Linking Instruments and Documenting Decisions in Service Delivery Guided by an ICF-Based Tool for Assistive Technology Selection

  • Emily Steel
  • Gert Jan Gelderblom
  • Luc de Witte
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6179)


This paper demonstrates how information from existing instruments can be linked within a new framework and tool for AT selection, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). A case study is presented to illustrate how this might work in practice, and describes the steps followed by practitioners using the tool and gathering assessment data through links to existing instruments. The potential added value of using the ICF in AT service delivery is discussed, and planned developments for the tool outlined.


Assistive Technology ICF service delivery framework selection instrument 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organisation: International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. World Health Organisation, Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    United Nations: Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2006),
  3. 3.
    Andrich, R., Gower, V., Caracciolo, A., Carbone, A., Agnoletto, A.: An On-Line System Supporting the Provision of Assistive Technology Products to Individual Users through the National Health Service. In: Emiliani, P.B.L., Como, A., Gabbanini, F., Salminen, A.L. (eds.) Assistive Technology from Adapted Equipment to Inclusive Environments, vol. 25, pp. 259–263. IOS Press, Florence (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marx, F.: Access to Assistive Technology in the European Union: European Commission Study. In: Assistive Technology - Shaping the Future (AAATE 2003), vol. 11, pp. 98–102 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gelderblom, G.J., de Witte, L.P.: The Assessment of Assistive Technology Outcomes, Effects and Costs. Technology and Disability 14, 91–94 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friederich, A., Bernd, T., de Witte, L.P.: Methods for the selection of assistive technology in neurological rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roelands, M.A., van Oost, P., Depoorter, A.M., Buysse, A.A.: A Social-Cognitive Model to Predict the Use of Assistive Devices for Mobility and Self-Care in Elderly People. The Gerontologist 42, 39–50 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wielandt, T., McKenna, K., Tooth, L., Strong, J.: Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT). Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 1, 29–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bernd, T., van der Pijl, D., de Witte, L.P.: Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 16, 146–158 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ikiugu, M.N., Smallfield, S., Condit, C.: A framework for combining theoretical conceptual practice models in occupational therapy practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 76, 162–170 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edyburn, D.L., Smith, R.O.: Creating an Assistive Technology Outcomes Measurement System: Validating the components. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 1, 8–15 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    World Health Organisation: WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO DAS II). WHO (2010),
  13. 13.
    Wessels, R., Persson, J., Lorentsen, O., Andrich, R., Ferrario, W., Oortwijn, W., van Beekum, T., Brodin, H., de Witte, L.: IPPA: Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment. Technology and Disability 14, 141–145 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scherer, M.J., Craddock, G.: Matching Person and Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology and Disability 14, 125–131 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    EASTIN: European Assistive Technology Information Network,
  16. 16.
    Jutai, J., Day, H.: Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability 14, 107–111 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peterson, D.B., Murray, G.C.: Ethics and assistive technology service provision. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 1, 59–67 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steiner, W.A., Ryser, L., Huber, E., Uebelhart, D., Aeschlimann, A., Stucki, G.: Use of the ICF model as a clinical problem-solving tool in physical therapy and rehabilitation medicine. Physical Therapy 82, 1098–1107 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Steel
    • 1
  • Gert Jan Gelderblom
    • 1
  • Luc de Witte
    • 1
  1. 1.Zuyd University Research Centre for Technology in CareHeerlenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations