The Assistive Technology Infusion Project (ATIP) was developed to distribute $9.3 million dollars of assistive technology to students with disabilities in Ohio schools and to measure the outcomes. This article describes the 2-year start-up period of the project and highlights key procedural aspects of the program's implementation. The project developed several Web-based protocols, including announcing the availability of funding, managing electronically submitted grant proposals, conducting a peer review process, and managing the provision of awards. Lessons learned in the process of implementing the ATIP are summarized to assist others in replicating the procedures on either a larger or a smaller scale.
BowserG.ReedP. (1998). Education tech points: A framework for assistive technology planning. Winchester, OR: Coalition for Assistive Technology in Oregon.
3.
ChristiansenC. (1991). Occupational therapy: Intervention for life performance. InBaumC. (Ed.), Occupational therapy: Overcoming human performance deficits (pp. 3–43). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
4.
CobanogluC.WardeB.MoreoP. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 441–452.
5.
CosterW.DeeneyT.HaltiwangerJ.HaleyS. (1998). School function assessment SFA: User's manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
6.
DeRuyterF. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment?Assistive Technology, 7(1), 3–16.
7.
EdyburnD. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–24.
8.
EdyburnD. L. (2003). Measuring assistive technology outcomes: Key concepts. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(1), 53–55.
9.
FuhrerM. J. (1999, November). Assistive technology outcomes research: Impressions of an interested newcomer. Paper presented at the International Conference on Outcome Assessment in Assistive Technology, Oslo, Norway. Available online at: http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/reference/atoutcomes/newcomer/index.html.
10.
FuhrerM. J. (2001). Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(7), 528–535.
11.
GelderblomG. J.de WitteL. P. (2002). The Assessment of Assistive Technology Outcomes, Effects and Costs. Technology & Disability, 14(3), 91–94.
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (1997).
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 108–446.
14.
LoveN. (2002). Using data/getting results: A practical guide for school improvement in mathematics and science. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
15.
MinkelJ. L. (1996). Assistive technology and outcome measurement: Where do we begin?Technology and Disability, 5, 285–288.
ReedP.BowserG.KorstenJ. (2002). How do you know it? How can you show it? Making assistive technology decisions. Oshkosh, WI: Assistive Technology Initiative.
19.
SilvermanM. K.StratmanK. F.SmithR. O. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in schools using functional assessment. Diagnostique, 25(4), 307–326.
20.
SmithR. O. (1991). Technological approaches to performance enhancement. InBaumC. (Ed.), Occupational therapy: Overcoming human performance deficits (pp. 747–786). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
21.
SmithR. O. (1993). Technology part II: Adaptive equipment and technology. InRoyeenC. B. (Ed.), Classroom applications for school-based practice (pp. 1–50). Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
22.
SmithR. O. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in education. Diagnostique, 25(4), 273–290.
23.
SmithR. O. (2002, June). Assistive technology outcome assessment prototypes: Measuring “INGO” variables of “outcomes.”Paper presented at the RESNA 25th International Conference: Technology & Disability: Research, Design, Practice and Policy, Minneapolis, MN.
24.
SmithR. O.BengeM.HallM. (1994). Technology for self-care. InChristiansenC. (Ed.), Ways of living: Self-care strategies for special needs (pp. 379–422). Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
25.
Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act (Tech-Act), Pub. L. No. 100–497 (1988).
26.
ZabalaJ. (2002). SETTing the stage for success: Building success through effective selection and use of assistive technology systems. Retrieved March 11, 2003, from http://www.joyzabala.com/.
