Virtual Technologies and Empowerment of Users of Rehabilitation

Chapter
Part of the Cognitive Technologies book series (COGTECH)

Abstract

Empowerment is a multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control over their own lives. Empowerment of people with disabilities entails the motivation to control as well as the knowledge and skills to adapt to and influence one’s own rehabilitation process. The goal of empowered rehabilitation is to guide users to achieve their maximal independence by developing the skills necessary to overcome the physical, social and emotional barriers in their lives. We are currently witnessing a profound change in social attitudes where, after years of repression, people with disabilities struggle for their human rights and for control over resources. Information and communication technologies (ICT) have been used to empower populations who are weak due to gender, poverty, rural residence, age and disability. In this chapter, we have applied a model of patterns of social change to show how the use of novel ICT technologies may contribute to social change and empowerment of people with disabilities. Each of the model’s four patterns – social planning, social reform, social development and social action – is illustrated with an example of the role of technology during this process. Lessons learned during the empowerment process for people with disabilities may also be incorporated into general ICT programs to help enhance usage in additional segments of the population including minority groups as well as those who have traditionally been challenged in this area (e.g. the elderly, people who live in remote locations).

Keywords

Autism Spectrum Disorder Psychological Empowerment Virtual Technology Social Planning Online Support Group 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Hurst, R., and Albert, B.: 2006. The social model of disability, human rights and development cooperation. In: Albert, B. (ed.), In or Out of the Mainstream? Lessons from Research on Disability and Development Cooperation, pp. 24–39. Leeds, UK: Disability Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Longmore, P. K.: 2003. Why I Burned My. Book and Other Essays on Disability, Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press, 278 pp.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poetz, C. L.: 2003. Reflections on 30 years of involvement in self-advocacy. J. Intell. Dev. Disabil. 28, 84–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reiter, S.: 2008. Disability from a humanistic perspective: Towards a better quality of life. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Preiser, W. F. E., and Ostroff, E. (eds.): 2001. Universal Design Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sehgal, R., and Stewart, G.: 2006. Using Qualitative Analysis for Deriving Evidence Based Construct Definition: A Case Narrative of ‘User Empowerment. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT & IT in Qualitative Research, 27–29 November 2006, Australia, Queensland, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Page, N., and Czuba, C.E.: 1999. Empowerment, What is it? Journal of Extension, [On-line], 37, (5) 1–7, http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/comm1.html.
  8. 8.
    Kreisberg, S.: Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rappoport, J.: 1984. Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue. Prev. Hum. Serv. 3, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers, E. S., Chamberlin, J., Ellison, M. L., and Crean, T.: 1997. A consumer-constructed scale to measure empowerment among users of mental health services. Psychiatr. Serv. 48, 1042–1047.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenfield, S., Neese-Todd, S.: 1993. Elements of a psychosocial clubhouse program associated with a satisfying quality of life. Hosp. Community Psych. 44, 76–78.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wowra, S., McCarter, R.: 1999. Validation of the empowerment scale with an outpatient mental health population. Psychiatr. Serv. 50, 959–961.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Florin, P., Wandersman, A.: 1190. An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary organizations, and community development: insights for empowerment through research. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 18(1), 41–54.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson, P.: 1996. Empowerment: Community economic development from the inside out. Urban. Stud. 33(4–5), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zimmerman, M.A.: 2000. Empowerment theory: psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In: Rappaport, J. and Seidman, E. (eds.), Handbook of Community Psychology, pp. 43–63. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spreitzer, G.M.: 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manage. J. 38 (5), 1442–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doll, W. J., Deng, X., Metts, G. A.: 2003.User Empowerment in Computer mediated Work. Paper presented at the ISOneWorld 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Amichai-Hamburger, Y., MaKenna, K.Y.A., and Tal, S.A.: 2008. E-empowerment: Empowerment by the Internet. Comput. Human. Behav. 24 (5), 1776–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    G3ict: 2007. The Accessibility Imperative. A Division of World Times, Inc, http://www.g3ict.com
  20. 20.
    Vicente M.R., and López A.J.: 2009. Are people with disabilities losing the ICT Revolution? Some evidence on European countries. The Open Soc. Sci. J. 2, 78–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dobransky, K., Hargittai, E.: 2006. The disability divide in Internet access and use. Inform. Commun. Soc. 9, 313–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities Disability and the Digital Divide: 2006. Comparing Surveys with Disability Data, http://rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/TelCom/Divide.htm
  23. 23.
    Blair, J.: 2006. A computer and internet future: enabling inclusion? Learn. Disabil. Pract. Res. 9(9), 31–37.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    European Commission: 2007. Empirica and Work Research Center. Measuring e-accessibility in Europe. Brussels: European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/meac_study/index_en.htm
  25. 25.
    Zimmerman, M.A., Warschausky, S.: 1998. Empowerment Theory for Rehabilitation Research: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Rehabil. Psychol. 43 (1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Riva, G., and Gaggioli, A.: 2009. Rehabilitation as empowerment: The role of advanced technologies. In: Gaggioli, A., Keshner, E., Weiss, P.L., Riva, G. (eds.) Advanced Technologies in Rehabilitation: Empowering Cognitive, Physical, Social and Communicative Skills through Virtual Reality, Robots, Wearable Systems and Brain-Computer Interfaces. IOS Press: Studies in Health Technology and Informatics.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Charlton, J.I.: 2000. Nothing about us without us: disability oppression and empowerment. Berkley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chamberlin, J.: 1997. A working definition of empowerment. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 20(4), 43–46.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bunning, K., Heath, B., Minnion, A.: 2009. Communication and Empowerment: A Place for Rich and Multiple Media? J. Appl. Res. Intellect. 22 (4), 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lopez-Claros, A., and Zahidi, S.: 2005. Women’s empowerment: measuring the global gender gap,The World Economic Forum website, http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gender_gap.pdf
  31. 31.
    Valaitis, R.K.: 2005. Computers and the Internet: Tools for youth empowerment. J. Med. Internet. Res. 7(5), e51, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550685/
  32. 32.
    Rizzo, A.A., Buckwalter, J.G., Neumann, U.: 1997. Virtual reality and cognitive rehabilitation: a brief review of the future. J. Head. Trauma. Rehabil. 12, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rizzo, A.A., Kim, G.: 2005. A SWOT analysis of the field of Virtual Rehabilitation and Therapy. Presence-Teleop. Virt. 14, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weiss, P.L., Kizony, K., Feintuch, U. and Katz, N.:2006. Virtual Reality in Neurorehabilitation. In: Selzer, M. E., Cohen, L., Gage, F.H., Clarke, S., & Duncan, P. W. (eds.) the Textbook of Neural Repair and Neurorehabilitation, vol. 2, pp.182–197. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schultheis, M.T., Rizzo, A.A.: 2001. The application of virtual reality technology for rehabilitation. Rehabil. Psychol. 46, 296–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rose, F. D., Brooks, B. M. and Attree, E. A.: 2000. Virtual reality in vocational training of people with learning disabilities. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies (ICDVRAT), Sardinia, pp. 129–135.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jack, D., Boian, R., Merians, A., Tremaine, M., Burdea, G.C., Adamovich, S.V., Recce, M., Poizner, H.: 2001.Virtual reality- enhanced stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 9, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jeffries, A.: 1996. Modelling community work: an analytic framework for practice. J. Community Pract. 3 (3/4), 101–125.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Churchman, A., and Barak, A.: 2003. Empowerment and partnership– a deceiving terminology In Churchman, A., and Sadan, E. (eds.) Participation: your way to make a difference, pp. 106–124. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publication House Ltd.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weil, M., and Gamble, D.N.: 2005. Evolution, models, and changing context of community practice. In: Weil, M. (ed.) The handbook of community practice. pp.117–150. Sage Publication, Inc.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Blomquist, K. B.: 2006. Health, education, work, and independence of young adults with disabilities. Orthop. Nurs. 25(3), 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hudson, B.: 2003. From adolescence to young adulthood: The partnership challenge for learning disability services in England. Disabil. Soc. 18(3), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lotan, M., Isakov, E., Kessel, S., Merrick, J.: 2004. Physical fitness and functional ability of children with intellectual disability: effects of a short-term daily treadmill intervention. The Sci. World. J. 4, 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pitetti, K. H., Boneh, S.: 1995. Cardiovascular fitness as related to leg strength in adults with mental retardation. Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 27(3), 423–428.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Halle, J. W., Gabler-Halle, D., Chung, Y. B.: 1999. Effects of a peer mediated aerobic conditioning program on fitness levels of youth with mental retardation: two systematic replications. Ment. Retard. 37(6), 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fernhall, B., Tymeson, G. T.: 1998. Validation of a cardiovascular fitness field test for adults with mental retardation. Adapt. Phys. Activ. Q. 5, 49–59.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dattilo, J. Schleien, S.J.: 1994. Understanding leisure services for individuals with mental retardation. Ment Retard. 32, 53–9.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thomas, A.D., Rosenberg, A.: 2003. Promoting community recreation and leisure. Pediatr. Phys. Ther. 15, 232–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Van Naarden Braun, K., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., and Lollar, D.: 2006. Factors associated with leisure activity among young adults with developmental disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 27, 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Frey, G. C., Buchanan, A. M., Rosser Sandt, D. D.: 2005. “I’d Rather Watch TV”: An Examination of Physical Activity in Adults with Mental Retardation. Ment. Retard. 43, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hayden, M.F., Lakin, K.C., Hill, B.K., Bruininks, R.H.: 1992. Social and leisure integration of people with mental retardation in foster homes and small group homes. Educ. Train. Ment. Retard. 27, 187–99.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Langone, J.: 1996. Mild mental retardation. In: McLaaughlin, P.J., Wehman, P. (eds.) Mental retardation and developmental disabilities. pp. 113–129. Austin, Texas: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schleien, S.J., Ray, M.T.: 1998. Community recreation and persons with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Specht, J., King, G., Brown, E., Foris, C.: 2002. The importance of leisure in the lives of persons with congenital physical disabilities. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 56, 436–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Brett, A.: 1997. Assistive and adaptive technology: Supporting competence and independence in young children with disabilities. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 25, 14–20.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bryen, D.N., Slesaransky, G., and Baker, D.B.: 1995. Augmentative communication and empowerment supports. Augment. Altern. Commun. 11, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mirenda, P., Mathy-Laikko, P.: 1989. Augmentative and Alternative Communication applications for persons with severe congenital communication disorders: An introduction. Augment. Altern. Commun. 1, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fine, A.H. Fine, N.M.: 1996. Therapeutic recreation for exceptional children: Let me in I want to play (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Raz, S.: 1998. Establish a multi-purpose model for the rehabilitation of children with special needs. World Leisure and Recreation, 1, 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Suto, M.: 1998. Leisure in occupational therapy. Can. J. Occup. Ther. 65, 271–278.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Standen, P.J., Brown, D.J.: 2005. Virtual reality in the rehabilitation of people with intellectual disabilities: review. CyberPsychol. Behav. 8, 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weiss, P.L., Sveistrup, H., Rand, D. and Kizony, R.: 2009. Video capture virtual reality: A decade of rehabilitation assessment and intervention. Phys. Ther. Rev. 14, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lotan, M., Yalon-Chamovitz, S., Weiss P.L.: 2009. Improving physical fitness of individuals with intellectual and developmental disability through a Virtual Reality Intervention Program. Res. Dev. Disabil. 30, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lotan, M., Yalon-Chamovitz, S. and Weiss, P.L. Virtual Reality as means to improve physical fitness of individuals at a severe level of intellectual and developmental disability. Res. Dev. Disabil. In press.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ruuskanen, J. M., Parkatti, T.: 1994. Physical activity and related factors among nursing home residents. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 42(9), 987–991.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Temple, V. A.: 2007. Barriers, enjoyment, and preference for physical activity among adults with intellectual disability. Int. J. Rehabil. Res, 30(4), 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fox, R. A., Rosenberg, R., and Rotatori, A.: 1985. F. Parent involvement in a treatment program for obese retarded adults. Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry, 16(1), 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chamberlin, J.: 1997. A working definition of empowerment. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 20 (4), 43–46.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Brennan, D., Georgeadis, A., Baron, C.: 2002. Telerehabilitation tools for the provision of remote speech-language treatment. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 8(4), 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Samoocha, D., Bruinvels, D.J., Anema1, J.R., Steenbeek, R., van der Beek, A.K.: 2009. Empowerment of disability benefit claimants through an interactive website: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 9, 23.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Brennan, D.M., Barker, L.M.: 2008. Human factors in the development and implementation of telerehabilitation systems. J. Telemed Telecare. 14, 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jennett, P.A., Affleck Hall, L., Hailey, D., Ohinmaa, A., Anderson, C., Thomas, R., Young, B., Lorenzetti, D. Scott, R.E.: 2003. The socio-economic impact of telehealth: a systematic review. J. Telemed. Telecare. 9, 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Coulter, A., and Ellins, J.: 2006. Patient-focused interventions: A review of the evidence. The Health Foundation , London http://www.health.org.uk/publications/patient-focused-interventions/ Retrieved 2011-05-22.
  74. 74.
    Mountain, G.A., Ware, P.M., Hammerton, J., Mawson, S.J., Zheng, H., Davies, R., Black, N.D., Zhou, H., Hu, H., Harris, N., and Eccleston, C.: 2006. The SMART Project: A user led approach to developing and testing technological applications for domiciliary stroke rehabilitation. In: Clarkson, P., Langdon, J., and Robinson, P. (eds.) Designing Accessible Technology, Springer-Verlag London.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Burgstahler, S., and Cronheim, D.: 2001. Supporting peer-peer and mentor-protege relationships on the internet. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 34(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Seeger, K.L.: 2007. Mentoring youth with disabilities: The mentor’s lived experiences. Unpublished master’s thesis, The School of Human Resource Education and Workforce Development, Louisiana State University, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Shpigelman, C., Reiter, S. and Weiss P.L.: 2009. A conceptual framework for electronic socio-emotional support for people with special needs. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 32:301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Andersson, G., Bergström, J., Holländare, F., Carlbring, P., Kaldo, V., and Ekselius, L.: 2005. Internet-based self-help for depression: randomized controlled trial. Br. J. Psychiatry. 187, 456–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Barak, A., and Dolev-Cohen, M.: 2006. Does activity level in online support groups for distressed adolescents determine emotional relief? Couns. Psychotherapy Res. 6(3), 186–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    van Uden-Kraan, C.F., Drossaert, C.H.C., Taal, E., Shaw, B.R., Seydel, E.R., van de Laar, M.A.F.J.: 2008. Empowering processes and outcomes of participation in online support groups for patients with breast cancer, arthritis, or fibromyalgia. Qual. Health Res. 18(3), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bowker, N.I., and Tuffin, K.: 2007. Understanding positive subjectives made possible online for disabled people. NZ. J. Psychol. 36(2), 63–71.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Current user metrics for Second Life”. http://secondlife.com/xmlhttp/secondlife.php. Retrieved 2010-02-19
  83. 83.
    Cooper, T.: 2007. Nutrition Game. Second Life Education Workshop 2007. 46–50.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kamel Boulos, M.N., Hetherington, L., Wheeler, S.: 2007. Second Life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Info. Libr. J. 24, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gorini, A., Gaggioli1, A., Vigna, C., Riva, G.: 2008. A Second Life for eHealth: Prospects for the use of 3-D virtual worlds in clinical psychology. J. Med. Internet Res. 10(3), e21.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lester, J.: All about Live2Give. Live2Give: An innovative Online Community for people dealing with Cerebral Palsy and similar conditions. Braintalk Blog. http://braintalk.blogs.com/live2give/2005/01/all_about_live2.html
  87. 87.
    eLeaders for Youth and ICT (2009). A digital shift: Youth and ICT for development. Global for ICT development. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Global Alliance for ICT and Development, New York. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/gaid/unpan036084.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Occupational TherapyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations