Often, specialists in the field of Assistive Technology (AT) are presented with the challenge of teaching learners to utilize AT in order to increase, maintain, or improve their capabilities. Despite best efforts, rates of AT abandonment are alarmingly high. Understanding the factors that may influence an individual's choice to utilize AT may assist interventionists in designing and implementing effective interventions that prevent technology abandonment. This paper discusses some variables that may influence an individual's choice to utilize AT. Furthermore, the potential applicability of manipulating these variables to decrease the probability of AT abandonment are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbinR.LucyshynJ.HornerR.FlanneryK. (1996). Contextual fit for behavioral support plans: A model for “goodness of fit”. InKeogelL.KeogelR.DunlapG. (Eds.), Positive Behavioral Support: Including People with Difficult Behavior in the Community. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
2.
BaumanR.A.ShullR.L.BrownsteinA.J. (1975). Time allocation on concurrent schedules with asymmetrical response requirements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 53–57.
3.
BeautraisP.G.DavisonM.C. (1977). Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 61–69.
4.
BeigelA. (2000). Assistive technology assessment: More than the device. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(4), 237–243.
5.
BrinkerR.SeiferR.SameroffA. (1994). Relations among maternal stress, cognitive development, and early intervention in middle- and low-SES infants with developmental disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 463–480.
6.
BrothersonM.CookC. (1996). A home-centered approach to assistive technology provision for young children with disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11(2), 86–96.
7.
BrothersonM.OaklandM.Secrist-MertzC.LithchfieldR.LarsonK. (1995). Quality of life issues for families who make the decision to use a feeding tube for their child with disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(3), 202–212.
8.
CongerR.KilleenP. (1974). Use of concurrent operants in small group research. Pacific Sociological Review, 17, 339–416.
9.
CookA.M.CavalierA.R. (1999). Young children using assistive robotics for discovery and control. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(5), 72–78.
10.
GallimoreR.WeisnerT.BernheimerL.GuthrieD.NihiraK. (1993). Family responses to young children with developmental delays: Accommodation activity in ecological and cultural context. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 98, 185–206.
11.
GitlinL.LevineR.GeigerC. (1993). Adaptive device use by older adults with mixed disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 149–152.
12.
HerrnsteinR.J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 266–267.
13.
HollardV.DavisonM.C. (1971). Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 16, 375–380.
14.
HornerR.DayH.M. (1991). The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 719–732.
15.
HornerR.SpragueJ.O'BrienM.HeathfieldL. (1990). The role of response efficiency in the reduction of problem behaviors through functional equivalence training: A case study. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(2), 91–97.
16.
JohnstonS.ReichleJ.EvansJ. (2004). Supporting augmentative and alternative communication use by beginning communicators with severe disabilities. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 13(1), 20–30.
17.
LogueA.W. (1988). Research on self-control: An integrating framework. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 665–709.
18.
MaceF.NeefN.ShadeD.MauroB. (1994). Limited matching on concurrent-schedule reinforcement of academic behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(4), 585–596.
19.
MaceF.NeefN.ShadeD.MauroB. (1996). Effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality on time allocated to concurrent arithmetic problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 11–24.
20.
MaceF.RobertsM. (1993). Factors affecting the selection of behavioral treatments. InReichleJ.WackerD. (Eds.), Communicative Approaches to the Management of Challenging Behavior. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
21.
MartensB.K.HoukJ.L. (1989). The application of Herrnstein's law of effect to disruptive and on-task behavior of a retarded adolescent girl. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 17–28.
22.
MartensB.LochnerD.KellyS. (1992). The effects of variable-interval reinforcement on academic engagement: A demonstration of matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(1), 143–151.
23.
McDowellJ. (1988). Matching theory in natural human environments. Behavior Analyst, 11, 95–109.
24.
MillerJ.T. (1976). Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 335–345.
25.
NeefN.A.LutzM.N. (2001). Assessment of variables affecting choice and the application to classroom interventions. School Psychology Quarterly, 6(3), 239–252.
26.
NeefN.A.MaceR.C.ShadeD. (1993). Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: The interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay and quality. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(1), 37–52.
RachlinH. (1989). Judgment, decision and choice: A cognitive/behavioral synthesis, New York: Freeman.
29.
Reimer-ReissM.WackerR. (2000). Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(3), 44–50.
30.
SkinnerC.BelfioreP.MaceH.Williams-WilsonS.JohnsG. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(1), 54–64.
31.
TeweyB.P.BarnicleK.PerrA. (1994). The wrong stuff. Mainstream, 19(2), 19–23.
32.
TodisB. (1996). Tools for the task? Perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 49–61.
33.
ZhangY. (2000). Technology and the writing skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 467–479.
