This article reports on a statewide survey of the use of technological assistive devices and the unmet needs of 790 blind and visually impaired persons in Arkansas. The survey was conducted in preparation for establishing the Arkansas Technology Access Program under P.L. 100–407. The areas surveyed were life functioning, spending practices and credit options for purchasing devices, funding support systems, travel practices, need for further information, and satisfaction with services and devices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CainE.J., & TaberF.M. (1987). Educating people for the 21st century.Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
2.
CavalierA. (1989, May). Ethical issues related to technology. Paper presented at the Pre-conference of the 1989 Annual Conference of the Association for Retarded Citizens, Little Rock, AR.
3.
ChapmanE.K. (1978). Visually handicapped children and young people.London: Rout-ledge & Regan Paul.
4.
CreweN. (1983). Considerations in choosing technology for the job site. In ReddenM.R., & SternV.W. (Eds.), Technology for independent living II. Issues in technology for daily living, education, and employment (pp. 159–162). La Jolla, CA: Project on the Handicapped in Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
5.
Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services. (1989). The Arkansas technology access program. Grant submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (Contract No. 84–22).
6.
Division of Demographic Research. (1988, June). Arkansas’ projected age structure by color and sex: 1980–2000.Demographic Bulletin, 1–17.
7.
FarmerL.W. (1980). Mobility devices. In WelshR., & BlaschB. (Eds.), Foundations of orientation and mobility (pp. 357–412). New York: Grune & Stratton.
8.
GarnerJ.B., & CampbellP.H. (1987). Technology for persons with severe disabilities: Practical and ethical considerations.Journal of Special Education, 21, 122–132.
9.
Governor's Task Force on Technology and Disabilities. (1987). A final report of the task force on technology and disabilities.Albany, NY: author.
10.
HallidayC., & KurzhalsI.W. (1976). Stimulating environments for children who are visually impaired.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
11.
HansenC.E., & PerlmanL.G. (1989). Technology: A vital tool for persons with disabilities.Journal of Rehabilitation, 55, 18–21.
12.
HardmanM.L., DrewC.J., & EganM.W. (1984). Human exceptionality: Society, school, and family.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
HillE.W. (1986). Orientation and mobility. In SchollG.T. (Ed.), Foundations of education for the blind and visually handicapped children and youth: Theory and practice (pp. 315–340). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
14.
HillE.W., & PonderP. (1976). Orientation and mobility techniques: A guide for the practitioner.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
15.
Issue Team on Technology for People with Disabilities. (1986). Governor's report on technology for people with disabilities. Abilities and technology.St. Paul, MN: Developmental Disabilities Program, Minnesota State Planning Agency.
16.
KirtleyD.D. (1975). The psychology of blindness.Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
17.
LowenfeldB. (1971). Our blind children, growing and learning with them.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
18.
LowenfeldB. (1981). Effects of blindness on the cognitive functions of children. In LowenfeldB. (ed.), Berthold Lowenfeld on blindness and blind people (pp. 67–78). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
19.
MendelsohnS. (1989, March). Payment issues and options in the utilization of assistive technology. Paper presented at the National Workshop on Implementing Technology Utilization, Washington, DC.
20.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1982). Technology and handicapped people.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power on! New tools for teaching and learning.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22.
PfrommerM.C. (1984). Utilization of technology: Consumer perspective. In Discovery ‘84: Technology for disabled persons. Conference papers (pp. 237–242). Menomonie: Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Center, University of Wisconsin.
23.
ProVUE Development Corp. (1988). PANORAMA.Huntington Beach, CA: Author.
24.
SolomanG. (1988, October). The role of the federal government in educational technology.Electronic Learning, 46–49.
25.
SchollG.T. (1986). What does it mean to be blind? Definitions, terminology, and prevalence. In SchollG.T. (Ed.), Foundations of education for blind and visually handicapped children and youth: Theory and practice (pp. 23–33). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
26.
Technology Access for Arkansans. (1989). Proceedings from the DeGray Lodge Retreat, March 22–23, 1989.Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
27.
VanBiervlietA., & ParetteH.P.Jr. (1989). Consumer and professional technology needs: An exploratory investigation of Arkansans with disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication, still under review.
28.
VanderheidenG.C. (1987). Issues in planning a state-wide technology service delivery program for special education.Madison: Trace Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
29.
WelshR.L., & BlaschB.B. (1980). Foundations of orientation and mobility.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
