Carolann Cormier, MS, CCC-SLP, ATP
Assistive Technology Coordinator, CREC-IPM
cmcormier@aol.com
Preface: In the best of all worlds every school district would have a team of professionals to evaluate children for assistive technology. Although this happens in Connecticut, schools often call in an outside evaluator. This article provides useful information for any AT evaluation, but is particularly directed to those situations when a school brings in an outside evaluator. C. Rucker
Assistive technology (AT) must be considered for every child who has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) at the Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meeting as is required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The need for assistive technology is based on the question "What IEP goals are the student having difficulty meeting that assistive technology might assist?" The more specific the team can be in answering that question, the better an evaluator can be prepared when conducting an assistive technology evaluation.
According to Zabala, Reed, & Korsten, (1999) when considering a student's need for assistive technology these quality indicators are important: the IEP team has the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions; a continuum of AT devices and services is explored; IEP team uses good team process to make decisions; decisions are made based on IEP/IFSP/ITP goals and objectives; team decisions are made in compliance with federal and state statures; determination of need is based on data about student, environments, tasks and tools; and decisions and supporting data are documented.
The team needs to think about why they are requesting an AT evaluation. Responses of "to see if Assistive Technology would benefit the child" are not specific enough. Assistive Technology is not a cure, it is a tool to assist individuals in completing or participating in specific activities. It is helpful for the team, including the family, to meet and come up with questions or areas of concern and send these to the evaluator before the evaluation. Again, the questions or concerns should be based on what the child/person is having difficulty with and be as specific as possible. Most evaluators send out a questionnaire and request current PPT paperwork and evaluations before the evaluation. The evaluator needs all this information to be prepared to conduct the evaluation. However, be respectful of the evaluators time, and do not send him or her the whole student file, only what is deemed applicable to the questions being asked by the team.
When looking for an evaluator, the person should have expertise in the area of assistive technology, which the student requires. There are a variety of areas of assistive technology, including but not limited to augmentative alternative communication, positioning and mobility, educational software and hardware (generally in the areas of reading, writing and organizational strategies), and environmental control. The team requesting an evaluation should ask the evaluator for their area of expertise. They could also ask for a resume or for the evaluator to provide references. The team may also obtain information about evaluators from other teams that have participated in assistive technology evaluations or from resources such as the Connecticut Special Education Resource Center (860-632-1485).
The evaluator does not need to be a person outside of the school systems. Many school systems have individuals or teams in-house who can provide excellent evaluations and information. The advantage of an in-house team may be their prior knowledge of the student; knowledge of what is available in the system and their on-going availability. Presently, there is no specialized certification in different areas of Assistive Technology. RESNA offers general certification as an Assistive Technology Practitioner (ATP) or as an Assistive Technology Supplier (ATS). However individuals who pass these examinations may not necessarily specialize in the needs of the student being evaluated.
Other points to consider when planning an evaluation include: the location of the evaluation; the variety and types of equipment to be used during the evaluation; participants in the session; timeline to conduct the evaluation and report; follow up after the evaluation (if desired by the team); and who will implement the suggestions made as a result of the evaluation. The IDEA states that an evaluation should occur in the child's natural environments. If the team would like part of the evaluation to occur at the child's home or worksite they need to state that when setting up the evaluation. In any evaluation, the team will need to have a quiet space available for the hands-on component of the evaluation to be conducted. This space should be set up before the evaluation, so no time is wasted the day of the evaluation. The evaluator should bring equipment to the session. It is helpful for the evaluator to know what equipment is available at the school and what the student is presently using. Any equipment the student is using should be available during the evaluation. It is helpful to the evaluator, especially if this person is new to the student, to have team members available during the evaluation, who are familiar to the student. These team members can provide information as well as assist in getting optimal performance from the student. The team should use the evaluation as a learning experience, to observe what is done with the student, what equipment is used and the suggestions made, so that they can implement some of these steps themselves the next time they are considering AT to meet a child's IEP goals.
If the team wants follow-up after the evaluation or for the evaluator to attend a PPT meeting to discuss the evaluation, this should be set up at the time the evaluation is being scheduled. The team may not want to wait until receiving the report to set up a PPT as often evaluators book well in advance. The team should also not schedule the PPT immediately following the evaluation, as the evaluator will need a period of time to research the suggestions as well as write the report. If a PPT is scheduled following the evaluation, let the evaluator know prior to the session so they can make the best effort to have the report available.
