Although models have been proposed to guide the important work of school teams as they implement the assistive technology consideration process, little understanding exists as to how these models relate to recommended practices for educational assessment. This article proposes a comparison between educational assessment practices and four selected models of the assistive technology consideration process that are documented in the literature. The strengths and limitations of the assistive technology consideration models are discussed and recommendations for future research and practices are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlperS.RyndakD. L.SchlossC. N. (2001). Alternate assessment of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
AndrewsJ. J.SaklofskeD. H.JanzenH. L. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of psychoeducational assessment. New York: Academic Press.
5.
BarnettD. W.LentzF. E.BauerA. M.MacmannG.StollarS.EhrhardtK. E. (1997). Ecological foundations of early intervention: Planned activities and strategic sampling. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 471–490.
6.
BehrmannM. M. (1998). Assistive technology for young children in special education. Yearbook, 1998, 73–93.
7.
BeigelA. R. (2000). Assistive technology assessment: More than the device. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(4), 237–43.
8.
BelliniJ.BoltonB.NeathJ. (1998). Rehabilitation counselors' assessments of applicants' functional limitations as predictors of rehabilitation services provided. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 41(4), 242–59.
9.
BeukelmanD. R.MirendaP. (1998). Augumentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults. Baltimore: P.H. Brookes Publishing.
10.
BlackhurstA. E. (1997). Perspectives on technology in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29 (5), 41–48.
11.
BlackhurstA. E.LahmE. A.HarrisonE. M.ChandlerW. G. (1999). A framework for aligning technology with transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22 (2), 153–83.
12.
BonwichE.ReidJ. C. (1991). Medical rehabilitation: Issues in assessment of functional change. Evaluation Practice, 12(3), 205–15.
13.
BowserG.ReedP. (1995). Education TECH points for assistive technology planning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12 (4), 325–338.
14.
BradleyR. H.ParetteH. P.VanBiervlietA. (1995). Families of young technology dependent children and the social worker. Social Work and Health Care, 21 (1), 22–37.
BrowderD. M. (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: The Guilford Press.
17.
BryantB.SeayP. C.BryantD. P. (1999). Assistive technology and adaptive behavior. In SchalockR. L.BraddockD. L. (Eds.), Adaptive behavior and its measurement: Implications for the field of mental retardation (pp. 81–98). Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation.
18.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R. (2003). Assistive technology for people with disabilities. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.
19.
CavalierA. R.FerrettieR. P.OkoloC. M. (1994). Technology and individual differences. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 175–181.
20.
ChambersA.C. (1997). Has technology been considered: A guide for IEP teams. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
21.
ChurchG.GlennenS. (1992). The handbook of assistive technology. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
22.
CooperH. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature review (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
EdyburnD. L. (2000a). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–23.
25.
EdyburnD. L. (2000b). Collegial study groups: A strategy for creating shared visions of assistive technology outcomes. Diagnostique, 25(4), 327–48.
26.
EdyburnD. L. (2000c). 1999 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 7–18.
27.
EpsteinM. H.RudolphS.EpsteinA. A. (2000). Using strength-based assessment in transition planning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(6), 50–4.
28.
FarrB. P.TrumbullE. (1997). Assessment alternatives for diverse classrooms. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
29.
Federal Regulations for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 C.F.R. 300, 1999.
30.
FeinJ. (1996). A history of legislative support for assistive technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(1), 1–3.
31.
FlynnC. C.ClarkM. C. (1995). Rehabilitation technology assessment practices in vocational rehabilitation agencies. Assistive Technology, 7(2), 111–18.
GlennenS. L. (1997). Augmentative and alternative communication assessment strategies. In GlennenS. L.DeCosteD. C. (Eds.) Handbook of augmentative and alternative communication (149–192). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
34.
HainesL.SancheB. (2000). Assessment models and software support for assistive technology teams. Diagnostique, 25(4), 291–306.
35.
HaneyM.CavallaroC. C. (1996). Using ecological assessment in daily program planning for children with disabilities in typical preschool settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 66–81.
HobsonE. H. (1997). Forms and functions of formative assessment. Clearing House, 71, 68–70.
38.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).
39.
Jett-SimpsonM.LeslieL., & Wisconsin State Reading Association. (1997). Authentic literacy assessment: An ecological approach. New York, NY: Longman.
40.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (2002). Meaningful assessment: A manageable and cooperative process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
41.
LahmE. A.SizemoreL. (2002). Factors that influence assistive technology decision making. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(1),.
42.
LewisR. B. (1993). Special education technology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooke Cole.
43.
McGregorG.PachuskiP. (1996). Assistive technology in schools: Are teachers ready, able, and supported?Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 4–15.
44.
McLoughlinJ. A.LewisR. B. (2001). Assessing students with special needs (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
45.
McMillanJ. H. (2000). Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and school administrators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(8), 1–7.
46.
MelicharJ. F.BlackhurstA. E. (1993). Introduction to a functional approach to assistive technology [Training Module]. Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
47.
MerblerJ. B.HadadianA.UlmanJ. (1999). Using assistive technology in the inclusive classroom. Preventing School Failure, 43(3), 113–117.
48.
NaltyL.KochanyL. (1991). Enabling technology for persons with mental retardation. Spectrum, 1–2, 4.
49.
NatasiB. K. (2000). School psychologists as health-care providers in the 21st century: A conceptual framework, professional identity, and professional practice. The School Psychology Review, 29(4), 540–54.
50.
National Academy of Sciences (2000). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Retrieved July 22, 2001, from http://map.edu/openbook/0309072727/1.html.
51.
NitkoA. J. (2001). Educational assessment of students (3rd Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
52.
Office of Special Education Programs (1989). Letter to J. Stoher, 15 Individuals with Disabilities Education L. Rep, 213.
53.
Office of Special Education Programs (1992a). Letter to Anonymous, 18 Individuals with Disabilities Education L. Rep, 1037.
54.
Office of Special Education Programs (1992b). Letter to C. Lambert, 18 Individuals with Disabilities Education L. Rep, 1037.
55.
Office of Special Education Programs (1993). Letter to P. Seiler, 20 Individuals with Disabilities Education L. Rep, 1216.
56.
Office of Special Education Programs (1994). Letter to H. W. Teague, 20 Individuals with Disabilities Education L. Rep, 1462.
57.
Office of Special Education Programs (1995a). Letter to R. Shelby, 21 Individuals with Disabilities Education L. Rep, 61.
58.
Office of Special Education Programs (1995b). Letter to T. Bachus, 22 Individuals with Disabilities Education L. Rep, 629.
59.
Office of Special Education Programs (1995c). Letter to D. Naon, 22 Individuals with Disabilities Education L. Rep, 888.
60.
OvertonT. (2003). Assessment in special education: An applied approach (3rd.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
61.
ParetteH. P. (1995). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) assessment and prescriptive practices for young children with disabilities: Preliminary examination of state practices. Technology and Disability, 4, 215–231.
62.
ParetteH. P. (1996, October). Students who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices: Implications for working with families across cultures. Paper presented to the Fifth International Conference on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Austin, TX.
63.
ParetteH. P. (1998). Best and promising practices in developmental disabilities: Assistive technology effective practices for students with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Ed. HiltonA.RinglabenR., Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
64.
ParetteH. P.AngeloE. H. (1996). Augmentative and alternative communications impact on families: Trends and future directions. Journal of Special Education, 77–98.
65.
ParetteH. P.BrothersonM. J. (1996). Family participation in assistive technology assessment for young children with disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 29–43.
66.
ParetteH. P.BrothersonM. J.HourcadeJ. J. (1996). Family centered assistive technology assessment. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 104–112.
67.
ParetteP.McMahanG. (2002). What should we expect of assistive technology?Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(1), 56–62.
68.
PiersonM. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing Education, 33(4), 413–30.
69.
PophamW. J. (2000). Modern educational measurement: Practical guidelines for educational leaders (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
70.
PorterS.HaynieM.BierleT.CaldwellT. H.PalfreyJ. S. (2001). Children and youth assisted by medical technology in educational settings: Guidelines for care (2nd ed.). Baltimore: MD: Brookes Publishing.
71.
PuntamJ. W.SpiegalA. M.BruininksR. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 553–76.
72.
QIAT Consortium Leadership Team (2000). Quality indicators for assistive technology services in school settings. Journal of Special Education technology, 15(4), 25–36.
73.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
74.
RESNA (1989). Technology related assistance for individuals with disabilities. Summaries of 1989 successful grand applications awarded under P. L. 100–407. Washington, D. C.: Author.
75.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ. E. (1995). Assessment (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
76.
SattlerJ. M. (1992). Assessment of children (Revised and updated 3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher.
77.
SchererM. J. (1998). MPT: Matching person and technology process. RESNA Resource Guide for A. T. Assessment Instruments, 2, 1–21.
78.
SerafiniF. (2000). Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 54(4), 384–93.
79.
ShinnM. R.RosenfieldS.KnutsonN. (1989). Curriculum-based assessment: A comparison of models. School Psychology Review, 18, 299–316.
80.
SilvermanM. K.StratmanK. F.SmithR. O. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in schools using functional assessment. Diagnostique, 25(4), 302–26.
81.
StigginsR. J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
82.
Smith-LewisM. (1992). What is mental retardation? Perceptions from the African American community. Unpublished manuscript. Hunter College, New York.
WattsE. H.O'BrianM. (2002). It's your choice: Four procedural models for Considering assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 4 (2), 25–28.
85.
WelchM. (1994). Ecological assessment: A collaborative approach to planning instructional interventions. Intervention in School & Clinic, 29(3), 160.
86.
WigginsG.McTigheJ. (2001). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
87.
ZabalaJ. (1995, March). The SETT framework: Critical areas to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions. Paper presented at the Florida Assistive Technology Impact Conference and Technology and Medial Division of Council for Exceptional Children, Orlando, FL.
88.
ZabalaJ. (1996). SETTing the stage for success: Building success though effective selection and use of assistive technology systems. Proceedings of the Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference, Birmingham, AL.
89.
ZabalaJ. (2002). Update of the SETT framework, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.joyzabala.com on 11/11/02.
