Skip to main content

FS3 Update Report - Outcome Measures Used in AT Research & Development

(Updated June 18, 2003)

This field scan used a two-fold approach to examine 1) the current use of outcomes measures by Federally funded investigators of assistive technology, and 2) the use and perception of outcomes measures by commercial developers of AT. Principle investigators of federally funded projects in 2001 (SBIR and STTR R&D projects) received a letter requesting the methodology they planned to use to test the efficacy of their developing projects. The second part of this investigation developed and mailed a survey to a random sample of 500 product developers drawn from the ABLEDATA database and to all technology exhibitors at the 2001 RESNA and AOTA conferences. Research questions included:

  1. For the research sector:
    1. What does AT outcomes data look like in currently funded federal projects?
  2. For commercial product developers:
    1. What importance to product developers place on outcome dimensions of AT?
    2. How frequently do product developers use specific strategies to measure outcome during development?
    3. How frequently do product developers use specific types of formal instrumentation to quantify outcome?
    4. How do product developers perceive the appropriateness of different types of standardized instrumentation?
    5. How would product developers use valid outcome data?

Our random sampling appears to have identified two categories of AT manufacturers. The first are those for which AT products are only ancillary (e.g. 3M, Kohler Co., L.L. Bean). The second are companies for which assistive technology devices are their primary product. This distinction needs to be taken into account in further inquiries of AT product developers.

Responses of the PI’s supported the categories of measurement strategies and instrumentation for AT that the ATOMS project have developed.

The results of the survey indicate that product developers have a significant interest in outcomes instrumentation. They readily see application of outcomes data and indicate support for varied use of the information. Interestingly, the descriptive data demonstrates similar responses regarding the importance of the identified AT outcomes dimensions except for cost. Overall, it appears that for product developers, the development of formal outcomes measurement is highly desirable.