edyburn et al., 2005b, p. xiii). The potential of technology is enormous for students with disabilities. For example, technology can provide a voice to those students who may not otherwise have one per their disability (i.e., AAC devices), read a text to a student who struggles with reading as a result of his/her disability (i.e., text-to-speech devices, screen readers, and Reading Pens), grant access to a computer and other electronic tools (i.e., switches and speech recognition), and offer low-tech devices such as pencil grips or lined paper to aid students in writing.

This article examines the opportunities to create optimal conditions for individuals with autism, to work successfully within the contemporary workplace and improve their well-being. These opportunities arise from digital technology (DT) development, enabling the work environment to be remodeled by providing new possibilities and ways of working. The author discusses both technology-based as well as non-technological accommodations supporting overcoming the workplace challenges faced by employees with autism.

A qualitative research was conducted with the use of in-depth interviews with 21 individuals with expertise in the field.

Possible technology-based work environment modifications and non-technological managerial practices facilitating work integration and the long-term well-being of individuals with autism were proposed. These solutions address four main problems: (1) effective communication; (2) time management, task prioritizing, and organization of work; (3) stress management and emotion control; and (4) sensory sensitivity.

Proposed solutions include primarily the wide usage of electronic mediated forms of communicating based on non-direct and non-verbal contact; a flexible approach towards work organization; accurate stress monitoring systems; and an individualized approach toward office space arrangements limiting external stimuli.

All this could lead not only to an increase in employment in individuals on the autism spectrum but also influence the improvement of the job performance of already employed. Modifications introduced could improve the long-term well-being of all employees, both with autism and neurotypical ones.