Le but de cette étude est de créer un instrument de mesure du rendement dans l'utilisation de l'ordinateur pour les personnes ayant une déficience physique. Les objectifs sont de s'assurer de la validité de contenu et de la cohérence interne de l'instrument, ainsi que de tester la fidélité de chaque tâche du test. La première étape a été de déterminer les actions qui doivent être accomplies avec le clavier et la souris pour réaliser toutes les fonctions de l'ordinateur. À partir de ces actions, quinze tâches ont été élaborées et standardisées pour former le test. En deuxième étape, le test a été administré à deux reprises à 19 personnes sans incapacité et 17 personnes avec incapacités afin d'en déterminer la fidélité. Plusieurs tâches démontrent une bonne fidélité et l'instrument possède une bonne cohérence interne. Cet outil peut contribuer à améliorer la qualité des interventions ergothérapiques visant l'accès à l'ordinateur.
AngeloJ. (1992). Comparison of three computers scanning modes as an interface method for persons with cerebral palsy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 217–222.
2.
AnsonD. (1994). Finding your way in the maze of computer access technology. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 121–129.
3.
AnsonD. (1993). The effect of word prediction on typing speed. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 1039–1042.
4.
BeaverK. A.MannW. C. (1994). Provider skills for delivering computer access services: An assistive technology team approach. Technology and Disabilities, 3(2), 109–116.
5.
BischofJ.HedmanG. (1990). Computer access. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 10, 93–121.
6.
BracyO. L. (1995). Untangling the web. Journal of Cognitive Rehabilitation, 13, 4–5.
7.
BritellC. W. (1991). Computer access for individuals with quadriplegia. Journal of the American Paraplegia Society, 14(4), 149.
8.
CareyD. M.SaleP. (1994). Practical considerations in the use of technology to facilitate the inclusion of students with severe disabilities. Technology and Disability, 3(2), 77–86.
9.
ChiangD. (1994). Navigate the net. Enabling the disadvantaged. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 13, 69–74.
10.
ClementC. (1992). Nouvelles technologies de communication. Impact et approche ergonomique pour l'adaptation de postes de travail du secteur tertiaire à certains types de handicap. Réadaptation, Février, 19–23.
11.
CurtinM. (1994). Technology for people with tetraplegia, Part 1: Accessing computers. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 376–380.
12.
De VriesR. C.DeitzJ.AnsonD. (1998). A comparison of two computer access systems for functional text entry. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 656–665.
13.
De WittJ. C. (1991). The role of technology in removing barriers. Milbank Quarterly, 69 (Supplement 1-2), 313–323.
14.
DeyoR.A.DiehrP.PatrickD.L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12, 142S–158S.
15.
FleissJ. L.ShroutP. E. (1978). Approximate interval estimation for a certain correlation coefficent. Psychometrika, 43, 259–262.
16.
ForandC. (1995). Une autoroute électronique pour les handicapés. Interface, 6(3), 50–51.
17.
FraserB. A.BryenD.MoranoC. K. (1995). Development of a physical characteristics assessment (PCA): A checklist for determining appropriate computer access for individuals with cerebral palsy. Assistive Technology, 7, 26–35.
18.
GoetteT.MarchewkaJ. T. (1994). Voice recognition technology for persons who have motoric disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 60, 38–41.
19.
HurlburtM.OttenbacherK. J. (1992). An examination of direct selection typing rate and accuracy for persons with high-level spinal cord injury using QWERTY and default on-screen keyboards. Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 29, 54–63.
KambeyandaD.SingerL.CronkS. (1997). Potential problems associated with use of speech recognition products. Assistive Technology, 9, 95–101.
22.
KhalfanK. H. (1992). Les télécommunications au service des handicapés. Forum Mondial de la Santé, 13, 94–97.
23.
KoesterH.H.LevineS.P. (1994). Learning and performance of able-bodied individuals using scanning systems with and without word prediction. Assistive Technology, 6, 42–53.
24.
LandisJ.R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
25.
LynchW. J. (1990). Computer access for the disabled: Entering the new decade. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 5, 87–89.
26.
MacKinnonE.KingG.CathersT.ScottJ. (1995). Electronic mail : Service from afar for individuals with physical disabilities. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 236–243.
27.
MarwickC. (1993). New telecommunications relay services, other communication advances, will aid disabled people. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 1168–1169.
28.
McClureM. (1998). The ability to share. Rehab Community Care, 7 (2), 35–38.
29.
MerrowS. L.CorbettC. D. (1994). Adaptive computing for people with disabilities. Computers in Nursing, 12, 201–209.
30.
O'LearyS.MannC.PerkashI. (1991). Access to computers for older adults: Problems and solutions. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 636–642.
31.
PeelS. D.GilliesR. M.CarssM. (1997). Relationship between use of technology and employment rates for people with physical disabilities in Australia : Implications for education and training programmes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19(8), 332–338.
32.
RatcliffA. (1994). Comparison of relative demands implicated in direct selection and scanning: Considerations from normal children. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 67–74.
33.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
34.
TreviranusJ. (1994). Mastering alternative computer access: The role of understanding, trust, and automaticity. Assistive Technology, 6, 26–41.
35.
VanderheidenG. C. (1995). Rehabilitation engineering research center (RERC) on access to computers and information systems. Technology and Disability, 4, 107–116.
