The assistive technology (AT) community has been challenged to effectively measure the outcomes of AT services. There has been much discussion recently in the literature about how to conceptualize and respond to this challenge. In this paper, we suggest that these objectives are best accomplished when AT services are understood within the contexts of the total rehabilitation of AT users and the institutional culture in which services are delivered. We provide examples of outcome priorities we have identified and the tools and approaches we have used. These include projects in the areas of clinical, functional, and psychosocial outcomes assessment of ATs.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Jutai1996
%A Jutai, J.
%A Ladak, N.
%A Schuller, R.
%A Naumann, S.
%A Wright, V.
%D 1996
%J Assist Technol
%K Activities of Daily Living; Arm Injuries; Artificial Limbs; Cerebral Palsy; Child; Disabled Persons; Equipment and Supplies; Gait; Humans; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Quality Life; Rehabilitation Centers; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Walkers
%N 2
%P 110--120
%T Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: an institutional case study.
%V 8
%X The assistive technology (AT) community has been challenged to effectively measure the outcomes of AT services. There has been much discussion recently in the literature about how to conceptualize and respond to this challenge. In this paper, we suggest that these objectives are best accomplished when AT services are understood within the contexts of the total rehabilitation of AT users and the institutional culture in which services are delivered. We provide examples of outcome priorities we have identified and the tools and approaches we have used. These include projects in the areas of clinical, functional, and psychosocial outcomes assessment of ATs.
@article{Jutai1996,
abstract = {The assistive technology (AT) community has been challenged to effectively measure the outcomes of AT services. There has been much discussion recently in the literature about how to conceptualize and respond to this challenge. In this paper, we suggest that these objectives are best accomplished when AT services are understood within the contexts of the total rehabilitation of AT users and the institutional culture in which services are delivered. We provide examples of outcome priorities we have identified and the tools and approaches we have used. These include projects in the areas of clinical, functional, and psychosocial outcomes assessment of ATs.},
added-at = {2014-07-19T20:31:22.000+0200},
author = {Jutai, J. and Ladak, N. and Schuller, R. and Naumann, S. and Wright, V.},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/20b5342e1fc2d3a70f0c997c7f80dd031/ar0berts},
groups = {public},
interhash = {7ebb7d5783513b6c00858235d90de9eb},
intrahash = {0b5342e1fc2d3a70f0c997c7f80dd031},
journal = {Assist Technol},
keywords = {Activities of Daily Living; Arm Injuries; Artificial Limbs; Cerebral Palsy; Child; Disabled Persons; Equipment and Supplies; Gait; Humans; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Quality Life; Rehabilitation Centers; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Walkers},
number = 2,
pages = {110--120},
pmid = {10172879},
timestamp = {2014-07-19T20:31:22.000+0200},
title = {Outcomes measurement of assistive technologies: an institutional case study.},
username = {ar0berts},
volume = 8,
year = 1996
}