Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents
Presenter(s)
Elizabeth M. Dalton, Assistive Technology Coordinator
Marie Lynch, Doctoral Candidate
The Sherlock Center conducts research and information-gathering projects. The Sherlock Center Research Brief, published three to four times yearly, disseminates the major findings of this research activity to stimulate discussion of important topics and ideas.
Sherlock Center
Research Brief Vol. 2 No.1 Fall 2004
When selected and used effectively, assistive technology (AT) can play an important role in helping children and adults with disabilities achieve active community inclusion. Assistive technology is federally defined as those devices and associated services that "increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of persons with disabilities" (IDEA, 1997). Following ten years of targeted federal funding in Rhode Island, the Sherlock Center conducted two surveys of key AT stakeholders, consumers/families and the general community to assess issues and questions. According to consumers and families (N=80), when assistive technology is finally obtained, it makes a positive life difference. However, many consumers and family members experience significant difficulties in obtaining the devices and services that they need, particularly at the local level of service.
Methodology and Sample Characteristics
For more than ten years, the federal Tech Act has funded the RI Assistive Technology Access Partnership (ATAP) to "develop and implement a consumer responsive, comprehensive, statewide program of technology-related assistance for individuals with disabilities" (U.S. Tech Act, 1998). To determine how satisfied the Rhode Island community is with its assistive technology system, ATAP contracted with the Paul V. Sherlock Center to conduct the Rhode Island Assistive Technology Satisfaction Study (2003). For the AT Study, two surveys assessed issues and questions concerning key assistive technology stakeholders, a consumer/family survey and a general community survey. Each consisted of two phases, a satisfaction survey and follow-up interviews with a sample of survey participants. The consumer /family survey focused on satisfaction with AT resources and access to resources, while the general community survey concentrated on AT systems issues and systems improvement. In total, 446 consumer/family surveys and 339 general community surveys were distributed, with respectively 18% and 31% returned, for a combined response rate of 24%. Fourteen of a possible 28 representative respondents were interviewed for the second phase.
| AT satisfaction | yes | no | Don't know |
| Equipment | 69% | 7% | 15% |
| Improved Quality of life | 61% | 9% | 10% |
| Access to evaluationst | 22% | 30% | 32% |
| Access to funding for services | 12% | 34% | 37% |
| Access to funding for equipment | 19% | 39% | 29% |
*Total percentages may vary from 100% due to some instances of non-response. Percentages rounded up.
Selected Key Findings
Consumer views on AT: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Two thirds of consumers and family members expressed significant satisfaction with their AT equipment and the improved quality of life resulting from assistive technology use. Additionally, more than a third of the consumer respondents were happy with their corresponding AT services, training, and resources. These related services are critical to optimal use and maintenance of AT. Respondents said the following:
[My daughter] uses a schedule board that works well… She uses a place mat with a place setting right on it that helps her set the table. Low tech works well for her. She also has an augmentative communication device that's good to very good. … She uses a talking word processing program that works well. She does not stay connected with writing otherwise. (Family member)
Communication has been successfully done because of the low-tech devices, such as switches and small communication boxes, and computer software helps our students to participate with friends more because they have the ability to communicate and be understood more now. This is all due to the technology. (Child service coordinator/teacher)
Consumer dissatisfaction with Rhode Island's assistive technology system, was clear as well: ??During service planning meetings, 35% felt AT was not discussed very well, while 25% did not know if AT was included in such meetings at all. ??30%-38% were not satisfied with their access to trained personnel, evaluations or funding for assistive technology.