During the evaluation, an observation of the child in natural activities should be conducted. Often this observation provides information on strategies and equipment the child uses, as well as how the child performs in a larger group compared to the quiet setting during the hands-on component of the evaluation. The time of the evaluation should be based on when is best for the child as well as what would be the most appropriate times to observe the student. All evaluations should involve a hands-on component when different equipment is tried with the student. The equipment used will vary based on the student's needs. No evaluator can bring all the AT equipment that is available today, but there should be a variety of equipment which can provide information needed to determine what specifically might be appropriate for the student. Following the hands-on component of the session, it is helpful if the evaluator and the team can meet to discuss the preliminary suggestions as well as any concerns of the team. It is beneficial for the parents to be available at this meeting. Meeting with the team allows the evaluator to provide information immediately (though additional suggestions may be provided as part of the report), discuss the teams concerns about the preliminary suggestions, as well as be a time when the team can brainstorm different strategies to meet the student's needs.
As part of the write up of the evaluation, the report should contain: information
on what was observed; what equipment was used and the specific results; the
student's responses and preferences to the equipment tried; suggestions for
the team to consider; training needed by team members on the suggested equipment;
how to obtain the equipment as well as what equipment is available for loan
or rental. Before purchasing equipment especially on higher priced purchases,
or when more than one device may be appropriate the report should suggest renting
or borrowing the equipment before a decision is made (some companies allow for
short term borrowing of the equipment before a purchase). The team may also
have equipment available in the district, which the student can try over an
extended period. As typically evaluations by an outside evaluator are conducted
during one session, longer trials of different equipment may be helpful before
a purchase is made. The New England Assistive Technology Marketplace in Hartford
has some AT equipment at their facility. Teams can go there to try out various
pieces of equipment and software. Follow this link for more information, including
the equipment available, and/or to schedule an appointment
http://www.neatmarketplace.org/
The suggestions for equipment are based on what equipment is most fiscally responsible to meet the child's needs. Often when thinking of assistive technology, people think of laptop computers, however AT has a continuum from low technology to high technology. The lowest technology on the continuum which meets that child's needs is what should be suggested (that is not to say that what is suggested should be low technology but the lowest technology that is appropriate for the child). In the suggestions or recommendations section of the report when discussing equipment or software suggested the information should be specific including settings to use, the amount of selections to use and when or where it might be appropriate to use the equipment.
Following the evaluation, the team needs to meet and set up an action plan. Often reports include many suggestions, and the team needs to determine what suggestions to put into place immediately, what equipment needs to be ordered, what training will be needed, who will conduct the training, who will be part of the training, and timelines for implementation. The team also needs to determine where the student will use the assistive technology. When introducing new equipment it is unreasonable to expect a person to use that technology immediately in classes or during demanding activities. Often changes in the student's schedule may need to be made, so he or she can learn how to use the technology before using it when a variety of other demands are being placed upon the individual.
For an evaluation to be successful, team input prior to, during and after the evaluation is crucial. Asking the right questions of the evaluator, providing necessary information prior to and during the evaluation, and being realistic about assistive technology and what it can do as a tool is necessary. Assistive technology can assist an individual in promoting their abilities and decreasing their disabilities, but it is not a cure, only a tool, and as with all tools, you need the right one to do the job.
Closing the Gap (also
has a searchable database)
http://www.closingthegap.com
National Center for Research on Evaluations, Standards and Testing
http://www.cse.ucla.edu
Learning Disabilities and Attention Deficit Disorder Assessments
http://www.iser.com/steps.html
Trace Research & Development Center, University of Wisconsin
http://www.trace.wisc.edu/
Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative
http://www.wati.org
LD OnLine
http://www.ldonline.org
Article Assessing Assistive Technology Needs of Children with Disabilities
http://www.nasdse.com/AAATE%20Paper.html
Association for Retarded Citizens (1994) How to evaluate and select assistive
technology. Arlington, TX *(ED 376 664 – Microfiche, 6 pages)
Assessing Students’ Need for Assistive Technology: A Resource Manual for
School District Teams. Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI), Polk
Library, 800 Algoma Blvd. Oshkosh, WI 54901
Behrmann, M.M. & Schepis, M.M. (1994) Assistive Technology assessment: A
multiple case study review of three approaches with students with physical disabilities
during the transition from school to work. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
4, 202-210.
Beigel, A.R. (2000). Assistive Technology assessment: More than the device.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 237-243.
Blackstone, S. (1992) Abandonment of Assistive technology. Augmentative Communication
News. 5.
