Background. Measurement of assistive technology outcomes is complex because many factors (e.g., environment and model of service delivery) influence the successful use of the technology. Purpose. Using the example of measuring the outcomes of word cueing technology, this paper presents an approach for measuring assistive technology outcomes. Method. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was administered to 29 children with physical and learning disabilities, between the ages of 3.9 and 19 years. Participants were provided with WordQ, a software program designed to assist the development of writing skills. Follow-up data were collected through telephone interviews. Results. The COPM findings supported the effectiveness of WordQ Version 1 to enhance written productivity, with a mean performance change score of 3.5 (SD = 1.5). The COPM was an effective tool for measuring clients' perceived outcome of word cueing technology. Telephone interview was considered a successful method for collecting outcome data. Practice Implications. A mix of tools and methodologies should be used to gain a comprehensive understanding of the impact of assistive technology.
AmundsonS. J. (1992). Handwriting: Evaluation and intervention in school settings. In Case-SmithJ.PehoshiC. (Eds.), Development of hand skills in the child (pp. 63–78). Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
2.
AmundsonS. J.WeilM. (1996). Prewriting and handwriting skills. In Case-SmithJ.AllenA.PrattP. N. (Eds.), Occupational therapy for children (pp. 524–541). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
3.
AndrichR.FerrarioM.MoiM. (1998). A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disability Rehabilitation, 20, 1–24.
4.
AngeloJ.BuningM.SchmelerM.DosterS. (1997). Identifying best practice in the occupational therapy assistive technology evaluation: An analysis of three focus groups. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 916–920.
5.
BergmanK. E.McLaughlinT. F. (1988). Remediating handwriting difficulties with learning disabled students. British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 12, 101–119.
6.
BriggsD. (1980). A study of the influence of handwriting upon grades using examination scripts. Educational Review, 32, 185–193.
7.
CarswellA.McCollM. A.BaptisteS.LawM.PolatajkoH.PollockN. (2004). The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: A research and clinical literature review. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 210–22.
8.
Co:Writer 4000 (2000). [Computer software]. Wanconda, IL: Don Johnson Inc.
9.
DeRuyterF. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment?Assistive Technology, 7, 3–16.
10.
FinlaysonM.HavixbeckK. (1992). A post-discharge study on the use of assistive devices. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 201–207.
11.
ForsangA.ThomasonP.McCoyA. (1998). Parent perception is a valid measure to evaluate changes in physical function in the child with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 40, 8.
12.
FuhrerM. J.JutaiJ. W.SchererM. J.DeRuyterF. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 1243–1251.
13.
GelderblomG. J.de WitteL. (2004). The assessment of assistive technology outcomes, effects and costs. Technology and Disability, 14, 91–94.
14.
GrilloD. (2001). Application of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure to evaluate an augmentative communication intervention program for deaf adolescents. Paper presented at the 2001 RESNA Annual Conference, Reno, NV.
15.
HammelJ. (1996). What's the outcome: Multiple variables complicate the measurement of assistive technology outcomes. Rehabilitation Management, 97–99.
16.
HammillD.LarsenS. (1996). Test of Written Language, Third Edition (TOWL-3). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
17.
HeatonJ.BamfordC. (2001). Assessing the outcomes of equipment and adaptations: Issues and approaches. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 346–356
18.
Hunt-BergM.RankingJ. L.BeukelmanD. R. (1994). Ponder the possibilities: Computer supported writing for struggling writers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 188–194.
19.
Korner-BitenskyN.Wood-DauphineeeS. (1995). Barthel index information elicited over the telephone. Is it reliable?American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 9–18.
20.
Korner-BitenskyN.Wood-DauphineeeS.SiemiatyckiJ.ShapiroS.BeckerR. (1994). Health-related information postdischarge: Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 75, 1287–1296.
21.
LawM.BaptisteS.CarswellA.McCollM.PolatajkoH.PollockN. (2005). Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (4th ed.) Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
22.
LettsL.LawM.PollockN.StewartD.WestmorlandM.PhilpotA. (1999). A programme evaluation workbook for occupational therapists: An evidence-based practice tool. Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
23.
MacArthurC. A.GrahamS. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
24.
MartiniR.PolatajkoH. (1998). Verbal self-guidance as a treatment approach for children with developmental co-ordination disorder: A systematic replication study. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 18, 157–181.
25.
McGavinH. (1998). Planning rehabilitation: A comparison of issues for parents and adolescents. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 18 (1), 69–82.
26.
MissiunaC.PollockN. (2000). Perceived efficacy and goal setting in young children. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 101–9.
27.
PettyL. S.TreviranusJ. (2004). Outcome measures for high technology vision aids: An application of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Assistive Technology Outcomes. Retrieved June 2004, from http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/reference/atout-comes/visionquest.html
PollockN.StewartD. (1998). Occupational performance needs of school-aged children with physical disabilities in the community. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Paediatrics, 18, 55–68.
30.
ReidD.RigbyP.RyanS. (1999). Functional impact of a rigid pelvic stabilizer on children with cerebral palsy who use wheelchairs: Users' and caregivers' perceptions. Paediatric Rehabilitation, 3, 101–118.
31.
ReidD. T. (2002). Benefits of a virtual play rehabilitation environment for children with cerebral palsy on perceptions of self-efficacy: A pilot study. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 5, 141–148.
32.
ReinhardtK.ParkinsS. (2002). Developing reading and writing skills of learning impaired college students with WordQ. 2002 Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
33.
SchererM. (1990). Assistive device utilization and quality of life in adults with spinal cord injuries or cerebral palsy two years later. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 21, 36–44.
34.
SchererM. (1999). Matching (Little) Person and Technology. Paper presented at the 1999 Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
35.
SheinF.NantaisT.NishiyamaR.TamC.MarshallP. (2001). Word cueing for persons with writing difficulties: WordQ. 2001 Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from Web site http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2001/proceedings/0126shein.htm
36.
SmithR. (1996). Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: Challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology8, 71–81.
37.
Sweedler-BrownC. O. (1992). The effects of training on the appearance bias of holistic essay graders. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26, 24–29.
38.
TamC.MaysJ.ArcherJ.SkidmoreG. (2004). Effectiveness of word cueing for children with physical and learning disabilities. Closing the Gap, 22, 11–12, 23.
39.
TamC.ReidD.O'KeefeB.NaumannS. (2002). Perceived benefits of word prediction intervention on written productivity in children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Occupational Therapy International, 9, 237–255.
40.
Trillium Lakelands District School Board. (2004). Report on Use of Writing Aids Technology with Students with Learning Disabilities. Unpublished manuscript.
41.
WesselsR.PerssonJ.LorentsenO.AndrichR.FerrarioM.OortwijinW. (2002). IPPA: Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment. Technology and Disability, 14, 141–145.
42.
WordQ (2001). (Version 1) [Computer software]. Toronto, ON: Quillsoft.
