The Assessment of Computer Task Performance was developed to evaluate the performance, both in terms of speed and accuracy, of children with low vision when using sequences of actions that result in a computer command. The results with 22 students aged 4–12 showed that four standardized tasks in the test have a high degree of reliability, and one has a moderate degree.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeumerJ. J., de HaanA., & van der VenJ. (2000). Implications of computer-mediated communication for people who are visually impaired in dealing with complex visualization tasks. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 7, 453–456.
2.
BevanJ., Lovie-KitchinJ., HeinB., TingE., BrandP., ScottM., & FotkouP. (2000). The effect of relative size magnification vs. relative distance magnification on the reading performance of children with low vision. In StuenC., ArditiA., HorowitzA., LangM.A., RosenthalB., & SeidmanK. (Eds.), Vision rehabilitation, assessment, intervention and outcomes (pp. 428–432). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
3.
BrodinJ., & LonsonU. (2000). Computer play centers for children with disabilities. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 23, 125–128.
4.
CahillH., LinehanC., McCarthyJ., BormansG., & EngelenJ. (1996). Blind and partially sighted students’ access to mathematics and computer technology in Ireland and Belgium. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 2, 105–114.
5.
CardonaM., MartinezA. L., & HinojosaJ. (2000). Effectiveness of using a computer to improve attention to visual analysis activities of five preschool children with disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 7(1), 42–55.
6.
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.
7.
ClarkE. (2000). Programme d'entraînement aux habiletés à pointer à l'ordinateur destiné aux enfants avec une déficience motrice [Training program for computer pointing tasks for children with motor impairments]. Revue québé-coise d'ergothérapie [Quebec Journal of Occupational Therapy], 9(1), 6–10.
8.
den BrinkerB. P. L. M., van DeldenM., & GoudsbloemM. (2000). What makes graphical user interfaces so difficult for visually impaired people and what to do about it. In StuenC., ArditiA., HorowitzA, LangM. A., RosenthalB., & SeidmanK. (Eds.). Vision Rehabilitation, Assessment, Intervention and Outcomes (pp. 860–866). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
9.
DeVellisR. F. (1991). Scale development. Theory and applications. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 6.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
DeyoR. A., DiehrP., & PatrickD. L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12, 142–158.
11.
DumontC., & DionneC. (2000). Validation d'un instrument de mesure pour évaluer l'accès à l'ordinateur chez les personnes ayant une déficience physique [Validation of an instrument assessing computer access for people with physical impairments]. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 173–183.
12.
DumontC., VincentC., & MaserB. (2002). Development of a standardized instrument to assess computer task performance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 60–68.
13.
FleissJ. L., & ShroutP. E. (1978). Approximate interval estimation for a certain correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 43, 259–262.
14.
FortuinF. T. J. M., & OmtaS. W. F. (2000). Designing universal interfaces: The application of universal design rules to eliminate information barriers for the visually impaired and the elderly. In StuenC., ArditiA., HorowitzA, LangM. A., RosenthalB., & SeidmanK. (Eds.), Vision Rehabilitation, Assessment, Intervention and Outcomes (pp. 855–859). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
15.
GillJ. (2000). Design features and terminals to improve accessibility by visually impaired persons. In StuenC., ArditiA., HorowitzA., LangM. A., RosenthalB., & SeidmanK. (Eds.), Vision Rehabilitation, Assessment, Intervention and Outcomes (pp. 853–854). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
16.
LandisJ. R., & KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
17.
MacArthurC. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in language disorders, 8, 85–99.
18.
MaserB., DumontC., & VincentC. (2002). The assessment of computer task performance for children. Submitted for publication.
19.
MioduserD., LahavO., & NachmiasR. (2000). Using computers to teach remedial spelling to a student with low vision: A case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 1, 15–25.
20.
SchererM. J. (1994). Matching person and technology.New York: Webster.
21.
ShroutP. E., & FleissJ. L. (1979). Interclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
22.
SleeuwenhoeckH. C., BoterR. D., & VermeerA. (1995). Perceptual-motor performance and the social development of visually impaired children. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89, 359–367.
23.
StreinerD. L., & NormanG. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