Blackstone, S. (1994) For Consumers AAC assessment: Stakeholder views, Augmentative
Communication News, 7:1, 1-6.
Bowser, G. & Reed, P. (1998), Education Tech Points: A Framework for Assistive
Technology Planning. Distributed by: Coalition for Assistive Technology in Oregon,
PO Box 431, Winchester, Oregon 97495, 541-1440-4791.
Bowser, G. & Reed, P. (1991). Tech Use Guide: Occupational & Physical
Therapists in Assistive Technology. Reston, VA: Center for Special Education
Technology, Council for Exceptional Children.
Carey, D.M., & Sale, P. (1994) Practical considerations in the use of technology
to facilitate the inclusion of students with severe disabilities. Technology
and Disability, 3, 77-86.
Chambers, A. C. (1997) Has technology been considered? A guide for IEP teams.
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (*VF-Technology)
Computer Resources for Persons with Disabilities, (Part II, The Technology Toolbox).
Alliance for Technology Access, published by Hunter House, Inc., PO Box 2914,
Alameda, CA 94501-0914.
DeRuyter, F. (1997) The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology
service delivery systems. Technology and Disability, 6, 89-104.
Elliot, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R. & Gilbertson, A. (1996) Assessment Accommodation
Checklist. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
1025 W. Johnson St., Madison WI 53706.
Embleton, A.J., & Spencer, K.C. (1997). Interrater reliability of the technology
team assessment process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 297-302.
Foster, I. (1995). Assessing alternative assistive technology funding sources.
Case in Point, 9 (1), 33-40.
Frattali, C. (1993). Perspectives on Functional Assessment: its use for policy
making. Disability and Rehabilitation. 15, 1, 1-9.
Frattali, C. (1992). Functional assessment of communication: merging public
policy with clinical views. Aphasiology. 6: 1, 63-83.
Galvin, J.C., & Scherer, M.J. (1996). Evaluating, selecting and using appropriate
assistive technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc. (617.03 GAL-Book)
Glennon, S. & DeCoste, D. (1997). Handbook of Augmentative Communication.
San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Company
Goossens, C. & Grain, S., Augmentative Communication Assessment Resource.
Don Johnson Incorporated, 800-999-4660
The Handbook of Adaptive Switches and Augmentative Communication Devices (2nd
Edition). Academic Software Inc., 331 West Second Street, Lexington, KY 40507,
606-233-2332.
Henderson, Judy, Preschool AAC Checklist, Mayer-Johnson Co., PO Box `579, Solana
Beach, CA 92075-7579, 800-588-4548
Hourcade, J.J., Parette, Jr., H.P. & Huer, M.B. (1997). Family and cultural
alert! Considerations in assistive technology assessment. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 30(1), 40-44.
Kangas, K. & Lloyd, L. (1988). Early cognitive skills as prerequisites to
augmentative and alternative communication use: What are we waiting for? AAC
Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 4, 211-221.
Lane, J.P. (1997) Development, evaluation and marketing of assistive devices.
Technology and Disability, 6, 105-125.
Lane, J.P. (1997) Technology evaluation and transfer in the assistive technology
marketplace: Terms, process and roles. Technology and Disability, 7, 5-24.
McGregor, G., Arango, G., Fraser, B., & Kangas, K., (1994) Physical Characteristics
Assessment for Individuals with Cerebral Palsy, Don Johnston, Inc., 1000 N Rand
Road., Bldg 115, Wauconda, IL 60084. 800-999-4660
Parette, Jr., H.P. (1995). Culturally sensiteve family focused assistive technology
assessment strategies. Paper presented at the DEC Early childhood Conference
on Children with Special Needs (Orlando, FL, November 30 – December 2,
1995) (ED 387 996 – Microfiche, 15 pages)
Parette, Jr., H.P. & Brotherson, M.J. (1996). Family participation in assistive
technology assessment for you children with mental retardation and developmental
disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilties, 31, 29-43.
Parette, Jr., H. P., Brotherson, M.J., Hourcade, J.J., & Bradley, R.H. (1996).
Family centered assistive technology assessment. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 32, 104-112.
Parette, Jr., H.P., VanBiervliet, A., & Hourcade, J.J. (2000). Family centered
decision-making in assistive technology. Journal of Special Education Technology,
15 (1), 45-55.
Poulson, D., & Richardson, S. (1998). USERfit – a framework for user
centered design in assistive technology. Technology and Disability, 9, 163-171.
