Advertisement

Journal of Formative Design in Learning

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 126–135 | Cite as

The Formative Design of Epilepsy Journey: a Web-Based Executive Functioning Intervention for Adolescents with Epilepsy

  • Noah J. GlaserEmail author
  • Matthew Schmidt
  • Shari L. Wade
  • Aimee Smith
  • Luke Turnier
  • Avani C. Modi
Article

Abstract

This case study discusses the design, development, and formative evaluation of Epilepsy Journey, an individually tailored, web-based intervention designed to address the unique executive functioning (EF) needs of adolescents with epilepsy. This intervention was designed through a three-phase iterative, patient-centered participatory action research process. First, a front-end analysis was completed to identify the unique needs of adolescents with epilepsy and initial design ideas via focus groups. Second, a preliminary design of the intervention was developed from focus group results. Finally, we iteratively incorporated revisions and refinements based on patient-centered feedback collected during usability sessions. Findings based on usage analytics, user reports, and coded qualitative themes from usability sessions suggest that our iterative, patient-centered approach to design, development, and evaluation resulted in a visually appealing interactive and brief intervention that is both engaging and individually tailored to the needs of adolescents with epilepsy.

Keywords

Formative evaluation Formative design Cognitive behavioral intervention Executive functioning deficits Epilepsy Adolescents with epilepsy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  3. Dumas, J. S., & Redish, J. C. (1993). A practical guide to usability testing. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  4. Eason, K. (1988). Information technology and organisational change. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies: mobile apps for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 2–11.Google Scholar
  6. Goggins, S., Schmidt, M., Guajardo, J., & Moore, J. (2011). 3D virtual worlds: assessing the experience and informing design. International Journal of Social and Organizational Dynamics in Information Technology, 1.Google Scholar
  7. Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. In R. Baecker, J. Grudin, W. Buxton, & S. Greenberg (Eds.), Readings in human-computer interaction, toward the year 2000 (pp. 528–547). New York: Morgan-Kaufman.Google Scholar
  8. Hix, D., & Hartson, H. R. (1994). Developing user interfaces: ensuring usability through product and process. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, D. C., Dabbs, K., Walker, N. M., Jones, J. E., Hsu, D. A., Stafstrom, C. E., et al. (2013). The neuropsychological and academic substrate of new/recent-onset epilepsies. The Journal of Pediatrics, 162(5), 1047–1053.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.10.04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kerr, E. N., & Blackwell, M. C. (2015). Near-transfer effects following working memory intervention (Cogmed) in children with symptomatic epilepsy: an open randomized clinical trial. Epilepsia, 56(11), 1784–1792.  https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2007). Participatory action research: origins, approaches and methods. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods: connecting people, participation and place (pp. 9–18). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Krug, S. (2010). Rocket surgery made easy: the do-it yourself guide to finding and fixing usability problems. Canada: New Riders.Google Scholar
  13. Lezak, M., Howieson, D., & Loring, D. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. McIntyre, A. (2007). Participatory action research. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. MacAllister, W. S., Vasserman, M., Rosenthal, J., & Sherman, E. (2014). Attention and executive functions in children with epilepsy: what, why, and what to do. Applied neuropsychology: Child, 3(3), 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nielsen, J. (1994a). Usability engineering. Boston: AP Professional.Google Scholar
  17. Nielsen, J. (1994b). Usability inspection methods. In Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 413–414). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=260531
  18. Norman, D. (1988). Design of everyday things. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  19. Piccinelli, P., Beghi, E., Borgatti, R., Ferri, M., Giordano, L., Romeo, A., et al. (2010). Neuropsychological and behavioural aspects in children and adolescents with idiopathic epilepsy at diagnosis and after 12 months of treatment. Seizure, 19(9), 540–546.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2010.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saroyan, A. (1992). Differences in expert practice: a case from formative evaluation. Instructional Science, 21(6), 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shackel, B. (1991). Usability—context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. In B. Shackel & S. Richardson (Eds.), Human factors for informatics usability (pp. 21–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Usage of content management systems for websites. (2017). Retrieved from https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management/all/
  23. Wade, S. L., Carey, J., & Wolfe, C. R. (2006). An online family intervention to reduce parental distress following pediatric brain injury. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(3), 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wade, S. L., Stancin, T., Kirkwood, M., Brown, T. M., McMullen, K. M., & Taylor, H. G. (2014). Counselor-assisted problem solving (CAPS) improves behavioral outcomes in older adolescents with complicated mild to severe TBI. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 29(3), 198–207.  https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0b013e31828f9fe8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wade, S. L., Walz, N. C., Carey, J., Williams, K. M., Cass, J., Herren, L., & Yeates, K. O. (2010). A randomized trial of teen online problem solving for improving executive function deficits following pediatric traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 25(6), 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines. London, England: Longman Pub Group.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Division of Rehabilitation MedicineCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical PsychologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital, Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations