Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits

Editor: Phil Parette Associate Editor: David Dikter

Illinois State University Assistive Technology Industry Association

Editorial Review Board

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / i

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Tamara Ashton

Debra Bauder

Margaret Bausch

Kirk Behnke

Michael Behrmann

Cathy Bodine

Gayl Bowser

John Castellani

Dan Davies

Denise DeCoste

Dave Edyburn

Karen Erickson

Jim Gardner

Tom Hanley

Ted Hasselbring

Jeff Higginbotham

Katya Hill

Tara Jeffs

Margaret Kardos

Joan Breslin Larson

David Lazerson

Charles “Skip” MacArthur

David Malouf

Sue Mistreet

Joel Mittler

Cindy Okolo

Cynthia Overton

George Peterson-Karlan

Matthew Press

Marcia Scherer

Heidi Silver-Pacuilla

Sean Smith

Kim Spence-Cochran

Toni VanLaarhoven

Michael Wehmeyer

Joy Zabala

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / i

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Production Manager: Brian W. Wojcik

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is a collaborative publication of the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) and the Special Education Assistive Technology (SEAT) Center at Illinois State University. This publication is provided at no-cost to readers. It is a peer-reviewed, cross-disability, transdisciplinary journal that publishes articles related to the benefits and outcomes of assistive technology (AT) across the lifespan. The journal’s purposes are to (a) foster communication among vendors, AT Specialists, AT Consultants and other professionals that work in the field of AT, family members, and consumers with disabilities; (b) facilitate dialogue regarding effective AT practices; and (c) help practitioners, consumers, and family members advocate for effective AT practices.

Editing policies are based on the Publication Manual, the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Additional Information is provided on the inside back cover. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; also, any advertisement is the responsibility of the advertiser. Neither necessarily carries the endorsement of ATOB unless specifically approved by the ATIA.

ISSN 1938-7261

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / i

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Assistive Technology Industry Association

Board of Directors

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / i

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

President, Jim Halliday

Humanware

Executive Director, David Dikter

ATIA

Director of Programs, Caroline Van Howe

ATIA

ATIA Conference Chair, Jen Thalhuber

AbleNet, Inc

ATIA Board Secretary, Dan Weirich

GW Micro, Inc

ATIA Board Treasurer, Takashi Yamashita

Tieman U.S

Jacquie Clark

News-2-You, Inc.

Jason Curry

sComm, Inc.

Richard Ellenson

Blink Twice

Martin McKay

Texthelp Systems Inc

Michael Takamura

Hewlett Packard Company

Paul Thompson

Dolphin Computer Systems, Inc.

Frances W. West

IBM

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / i

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / i

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits

Volume 5 Number 1 Fall, 2008

Outcomes and Benefits in Assistive Technology Service Delivery / 1
Phil Parette
David Dikter
Understanding Consumer Needs Through Market Research / 4
Cynthia Overton
Cheryl Volkman
Heidi Silver-Pacuilla
Tracy Gray
Assessing Calculators as Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities / 19
Emily C. Bouck
Aman Yadav
Campus Community Partnerships with People Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing / 29
James Matteson
Christine K. Kha
Diane J. Hu
Chih-Chieh Cheng
Lawrence Saul
Georgia Robins Sadler
Sight Word Recognition Among Young Children At-Risk: Picture –Supported vs. Word-Only / 45
Hedda Meadan
Julia B. Stoner
Howard P. Parette
Technology (AT) Reutilization (Reuse): What We Know Today / 59
Joy Kniskern
Carolyn P. Phillips
Thomas Patterson
Perspectives of Assistive Technology from Deaf Students at a Hearing University / 72
Maribeth N. Lartz
Julia B. Stoner
La-Juan Stout
Assistive Technology and Emergent Literacy for Preschoolers: A Literature Review / 92
Kimberly Kris Floyd
Lora Lee Smith Canter
Tara Jeffs
Sharon A. Judge
Call for Papers and Manuscript Preparation Guidelines / 103

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / iv

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits
Sponsors

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is made available through the generous contributions of the following sponsor:

/ Texthelp Systems, Inc.
"Literacy, Language, Learning"
Texthelp Systems Inc. is an assistive technology software company which produces a range of award-winning software solutions to help people with reading, writing, and literacy difficulties.
http://www.texthelp.com

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 104

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits

Editorial Policy

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits is a peer-reviewed, cross-disability, transdisciplinary journal that publishes articles related to the benefits and outcomes of assistive technology (AT) across the lifespan. The journal’s purposes are to (a) foster communication among vendors, AT Specialists, AT Consultants and other professionals that work in the field of AT, family members, and consumers with disabilities; (b) facilitate dialogue regarding effective AT practices; and (c) help practitioners, consumers, and family members advocate for effective AT practices.

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits invites submission of manuscripts of original work for publication consideration. Only original papers that address outcomes and benefits related to AT devices and services will be accepted. These may include (a) findings of original scientific research, including group studies and single subject designs; (b) marketing research conducted relevant to specific devices having broad interest across disciplines and disabilities; (c) technical notes regarding AT product development findings; (d) qualitative studies, such as focus group and structured interview findings with consumers and their families regarding AT service delivery and associated outcomes and benefits; and (e) project/program descriptions in which AT outcomes and benefits have been documented.

ATOB will include a broad spectrum of papers on topics specifically dealing with AT outcomes and benefits issues, in (but NOT limited to) the following areas:

Transitions

Employment

Outcomes Research

Innovative Program Descriptions

Government Policy

Research and Development

Low Incidence Populations

Submission Categories

Articles may be submitted under two categories—Voices from the Field and Voices from the Industry.

Voices from the Field

Articles submitted under this category should come from professionals who are involved in some aspect of AT service delivery with persons having disabilities, or from family members and/or consumers with disabilities.

Voices from the Industry

Articles submitted under this category should come from professionals involved in developing and marketing specific AT devices and services.

Within each of these two categories, authors have a range of options for the type of manuscript submitted. Regardless of the type of article submitted, primary consideration will be given by the journal to work that has quantifiable results.

Types of articles that are appropriate include:

Applied/Clinical Research. This category includes original work presented with careful attention to experimental design, objective data analysis, and reference to the literature.

Case Studies. This category includes studies that involve only one or a few subjects or an informal protocol. Publication is justified if the results are potentially significant and have broad appeal to a cross-disciplinary audience.

Design. This category includes descriptions of conceptual or physical design of new AT models, techniques, or devices.

Marketing Research. This category includes industry-based research related to specific AT devices and/or services.

Project/Program Description. This category includes descriptions of grant projects, private foundation activities, institutes, and centers having specific goals and objectives related to AT outcomes and benefits.

In all categories, authors MUST include a section titled Outcomes and Benefits containing a discussion related to outcomes and benefits of the AT devices/services addressed in the article.

For specific manuscript preparation guidelines, contributors should refer to the Guidelines for Authors at http://atia.org/

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 104

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

Outcomes and Benefits in Assistive Technology
Service Delivery

Phil Parette

Editor

David Dikter

Associate Editor

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits / 104

Fall 2008, Vol.5, Num. 1

In this issue of ATOB, a collaborative report by Cynthia Overton (National Center for Technology Innovation; NCTI); Cheryl Volkman (AbleNet®, Inc.); and Heidi Silver-Pacuilla and Tracy Gray (NCTI) is presented that discusses how existing AT market research can be leveraged to create ‘new solutions’ to reach wider markets. The article, ‘Understanding Consumer Needs Through Market Research,’ is a seminal scholarly contribution to the field in that it offers suggestions to assist organizations with little or no experience in conducting effective market research—information that to date has been relatively obscure in the professional literature. Of particular interest are recommendations for primary market research strategies, and information regarding accessible Consumer Guides to assist administrators involved in technology purchasing decisions, and educational technology vendors.

In the second article, Emily C. Bouck and Aman Yadav (Purdue University) present findings of a research study, ‘Assessing Calculators as Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities.’ In light of both the accountability mandate of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the accommodations responsibilities of schools articulated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, this investigation provides support for the utility of calculators for 75 seventh-grade students with and without disabilities in open-ended, problem-solving mathematics assessments. However, the investigators also note that calculators may not be a ‘valid assessment accommodation’ when using Elbaum’s (2007) definition of a valid accommodation, i.e., it “should improve the performance of students with disabilities while having no effect on the performance of students without disabilities” (p. 219).

The third article, “Campus Community Partnerships with People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing,“ describes a qualitative study designed to (a) engage doctoral students and AT end users in discussions regarding product development, (b) better understand how focus groups should be conducted with individuals who were deaf and hard-of-hearing, and (c) elicit feedback from end users regarding three specific devices that had been conceptualized to benefit individuals who were deaf and hard-of-hearing. Co-authored by Jamie Matteson, Christine K. Kha, Diane J. Hue, Chih-Chieh Cheng, Lawrence Saul, and Georgia Robins Sadler (University of California, San Diego), the article provides an insightful cross-discipline approach for working with persons who are deaf or hard of hearing using focus groups.

In the fourth article, “Sight Word Recognition Among Young Children At-Risk: Picture-Supported vs. Word-Only,” a report is presented of the impact of Boardmaker™ Picture Communication Symbols on the development of word recognition skills among 31 at risk preschool children. Co-authored by Hedda Meadan, Julia B. Stoner, and Howard P. Parette (Illinois State University), the investigators found that previous research was supported regarding the use of pictures paired with words in the process of teaching word recognition, i.e., children learned and read Dolch words faster when they are taught without picture supports. However, in the fourth assessment of the study, it was found that the intervention group of children performed better than the control group. The authors suggested that practicing sight words with a picture and word might be best beneficial when testing occurs with a picture and word. During interviews with the intervention group children, all but one child reported that pictures helped learn the sight words

In the fifth article, “Technology (AT) Reutilization (Reuse): What We Know Today,” Joy Kniskern, Carolyn P. Phillips, and Thomas Patterson (Pass It On Center, Georgia Department of Labor) describe both the value and limitations of current AT reuse data and outcomes. The authors present a summary of activities and data gathered from several national surveys culminating in a national classification system of AT reutilization. Interestingly, examples of both successful and damaging AT reutilization initiatives are described to facilitate decision making by groups committed to developing new or expanding existing AT reutilization initiatives. Limitations of existing research in this area are presented along with recommendations for future research on AT reutilization activities.

The sixth article, “Perspectives of Assistive Technology from Deaf Students at a Hearing University,” Maribeth N. Lartz and Julia B. Stoner (Illinois State University), and La-Juan Stout (Valdosta State University) report a qualitative study of the AT perspectives of nine Deaf students enrolled in a large ‘hearing’ university. The investigators identified three categories of AT perspectives including: (a) self-reported use of AT and overall benefits, (b) barriers to AT use, and (c) facilitators to AT use. An insightful discussion follows which Discussion centers on the struggle to balance the triad of information that deaf students encounter in the university classroom and offers recommendations to assist deaf students in ‘hearing’ classrooms at the university level.

Finally, in the seventh article, “Assistive Technology and Emergent Literacy for Preschoolers: A Literature Review,” a five-year review is presented of research articles that ‘concurrently’ addressed AT, emergent literacy, and early childhood. Co-authored by Kimberly Kris Floyd (Old Dominion University); Lora Lee Smith Canter and Tara Jeffs (East Carolina University); and Sharon A. Judge (Old Dominion University), the review employed a literature synthesis strategy previously reported by Edyburn (2002). The investigators reported only five peer reviewed articles meeting the search criteria. Given the lack of attention devoted to AT applications and their relationship to emergent literacy in the past decade, these findings are not surprising, and the authors focus on both the dearth of literature in this important area, as well as the need for targeted research to increase the knowledge base of the early childhood discipline.

We hope that these articles stimulate professional dialogue in the field and contribute to heightened awareness of the need for scientifically based practices. We also note that complementing this issue of the journal is a wide array of presentations scheduled at the ATIA 2008 Conference on January 28-31, 2009, in Orlando (see http://www.atia.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=3280 for Conference information). This meeting has become one of the foremost AT consumer and professional venues and presents a wide array of important program offerings to participants.

We also express appreciation to our talented Editorial Board members who were called upon to assist in the review processes for manuscripts submitted in 2008. Without their input and support, this publication would not be possible.

References

Edyburn, D. L. (2000). 1999 in review. A synthesis of the synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education, 15(1), 7-18.

Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits

Table of Contents