Pugliese, Madalaine, 2001, Stages: An Alternative Curriculum and Assessment
Philosophy. Special Education Technology Practice, 3.4, 17-26.
QIAT Consortium Leadership Team (2000). Quality indicators for assistive technology
services in school settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4),
25-36.
Raimondi, S.L., Lahm, E.A., & Meidenbauer, N.L. (1990). Comprehensive assistive
technology curriculum outline: A functional student centered approach. Reston,
VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Center for Special Education Technology.
(ED 329 054 – Microfiche, 86 pages)
Reed, P. (1995). Assessing students’ needs for assistive technology, revised
edition. Gillett, WI: Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative. (IE 371.39445
REE – Inservice Education)
Reed, P., Team Decision Making for Assistive Technology, G. Adamson (Ed.), AT
Assessment II: Team Decision Making, NASDSE, Albuquerque, NM, 1997
RESNA: Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology. (1998).
RESNA resource quide for assistive technology outcomes: Assessment instruments,
tools & checklists from the field. Volume II. Arlington, VA (ED 428 499
Microfiche. 405 pages)
Technology in the classroom: Four modules on Positioning/Access/Mobility, Education,
Communication, Hearing and Listening. American Speech Language Hearing Association.
Team Rehab Report. Miramar Communications, Inc., PO 8987, Malibu, CA 90265-8987
Trace Resource Book: Assistive Technologies for Communication, Control and Computer
Access. Trace Research & Development Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
S-151 Waisman Center, 500 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53705 http://www.trace.wisc.edu/
Zabala, J., Reed, P., & Korsten, J. (January, 1999). Quality indicators of effective assistive technology services. Keynote address at TAM '99, Portland Oregon
Zabala, J. (1995). The SETT framework: Critical areas to consider when making
informed assistive technology decision. Paper presented at the Florida Assistive
Technology Impact Conference and Technology and Media Division of Council for
Exception Children (4th, Orlando. FL, March 2-4, 1995). (ED 381 962 – Microfiche,
6 pages)..
AAC Feature Match
Software. Doug Dodgen & Associates, PO Box 180503, Arlington, TX 76096,
817-467-0627. ($195.00)
Dual platform, will select the AAC devices that have the features you need to
match the specific abilities that you enter as you answer the questions about
a specific child.
Adaptive Device Locator System. Academic Software, Inc. 331 West Second
Street, Lexington, KY 40507, 606-233-2332 ($195.00)
Dual Platform database of a full spectrum of living aids including products
ranging from specialized eating utensils to electron switches, computer hardware
and software, etc.
Co-Net 11 CD, Trace Research & Development Center, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, S-151 Waisman Center, 500 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53705
($45.00) http://www.trace.wisc.edu/
The CD contains information about over 22,000 assistive technology devices in
all areas.
EvaluWare from Assistive Technology, Inc. (800) 793-9227, (150.00) http://www.assistivetech.com
Helps identify the best computer access methods and AAC setups for people with
special needs. It has over 350 ready to use computer screens to lead the evaluator
and client through a series of interactive activities to assess listening, looking,
motor and other related skills. A demo CD is available from the web site or
by calling.
Lifespace Access Profile from Don Johnston, Don Johnston, Inc., 1000
N Rand Road., Bldg 115, Wauconda, IL 60084. 800-999-4660, ($225.00 for Assessment
& Planning CD, $79.95 for Assessment & Planning Workbook, $225.00 Upper
Extension CD, $49.95 Vocational Transition Workbook).
Dual platform, team based computer access assessment system for evaluating students
with severe physical disabilities. When team members complete the assessment,
a comprehensive program, including device placement, positioning and communications,
is automatically prepared. The Upper Extension version is for students without
significant cognitive disabilities.
Needs First, George Adams Consulting, 49 Overlook Road, Pouchkeepsie,
NY 12603. IBM only, ($175.00)
The software will select the AAC devices that have the features needed to match
the specific abilities that you enter as you answer the questions about a specific
child.
Stages, Assistive Technology Inc., 7 Wells Avenue, Newton, MA 02459,
800-793-9227, http://www.assistivetech.com
Stages gives educators an opportunity to look at the skill sets and language
acquisition of learners that otherwise may be difficulty to assess. It uses
software feature comparison charts to identify practice software that is appropriate
to build the learners skills. The software is generally available for purchase
either individually or in Stage-specific bundles through Assistive Technology,
Inc.
Home |What's New | Articles | Washington Updates | Resources | Positions | ConnSENSE Reviews | Links | Conferences | About Us