Sixteen outcome measures that could be used within the field of mobility assistive technology were reviewed. The aim was to assess how these tools measured activity and participation in relation to mobility. Each measure considered some useful aspect of participation, but none took sufficient account of the needs of those with mobility impairments or could evaluate adequately the impact of different technologies. To support client-centred and evidence-based practice, an outcome measure that evaluates the impact of mobility assistive technology on activity and participation is required.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrichR (2002) The SCAI instrument: Measuring costs of individual assistive technology programmes. Technology and Disability, 14, 95–99.
Audit Commission (2002) Fully equipped: The provision of equipment to older and disabled people by the NHS and Social Services in England and Wales. London: Audit Commission.
4.
Audit Commission (2003) Services for disabled children. London: Audit Commission.
5.
BenedictRELeeJPMarrujoSKFarelAM (1999) Assistive devices as an early childhood intervention: Evaluating outcomes. Technology and Disability, 11, 79–90.
6.
ClarkeCSealey-LapešCKotschL (2001) Outcome measures: Information pack for occupational therapy. London: College of Occupational Therapists.
7.
DayHJutaiJ (2002) PIADS, the Psychological Impact of Assistive Devices. A tool for evaluating the psychological benefits of rehabilitation technologies. Manual. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
8.
DemersLWeiss-LambrouRSkaB (2002) The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 101–105.
9.
Department of Work and Pensions, Department of Health, Department of Education and Skills, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Improving the life chances of disabled people. London: Prime Minister's Strategy Unit. Available at: www.strategy.gov.uk/work_areas/disability/index.asp Accessed in January 2005.
10.
DeRuyterF (1997) The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technology and Disability, 6(1/2), 89–104.
11.
DeRuyterF (1998) Concepts and rationale for accountability in AT. RESNA resource guide for assistive technology outcomes. Vol. 1: Measurement tools. Arlington, VA: RESNA.
12.
DittmarSGreshamGE (1997) Functional assessment and outcome measures for the rehabilitation health professional. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
13.
Eustat (1999) Assistive technology education for end-users: Guidelines for trainers. Italy: SIVA. Available at: www.siva.it/research/eustat Accessed in January 2004.
14.
FinchEBrooksDStratfordPWMayoNE (2002) Physical rehabilitation outcome measures. Ontario: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
15.
FougeyrollasPNoreauLLepageCBoschenKPicardRBoissiereL (2003) Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H for children 1.0). Quebec: INDCP.
16.
FuhrerMJ (2001) Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(7), 528–35.
17.
FuhrerMJJutaiJSchererMJDeRuyterF (2003) A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology devices outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(22), 1243–51.
GelderblomGde WitteLP (2002) The assessment of assistive technology outcomes, effects and costs. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 91–94.
20.
GrayDBMorganKWalkerCDavinro (2003) The effects of mobility devices on the participation and environments of people with disabilities – the consumer's perspective. Arlington, VA: RESNA. Available at: www.resna.org/ProfResources/Publications/Proceedings/2003/papers/OUT/Gra Accessed on 13.03.04.
21.
GryfePJutaiJ (1998) Assistive technologies: Clients' perceptions of impact on quality of life. Rehab and Community Care Management, Fall, 26–30.
22.
JedelooSde WitteLLinssenBASchrijversG (2000) Satisfaction with and use of assistive devices and services for outdoor mobility. Technology and Disability, 13, 173–81.
23.
JutaiJDayH (2002) Psychological Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability, 14(3), 107–11.
24.
KirbyRL (2003) Wheelchair Skills Program (WSP): Version 3.0 manual including Wheelchair Skills Test (WST) and Wheelchair Skills Training Program (WSTP). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University, 1–96. Available at: www.wheelchairskillsprogram.ca Accessed on 14.02.04.
25.
KirbyRLSwusteJDupuisDJMacLeodDAMonroeR (2002) The Wheelchair Skills Test: A pilot study of a new outcome measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(1), 10–18.
26.
KirbyRLDupuisDJMacPheeAHCoolenALSmithCBestKLNewtonAMMountainADMacLeodDABonaparteJP (2004) The wheelchair skills test (version 2.4): Measurement properties. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(5), 794–804.
27.
LenkerJAPaquetTL (2004) A new conceptual model for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 16(1), 1–10.
28.
LenkerJASchererMJFuhrerMJJutaiJDeRuyterF (2004) Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. RESNA 27th International Conference: Technology and Disability – Research, Design, Practice and Policy. Arlington, VA: RESNA. Available at: http://www.resna.org/ProfResources/Publications/Proceedings/2004 Accessed on 23.07.04.
29.
LepageCNoreauLBernardP-M (1998) Association between characteristics of locomotion and accomplishment of life habits in children with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy, 78(5), 459–69.
30.
LettsLDawsonDKaiserman-GoldensteinE (1998) Development of the Power-Mobility Community Driving Assessment. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 11(3), 123–29.
31.
MillsTHolmMBSchmelerMTreslerEFitzgeraldSBoningerMBuningMEShepcottN (2003) The Functional Evaluation in a Wheelchair (FEW) Instrument: Test-retest reliability and cross-validation with consumer goals. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
32.
NewtonAMKirbyRLMacPheeAHDupuisD (2002) Evaluation of manual wheelchair skills: Is objective testing necessary or would subjective estimates suffice?Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1295–99.
33.
NoreauLFougeyrollasPVincentC (2002) The LIFE-H: Assessment of the quality of social participation. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 113–18.
34.
OhrasAYeldingDMitchellJ (1997) Consumers and their wheelchairs. Sheffield: Health Research Institute, Sheffield Hallam University.
35.
PerssonJBrodinHLorentsenOHemK-GAndrichRVanBeekumTOortwijnW (1996) Cost-effective rehabilitation technology through appropriate indicators. Final Report. Part A Public Report. TIDE Horizontal Activity, TP1264. Available at: www.siva.it/research/certain/index.htm Accessed in January 2004.
36.
PerssonJAndrichRVanBeekumTBrodinHLorentsenOWesselsRde WitteL (2002) Preference-based assessment of the quality of life of disabled persons. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 119–24.
37.
RustKLSmithRO (2004) Treatment of assistive technology interventions in health and rehabilitation outcome assessment. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin.
38.
SchererMJCushmanLA (2000) Predicting satisfaction with assistive technology for a sample of adults with new spinal cord injuries. Psychological Reports, 87, 981–87.
39.
SchererMJGeraldC (2002) Matching Person and Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 125–31.
40.
SmithRO (1996) Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: Challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology, 8(2), 71–81.
41.
SmithRO (2002) OTFACT: Multi-level performance-oriented software with an assistive technology outcomes assessment protocol. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 133–39.
42.
StanleyRKStaffordDJRaschERodgersMM (2003) Development of a functional assessment measure for manual wheelchair users. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40(4), 310–308.
43.
SteinfieldEDanfordG (1997) Measuring ‘fit’ between individual and environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting. California: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 485–89.
44.
StreinerDLNormanGR (2003) Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
WesselsRde WitteLvan den HeuvelWJA (2004) Measuring effectiveness of and satisfaction with assistive devices from a user's perspective: An exploration of the literature. Technology and Disability, 16, 83–90.
46.
WesselsRPerssonJLorentsenOAndrichRFerrarioMOortwijnWVanBeekumTBrodinHde WitteL (2002) IPPA: Individually Prioritised Problem Assessment. Technology and Disability, 14(3), 141–45.
47.
World Health Organisation (2002) Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health, ICF. Geneva: WHO.