Lack of knowledge appears as problematic as lack of access to AT resources, judging by the 25-38% of consumer respondents who did not know if they were satisfied with AT personnel, evaluations and funding. In addition, the identified lack of AT inclusion in service planning is significant, as illustrated by this quote: The only experience I can remember that met with resistance was when I asked for an [AT] evaluation. … I was told my daughter "would never read, and we should put that on the back burner." That was one of my biggest mistakes and something I will regret for the rest of my life, because at age 16 my daughter began to read using [a specialized reading software package]. (Family member)
AT information, training, resources: more needed While nearly half of those surveyed thought that AT information and training in RI had improved during the past five years, respondents also indicated that significant needs remain for greater access to AT information and training. Consumer and family respondents also identified a continuing need for greater access to assistive technology services, training, and funding resources. Concerns about AT funding and funding systems dominate. Almost one half (45%) of respondents thought AT funding systems were not adequate or easy to use. Few respondents (10%) identified funding systems as improving very much in five years. Nearly triple that number of respondents (27%) said that within the past 5 years, the system for funding AT had not improved. In fact, funding is the one major system component in Rhode Island that the majority of respondents identified as not improved over the past five years. The following text from interviews illustrate this point:
All of these things …. people have to buy themselves. These things can be expensive. The fire alarms with lights cost about $200, and they have to decide which rooms in their house to put them in since they can't afford to put them in every room. Unless people are living at the poverty line, they can't receive assistance to purchase these things for their basic needs.
(Adult consumer)
[RI system problems include] money for purchase of technology; lack of evaluation and training;
cost of equipment, evaluation and training; lack of knowledge of available sources of assistance; reluctance to use technology; need to look at individual needs; frustration of individuals trying to find solutions for their problems -- need integrated intake and funding for jobs, education, training and quality of life technology so people can make their contribution to our society.
(Adult services administrator)
Conclusions: The long march for capacity is just beginning
Approximately a quarter of the general community respondents reported that local assistive technology capacity was not sufficient to meet community needs, and about one third thought that it was moderately sufficient. Only one-tenth of the respondents thought that local AT capacity needs were met very well. The view of improvement in local capacity was split - about 20% identified improvement in the past five years to be significant, while nearly the same number felt local AT capacity had not improved. These responses indicate that while significant improvement in local systems appears to have begun, many local systems' capacity for quality service may not be sufficient to meet community needs. Local systems reportedly improved most in having information available about assistive technology; however, assistive technology training and professional development were most commonly identified as areas of non-improvement.
The following quotes from study interviews illustrate local capacity needs:
Maybe (we need) a way to keep families up to date on any new devices or programs that are new to the market and being able to try them at home, to see how they would fit into daily life. (Family member) Have more information available so that we are aware of what's out there to suggest other than just the experts or those holding the purse strings. (Child service provider/teacher)
Overall, the view of the AT system in Rhode Island depends upon "where you stand" -- personal needs and specific experiences change the view of how well or poorly assistive technology and the providing system function. Additionally, funding systems for assistive technology are perceived as quite insufficient for the needs of the community and are consistently identified by the RI community as the AT system in greatest need of improvement. Finally, local capacity to understand, identify, and implement assistive technology must be improved to meet community needs, and must involve all stakeholders, including parents and students.
(c) Rhode Island College
This material is copyrighted by Rhode Island College, it may be copied or otherwise reproduced without permission.
The Brief is available on the Internet at http://www.sherlockcenter.org. For material in an alternate format, contact the Sherlock Center. The Paul V. Sherlock Center is funded by a variety of state and federal resources.
Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities
Promoting Community Membership in School, Work, and Society
Rhode Island College
600 Mount Pleasant Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
401-456-8072 (v)
401-456-8773 (tt)
401-456-8150 (fax)
http://www.sherlockcenter.org
References
Council for Exceptional Children (1998). Integrating technology into the standard curriculum. Research Connections in Special Education, 3 (Fall), 1-8. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse of Disabilities and Gifted Education.
Daniels, V. & Vaughn, S. (1999). A tool to encourage "best practice" in full inclusion. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (5), 48-55.
Day, J.N. & Huefner, D.S. (2003). Assistive technology: Legal issues for students with disabilities and their schools. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18 (2), 23-34.
Edyburn, D. (2003). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 5 (4), 16-22.
Hart, D. (2000). Promising practices in technology: Supporting access to and progress in the general curriculum. [Technical report]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Lahm, E. & Nickels, B. (1999). What do you know? Assistive technology competencies for special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children 32 (1), 56-63.
