This study compared a touch-free switch, which does not require physical access, with a physical touch-based switch, on several criteria such as speed, accuracy, and preference. Six children with physical disabilities, ages 7 to 15, completed computer activities with both switches. A mixed methodology of both quantitative and qualitative procedures was used. These included collecting data on the speed and accuracy of the participants when using each switch, and both student and caregiver/professional interviews. The findings suggested that both switches had advantages and disadvantages.
AngeloJ. (1992). Comparison of three computer scanning modes as an interface method for persons with cerebral palsy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 217–222.
3.
AnsonD. (1994). Finding your way in the maze of computer access technology. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 121–129.
4.
BataviaA.I.HammerG.S. (1990). Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 27, 425–436.
5.
BordenP.A.LubichJ.L.VanderheidenG.C. (Eds.). (1995). Trace resourcebook: Assistive technologies for communication, control, and computer access (1996–97 ed.). Madison, WI: Trace Research and Development Center.
6.
CookA.M.HusseyS.M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice. (2nd ed.) St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, Inc.
7.
DeVriesR.C.DeitzJ.AnsonD. (1998). A comparison of two computer access systems for functional text entry. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 656–665.
8.
DouglasJ.ReesonB.RyanM. (1988). Computer microtechnology for a severely disabled preschool child. Child: Care, Health and Development, 14, 93–104.
9.
EversonJ. M.GoodwynR. (1987). A comparison of the use of adaptive microswitches by students with cerebral palsy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41, 739–744.
10.
GalvinJ.C.SchererM.J. (1996). Evaluating, selecting, and using appropriate assistive technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
11.
GeorgeC.L.EnzD. (1993). Adaptive switches: What are they and why use them?Occupational Therapy Practice, 4, 38–50.
12.
GlickmanL.DeitzJ.AnsonD.StewartK. (1996). The effect of switch control site on computer skills of infants and toddlers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 545–553.
13.
JudgeS.L.ParetteH.P. (1998). Assistive technology for young children with disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
14.
LahmE.A.SizemoreL. (2002). Factors that influence assistive technology decision-making. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(1), 15–26.
PortneyL.G.WatkinsM.P. (1993). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. Stamford, CT: Appleton and Lange.
17.
SchererM.J.LaneJ.P. (1997). Assessing consumer profiles of ‘ideal’ assistive technologies in ten categories: An integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19, 528–535.
18.
SwinthY.AnsonD.DeitzJ. (1993). Single-switch computer access for infants and toddlers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 1031–1038.
19.
Switch Basics (1999). Bakersfield, CA: SoftTouch, Inc.
20.
Thinkin’ Things Collection 1 (1994). Redmond, WA: Edmark (now available from Boston, MA: Riverdeep).
21.
ThornettC.E.E. (1990). Designing special switches and control systems for multiply handicapped young people – a problemled approach. Journal of Medical Engineering and Technology, 14, 87–91,.
22.
TodisB.WalkerH.M. (1993). User perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26, 1–16.
23.
TouchFree Switch (2000). Redmond, WA: Edmark (now available from Boston, MA: Riverdeep).
24.
ZabalaJ.BowserG.BluntM.HartsellK.CarlD.KorstenJ.DavisS.MarfiliusS.DeterdingC.McCloskey-DaleS.FossT.NettletonS.HammanT.ReedP. (2000). Quality indicators for assistive technology services in school settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 25–36.
