As the use of technological devices in everyday environments becomes more prevalent, it is clear that access to these devices has become an important aspect of occupational performance. Children are increasingly required to competently manipulate technology such as the computer to fulfil occupational roles of student and player. Occupational therapists are in a position to facilitate the successful interface between children and standard computer technologies. The literature has supported the use of direct manipulation interfaces in computing that requires mastery of devices such as the mouse. Identification of children likely to experience difficulties with mouse use will inform the development of appropriate methods of intervention promoting mouse skill and further enhance participation in occupational tasks. The aim of this paper is to discuss the development of an assessment of mouse proficiency for children. It describes the construction of the assessment, the content of the test, and its content validity.
CrookC. (1991). Computers for preschool children: The role of direct manipulation interfaces. Early Child Development and Care, 69, 5–18.
2.
CrookC. (1992). Young children's skill in using a mouse to control a graphical computer interface. Computers in Education, 19(3), 199–207.
3.
GeorgeY.S.MalcolmS.M., & JeffersL. (1993). Computer equity for the future. Communications of the ACM, 36, 78–81.
4.
HammelJ.M., & SmithR.O. (1993). The development of technology competencies and training guidelines for occupational therapists. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(11), 970–979.
5.
HammertonM. (1989). Tracking. In HoldingD.H. (Ed.), Human skills. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
6.
LaneA., & DennisS. (2000). The Test of Mouse Proficiency [Computer software]. Brisbane, Queensland: Lane & Dennis.
7.
LaneA., & ZivianiJ. (1997a). The suitability of the mouse for children's use: A review of the literature. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(2/3), 227–245.
8.
LaneA., & ZivianiJ. (1997b). Of mice and minors: Identifying competence in children's use of the computer mouse. In ToshE. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th National Conference of the Australian Association of Occupational Therapists: Vol. 1. Perth, Western Australia: Australian Association of Occupational Therapists.
9.
LaneA., & ZivianiJ. (1999). Computer access and function: Analysis of software designed for children. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(1), 19–25.
10.
LesgoldA.M. (1986). Preparing children for a computer-rich world. Educational Leadership, 43, 7–11.
11.
LidtkeD.K., & MoursundD. (1993). Computers in schools: Past, present and how can we change the future. Communications of the ACM, 36, 84–87.
12.
LinC., & SchmidtK. (1993). User preference and performance with three different input devices. Educational Technology, 33(7), 56–59.
13.
LowtherD.L.Bassoppo-MoyoT., & MorrisonG.R. (1998). Moving from computer literate to technologically competent: The next educational reform. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(1), 93–109.
14.
MurphyK.R., & DavidshoferC. (1998). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
15.
PhillipsJ.G.TriggsT.J., and DowningM.E. (1997). A kinematic analysis of computer mouse movements. In KippersV.Chair. Proceedings of Productivity, Ergonomics and Safety: The Total Package Conference. Gold Coast, Australia: Queensland Department of Workplace Health and Safety.
16.
PostK.M. (1993). The promise of assistive technology. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(11), 965–967.
17.
ReedB.G., & KannyE.M. (1993). The use of computers in school system practice by occupational therapists. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 13(4), 37–55.
18.
RevelleG.L., & StrommenE.F. (1990). The effects of practice and input device used on young children's computer control. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 2(1), 33–41.
19.
RobertsonJ.W. (1994). Usability and children's software: A user-centered design methodology. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(3/4), 257–271.
20.
RosenbaumD.A. (1991). Human Motor Control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
21.
StrommenE.F., & RevelleF.L. (1990). Research in interactive technologies at the Children's Television Workshop. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(4), 65–80.
22.
StrommenE.F. (1993). Is it easier to hop or walk? Development issues in interface design. Human-computer interaction, 8(4), 337–352.
23.
StrommenE.F.RevelleG.L.MedoffL.M., & RazaviS. (1996). Slow and steady wins the race? Three-year-old children and pointing device use. Behaviour and Information Technology, 15(1), 57–64.
24.
TreflerE. (1987). Technology applications in occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41(11), 697–700.
25.
WarmJ.P. (1987). Trends in the refinement and optimization of fine-motor trajectories: Observations from and analysis of the handwriting of primary school children. Journal of Motor Behavior, 19(1), 13–37.
26.
WashburnD.A., & GulledgeJ.P. (1995). Game-like tasks for comparative research: Leveling the playing field. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 27(2), 235–238.