Warger, C. (1999). New IDEA '97 requirements: Factors to consider in developing an IEP. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse of Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Digest E578)
(content for insert to Research Brief)
Assistive Technology in Rhode Island
Trends and Conclusions of the RI Assistive Technology Satisfaction Study
Conducted by: Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities
Funded by: Assistive Technology Access Partnership-RI Tech Act Project
• Those who have assistive technology (consumers, family members, or service providers) are basically happy with it, and think that it significantly improves their quality of life.
• Most common uses of assistive technology are computer access, learning, and communication.
• Consumers, family members and service providers need more information. Although access to
• AT information, training and acquisition has significantly improved in the past five years, considerable needs still remain.
• The system to bring effective assistive technology into service plans and the service planning process must be improved.
• Community members are dissatisfied with the availability of assistive technology services, training, diverse resources, and local resources.
• The view of the AT system in Rhode Island depends upon "where you stand." Personal needs and specific experiences drive how well or poorly one views assistive technology and the system.
• Funding for assistive technology is viewed as insufficient for the needs of the community.
• Funding systems are consistently identified by the RI community as the assistive technology system in greatest need of improvement.
• Local capacity to understand, identify, and implement assistive technology must improve to meet community needs, and the process must involve all stakeholders, including parents and students.
Consumer/Family Satisfaction Study Summary (N=80)*
| Are you satisfied with(?) | Yes | No | Don't Know |
| Equipment | 69% | 7% | 15% |
| Services | 41% | 27% | 17% |
| Training | 41% | 26% | 16% |
| Reasources | 37% | 26% | 25% |
| Access to trained personnel | 29% | 31% | 26% |
| Access to evaluations | 22% | 30% | 32% |
| Access to funding equipment | 19% | 39% | 29% |
| Access to funding for services | 12% | 34% | 37% |
| Improved Quality of life | 61% | 9% | 10% |
*Total percentages may vary from 100% due to some instances of non-response. Percentages rounded up.
Assistive Technology Resources
Rhode Island Resources
Assistive Technology Access Partnership (RI Tech Act Project): http://www.atap.state.ri.us
East Bay Educational Collaborative-AT Resource Center: http://www.ebecri.org/custom/assistive_technology.html
INSIGHT (support for persons with visual impairments): http://www.in-sight.org
Meeting Street Center (early intervention, education and rehabilitation: http://www.meetingstreet.org
OSCIL-Ocean State Center for Independent Living: http://www.oscil.org
PARI Independent Living: http://www.pari-ilc.org
Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities: http://www.sherlockcenter.org
RI Commission on Deaf and Hard of Hearing: http://www.CDHH.ri.gov
TechACCESS of Rhode Island (AT information & training center): http://www.techaccess-ri.org
Regional and National Resources
ABLEDATA: http://www.abledata.com
Alliance for Technology Access: http://www.ataccess.org
BOBBY Internet Accessibility Testing Site: http://bobby.watchfire.com
Closing the Gap (national AT publication & conference): http://www.closingthegap.com
LDOnLine: http://www.ldonline.org
National Institute on Disability & Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR): http://www.ed.gov/osers/nidrr
New England ADA & Accessible Information Technology Center: http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org/neada/
New England Assistive Technology Marketplace: http://www.neatmarketplace.org
North East Technical Assistance Center: http://www.netac.rit.edu
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services (QIAT): http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/QIAT.html
United States Society for Alternative & Augmentative Communication (USSAAC): http://www.ussaac.org
Assistive Technology: Improving Lives Daily
November 18, 2004
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Warwick, RI
TechACCESS of RI is hosting the 15th annual assistive technology conference,
Assistive Technology: Improving Lives Daily. This comprehensive New England conference focuses entirely on assistive technology for people of all ages. The daylong conference will feature 15 workshops and over 40 exhibitors of state of the art assistive technology products and services.
For more information:
TechACCESS of RI at 401-463-0202 or http://www.sherlockcenter.org, click on "Training & Events."
Research Brief Fall 2004
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents