Advertisement

Disability and Assistive Technology Systems

  • Marion A. Hersh
  • Michael A. Johnson

Abstract

The social model of disability is discussed highlighting the recent pre-eminence achieved over the medical model of disability. The concept of “quality of life” indices is explored and its relevance to assessing assistive technology applications is described. A survey of the main assistive technology quality of life procedures is presented and the value of the individual procedures considered.

The later sections of the chapter investigate whether assistive technology can be described in a single holistic and generic model, the idea being that the model will provide a uniform and consistent framework for analysing existing applications and for creating or synthesizing new assistive technology systems. The new comprehensive assistive technology (CAT) model is presented and its use demonstrated in these sections.

Keywords

Occupational Therapy Disable People Assistive Technology Assistive Device Activity Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrich, R., 2002, The SCAI instrument: measuring costs of individual assistive technology programmes, Technology and Disability, Vol. 14, pp. 95–99Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, C., 1994, Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: a case for anti-discrimination legislation, Hurst & Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckie, T.M. and Hayduk, L.A., 1997, Measuring quality of life, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 42, pp. 21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowling, A. 1995, Measuring Disease: A Review of disease Specific Quality of Life Measurement Scales, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, pp. 1–16Google Scholar
  5. Bowling, A. and Windsor, J., 1999, Towards the good life: a population survey of dimensions of quality of life, J. Happiness Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brisenden, S., 1986, Independent living and the medical model of disability, Disability, Handicap and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browne, J.P., O’Boyle, C.A., McGee, H.M., Joyce, C.R., McDonald, N.J., O’Malley, K., and Hiltbrunner, B., 1994, Individual quality of life in the healthy elderly, Qual. Life Res., Vol. 3, pp. 235–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calman, K.C., 1984, Quality of life in cancer patients - an hypothesis, J. Med. Ethics, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 124–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, A.M. and Hussey, S.M., 2002, Assistive Technology: Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition, Mosby Inc., St. Louis, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Damodaran, L., 1996, User involvement in the systems design process- a practical guide for users, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Day, H. and Jutai, J., 1996, Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices; the PIADS. Canadian J. Rehabilitation, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 159–168Google Scholar
  12. Day, H., Jutai, J. and Campbell, K.A., 2002, Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead, Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 24, No. 1/2/3, pp. 31–37Google Scholar
  13. Demers, L., Wessels, R.D., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, B. and de Whitte, L.P., 1999a, An international content validation of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST), Occupational Therapy International, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demers, L., Ska, B, Giroux, F and Weiss-Lambrou, R., 1999b, Stability and reproducibility of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST), J. Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 42–52Google Scholar
  15. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R. and Ska, B., 2000, Item analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST), Assistive Technology, Vol. 12, pp. 96–105Google Scholar
  16. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R and Ska, B., 2002a, The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress, Technology and Disability, Vol. 14, pp. 101–105Google Scholar
  17. Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., Arnold, D.L. and Wolfson, C., 2002b, Reliability, validity and applicability of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis, Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 24, No. 1–3, pp. 21–30Google Scholar
  18. DeRuyter, F., 1997, The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems, Technology and Disability, Vol. 6, pp. 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diener, E., 1984, Subjective wellbeing, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 95, pp. 542–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doward, L.C. and McKenna, S.P., 2004, Defining patient-reported outcomes. Value in Health, Vol. 7, Supplement 1, pp. S4–S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunn W., Foto M., Hinojosa J., Schell B., Thomson L.K. and Hertfelder S., 1994, Uniform terminology for occupational-therapy - 3rd Edn. Am. J. of Occup. Therapy, Vol. 48, No. 11, pp. 1047–1054Google Scholar
  22. Dunn W., Foto, M., Hinojosa J., Schell B., Thomson L.K. and Hertfelder, S., 1995, Uniform terminology for occupational therapy - 3rd Edn., Am. J. Occup. Therapy, Vol. 49, No. 4, p. 371Google Scholar
  23. Eid, M. and Diener, E., 2004, Global judgments of subjective wellbeing: situational variability and long-term stability, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 65, pp. 245–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fouygerollas, P., Noreau, L., Bergeron, H., Cloutier, R., Dion, S.A. and St-Michel, G., 1998, Social consequences of long-term impairments and disabilities: conceptual approach and assessment of handicap. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuhrer, M.J., 1996, The subjective wellbeing of people with spinal cord injury: relationships to impairment, disability and handicap, Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, Vol. 75, pp. 633–638Google Scholar
  26. Fuhrer, M.J., 2000, Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome, Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 22, No. 11, pp. 481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuhrer, M.J., Rintala, D.H., Hart, K.A., Clearman, R. and Young, M.E., 1992, Relationship of life satisfaction to impairment, disability and handicap among persons with spinal cord injury living in the community, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 73, pp. 552–557Google Scholar
  28. Fuhrer, M.J., Jutai, J.W., Scherer, M.J. and DeRuyter, F., 2003, A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes, Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 25, No. 22, pp. 1243–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gelderblom, G.J. and de Witte, L.P., 2002, The assessment of assistive technology, outcomes, effects and costs, Technology and Disability, Vol. 14, pp. 91–94Google Scholar
  30. Gill, T.M. and Feinstein, A.R., 1997, A critical appraisal of the problem of quality of life in medicine, J. American Medical Association, Vol. 278, pp. 619–626Google Scholar
  31. HEART, 1995, Line C Rehabilitation technology service delivery systems in Europe, Brussels, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  32. Hersh, M.A., 2006, Mathematical Modelling for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  33. Hickey, A.M., Bury, G., O’Boyle, C.A., Bradley, F., O’Kelly, F.D., and Shannon, W., 1996, A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS, BMJ, Vol. 313, pp. 29–33Google Scholar
  34. Hughes, C., Heang, B., Kim, J. Eisenman, L.T. and Killian, D.J., 1995, Quality of life in applied research: a review and analysis of empirical measures, Am. J. on Mental Retardation. Vol. 99, No. 6, pp. 623–641Google Scholar
  35. Jutai, J. and Day, H., 2002, Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS), Technology and Disability, Vol. 14, pp. 107–111Google Scholar
  36. Kim, J.O. and Curry, J., 1977, The treatment of missing data in multivariable analysis, Social. Meth. Res., Vol. 6, pp. 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maslow, A., 1968, Toward a Psychology of Being, 2nd Edition, Van Nostrand, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. McDowell, I., and Newell, C., 1996, Measuring Health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires, 2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Mountain, L.A., Campbell, S.E., Seymour, D.G., Primrose, W.R. and Whyte, M.I., 2004, Assessment of individual quality of life using the SEIQoL-DW in older Patients, Q. J. Med. Vol. 97, pp. 519–524Google Scholar
  40. Noreau, L., Fougeyrollas, P. and Vincent, C., 2002, The LIFE-H: assessment of the quality of social participation, Technology and Disability, Vol. 14, pp. 113–118Google Scholar
  41. O’Boyle, C.A., McGee, H., Hickey, A., O’Malley, K., Joyce, C.R.B., 1992, Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement Lancet, vol. 339, pp. 1088–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Boyle C.A., McGee, H., Hickey, A., Joyce, C.R.B., Brown, J., O’Malley, K., 1993, The schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life, User manual, Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, DublinGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips, B., and Zhao, H., 1993, Predictors of assistive technology abandonment, Assistive Technology, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 36–45Google Scholar
  44. Poulson, D., and Richardson, S, 1998, USERfit – a framework for user-centred design in assistive technology, Technology and Disability, Vol. 9, pp. 163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reed, P., and Bowser, G., 1998, Education tech points: a framework for assistive technology planning and systems change in schools, CSUN Conference on Technology and Persons with Disabilities, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  46. Rowley, J., 1998, Towards a methodology for the design of multimedia public access interfaces, J. of Information Science, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sawicki, D.S., 2002, Improving community indicator systems: injecting more social science into the folk movement, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schalock, R.L., 1996, Reconsidering the conceptualization and measurement of quality of life, In R. L. Schalock, and G. N. Siperstein (Eds.), Quality Of Life Volume I: Conceptualization and Measurement pp. 123–139, American Association on Mental Retardation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Scherer, M.J., 2000. Living in the State of Stuck: How Technology Impacts the Lives of People with Disabilities, 3rd. Edition, Broodline Books, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Scherer, M.J., and Craddock, G., 2002, Matching Person and Technology (MPT) assessment process, Technology and Disability, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 125–131Google Scholar
  51. Scherer, M.J., and Cushman, L., 2000, Predicting satisfaction with assistive technology for a sample of adults with new spinal cord injuries, Psychological Reports, Vol. 87, pp. 981–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scherer, M.J., and Glueckauf, R., 2005, Assessing the benefits of assistive technologies for activities and participation, Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 2, 132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon, S.E., and Patrick, A., 1997, Understanding and assessing consumer satisfaction in rehabilitation, J. Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement, Vol. 1, pp. 1–14Google Scholar
  54. Slevin, M.L., Plant, H., Lynch, D., Drinkwater, J., and Gregory, W.M., 1988, Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?, British J. of Cancer, Vol. 57, pp. 109–112Google Scholar
  55. Smith, R.O., 1996, Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation, Assistive Technology, Vol. 8, pp. 71–81Google Scholar
  56. Smith, R.O., 2002, OTFACT: Multilevel performance-oriented software with an assistive technology outcomes assessment protocol, Technology and Disability, Vol. 14, pp. 133–139Google Scholar
  57. Spangers, M.A.G., and Aaronson, N.K., 1992, The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients which chronic disease: a review. J. Clin. Epidemiol., Vol. 45, pp. 745–760Google Scholar
  58. Swain, J., French, S., and Cameron, C., 2003, Controversial Issues in a Disabling Society, Open University Press, Buckingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  59. UPIAS, 1976, Fundamental Principles of Disability, London: UPIAS (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation)Google Scholar
  60. Wessels, R., Persson, J., Lorentsen, O., Andrich, R., Farrario, M., Oortwijn, W., VanBeekum, T., Brodin, H., and de Witte, L., 2002, IPPA; Individually prioritised problem assessment, Technology and Disability, Vol. 14, pp. 141–145Google Scholar
  61. WHO, 1980, International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps, World Health Organisation, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  62. WHO, 2001, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, World Health Organisation, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  63. Zabala, J., 1998, Ready, SETT, Go! Online Workshop,Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion A. Hersh
    • 1
  • Michael A. Johnson
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.University of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations