Back to Models and Taxonomies Relating to Assistive Technology Report
ATOMS Project:
Models and Taxonomies Relating to Assistive Technology Resource
Table of Contents
Summary Chart
|
Name |
Author(s) |
Year |
Model or Taxonomy |
AT Specific |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Angelo, J., & Smith, R. O. |
1989 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Three domains of wheelchair evaluation and their interactions |
Batavia, M., Batavia, A. I., & Friedman, R. |
2001 |
Model |
Yes |
|
Bowser, G., & Reed, P. |
1998 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Carter, W. B. |
1990 |
Model |
No |
||
Chambers, A. C. |
1997 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Chau, P. Y. K. & Hu, P. J. |
2001 |
Model |
No |
||
Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. |
2002 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Diller, L., Fordyce, W., Jacobs, D., & Brown, M. |
1983 |
Taxonomy |
No |
||
Duncan, P., Hoenig, H., Samsa, G., & Hamilton, B. |
1997 |
Taxonomy |
No |
||
Edyburn, D. L. |
1998 |
Model |
Somewhat |
||
The New Institute of Medicine (IOM) |
1997 |
Model |
No |
||
Fries, J.F. & Spitz, P.W. |
1990 |
Model |
No |
||
Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., & De Ruyter, F. |
2003 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Theoretical career path of first-time AT device users and factors influencing each stage |
Gitlin, L. |
1998 |
Model |
Yes |
|
Haines, L., & Sanche, B. |
2000 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Haines, L., & Sanche, B. |
2000 |
Model |
Yes |
||
International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps - 2 (ICIDH-2) |
World Health Organization |
1999 |
Taxonomy |
No |
|
International Organization for Standardization |
2001 |
Taxonomy |
Yes |
||
Technical aids for persons with disabilities--Classification and terminology |
International Organization for Standardization |
2002 |
Taxonomy |
Yes |
|
Karls, J., & Wandrei, K. |
1989 |
Model |
No |
||
King, T. W. |
1999 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Kondraske, G. |
1990 |
Model |
Somewhat |
||
Lauer, A. |
2004 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Law, M., Cooper, B., Strong, S., Stewart, D., Rigby, P., & Lets, L. |
1996 |
Model |
No |
||
Proposed Conceptual Model for Predicting Assistive Technology Use |
Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L. |
2004 |
Model |
Yes |
|
The ABC Model (Augment abilities and bypass or compensate for disabilities) |
Lewis, R. B. |
1993 |
Model |
Somewhat |
|
Long, T., Huang, L., Woodbridge, M., Woolverton, M., & Minkel, J. |
2003 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Marco International, Inc. |
2004 |
Taxonomy |
Yes |
||
Nagi, S. |
1965 |
Model |
No |
||
National Classification for Assistive Technology Devices and Services |
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research |
2000 |
Taxonomy |
Yes |
|
American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) |
2002 |
Taxonomy |
Somewhat |
||
Pugliese, M. K. |
2000 |
Model |
Yes |
||
National Institute of Health (NIH) |
1993 |
Model |
Somewhat |
||
Social-Cognitive Model of Assistive Device (AD) Use in Older Persons |
Roelands, M., Van Oost, P., Depoorter, A., & Buysse, A. |
2002 |
Model |
Yes |
|
Scherer, M. J. |
1992 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Schwanke, T., Smith, R., & Edyburn, D. |
1999 |
Model |
Somewhat |
||
Smith, M., & Sainfort, P. |
1989 |
Model |
No |
||
Smith, R. |
1995 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Smith, R. O. |
1998 |
Model |
Yes |
||
Increasing Complexity of Assistive Technology Accountability |
Smith, R. O. |
1998 |
Model |
Yes |
|
Smith, R. O. |
2002 |
Model |
Somewhat |
||
Smith, R. O. |
1991 |
Model |
Somewhat |
||
Human Occupational Performance Practice Integration Theory (HOPPIT) |
Smith, R. O. |
1990 |
Model |
Yes |
|
Spilker, B. |
1996 |
Taxonomy |
No |
||
American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) |
2002, 1994, 1989, 1979 |
Taxonomy |
No |
||
Wile, D. |
1996 |
Model |
No |
||
Williams, W. B., Stemach, G., Wolfe, S., & Stanger, C. |
1992 |
Taxonomy |
Yes |
||
Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI) |
1998 |
Taxonomy |
Yes |
||
International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH) |
Wood, P. |
1980 |
Taxonomy |
No |
|
World Health Organization |
2001 |
Taxonomy |
Somewhat |
||
The Student, the Environment, the Tasks, and the Tools (SETT) |
Zabala, J. S. |
1995 |
Model |
Yes |
|
The Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services |
Zabala, J. S. |
2000 |
Model |
Yes |
Individual Detail on Models and Taxonomies
1. Parallel Interventions Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1989
Author(s): Angelo, J., & Smith, R. O.
Reference: Angelo, J., & Smith, R. O. (1989). The critical role of occupational therapy in augmentative communication services, Technology Review '89: Perspectives on Occupational Therapy Practice (pp. 49-53). Rockville: American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The Parallel Interventions Model helps to describe the dynamics of matching technology to an individual's needs. The model highlights two parallel tracks: adaptation and training. The model also highlights the fact that as an individual improves his or her skills, two different outcomes can result relating to the individual's need for technology. As individual skills improve, he or she will either be able to use a more advanced and powerful form of AT, or may depend on less or lower technology AT. The Parallel Interventions Model contains two postulates: 1) AT cannot be implemented without a parallel training track, and 2) This training has a profound impact on the type of technology needed. It either increases the sophistication of the technology needed or decreases the need for AT.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 51
Components and Levels: There are 10 components of this model.
Examples of Categories:
I. Movement: Gross Motor (2-Way)
a. Device: Single Switch
b. Selection Technique: Scanning
II. Movement: Gross Motor (4-way)
a. Device: Joystick
b. Selection Technique: Directed Scanning
III. Movement: Gross Pointing
a. Device: Expanded Keyboard
b. Selection Technique: Direct (Large Target)
IV. Movement: Fine Pointing
a. Device: Standard Keyboard
b. Selection: Direct (Small Target)
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model provides two interventions to be used together in treatment in order to increase the individual's functional ability to use an assistive device. For example, if the goal is to use a single switch then along with working with the individual and his/her use of the device the therapist would also focus on the hand movements that are necessary to use the device. The model provides four examples of parallel interventions. The first is that of a single switch in which the therapist would also focus on gross motor movement in the hand. Another is the use of a joystick in which the therapist would work on four way gross motor movement on the hand. If the individual was going to use an expanded key board the therapist would work on gross pointing and if he/she was going to use a standard keyboard the therapist would work on find pointing.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: At the top of the left column of this figure is a hand with the palm side down. An arrow curves away from the pinky finger, pointing downward. An arrow also curves away to the right from the top of the index finger, also pointing downward. Underneath the hand are the words "Movement: Gross Motor (2-Way)". Another hand is located below this first one and the fingers are curled together, with the index finger and thumb meeting at the tips, forming a circle. 4 arrows extend outward from this hand, one from the left side of the hand, one below the thumb, and two from the index and middle finger area. Underneath this picture are the words "Movement: Gross Motor (4-way)". Another picture of a hand is located below this, with the fingers still curled, except for the index finger, which is pointing at a circle that is equally divided into 4 parts. Underneath this picture are the words "Movement: Gross Pointing". Underneath this is another picture of a hand with the index finger still pointing, but the thumb is drawn upward right under the index finger. The other fingers are still curled. The index finger and thumb are still pointing to a the equally divided circle. Underneath this picture are the words: "Movement: Fine Pointing". In the right column, lined up with the pictures to the left are another set of pictures. The top picture is a round, slightly raised push button with a cord. Underneath this picture are the words "Device: Single Switch" and " Selection Technique: Scanning". Underneath this is a picture of a small 2 dimensional box, with a small rod and a ball sticking up out of the center of the top of the box. A cord is also present. Underneath this picture are the words, "Device: Joystick" and "Selection Technique: Directed Scanning". Underneath this is another picture. A large, flatter 2 dimensional rectangle with one line drawn horizontally on the top, and 2 lines drawn vertically and evenly spaced on top. A cord extends out of the back right of the rectangle. Underneath this picture are the words, "Device: Expanded Keyboard" and "Selection Technique: Direct (Large Target)". Underneath this is another picture of a smaller, 2 dimensional rectangle with forty small squares located on the top of the rectangle. There are arranged into 4 rows and ten columns. A cord extends out of the back of the rectangle. Underneath this picture are the words "Device: Standard Keyboard" and "Selection Technique: Direct (Small Target)".
2. Three domains of wheelchair evaluation and their interactions
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2001
Author(s): Batavia, M., Batavia, A. I., & Friedman, R.
Reference: Batavia, M., Batavia, A. I., & Friedman, R. (2001). Clinical commentary. Changing chairs: Anticipating problems in prescribing wheelchairs. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23(12), 539-548.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The purpose is to present a client-centered framework for "prescribing, ordering, and adapting a new wheelchair." It displays issues about the acquisition and adjustment an individual experiences when switching to a new wheelchair. It represents the relationships among three domains of wheelchair evaluation: 1) individual, 2) wheelchair, and 3) environment. The ability of the individual to adapt to a new wheelchair depends on these personal characteristics: disability level, psychological issues, prognosis, anthropometric measurements, and medical history. Issues to be addressed regarding the the wheelchair are: mobility base, interface and controllers, and the seating system. Finally, environmental considerations are: climate, gravity, residence, terrain, caregivers and sources of electronic and sonic interference. The interactions between the three domains also need to be considered: the fit between the wheelchair and the individual; the access of the wheelchair in the environment; the extent of the user's disability in the environment; and the intersection represents the wheelchair user's functional ability.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 540
Components and Levels: The model is comprised of 3 primary components and 3 secondary components surrounding one main component (function). The text is in three interlocking circles.
Examples of Categories:
1 Main Component:
I. Funtion
3 Primary Components:
I. Wheelchair
II. Individual
III. Environment
3 Secondary Components:
I. Fit
II. Access
III. Disability
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure represents how the wheelchair, environment, and individual need to interact in order to function properly with a wheelchair by diagramming three circles. The model provides a link between the wheelchair and individual showing that there needs to be a fit between these two. There is another link between the wheelchair and the environment showing that there needs to be access within the environment for the wheelchair. There is one last link between the individual and the environment showing how the individual's disability might influence this interaction. Finally, the model links all three together to show that if everything works together the ultimate outcome of the wheelchair use will be function.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: Three circles are laid out so one is on top and two are on the bottom. The three circles overlap the same amount. The top circle is labeled "Wheelchair", while the bottom left circle is titled "Individual" and the bottom right is labeled "Environment". Where the three circles intersect is shaded dark gray and labeled "Function". The area where "Wheelchair" and "Individual" intersect is shaded light gray and labeled "Fit", and the area where "Wheelchair" and "Environment" overlap is labeled "Access" and is also shaded light gray. The bottom two circles overlap, "Individual" and "Environment" and this area is shaded light gray and labeled "Disability".
3. Education Tech Points
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1998
Author(s): Bowser, G., & Reed, P.
Reference: Bowser, G., & Reed, P. (1998). Education TECH points: A framework for assistive technology planning. Winchester, Oregon: Coalition for Assistive Technology in Oregon.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The Education TECH Point system can be used by school districts as a tool to develop effective assistive technology delivery systems for all students with disabilities. This model highlights the points at which the need for AT should be addressed. These points are: Referral, Evaluation, Extended Assessment, Plan Development, Implementation, and Periodic Review. At each point, key questions are considered about a student's needs for AT. This structure provides a way to effectively organize and monitor AT services while enabling programs to tailor activities to match the needs of each student.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 327
Components and Levels: This model is comprised of 16 components arranged in a flow chart with various pathways as appropriate.
Examples of Categories:
I. Pre-Referral Process
II. Referral
III. Evaluation
IV. Eligible for Special Ed
V. Extended Assessment
VI. IEP/IFSP Development
VII. IEP/IFSP Written with Team
VIII. Implementation
IX. Periodic Review
X. Modification Needed
XI. Eligible under 504
XII. Closure
XIII. Develop Plan following 504 district guidelines
XIV. Implementation
XV. Monitor
XVI. Modification Needed?
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model highlights the points at which the need for assistive technology should be addressed. The TECH points then lead the decision makers through the specific issues that need to be considered. Each TECH Point represents a place in the process of referral, evaluation and IEP development where consideration of technology utilization should occur. This provides a way to effectively organize and monitor assistive technology utilization while enabling programs to tailor activities to match the needs of each student. This model does this by breaking itself up into the three parts listed above, process of referral, evaluation, and IEP development. At each stage the model provides a circular marker with a number in it signifying the TECH Point question that the evaluator needs to consider.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: The figure is titled “Education TECH POINTS”. Below are four figures in a vertical line. From top to bottom they are titled “Pre-Referral Process”, “Referral, “Evaluation”, “Eligible for Special Ed”. To the left of Referral is a circle with the number “1” in it. To the left of Evaluation is a similar circle with the number “2” in it. From the last descriptor are three paths. To the right is a horizontal arrow labeled “Yes” leading to five boxes situated vertically and connected by arrows. They are from top to bottom, “IEP/IFSP Development”, “IEP/IFSP Written with Team”, “Implementation”, “Periodic Review”, “Modification Needed?”. Next to “Implementation” is a circle with the number “5” and next to “Periodic Review” is a circle with the number “6”. From the last descriptor are two paths, “yes” and “no”. “Yes” path leads back up to “IEP/IFSP Development”. The “No” path leads back up to “Periodic Review”. The second path from “Eligible for Special ed” is to the left and is labeled “No”. The arrow leads to “Eligible under 504” which has two paths, “yes” and “no”. “No” leads down to “Closure”. “Yes” leads to four boxes situated vertically labeled from top to bottom, “Develop Plan following 504 district guidelines” with a circle labeled “4” above it, “Implementation” with a circle labeled “5” above it, “Monitor” with a circle labeled “6”, and “Modification Needed”. From the last descriptor are tow paths, “yes” and “no”. “Yes” returns to “Develop Plan following 504 district guidelines” while “No” returns to “Monitor”. The third path below “Eligible for special ed” is “Maybe” and leads to “Extended assessment” with a circle labeled “3”. From here arrows point to the first and second paths.
4. The Social Cognition Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1990
Author(s): Carter, W. B.
Reference: Carter, W. B. (1990). Health behavior as a rational process: theory of reasoned action and multiattribute theory. In K. Glanz & F. M. Lewis & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 63-92). San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model contends that behavior is preceded by intentions that are influenced by the individual's attitude toward the behavior and the immediate social environment. Personal attitudes toward behavior are formed by the perceived positive and negative consequences of the behavior which are modulated by personal motivation. The influence of social environment includes the effects of normative beliefs held by salient others (spouse, coworkers, and practitioners).
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 69
Components and Levels: There are 6 components to this model.
Examples of Categories:
I. Beliefs and Evaluations of Behavioral Outcomes
II. Attitude Toward the Behavior
III. Normative Beliefs
IV. Subjective norm
V. Behavioral Intention
VI. Behavior
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model can be used to predict a person's intention to perform a behavior in a well-defined setting. Virtually any behavior over which an individual has volitional control can be described by this model. The model suggests that behavioral intention is the first determinant of behavior. The strength of this intention is determined by the individual's attitude toward the behavior and the influence of the social environment. Lastly, the model shows how an individual's normative beliefs about what others think he/she should do influence the social norm, which in turn also influence behavioral intention.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure is titled "Theory of Reasoned Action". From the left of the figure, there is a rectangle with the words "Beliefs and Evaluations of Behavioral Outcomes" in it. An arrow leads from this one to the right to a rectangle with the words "Attitude toward the Behavior". An arrow leads downward to the right to a rectangle labeled "Behavioral Intention". An arrow points to the right from this rectangle to another rectangle labeled "Behavior". A rectangle is located down and to the left of the Behavioral Intention" rectangle labeled "Subjective Norm". An arrow leads up from this rectangle to the "Behavioral Intention" rectangle. To the left of the "Subjective Norm" rectangle is a rectangle labeled "Normative Beliefs". An arrow pointing to the right leads to the "Subjective Norm" rectangle.
5. Consideration Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1997
Author(s): Chambers, A. C.
Reference: Chambers, A. C. (1997). Has technology been considered? A guide for IEP teams. Reston, VA: CASE/TAM.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: Chamber's model is a flowchart of the consideration process that illustrates key questions and decisions that must be made when considering AT. Assessment is focused on currently effective practices in the student's program, the knowledge base of the AT team, the interactions between the AT decisions and the instructional plan, and ongoing updates to the student's program. The use of this model provides an accountability paper trail concerning the efforts associated with AT consideration.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 20
Components and Levels: There are 13 components to this model in a flowchart.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway:
1. What do we want the child to be able to do within the ed. program but is unable to do due to disability?
2. What has been tried?
3. Is it working?
4. Yes
5. Provide documentation and evidence
6. Ongoing Process
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents how assistive technology is implemented. The model begins by asking a couple of general questions including "what is it we want the child to be able to do within the educational program, that he/she isn't able to do because of his/her disability?", and " what has been tried to meet the special education needs?" The next question is "Is it working?" From here the individual can answer yes or no and the the diagram leads the individual through a variety of questions that will help find the answers to what the child needs to increase function. Assistive technology is then easier to implement. The model also recognizes that this is an ongoing process which may be influenced by a change in the environment, a change in student needs/skills, and by new technology.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This is a flowchart of primary questions. On the top is the question labeled A “What is it we want the child to be able to do within the educational program, that he/she isn’t able to because of his/her disability?”. An arrow points down to B “What has been tried to meet the special education need?”. An arrow points down to C “Is it working?”. To the left is D “Yes” leading down to E “Provide documentation and evidence to support this conclusion” which leads to M “Consideration is an ongoing process. Factors which may influence the process: change in environment, change in student needs/skills, or new technology”. To the right is F “No” leading down to G “What was tried? How long was it tried? How was it tried?” which leads to H “Do we as a collaborative team have the necessary knowledge and resource to try and meet the child’s special education need through alternative interventions, inclusive of strategies and/or modifications, as well as AT devices and/or services?” This leads to I “No” and K “Yes”. I leads to J “Seek additional assistance” which leads to L “What will be tried? Under what conditions will it be tried? In what environment will it be tried? How long will it be tried? What is the criteria for determining whether or not the need is being met?”. K, “Yes”, leads down to L also. L leads down to the M at the bottom.
6. Technology and Media (TAM) Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2001
Author(s): Chau, P. Y. K. & Hu, P. J.
Reference: Chau, P. Y. K. & Hu, P. J. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699-719.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model was designed specifically to predict and explain individual acceptance of computer technology. A person’s perception about the usefulness of technology and attitude towards the use of this technology can be explained mutually with the intensity of an individual’s attention to use a technology.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 702
Components and Levels: This model is comprised of two integrated models (the TAM Model and the TPB Model) with a total of 7 components. These are within ovals connected by arrows.
Examples of Categories:
I. Compatibility (COM)
II. Perceived Usefulness (PU)
III. Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
IV. Attitude (ATT)
V. Subjective Norms (SN)
VI. Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)
VII. Behavioral Intention (BI)
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents an individual's intention to use a technology based on his/her perceived usefulness of the technology, perceived ease of use of the technology, attitude, and behavioral intention.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure is located on the top half of the page. In the left corner is the description "The Decomposed TPB model". Below is one large horizontal box labeled "The TAM Model" and one large vertical box labeled "The TPB Model". They overlap. Three ovals lie outside of the horizontal box, one to the left and two below. The one to the left is titled "Compatibility (COM)" and has two arrows that point at 30 degrees each, one up and one down. The up arrow points to one of the four ovals in the horizontal box and is titled "Perceived Usefulness" (PU). The down arrow points to another of the four ovals in the box titled "Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)". From the PU oval, two arrows point to two ovals that lie in the overlap of the boxes. The first oval is titled "Attitude (ATT)" and the second is "Behavioral Intention (BI)". From the PEOU oval are two arrows, one points to the oval titled PU and the other to an oval that titled ATT. The oval titled ATT also points to the oval titled BI. Below the horizontal box and within the vertical box are two ovals. One is titled "Subjective Norms (SN)" and points to the oval titled BI. The other oval is "Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)" and also points to BI.
7. Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2002
Author(s): Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M.
Reference: Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (2002). Assistive technologies principles and practice (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This is a framework describing the major elements of an assistive technology system. It consists of four parts: 1) activity, 2) context, 3) human, and 4) assistive technologies. Activities are categorized within three basic performance areas: 1) activities of daily living, 2) work and productive activities, and 3) play and leisure. The context includes four major categories: 1) the setting (e.g., at home, at work, in the community), 2) social context (with peers, with strangers), 3) cultural context, and 4) physical context (light, sound, heat). The person with a disability who needs assistive technology is viewed as the operator. The general underlying abilities that individuals use to perform activities and tasks are termed intrinsic enablers. Intrinsic enablers are grouped into three categories: 1) sensory input, 2) central processing, and 3) effectors (motor). The final component is the assistive technology. The assistive technology is described as the extrinsic enabler because it provides the basis by which human performance is improved in the presence of a disability. The assistive technology domain consists of four interacting components: 1) the human/technology interface, 2) the processor, 3) the environmental interface, and 4) the activity output.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Yes, pg. 61
Components and Levels: This model has 4 components with 4 subcomponents. The components are listed in pie pieces of a circle that lie within a larger box. Within one of the pieces are the subcomponents with arrows connecting and directing them.
Examples of Categories:
I. Context
II. Human
III. Assistive Technology
a. Environmental interface
b. Processor
c. Human/technology interface
d. Activity output
IV. Activity
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model shows how the components of assistive technology, human interface, processor, environmental interface, and activity input, interact with each other and then how those components relate and interact with the human and the activity that is being completed. The model shows the human and activity separate but as one piece of the pie that is completely separate from assistive technology. The aspects of the assistive technology are what link assistive technology, and the human and activity together.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model consists of four components: Context, Human, Activity, and "Assistive Technology". This figure contains a large square with the label "Context' in the upper left corner. Inside this square are the other three components presented in pie-chart shaped pieces. A quarter of a circle shaped triangle is labeled "Human". Underneath and attached to this peace is a larger triangular shape labeled "Activity". To the right is the what would make up the rest of the circle, a little less than half of this circle. This portion is labeled "Assistive Technology" and is separated from the other two pieces. Inside this section are four rectangles. The top rectangle is labeled "Human/Technology Interface". A curved arrow leads from this rectangle to the "Human" shape and another rectangle leads back to this rectangle. Underneath this rectangle and connected by an ascending and descending arrow is a second rectangle labeled "Processor". Underneath this rectangle and to the right is a third rectangle labeled "Environmental Interface". An arrow leads diagonally upward, to the left and leads back to the "Processor" rectangle. A curving arrow leads up to the "Environmental Interface" rectangle as well. Underneath this rectangle and to the left is a fourth rectangle labeled "Activity Output". A curved arrow leads to the "Activity" section, and an arrow points to the "Activity Output" section from the "Processor" rectangle".
8. Rehabilitation Indicators
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 1983
Author(s): Diller, L., Fordyce, W., Jacobs, D., & Brown, M.
Reference: Diller, L., Fordyce, W., Jacobs, D., & Brown, M. (1983). Rehabilitation Indicators: Final Report. New York: Rehabilitation Indicators Project.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The Rehabilitation Indicators family of assessment instruments were designed to address the needs of both groups and potential users. Each of the RI instruments provide a detailed picture function that can be summarized systematically to form broader images and profiles of an individual's or of a group's functioning.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: There are 4 components to this Taxonomy.
Examples of Categories:
I. Skill indicators
II. Status indicators
III. Activity pattern indicators
IV. Environmental indicators
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
9. Characterization of Rehabilitation Services
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 1997
Author(s): Duncan, P., Hoenig, H., Samsa, G., & Hamilton, B.
Reference: Duncan, P., Hoenig, H., Samsa, G., & Hamilton, B. (1997). Characterizing rehabilitation interventions. In M. J. Fuhrer (Ed.), Assessing Medical Practices (pp. 307-317).
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This taxonomy defines rehabilitation interventions by meticulously characterizing the rehabilitation services by considering individually and collectively all of the components involved. Micro and macro levels help to define the characteristics of the interventions. The micro level concerns the patient and the immediate factors related to the patient and his or her care, while the macro level deals with group-level effects and addresses the process of structuring care and providing services.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Yes, pg. 309
Components and Levels: There are 3 levels with a total of 27 components and subcomponents. This taxonomy is represented on a 3-axis graph.
Examples of Categories:
I. MICRO (individual) LEVEL
a. What (intervention otructure)
i. Env
ii. Family
iii. Patient
b. Why (intervention outcome)
i. Handicap/Quality of Life
ii. Disability
iii. Impairment
iv. Disease
c. How (intervention process)
i. Progress and Order of Interventions
ii. Timing-Frequency, Duration
iii. Specificity/Individualization
II. MACRO (group) LEVEL
a. What
i. System
ii. Setting
iii. Provider
b. Why
i. Social Value
ii. Cost-Effectiveness
iii. Clinical Significance
c. How
i. Continuity
ii. Attributes of care
iii. Access
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model provides both a micro and macro level look at rehabilitation services. At the micro level three questions are asked: "why is the intervention being selected?", "what is the structure of the intervention?", and "how is the intervention being done?" These three questions are represented on an XYZ axis. At the micro level this diagram seeks to define rehabilitation interventions by meticulously characterizing rehabilitation services by considering collectively and individually all of the components involved. This model focuses on the patient and the immediate factors related to the patient and his or her care. The macro level, on the other hand, represents these same questions but deals more at a group level and with group-level effects. It addresses the process of structuring care and providing services.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure is of the Macro level. At the top of this figure is the letter Y, and the words "How (Intervention Process) underneath it. A vertical line is locat3ed below the words mentioned above. To the right of this line and at the top are the words "Progress and Order of Interventions". Half down the line are the words, "Timing-Frequency, Duration". Below these words are the words "Specificity/Individualization". At the bottom of the vertical line is a horizontal line leading to the left. At the end of this horizontal line is the letter "Z". Above this line are the words "WHAT (Intervention Structure)". Below this line are the words "Environment, Family, Patient". A line extends diagonally upward, to the right, where the horizontal and vertical line meet. At the bottom of this line is the word "Disease". Further up the line is the word "Impairment", then "Disability", "Handicap/Quality of Life", "(Intervention Outcome)", and then "WHY". These words go upward in a step like incline. At the end of this line is the "X".
This second figure is of the Micro level. At the top of this figure is the letter Y, and the words "How (Intervention Process)" underneath it. A vertical line is located below the words mentioned above. To the right of this line and at the top are the words "Continuity". Half down the line are the words, "Attributes of Care". Below these words are the words "Access". At the bottom of the vertical line is a horizontal line leading to the left. At the end of this horizontal line is the letter "Z". Above this line are the words "WHAT (Intervention Structure)". Below this line are the words "System", "Setting", and "Provider". A line extends diagonally upward, to the right, where the horizontal and vertical line meet. At the bottom of this line is the word"Clinical Significance". Further up the line is the word "Cost-Effectiveness", then "Social Value", "(Intervention Outcome)", and then "WHY". These words go upward in a step like incline. At the end of this line is the "X".
10. Edyburn's Model of the Technology Integration Process
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1998
Author(s): Edyburn, D. L.
Reference: Edyburn, D. L. (1998). A map of the technology integration process. Closing the Gap, 16(6), 1,6,40.
Gardner, J. E., & Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Integrating technology to support effective instruction. In J. Lindsey (Ed.), Technology and exceptional individuals (3rd ed., pp. 191-240). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: Edyburn developed this model to describe tasks involved in integrating software into the curriculum, to provide a planning guide for individuals interested in technology integration, to serve as a tool for discussing the process among the major stakeholders, and to assist in the identification of methods and resources for facilitating the process. The Selection Phase includes: planning, locating, reviewing, and deciding. The Acquisition Phase includes: previewing, evaluating, and purchasing. The Implementation Phase includes: organizing, teacher training, and student training. The final stage, the Integration Stage, includes: linking (examining the curriculum and determining when a product should be used), managing (providing time for students to use a product), assessing (evaluating the results of instruction and determining whether any changes should be made), and extending (recognizing the need to create additional instructional applications for a new tool).
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 203
Components and Levels: This model consists of 4 phase components and 16 sub-components.
Examples of Categories:
I. Selection
a. Planning
b. Locating
c. Reviewing
d. Deciding
II. Acquisition
a. Previewing
b. Evaluating
c. Purchasing
III. Implementation
a. Organizing
b. Teacher training
c. Student training
IV. Integration
a. Linking
b. Managing
c. Assessing
d. Extending
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model depicts a way to integrate technology into curriculum. This model describes the major tasks involved in selecting, acquiring, implementing, and integrating instructional technologies into the curriculum. This process is divided into four phases which are comprised of 3-4 tasks which must be completed in working through the activities of a given phase. Each phase must be completed for each new product.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model is in a table format. The top row of the chart is labeled horizontally from left to right. There are 4 phases to this model. The first part is labeled "Phase 1: Selection". The second part is "Phase 2: Acquisition". The third part is "Phase 3: Implementation", and the fourth part is "Phase 4: Integration". Under Phase 1 are the terms "Planning", "Locating", "Reviewing", and "Deciding". Under Phase 2 is "Previewing", "Evaluating", and "Purchasing". Under Phase 3 are the terms "Organizing", "Evaluating" and "Purchasing". The fourth phase has the terms "Linking", "Managing", "Assessing" and "Extending".
11. The new Institute of Medicine (IOM)
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1997
Author(s): The New Institute of Medicine (IOM)
Reference: The New Institute of Medicine (IOM). (1997). Enabling America assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: Modifies the IOM model (1991) to improve it and tailor it more towards rehabilitation. The enabling-disabling process. The interaction of the person with the environment. Possibility of movement toward rehabilitation. The new model is three dimensional.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 4
Components and Levels: There are 8 components to this model with more detailed information below each component. 4 of the components are figures representing the person and the environment and represents the impact of the other four components on this.
Examples of Categories:
I. Person fits well in environment
II. Disabling Process
a. Person does not fit well in env
III. Environmental Modification
a. Person fits well in env
IV. Functional Restoration
a. Person fits well in env
V. Enabling Process
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model emphasizes the role that the environment plays on pathology, impairment and functional limitation. In this model of the enabling-disabling process the term disability is omitted because it is not inherent in an individual, but is a unique combination of the individual and the environment. It is this combination of performance that leads to quality of life. The model shows the person in the environment, then the person's needs increase due to the environment, and then the enabling process occurs. From this point the individual either increases function due to environmental modification or due to their own personal functional restoration.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: Starting from the left side of this figure is a square with a picture of a person with arms at 90 degree angles to each side in it (a). The bottom of the square has the words "The "person" in the "Environment". Above this square is the label "The Environment (physical and social). An arrow point to the left away from this square. The words "Disabling Process" is located above the arrow and the words "Person's needs enlarge relative to existing environment" are located above this arrow. This arrow points to another square, with another picture of a human with arms at 90 degrees (b). The head, feet, and hands of this person extend past the parameter of the square. An arrow pointing diagonally upward and to the left reaches to another square, but this one is larger (d). Located above this arrow are the words "Environmental Modification, Ramps; universal design". Below this arrow are the words "Enabling Process". The picture of the human with arms at 90 degrees is located totally inside this square. The words "'Enlarge' the environment to make it more accessible" are found underneath this square. Underneath the words "Enabling Process" is an arrow pointing diagonally downward and to the right. Below this arrow are the words "Functional Restoration, Neural repair; Range of motion; Artificial Hip Replacement". This arrow leads to another square identical to the first square in the figure, but without the captioning in the bottom of the square (c). Underneath this square are the words "Restore a person's functionality".
12. Hierarchy of Patient Outcomes
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1990
Author(s): Fries, J.F. & Spitz, P.W.
Reference: Fries, J.F. & Spitz, P.W. (1990). The hierarchy of patient outcomes. In B. Spiker (Ed.), Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, Ltd.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This hierarchy allows a variety of assessment techniques to be mixed as appropriate to the particular situation. This hierarchy also allows for elaborations in specific areas of deficit for each patient assessed. Overall this hierarchy is used to create quality of life assessments and provides a base for the areas that need to be addressed in all assessments of these sorts.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 35
Components and Levels: This model has 4 components with 22 subcomponents.
Examples of Categories:
I. Global
a. Outcome
II. Dimensions
a. Death
b. Disability
c. Discomfort
d. Iatrogenic
e. Economic
III. Subdimensions
a. Upper/lower
b. Physical/psychological
c. Medical/surgical
d. Direct/indirect
IV. Components
a. Grip, feed.../walk, climb..
b. Pain, fatigue../ depression, anxiety..
c. GI, blood../ infection, bleeding..
d. Drugs, visits../ work loss, social..
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This diagram represents a hierarchy of a patient's treatment. It includes global, dimensions, subdimensions, and component factors of the patient's treatment. The Hierarchy progresses downward from the highest level, outcome, to the lowest level, components. It allows therapists to break down an individual's disability to the components that are causing it.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: The hierarchy is displayed in a box with four rows. The top row is labeled in the top left corner as "Global" and the entire row says "Outcome." The second row is labeled in the top left corner as "Dimensions" and from left to right the row reads in five separate boxes "death," "disability," "discomfort," "Iatrogenic," and "economic." The third row is labeled in the top left corner as "Subdimensions" and is separated into four separate boxes. Each box consists of two items separated by a dotted line. The first box has upper and lower, the second box has physical and psychological, the third box has medical and surgical, and the fourth box has direct and indirect. The fourth and final row is labeled in the top left corner as "Components" and consists of four boxes that correspond to the four boxes in the "Subdimensions" row. Each box has several items within it, each separated by a dotted line, and a bolded dotted line in the middle that corresponds to the dotted line in the "Subdimensions" row. The first box reads from left to right as grip, feed, etc, and then a bold dotted line and continues as walk, climb, etc. The second box reads from left to right as pain, fatigue, etc, and then bold dotted line and continues as depression, anxiety, etc. The third box reads from left to right as GI, blood, etc, and then a bold dotted line and continues as infection, bleeding, etc. The fourth box reads from left to right as drugs, visits, etc, and then a bold dotted line and continues as work loss, social, etc.
13. Framework for conceptual modeling of AT device outcomes
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2003
Author(s): Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., & De Ruyter, F.
Reference: Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., & De Ruyter, F. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modeling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(22), 1243-1251.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The first event occurring is the "procurement of device-type" and includes three considerations:1) need for a device, 2) type of device, and 3) the services involved. Next is "introductory use" and results in "shorter-term outcomes" and includes effectiveness, efficiency, device satisfaction, psychological functioning, and subjective well-being. Shorter-term outcomes result from an interaction between introductory use and moderating co-factors including the ICF domains of body functions and structures, activities and participation, environmental factors, personal factors, as well as concurrent interventions, continuing ATD services, co morbidities, and costs. The shorter-term outcomes result in longer-term use or discontinued use. Longer-term use interacts with the moderating co-factors to produce longer-term outcomes. These longer term outcomes are the same as the shorter-term outcomes. The interaction of longer-term outcomes and moderating co-factors results in either continued use or discontinued use.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 1246
Components and Levels: This model is comprised of 9 main components with 18 subcomponents. They are written in text rectangles connected and organized by arrows.
Examples of Categories:
List of 9 Main Components:
I. Procurement of a Device-Type
II. Introductory Use
III. Shorter-Term Outcomes
IV. Longer-Term Use
V. Discontinued Use
VI. Longer-Term Outcomes
VII. Continued Use
VIII. Discontinued Use
IX. Moderating Co-Factors
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents a framework showing that outcomes are viewed as resulting from an interaction among characteristics of an intervention, the recipients of the intervention, and the environment. The model highlights the procurement of device-type as the first event for the intervention processes and outcomes that follow. Following device procurement the model assesses short-term outcomes and then long-term outcomes. The model also proposes along this path that device discontinuance may occur after which the individual will be back to square one or procurement of a device-type.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure is located in the bottom of the page. On the left is a horizontal pentagram titled "Procurement of a Device Type" and is pointing to the right. A small arrow off the point continues right to a small, horizontal rectangle titled "Introductory Use". Another small arrow extends from the right side of the rectangle to a larger, vertical rectangle titled "Shorter-Term Outcomes." 5 items are listed under this title in the rectangle: Effectiveness, Efficiency, Device Satisfaction, Psychological Functioning, and Subjective Well-being. Two arrows extend from this box. The first is at 30 degrees, and extends away from the right side of the rectangle to a wider, horizontal rectangle titled "Discontinued Use." From the center and top of this rectangle, there is a tiny arrow pointing up and meets with a horizontal line. The second arrow Another smaller arrow extends from the center to a smaller horizontal rectangle titled "Longer-Term Use." From here, a small arrow extends to the right to a larger, vertical rectangle titled "Longer-Term Outcomes." 5 items are listed under this title in the rectangle: Effectiveness, Efficiency, Device Satisfaction, Psychological Functioning, and Subjective Well-being. Two arrows diagonally extend up and down at 30 degrees from the right side of this rectangle to two small, horizontal rectangles. The rectangle below is titled "continued use" and the rectangle above is titled "Discontinued Use." From the latter rectangle a small arrow extends upward, leading to a long horizontal arrow that travels across the top of the figure to the left and makes a 90 degree downward turn to reach the starting box, "Procurement of a Device-Type". Centered below this figure is a large horizontal rectangle with dashed lines. This rectangle is titled "Moderating Co-Factors". There are 8 items listed in this rectangle; ICF Body Functions and Structures, ICF Activities and Participation, ICF Environmental Factors, ICF Personal Factors, Concurrent Interventions, Co morbidities, Continuing ATD Services, and Costs. Two vertical arrows extend up from the top left and right corners of the rectangle towards the rest of the figure, but do not connect.
14. Theoretical career path of first-time AT device users and factors influencing each stage
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1998
Author(s): Gitlin, L.
Reference: Gitlin, L. (1998). From hospital to home: Individual variations in experience with assistive devices among older adults. In D. B. Gray & L. A. Quatrano & M. L. Lieberman (Eds.), Designing and using assistive technology (pp. 117-135). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model suggests the stages of a career as an AT device user and the interrelated factors that may influence the path that the user takes. A novice user is introduced to the need and use of assistive devices and has opportunities to practice within the hospital setting. In this stage, four factors may influence device acceptance: 1) device need, 2) device instruction, 3) initial device appraisals, 4) projection self-care needs. The AT user can be characterized as an early device user during the first six months at home. Factors that may affect this stage of adjustment to device use are: 1) new device needs, 2) emerging biopsychosocial risk factors, 3) environmental fit issues, 4) self-care goals and practices. During the next 6 months at home, the client would be characterized as an experienced device user. By the second year of use, the client would become an expert AT device user.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 129
Components and Levels: This model has 8 components with 12 subcomponents. It is in flowchart format.
Examples of Categories:
I. Novice User – Hospital
a. Device Need
b. Device Instruction
c. Initial Device appraisals
d. Projection of Self-care Needs
e. TRANSITION
II. Early User – Home mo 1-6
a. New Device Needs
b. Emerging Biopsychosocial Risk Factors
c. Environmental Fit Issues
d. Self-care goals and Practices
e. Consistent users
f. Inconsistent Users
g. Non-users
III. Experienced User – Home mo 7-12
IV. Expert User -- Home 1+ years
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents the stages that an individual might go through in their AT device user career. It also points out interrelated factors that may influence the path that the user takes throughout this career. Examples of the stages including going from a novice user, to an early user, to an experienced user, and then to an expert user. Each stage represents where the individual is at in his/her recovery. For example, a novice user will still be in the hospital while an expert user will have been home for one or more years. The model points out the factors that a provider needs to consider for each user type, especially when the individual is transitioning from novice to early user, such as device need, instruction, environmental fit issues, etc. Once the individual is at home (early user and on) the frequency of use needs to be considered as well.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure is titled “Theoretical career path of first-time AT device users and factors influencing each stage”. A horizontal box divided by top and bottom begins the horizontal aspect of the flowchart. Above is “Novice User” and below is “Hospital”. Above this is a descending arrow that has four branches (from top down): “Device Need”, “Device Instruction”, “Initial Device Appraisals”, and “Projection of Self-care Needs”. The horizontal box’s arrow points to an identical box but the top says “Early User” and the bottom says “Home mo. 1-6”. There is a dashed line connecting the first and second boxes labeled “Transition”. This second box has a descending arrow with four branches (from top down): “New Device Needs”, “Emerging Biopsychosocial Risk Factors”, “Environmental Fit Issues”, and “Self-care Goals and Practices”. A line with three components descends from the box (from top down): “consistent users”, “Inconsistent Users”, and “Non-Users”. The last one has a dashed box around it. The box’s arrow points to another horizontal divided box where the top says “Experienced User” and the bottom “home mo-7-12”. This box’s arrow points to the last divided box where the top says “Expert User” and the bottom “Home 1+ years”. These are dashed.
15. The AT CoPlanner Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2000
Author(s): Haines, L., & Sanche, B.
Reference: Haines, L., & Sanche, B. (2000). Assessment models and software support for assistive technology teams. Diagnostique, 25(3), 291-306.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model is a synthesis of four common individual special education technology models wrapped into a coherent framework that provides the basis to facilitate communication, collaboration, and co-planning of AT in the schools within a time efficient manner. The model is conceptualized around four stages: 1) Orientation, 2) Assessment and Planning, 3) Implementation and Evaluation, and 4) Reporting. In the Orientation stage, the student in need of AT services is identified and the AT team is established. The Assessment and Planning stage involves gathering information about the student and the learning context. During the Implementation and Evaluation stage, the team translates the assessment information into action to determine the effectiveness of instruction. The Reporting stage involves deciding who should receive reports of the work of the IEP team. The Assessment and Planning, Implementation and Evaluation, and Reporting stages are cyclical. Ongoing monitoring and assessment are used to determine subsequent adjustments needed to the instructional plan and the AT component.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 297
Components and Levels: This model is comprised of 4 components with 4 subcomponents. The main components are in boxes with the subcomponents in ovals with arrows pointing to various boxes.
Examples of Categories:
4 Main components:
I. Orientation
II. Assessment and Planning
III. Implementation and Evaluation
IV. Reporting
4 Subcomponents:
I. SETT Model
II. QIAT Model
III. Consideration Model
IV. Technology Integration Model
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure serves as an organizing structure to guide the AT team as it develops assessment and instructional plans. This model is comprised of four stages: orientation, assessment and planning, implementation and evaluation, and reporting. Throughout these four stages this model shows how different assistive technology models can play a role in the assessment process and at what stage each model would be most beneficial to the team. The large semicircular arrow at the top of the model shows that the model can be recycled back to the beginning and begin again.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: At the top of the figure is a looped arrow starting and ending on the left. Below are four boxes aligned horizontally with arrows connecting them from left to right. They are labeled from the left “Orientation”, “Assessment and planning”, “Implementation and evaluation”, “Reporting”. Below are four labeled circles that point to the above boxes. The circle labeled “SETT model” points to “Assessment and planning”. The circled labeled “QIAT model” points to “Assessment and planning”, “Implementation and evaluation”, and “Reporting”. The circle labeled “Consideration model” points to “Assessment and planning”, and “Implementation and evaluation”. The circled labeled “Technology integration model” points to “Assessment and planning” and “Implementation and evaluation”.
16. RESNA Technical Assistance Project Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2000
Author(s): Haines, L., & Sanche, B.
Reference: Haines, L., & Sanche, B. (2000). Assessment models and software support for assistive technology teams. Diagnostique, 25(3), 291-306.
Website: http://www.resna.org/taproject(Archived Copy)
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The model seeks to enhance communication between providers of AT and consumers, while supporting the user. It consists of nine steps: 1) Identify the need for AT, 2) Seek venue for problem solving, 3) Conduct assessment/evaluation, 4) set goals and identify possible solutions, 5) Carry out product trials, 6) Identify and specify intervention components, 7) Seek and obtain funding, 8) Provide product, and 9) Ensure delivery and support. This model serves as a useful general model to enhance the relationship between providers and consumers of AT products and services.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This model consists of 9 steps.
Examples of Categories:
1. Identify need for AT
2. Seek venue for problem solving
3. Conduct assessment/evaluation
4. Set goals and identify possible solutions
5. Carry out product trials
6. Identify and specify intervention components
7. Seek and obtain funding
8. Provide product
9. Ensure delivery and support
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
17. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps - 2 (ICIDH-2)
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 1999
Author(s): World Health Organization
Reference: ICIDH-2: International classification of functioning and disability. Beta-2 draft. (1999). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: "ICIDH encompasses the universe of "health-related experiences". It captures and classifies the disablement phenomena. It is therefore a health classification, and chiefly describes the three aspects of health conditions, that is "functioning at the level of the body, person and society" in relation to diseases, disorders, injuries and other health-related problems. It serves as a framework to organize this information to present it in a meaningful, interrelated and easily accessible way.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 12
Components and Levels: This taxonomy breaks down into five components: function, structure, activities, participation, and environmental factors. Each of these components has five levels listed first by chapter and then by code.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway
I. CLASSIFICATION OF IMPAIRMENTS IN FUNCTION
Ch. 1 Mental Functions
i00100 Consciousness
i00110 Arousal of consciousness
i00111 Alertness/wakefulness
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents the then current understanding of interactions between the dimensions of the ICIDH-2, which include disease or disorder, body functions and structures, activities, participation, environmental factors, and personal factors. It shows how the health condition effects the activity, the impairment, and the participation of the individual being assessed. These three concepts interact and influence each other within the model. The last concept that is taken into account is the contextual factors shown at the bottom of the diagram. Contextual factors both influence and are influenced by the interactions of activity, impairment, and participation.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: At the top of this figure are the words "health condition (disorder/disease)". A line descends from these words, and branches into 3 arrows. The left arrow leads to the word "Impairment", the middle arrow leads to the word "Activity", and the third arrow leads to the word "Participation". 2 bolded, 2-way arrows lay in between these 3 words. Two arrows point up to these 2 bolded arrows, and also connect to form an arrow pointing downward to the words "Contextual Factors, A. Environmental, B. Personal".
18. Guidelines to address the needs of older persons and people with disabilities when developing standards (ISO/IEC Guide 71)
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 2001
Author(s): International Organization for Standardization
Reference: International Organization for Standardization. (2001). ISO/IEC guide 71: Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities, 1.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This guide is intended to be part of the overall framework that standards bodies can use in their efforts to support the need for more accessible products and services. It is important for all society that all people have access to products, services, workplaces and environments.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This is a guide that is broken down into 9 main components. Each component has a total of four levels. Tables are provided in order to best use this guide. The guide is numbered.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway
9. DETAIL ABOUT HUMAN ABILITIES AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF IMPAIRMENT
9.2 Sensory abilities
9.2.1 Seeing
9.2.1.2 Effects of ageing (listed)
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
19. Technical aids for persons with disabilities--Classification and terminology
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 2002
Author(s): International Organization for Standardization
Reference: International Organization for Standardization. (2002). ISO 9999: Technical aids for persons with disabilities - classification and terminology.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This International Standard creates a classification for people with disabilities, specifically of technical aides. These technical aides are primarily used by the person with a disability, but also include those aids which require assistance of a helper for their operation.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This guide is broken down into 7 main components, the last of which being the taxonomy of technical aids. Each component has a total of four levels. This guide is numbered.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway
7. CLASSIFICATION
04. Aids for personal medical treatment
04 03. Aids for respiratory therapy
04 03 03. Inhaled-air preheaters (description)
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
20. Person-In-Environment
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1989
Author(s): Karls, J., & Wandrei, K.
Reference: Karls, J., & Wandrei, K. (1989). Person-In-Environment (PIE): National Association of Social Workers, Inc.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: PIE is a comprehensive description of the problems of social functioning experienced by the clients of social workers. The system requires that every client be described on several dimensions called "factors." Each factor refers to a different class of information. In order for the system to have maximum usefulness and to provide a comprehensive picture of the client's problems all four factors are needed. The four factors are: social role problems, environmental problems, mental disorder, and physical disorders.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: There are 4 components to this model.
Examples of Categories:
• Social relationship problems
• Environmental problems
• Mental health problems
• Physical health problems
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
21. Kings adaptation of Baker's basic ergonomic equation
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1999
Author(s): King, T. W.
Reference: King, T. W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors (pp. 59-86). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: To adapt Baker's equation in order to display the major factors (motivation, physical effort, cognitive effort, linguistic effort, time load) that impact whether or not a person will use AT.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: There are 5 components that comprise this model and are in an equation format.
Examples of Categories:
Equation Description:
Motivation of AT User to Pursue and Complete a given Task (M) divided by the sum of Physical Effort (P) plus Cognitive Effort (C) plus Linguistic Effort (L) plus Time Load (T). This equals successful AT use, or not.
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
22. Human Performance Measurement System
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1990
Author(s): Kondraske, G.
Reference: Kondraske, G. (1990). Quantitative measurement and assessment of performance. In R. V. Smith & J. Leslie (Eds.), Rehabilitation Engineering. Boston: CRC Press Inc.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The model of the Human Performance Measurement System (HPMS) embodies the concept of engineering design methodology in which performance measurement plays an unavoidable and integral role. An initial set of basic elements of performance (functional units and performance dimensions) has been identified. This model employs measurement methods which stress the individual's functional units along each of the dimensions of performance to determine the amount of performance resources available. This model also tests the "coordination" of multiple functional units. The overall model is composed of three components: an application-independent measurement laboratory, a human performance database, and application software packages for measurement presentation and interpretation.
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 112
Components and Levels: There are 3 components to this model.
Examples of Categories:
I. Performance measurement laboratory
II. Human performance database
III. Software packages for application dependent assessments
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents the sequence of events that occur in measuring human performance. It shows that an application independent performance measurement laboratory is necessary first. The human performance data base is required next. Once these two items are established, various software packages for application dependent assessments can be applied to measure human performance.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: At the top of the figure is a rectangle labeled "PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT LABORATORY (application-independent data acquisition)". An arrow leads downward from this rectangle to another rectangle with the words "HUMAN PERFORMANCE DATA BASE" in it. Six arrows branch out from this rectangle to six squares labeled "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", and "N". Underneath these squares are the words "SOFTWARE PACKAGES FOR APPLICATION DEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS".
23. Device Discontinuance
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2004
Author(s): Lauer, A.
Reference: Lauer, A. (2004), Measuring positive and negative factors of device discontinuance. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This study aimed to classify reasons for device discontinuance into factors reflecting positive and negative discontinuance. A Positive-Negative Scale and a Factor of Discontinuance Scale were used to accommodate positive and negative discontinuance. Factors of discontinuance are a complex interrelation of variables.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 6
Components and Levels: This model has 14 components that represent factors associated with device discontinuance.
Examples of Categories:
I. 1
a. AT device characteristics
b. AT service provision
II. 2
a. Social aspects
b. Personal factors
c. Health status
d. Economic factors
e. Physical environment
III. 3
a. Demographics
b. Equipment counter-effects
c. Alternative solutions
d. Device loss
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents device discontinuance and the many factors that contribute to this concept. The characteristics of the device and the provisions of the services are the next level below device discontinuance and contribute a great deal to device discontinuance. Other sub-factors include social aspects, personal factors, health status, economic factors, physical environment. Further down there is one last level including demographics, equipment counter-effects, alternative solutions, and device loss. This model provides many different possible reasons for device discontinuance and provides a model for service providers to follow in order to decrease the prevalence of device discontinuance in their clients.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure is a hierarchical model displaying various reasons why people discontinue their devices, as indicated by previous literature. At the top of the model is a diamond representing “Device Discontinuance.” From this, emerges eleven different categories of reasons for discontinuance arranged in three lines. Those that are closer in vicinity to the device discontinuance diamond, indicate the more commonly mentioned themes discussed throughout the literature. The first line consists of two derivative factors which are labeled as “AT Device Characteristics” and “AT Service Provision.” The second line contains five categories labeled as follows: 1) social aspects, 2) personal factors, 3) health status, 4) economic factors, and 5) physical environment. The last line includes the following four areas: 1) demographics, 2) equipment counter-effects, 3) alternative solutions, and 4) device loss.
24. The Person-Environment-Occupation Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1996
Author(s): Law, M., Cooper, B., Strong, S., Stewart, D., Rigby, P., & Lets, L.
Reference: Law, M., Cooper, B., Strong, S., Stewart, D., Rigby, P., & Lets, L. (1996). The person-environment-occupation model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(1), 9-23.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model consists of the person, environment and occupation overlapping to represent occupational performance. The major concepts of the model are the person, environment, activity, task, occupation, and occupational performance. The person is defined as a unique being who simultaneously assumes a variety of roles while assumed to be dynamic and constantly interacting with the environment. The environment is broadly defined and gives equal importance to the cultural, socio-economic, institutional, physical, and social considerations of the environment. An activity is a singular pursuit in which a person engages as part of his/her occupational experience. A task is a set of purposeful activities in which a person engages and occupation is a group of self-directed, functional tasks and activities in which a person engages over the lifespan. The model assumes that its three major components interact continually across time and space in ways that increase or diminish their congruence. This model can be used to enrich and expand the clinical approach of occupational therapy.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 15
Components and Levels: This model is comprised of 3 components that surround one main component.
Examples of Categories:
Main Component:
I. Occupational Performance
3 Components:
I. Occupational Demands
II. Environmental Supports and Barriers
III. Individual Skills
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model describes the interactions between person, occupation, and environment. It shows the interaction of environmental supports and barriers with occupation demands and individual skills through three crossing circles. The optimal outcome of these interactions is occupational performance which is located in the very center of the interlinking circles.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model is labeled "A Person-Environment-Occupation Model of Occupational Performance". Three circles are intertwined together. The vertical circle has the text, "Environmental Supports and Barriers" wrapped along the top curve of the circle. A second circle crosses this other circle, angled diagonally upward to the right. This circle is labeled "Occupation Demands" The third circle crosses the other two, and is angled diagonally downward to the left. The circle is labeled "Individual Skills". In the center of these overlapping circles is the label, "Occupational Performance".
25. Proposed Conceptual Model for Predicting Assistive Technology Use
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2004
Author(s): Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L.
Reference: Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L. (2004). A new conceptual model for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 16(1), 1-15.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model is a "user-centered conceptual model that predicts AT usage as a function of the perceived relative advantage of AT" and provides a framework for predicting AT usage. It is derived from three human behavior models 1) social cognition models, 2) Smith's parallel interventions model, and 3) Perceived Attributes Theory. When an individual has an opportunity to use a device, the individual perceives a relative advantage or disadvantage to AT in terms of usability and quality of life. From this perception comes an intention to use AT that is also influenced by contextual factors: physical and cognitive abilities, activity demands, intensity of the AT intervention, and environment. The subsequent use or nonuse of AT brings about information regarding the impact of AT in terms of usability and quality of life. From this information, the perceived benefits of AT are weighed against the perceived benefits of alternative options to AT, or parallel interventions. This comparison yields a perception of relative advantage, which determines future intentions regarding AT use.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 3
Components and Levels: 6 main components with a total of 15 sub-components within text bubbles connected by arrows
Examples of Categories:
List of 6 main components and an example of subcomponents:
I. Perceived Relative Advantage of AT
a. Usability
b. Quality of life
II. Contextual Factors
III. AT Usage
IV. Impact of AT
V. Perceived Benefits of AT
VI. Perceived Benefits of Parallel Intervention Options
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model provides a means for predicting assistive technology (AT) usage by observing the perceived benefits of parallel intervention options as well as the perceived benefits, perceived relative advantage, impact, and contextual factors of AT. The model also points out that an opportunity to use AT must first be present before these issues can be addressed. Following the opportunity a perceived relative advantage of AT is assessed and from here the other factors are addressed. Contextual factors and perceived benefits of parallel intervention options are considered outside of the other factors. These two factors add to the model externally.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: Starting is an arrow labeled “Opportunity to use AT” leading to a box labeled “Perceived relative advantage of AT: usability, quality of life”. To the right is an arrow labeled “Intention to use AT” leading to a small unlabeled circle. From below is a box leading to the circle labeled “Contextual factors: person, activity, AT intervention strength (device and services), task, environment”. From the circle an arrow points to a box labeled “AT usage” that leads to a box labeled “Impact of AT: usability, quality of life”. This leads to a box labeled “Perceived benefits of AT” leading to another small circle. From the top leading down to this small circle is a box labeled “Perceived benefits of parallel intervention options: change in performance capacity, change in skill/technique, task modification, environmental modification, personal assistance, alternative to current AT”. The circle has an arrow leading down to the second component of the model “Perceived relative advantage of AT: usability, quality of life”.
Back to item 25 in table26. The ABC Model (Augment abilities and bypass or compensate for disabilities)
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1993
Author(s): Lewis, R. B.
Reference: Lewis, R. B. (1993). Special education technology: Classroom applications. Pacific Grove: CA: Brooks/Cole.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model recognizes the unique contributions that technology offers students with disabilities. The model suggests that these benefits can be understood by noting that technology can Augment abilities and Bypass or Compensate for disabilities.
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 9
Components and Levels: There are 3 components to this model.
Examples of Categories:
Technology can :
I. Augment abilities and
II. Bypass or
III. Compensate for disabilities
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model simply understood and states that technology can augment abilities and bypass or compensate for disabilities.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: In the top left corner of the figure are the words "The ABC Model". Under these words is a large rectangle. In the top left corner of this rectangle are the words "Technology can". In the center of the rectangle are the words "Augment abilities and", on the next line, "Bypass or", and on the next line "Compensate for Disabilities."
27. The Consortium Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2003
Author(s): Long, T., Huang, L., Woodbridge, M., Woolverton, M., & Minkel, J.
Reference: Long, T., Huang, L., Woodbridge, M., Woolverton, M., & Minkel, J. (2003). Integrating assistive technology into an outcome-driven model of service delivery. Infants and Young Children, 16(4), 272-282.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: A 10-step protocol assists therapists in making AT device decisions. After being recognized as having performance difficulties in functional activities, the infant or toddler is referred to a developmental specialist (step 1). In step 2, the desired functional outcome guides the team in deciding if AT is appropriate and possible referral to an AT specialist (step 3). In step 4, the team determines possible devices and services. Step 5 matches AT and AT service to child and family needs. In step 6, a specific device is selected and the training needs of all are outlined. In step 7, a supplier of a device is chosen. In step 8, four factors are noted that impact identifying a funding source: 1) cost of equipment, 2) vague or conflicting eligibility criteria by funding sources, 3) professionals’ lack of knowledge, and 4) difficulty accessing third party payment sources. In step 9, training begins after the AT device arrives. In follow-up (step 10), providers obtain feedback from the client.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 277
Components and Levels: This model is comprised of 10 components. These components are within figures creating a circular pattern around the name of the model.
Examples of Categories:
I. Recognize a problem
II. Evaluation and identification of outcomes
III. Assess barriers, identify AT & AT services
IV. Develop an AT menu
V. Match intervention to need
VI. Select AT device & identify training need
VII. Identify supplier
VIII. Identify funding source
IX. Implement plan
X. Follow up
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents the ten step process from beginning to end in sequential order of how therapists are guided through actions and decisions regarding assistive technology. Represented by arrows in a circular formation. This is a ten step process which occurs sequentially and continuously.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: Starting in the top left of this model, a figure consisting of a curved side and a side that comes to a tip like an arrow, has the words "Recognize A Problem" and is the only figure with a black border, the rest have white borders. To the right is the same figure, but this one has the words "Evaluation, Identification of Outcomes". Pointing downward is this same shaped figure with the words "Assess Barriers, Identify AT & AT Services" in it. Another figure pointing downward has the words "Develop an AT Menu". The next shape, pointing downward, but angled toward the left is labeled "Match Intervention to Need". The next shape is at the bottom of the model, pointing towards the left and is labeled "Select AT Device & Identify Training Need". To the left of this shape is another one still pointing left, labeled "Identify Supplier". The next shape points upward to the left and has the words "Identify Funding Source" in it. The next shape points upward and is labeled, "Implement Plan". The last shape points upward to the right, to the "Recognize a Problem" shape, and is labeled "Follow Up". In the center of this circle of shape is a rectangle with the words "The Consortium Model" in it.
28. The Guide to ABLEDATA Indexing Terms
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 2004
Author(s): Marco International, Inc.
Reference: Marco International, Inc., and funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Website: https://web.archive.org/web/20091222030252/http://www.abledata.com/abledata_docs/2005_Guide.pdf(Archived Copy)
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: ABLEDATA provides information on assistive technology and rehabilitation equipment available from domestic and international sources to consumers, organizations, professionals, and caregivers with the United States.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: ABLEDATA is divided into 20 major sections representing broad areas of functional activities where AT can aid persons with disabilities. There are three major levels with generic terms representing a fourth and fifth level.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway:
I. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
a. Indoor
i. Bathrooms
1. Showers
a. Accessible shower stall
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
29. Nagi Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1965
Author(s): Nagi, S.
Reference: Nagi, S. (1965). Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In M. Sussman (Ed.), Sociology and Rehabilitation. Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: Proposed a process of disablement that begins with disease and leads to impairment. Explicitly brought environment into conceptualization of disablement. Defines disability as the function of the interaction of the person with the environment. Derived directly from Nagi. Begins to describe certain subsets of the environment (risk factors) that could potentially affect the development of and movement within a disabling process. Was conceived with prevention in mind and the need for identifying risk factors whose control would facilitate the prevention of disability. Unidirectional progress toward disability without possibility of reversal.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This model is comprised of 5 Components.
Examples of Categories:
I. Active Pathology
II. Patient’s Impairments
III. Functional Limitations
IV. Forms of behavior that evolve when the presence of disease or pathology is perceived
V. Disability
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
30. National Classification for Assistive Technology Devices and Services
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 2000
Author(s): National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Reference: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (2000). National classification system for assistive technology devices and services. Submitted by Research Triangle Institute
Website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/NIDRR/Products/National_Classification_System.doc
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This classifies different types of assistive technology. This classification system defines assistive technology device as "any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities."
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This outline format taxonomy has 4 levels. There are well over 100 components to this taxonomy. Within levels 1 and 2 are 71 components. Levels 3 and 4 have much more.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway:
B. SENSORY ELEMENTS
100 . Optical Aids
100.1 . Specialized vision designs
100.1(1). Magnifying glasses/devices
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
31. OT Practice Framework
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 2002
Author(s): American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA)
Reference: Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. (2002). The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 609-639.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The framework was developed in response to current practice needs including 1) need to more clearly affirm and articulate occupational therapy's unique focus on occupation and daily life activities and 2) application of an intervention process that facilitates engagement in occupation to support participation in life. The framework replaces the 1994 Uniform Terminology 3rd edition.
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This taxonomy has 135 categories and subcategories in a bulleted outline format. There are two main sections (domain and process) with each section containing four levels and one section further breaking down into five levels.
Examples of Categories:
• DOMAIN
o Performance in Areas of Occupation
ADL
• Bathing
• Bowel and bladder management
• Dressing
• Eating
• Feeding
• Functional mobility
• Personal device care
• Personal hygiene and grooming
• Sexual activity
• Sleep/Rest
• Toilet hygiene
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
32. Stages
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2000
Author(s): Pugliese, M. K.
Reference: Pugliese, M. K. (2000). Stages: A framework for alternative assessment. Closing the Gap, 18(6), 6-7, 29.
Pugliese, M. K. (2001). Stages: An alternative curriculum and assessment philosophy. Special Education Technology Practice, 3(4), 17-26.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This is a theoretical framework (with software) that organizes resources and assessment materials to document student growth and development with implications of technology use. This model facilitates the identification of appropriate technologies for each stage of learning. In Stage 1, Cause and Effect, the learner begins to use an appropriate input device for the computer. This is the first step in the learning process. In Stage 2, Language Readiness, the learner is exposed to language. In Stage 3, Emerging Language, the learner demonstrates an understanding of language through object identification and categorization. Convergent and divergent thinking skills are introduced. In Stage 4, Early Concepts, the learner uses the language skills that were introduced in earlier stages to progress toward academic readiness. In Stage 5, Advanced Concepts and Communication, the majority of the learners' academic growth occurs. Stage 6, Functional Learning, applies academic concepts to the real world. In Stage 7, Written Expression, the learner works toward mastering writing skills.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 18
Components and Levels: This model is comprised of 7 components broken down into two parts. Each stage is numbered with the text representing the box. The first three stages are part one and the second four stages are part two.
Examples of Categories:
I. Language Foundation
a. Cause and Effect
b. Language Readiness
c. Emerging Language
II. Academic Discovery
a. Early concepts
b. Advanced Concepts
c. Functional Learning
d. Written Expression
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents the developmental pattern of a learner. The first three stages are sequential and the last four stages work together to reflect the learner's complimentary academic skills. From one to seven the stages are "cause and effect," "language readiness," "emerging language," "early concepts," "advanced concepts," "functional learning," and "written expression." The first three stages represent language foundation and the last four stages that work together represent academic discovery.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure has four squares lined up in a horizontal row. The first square is labeled underneath the picture "Cause and Effect". The second square is named "Language Readiness", and the third square is named "Emerging Language". The fourth square is "Early Concepts". Between each of the squares is an arrow pointing to the right. In the first square is a picture of a hand and an input device switch, as well as the number one. The second square has a number two, as well as a picture of a little girl and a thought bubble with a pair of lips in it. The third box has a number three, as well as three children's blocks. The fourth square has a number four, as well as a chalk board with a drawing of two dogs. To the right of the fourth box are four arrows pointing in opposite directions; up, down, right, and left. To the right of this set of arrows is a box, which has a number seven, and a small computer with "My Story" written on the screen, as well as a hand. This square is labeled "Written Expression". Above the arrow pointing upward is a square with a number five inside, and a light bulb. The square has the label "Advanced Concepts". Underneath the arrow pointing downward is a square with a number six, in addition to a clock and a stop sign. Underneath this square is the label "Functional Learning". Underneath the first three squares "Cause and Effect", "Language Readiness", and "Emerging Language" is the label "Language Foundation". Underneath the four remaining squares, "Early Concepts", "Advanced Concepts", "Functional Learning" and "Written Expression", is the label "Academic Discovery".
33. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR)
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1993
Author(s): National Institute of Health (NIH)
Reference: Research plan for the national center for medical rehabilitation research. (1993). National Institute of Health: United States Department of Health and Human Services. NIH Publication No.: 93-3509.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The NCMRR model adds emphasis to the importance of the environment by adding a category called societal limitations to account for restrictions that society places on individuals and that limit their ability to participate independently in tasks, activities, and roles.
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 28
Components and Levels: This model is composed of 3 components with 6 subcomponents.
Examples of Categories:
I. Personal background factors
a. Organic
b. Psychosocial
c. Environmental
II. The person and the rehab process
III. Quality of life
a. Survival
b. Productivity
c. Social and work relationships
IV. Life span issues
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model emphasizes the individual person and successful reintegration and functioning in the community as the central focus of the medical rehabilitation process. This model starts at the top with personal background factors which include organic, psychosocial, and environmental factors in three overlapping circles. At the bottom of the diagram is quality of life which includes survival, productivity, and social and work relationships in three overlapping circles. In the middle of the model is the person and the rehabilitation process, which is shown to interact with both personal background factors and quality of life. This model is shown to occur across the lifespan.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: At the top of the page is the label "personal background factors" underlined. Under this heading are three overlapping circles. One circle has the word "organic," another has the word "psychosocial," and the third has the word "environmental." Directly below these three circles is a vertical double sided arrow. Following this arrow is the phrase "The person and the rehabilitation process." Then there is another vertical double sided arrow and then the label "quality of life" underlined. Beneath this heading are three overlapping circles, one with the term "survival," one with "productivity," and one with "social work and relationships." At the very bottom of the page is a horizontal arrow going from left to right. Within the arrow on the left is the word "birth" and within the arrow on the right are the words "old age." Beneath the arrow is the label "life span."
34. Social-Cognitive Model of Assistive Device (AD) Use in Older Persons
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2002
Author(s): Roelands, M., Van Oost, P., Depoorter, A., & Buysse, A.
Reference: Roelands, M., Van Oost, P., Depoorter, A., & Buysse, A. (2002). A social-cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. Gerontologist, 42(9), 39-50.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: A tentative model is described, incorporating some of the factors that are involved in community dwelling elderly persons’ use of assistive devices. The framework is the social-cognitive theory of planned behavior which takes into consideration the influence of personal evaluations (attitudes), perceived social pressure (subjective norms), and perceived behavioral control in predicting the intention to perform a specific behavior. This is also referred to as an expectancy value model, and helps predict and understand health-related behaviors, i.e. alcohol consumption, dietary behavior, exercise adherence, etc. When this can be modified to assistive devices, concepts can be organized at four levels: 1) actual use of assistive device, 2) intention to use assistive device, 3) intention to use device by following variables: the person’s attitude toward the use of ADs, the AD self efficacy, and the subjective norm regarding ADs, and 4) awareness of AD use.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 48
Components and Levels: This model has 7 components listed in text bubbles that are connected by lines.
Examples of Categories:
I. Awareness of AD
II. Attitudes towards AD use
III. Self-efficacy regarding AD use
IV. Subjective norm regarding AD use
V. Intention to use AD
VI. Functional status
VII. AD use
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model links elderly individuals' awareness of assistive devices (AD) with their attitudes towards AD use and the subjective norm regarding AD use. This is then linked to their intention to use AD, their self-efficacy regarding AD use, and their actual AD use and functional status. For each link made within this model a correlation coefficient is presented. The strongest positive correlation is between self-efficacy regarding AD use and the intention to use AD with a coefficient r of .47. The next strongest positive correlation is between AD use and functional status with a coefficient r of .40.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: At the top of the page, on the left side, there is a rounded rectangle entitled "Awareness of AD." A horizontal line extends from the left side of this rectangle to another rounded rectangle entitled "Attitude towards AD Use." A diagonal line extends from the same point as the horizontal line, from the "Awareness of AD" rectangle downward to a rectangle entitled "Subjective Norm Regarding AD Use." A diagonal line extends upward from the center of the right side of this rectangle to another rectangle labeled "Intention to use AD." A diagonal line extends downward from the "Attitude towards AD use" rectangle to the "Intention to use AD" rectangle. A horizontal line from a rectangle labeled "self-efficacy regarding AD use" also leads to the left side of the "Intention to use AD" rectangle. The "Attitude towards AD use", "Self-efficacy regarding AD Use", and "Subjective Norm Regarding AD Use" rectangles are lined up in a vertical column in this order. From the "Intention to Use AD" rectangle a horizontal line extends to the right to a rectangle entitled "AD Use'. A diagonal line extends downward from the left side of this rectangle to another rectangle entitled "Functional Status".
35. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1992
Author(s): Scherer, M. J.
Reference: Scherer, M. J. (1994). Matching people with technology. Rehabilitation Management, 7(2), 128-130.
Scherer, M. J., & Craddock, G. (2002). Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology & Disability, 14, 125-131.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The MPT model is a person-centered model that focuses on aspects of the person, milieu, and technology to determine the best device for an individual. "People" is divided into consumers and providers, milieu is described as physical/architectural and attitudinal/cultural, and technology is further categorized as services and products.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure
Components and Levels: There are 3 components to this model.
Examples of Categories:
I. Milieu
II. Personality
III. Technology
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents a person-centered model that focuses on aspects of the person, milieu, and technology to determine the best fit for the individual. The model is comprised of three circles overlapping each other in the middle. Each circle is split in half and labeled according to person, milieu, and technology.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: The top circle has the label "milieu" above it. The circle is split in half with the left side reading physical/architectural and the right side reading attitudinal/cultural. The circle down and to the slight right is split in half and reads products on the left and services on the right. This circle has the label "technology" to the right side of it. The last circle, directly left of the technology circle, is split in half and reads consumers on the left and providers on the right. This circle has the label "people" to the left side of it.
36. The A3 Model (Advocacy, Accommodation, and Accessibility)
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1999
Author(s): Schwanke, T., Smith, R., & Edyburn, D.
Reference:
Schwanke, T., Smith, R., & Edyburn, D. (2001). A3 model diagram developed as accessibility and universal design instructional tool. Paper presented at the RESNA 24th International Conference on Technology and Disability: Research, Design, Practice, & Policy, Reno, Nevada.
Smith, R.O., Edyburn, D., & Silverman, M.K. (1999). Using the AAA model for performing accessibility audits. Paper presented at the RESNA 22nd International Conference on Technology and Disability: Research, Design, Practice & Policy.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: A theoretical framework that seeks to describe a developmental process associated with efforts to provide access for individuals with disabilities to facilities, programs, and information. This model consists of three phases. In phase I, advocacy efforts raise awareness on inequity and highlight the need for system change to respond to the needs of individuals with disabilities. An organization only anticipates the needs of disabled people minimally. Phase 2 describes accommodations where inaccessible environments are modified or alternative solutions are made available. The organization anticipates needs and creates systems to assist people with disabilities. In phase 3, accessibility describes an environment where access is equitably provided to everyone at the same time. The concept of universal design is utilized in this phase, however, “true accessibility” is perceived as an unattainable goal due to many differences in environment and disabilities.
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 206
Components and Levels: 3 phases comprise this model as a function of time.
Examples of Categories:
I. Advocacy
II. Accommodation
III. Accessibility
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model depicts the theoretical relationships of advocacy, accommodation, and accessibility as strategies used to meet the needs of people with disabilities, and as a function of time. The model shows that in the first phase, the advocacy phase, there is a large amount of advocacy taking place, with a small amount of accommodation and a small amount of accessibility. In the second phase, the accommodation phase, advocacy is decreasing, while the amount of accommodation is much larger, and the amount of accessibility is increasing. In the final phase, the accessibility phase, the amount of accessibility is large, while the amount of accommodation is small, and the amount of advocacy is small.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: Title: “A3 Model and transition of approach”. A 100% stacked area chart represents three phases. The y-axis is labeled “A systems overall approach at any point in time: expressed as the proportions of the three strategies used to meet the needs of people with disabilities.” The x-axis has an arrow from left to right labeled “Projected transition in overall approach with time”. The left side says “worst” and the right “better”. Advocacy (shown in black) forms the bottom of the stack. To the far left, it represents the majority of the approach. It falls off with time until it represents a small portion of the approach. Accommodation (shown in white) forms the middle layer. It starts out as a small portion, grows to become a majority, and then tapers off to a small portion again. Accessibility (shown in black) forms the top and final layer. It starts as a small portion and has the opposite trend of advocacy, increasing with time until it represents the majority. The chart is divided up into three different phases. The leftmost is the “Advocacy Phase,” in which advocacy dominates and accommodation and accessibility represent small, but increasing, portions. The center is the “Accommodation Phase,” in which accommodation dominates, advocacy decreases, and accessibility increases with time. The rightmost is the “Accessibility Phase,” in which accessibility grows to be dominant, with both accommodation and advocacy contributing smaller and smaller portions over time. The rightmost phase is the “Accessibility Phase,” in which accessibility dominates, and accommodation and advocacy contribute small portions. Each phase is divided by a dotted vertical line.
37. A Balance Theory of Job Design for Stress Reduction
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1989
Author(s): Smith, M., & Sainfort, P.
Reference: Smith, M., & Sainfort, P. (1989). A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4, 67-7
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model states that working conditions produce a stress load on the person. That load can have both physical and mental strain consequences such as back pain or adverse mood state. The stress load is influenced by both individual perceptions and objective properties independent of the perception of those properties. When the load becomes too great the person displays stress responses which are emotions, behaviors, and biologic reactions that are maladaptive. When these reactions occur frequently over a prolonged time period they lead to health disorders.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 75
Components and Levels: There are 5 components to this model.
Examples of Categories:
I. Technology
II. Organization
III. Environment
IV. Task
V. Person
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model conceptualizes the various elements of a work system, or the loads that working conditions can exert on workers. At the center of the model is the individual with his/her physical characteristics, perceptions, personality and behavior. The individual has technologies available to perform specific job tasks. The tasks with their technologies are carried out in a certain a physical or social environment and an organizational structure defines the nature and level of individual involvement, interaction and control. All of these things, the person, technology, task, environment and organizational structure, work together and influence each other.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: A rectangle is located in each of the four corners of this figure. The top left rectangle is titled, "Technology" and has a computer in the right corner of the rectangle. The rectangle located in the right rectangle is labeled "Organization" with a picture of a flow chart in the right corner. In the bottom right corner is a rectangle labeled "Environment" with a picture of people and rain drops. The rectangle in the bottom left corner is labeled "Task" and has a picture of a person, seated while completing a table top task. These four rectangles are connected by two-way arrows, forming a rectangle around the center of the figure. Another rectangle is located in the center for this figure with the label, "Person" with a picture of a person. Two-way arrows lead from this center rectangle to the other rectangles. Two arrows extend from the two-way arrow between the "Technology" and "Person" rectangles leading to the "Organization" and "Task" rectangles. Two arrows also extend from the two-way arrow between "Task" and "Person", leading to the "Technology" and "Environment" rectangles.
38. Client-Centered Model for Equipment Prescription
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1995
Author(s): Smith, R.
Reference: Smith, R. (1995). A client-centered model for equipment prescription: Client's values and roles, effective use of adaptive equipment. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 9(4), 39-52.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This client centered model focuses on client's values, interests, and goals in prescribing equipment. The therapist uses clinical reasoning to determine actual problems to be addressed based on interaction with the client. Then, uses the client's goals to determine which performance components could be improved, identifies ways to optimize client's strengths, and considers compensatory methods which lead to improved performance. If compensatory methods alone cannot meet the client's goals, then simple equipment is considered. The equipment must provide a valued function for that individual. The assessment process must consider the personal, cultural, and physical aspects of the planned environment, as well as the clients and families abilities to cope and plan for life with disability. Therapists must identify client's planned roles and activities to base treatment on the client's lifestyle. This model can be applied to a variety of individuals and families and can be modified to increase family involvement or to focus on self-directing individuals with orthopedic problems.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 45
Components and Levels: In this model are 5 components and 17 subcomponents organized with arrows.
Examples of Categories:
I. Assessment
a. Client values
b. Client interests
c. Client goals
d. Client problems
e. Client strengths
f. Planned client environment
g. Planned client roles
II. Treatment
a. Improve problems
b. Maximize strengths
c. Introduce compensation
d. Introduce equipment
e. Reestablish sense of control
f. Document for reimbursement
III. Reassessment
IV. Discharge
V. Outcome Data
a. Continued use of equipment
b. Level of function
c. Perceived need
d. Perceived benefit
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model focuses on the client's values, interests, and goals. The therapist determines the problems that will be addressed based on his/her interaction with the client and then using the client's goals the therapist determines which performance components could be improved. The therapist identifies ways to optimize and use the client's strengths and considers compensatory methods which could lead to improved performance. If compensatory methods are not sufficient the therapist introduces equipment that provides a valued function for that individual and that considers the personal, cultural, and physical aspects of the planned environment. This model then shows the reassessment, discharge, and outcome data that follow. It is shown in the model that all of these stages can occur at different points in time.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model is titled "Client-Centered Model for Equipment Prescription". At the top of the figures is a large white rectangle. This rectangle has the title "Assessment" in the top left corner, and the words "Client Values, Client Interests, Client Goals, Client Problems, Client Strengths, Planned Client Environment, and Planned Client Roles" are underneath the title. An arrow points downward from this rectangle to another rectangle of the same size. An arrow points up from this second rectangle to the first rectangle. This second rectangle is titled "Treatment" in the top left corner. The words "Improve Problems, Maximize Strengths, Introduce Compensation, Introduce Equipment, Reestablish sense of Control, and Document for Reimbursement" are listed underneath the title. An arrow points downward from this second rectangle to a small rectangle with the word "Reassessment" inside of it. An arrow points upward from this rectangle as well. An arrow points downward from the "Reassessment" rectangle to another small rectangle labeled "discharge". An arrow descends down from this rectangle to a larger rectangle with the title "Outcome Data" in the left corner, and the words "Continued use of equipment, level of function, perceived need, and perceived benefit" follow underneath the title.
39. Subjective and Objective Dimensions of Outcome Data
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1998
Author(s): Smith, R. O.
Reference: Smith, R. O. (1998). Accountability in assistive technology interventions-measuring outcomes. RESNA Resource Guide for Assistive Technology Outcomes: Measurement Tools, 1, 14-42.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model presents a three dimensional block which illustrates that cost of AT is dependent on the consumer's perceived price of a product in the context of the customer's perceived product value. This value is dependent on intervention, personal, and support performance as well as subjective and objective outcome data.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 25
Components and Levels: This model consists of 2 components and 4 subcomponents. They are arranged in a divided box.
Examples of Categories:
2 Main Components:
I. Subjective Outcome Data
II. Objective Outcome Data
4 Subcomponents:
I. Intervention Performance
II. Personal Performance
III. Support Performance
IV. Cost
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure shows a cube split in half with the front representing objective outcome data and the back representing subjective outcome data. The two sides parallel each other in terms of content. The content of each side includes the four outcome dimensions which are personal performance, intervention performance, support performance, and cost. In this representation the cost is in a block on the bottom, and intervention, personal, and support performance on top with personal in the very middle. All of these dimensions can be measured both in terms of subjective outcomes as well as in terms of objective data, which is why the model is double sided.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model is three dimensional cube. The top of the cube is divided into 4 equal squares. The back two squares are darkly shaded, and the front two squares are white. An arrow facing to the right points to the left, back shaded square with the words "Subjective Outcome Data" written in front of it. Another arrow points the left white square with the words "Objective Outcome Data" written in front of it. The front side of the square is divided into four sections. Two vertical rectangles cover most of the square, and a narrow, horizontal rectangle covers the bottom square. This bottom rectangle is labeled "Cost", while the left vertical rectangle is labeled "Intervention Performance" and the right vertical Rectangle is labeled "Support Performance". A small vertical rectangle is centered on top of the two rectangles with the words "Personal Performance" written in it. The right side of the cube is divided into 4 rectangles, two vertical, rectangles at the top, and two small horizontal rectangles at the bottom.
40. Increasing Complexity of Assistive Technology Accountability
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1998
Author(s): Smith, R. O.
Reference: Smith, R. O. (1998). Accountability in assistive technology interventions-measuring outcomes. RESNA Resource Guide for Assistive Technology Outcomes: Measurement Tools, 1, 14-42.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: A model designed to illustrate that measuring the effectiveness of assistive technology is simple. However, in its context outcome measurement multiplies in difficulty. This model highlights the increasing complexity of outcome questions: Does the assistive technology device work?, Which assistive technology device works best?, Which interventions work best, resulting in the assistive technology device working best?, and Which assistive technology device works best when compared to other devices, with which services and in which environments?
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 16
Components and Levels: There are 4 components to this model in question form.
Examples of Categories:
I. Does the AT device work?
II. Which AT device works best?
III. Which interventions work best, resulting in the AT device working best?
IV. Which At device works best when compared to other devices, with which services and in which environments?
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents the increasing complexity of measuring assistive technology outcomes. The model is comprised of four outcome questions of increasing difficulty.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure is titled "Increasing Complexity of Assistive Technology Accountability". Four rectangles, of decreasing size as they descend, are arranged in a column with a single line connecting the rectangles vertically. The top rectangle is labeled "Does the assistive technology device work?" The second rectangle is labeled "Which assistive technology device works best? (Comparing two or more assistive technologies)". The third rectangle is labeled "Which interventions work best, resulting in the assistive technology device working best? (comparing assistive technology devices and possible combinations of services mixed together)". The fourth, bottom rectangle has the words "Which assistive technology device works best when compared to other devices, with which series and in which environments?".
41. Integrated Multi-Intervention Paradigm for Assessment and Application of Concurrent Treatments (IMPACT2) Model (previously called "The 8 Approaches"
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2002
Author(s): Smith, R. O.
Reference: Smith, R. O. (2002). Assistive technology outcome assessment prototypes: Measuring INGO variables of outcomes. Paper presented at the RESNA 25th International Conference on Technology & Disability: Research, Design, Practice & Policy, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: This model considers six stages to describe the outcomes of interventions: 1) Pre-Intervention, 2) Context, 3) Baseline, 4) Intervention Approaches, 5) Outcome Covariates, 6) Outcomes. The Pre-Intervention stage consists of applying universal design concepts or health promotion to improve functional performance. The context consists of the interaction of the person, task and environment. The next stage, Baseline, is measured by an individual's function, specifically performance, quality of life and participation. There are six components to the intervention stage. The Outcome Covariates identify potential precursor variables of satisfaction of devices and services, dissatisfaction of devices or services, and use and discontinuance of assistive technologies. The final stage, Outcomes, involves measurement of the individual's function to determine the outcome of the intervention. The model also considers cost as well as the six interventions. Isolation of the intervention is important as well as considering the pre-intervention, the person, task, environment context throughout the process.
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 240
Components and Levels: This model consists of 4 primary components and 11 subcomponents. They are listed in horizontal boxes and are situated in a linear fashion.
Examples of Categories:
I. Context
a. Environment
b. Person
c. Task
II. Baseline
a. Functional performance
III. Intervention Approaches
a. Reduce impairment
b. Compensate for impairment
c. Use AT devices and services
d. Redesign activity
e. Redesign environment
f. Use personal assistance
IV. Outcome
a. Enhanced functional performance
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure represents the four major components of successful measurement outcomes, which progress from left to right as the context, the baseline functioning of the client, the interventions, and measuring the outcome. The model portrays the context as the first thing that needs to be considered when assessing an individual. The next thing that should be assessed is the baseline functional performance of the individual, or how they are functioning at the time of the assessment. The next thing to consider is the type of intervention approach to use of which there are six: a) reduce the impairment, b) compensate for the impairment, c) use assistive technology devices and services, d) redesign the activity, e) redesign the environment, and f) use personal assistance. Once one or more of these interventions is implemented the model looks at the outcome, which ideally enhanced functional performance.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model is titled “Assessment Prototypes”. There are four components in a flowchart from left to right connected by arrows. The first is “Context” and below are written “Task”, “Environment”, and “Person”. The second is “Baseline” and below is written “Functional Importance”. The third is “Intervention approaches” and below are listed, from top to bottom “Reduce the impairment”, “Compensate for the impairment”, “Use AT devices and services”, “Redesign the activity”, “Redesign the environment”, and “Use personal assistance”. The fourth is labeled “Outcome” and below is written “Enhanced functional performance”.
42. Human Environment/Technology Interface (HETI) Model
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1991
Author(s): Smith, R. O.
Reference: Smith, R. O. (1991). Technological approaches to performance enhancement. In C. Baum & C. Christiansen (Eds.), Occupational therapy: Overcoming human performance deficits (pp. 747-786). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The HETI model is based on a classical engineering model which identifies how successful an individual is at interacting with the environment. In order to successfully interact with the environment, the person must have a means to receive information from the environment as well as the ability to process and apply it. An individual does this through use of his/her sensory (input), cognitive (processing) and motor (output) systems. If there is an impairment in any of the three areas, the individual has difficulty interacting with the environment. The environment acts in a similar way as the person in it needs a method of: input, application and output. It too can have impairments such as in the following example: if a computer contains only a visual screen and no auditory sounds, it is not accessible for everyone especially someone who is visually impaired. A service provider requires the skills to decrease impairments of the person, the environment or to provide adaptive equipment in order to improve the "interface" between the person and the environment.
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 25
Components and Levels: There are 8 components to this model.
Examples of Categories:
I. Human Processing
II. Human Output
III. Interface
IV. Environment/Technology Input
V. Environment/Technology Application
VI. Environment/Technology Output
VII. Interface
VIII. Human Input
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model is a split circle with the person in the top half and the environment in the bottom half. The model shows how the individual must be able to receive input from the environment in order to interact with it. In addition, the environment must have a method of input, application, and output. In this sense, the environment may also have a "disability" according to the HETI model. This model points out that there is an interface function that is used to optimize the interactions between persons or environments with disabilities. In the diagram this is represented by hash marks with the word interface in the lines going from the human to the environment.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: From the top of this figure are the words "Human Processing (Cognition)". A picture of a face and neck are located under these words and the picture is labeled "Human". From the right of the "Human Processing" text is a curved arrow leading to the words "Human Output (Motion)". An arrow leads downward to the right to the words "Environment/Technology Input". In the middle of the arrow is the word "Interface". A curved arrow, pointing to the left leads to the words "Environment/Technology Application". Above this text are the pictures of a building, a computer and two faces. These pictures are labeled "Environment/Technology". A curved arrow leads from the "Environment/Technology Application" text upward to the words "Environment/Technology Output". An arrow leads upward to the left to the words "Human Input (Sensation)". In the middle of this arrow is the word "Interface". A curved arrow leads from the "Human Input (Sensation)" text back to the "Human Processing (Cognition)" text.
43. Human Occupational Performance Practice Integration Theory (HOPPIT)
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1990
Author(s): Smith, R. O.
Reference: Smith, R. O. (1999). OT FACT application in mental health. In B.J. Hemphill (Ed.), Mental health assessment in occupational therapy: An integrative approach to the evaluative process. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The HOPPIT Model is a hierarchy of four levels, depicting an individual's functional areas. Integrated Roles of Performance is at the top of the hierarchy. Underneath integrated roles is Activities of Performance, consisting of personal care activities and occupational role related activities. The third level is Integrated Skills of Performance, which includes motor, sensory motor, cognitive, social, and psychological integration skills. The lowest level of the hierarchy is Underlying Components of Performance, including neuromuscular, sensory awareness, cognitive, social, and psychological components. On the perimeter of the individual's function, are Environmental and Therapeutic Interventions, which can target any of the four levels of individual performance. The final domain of the HOPPIT model lies over the Activities of Performance level, and is the Co-Variates of Performance. This includes Skill and Component Co-Variates and Task attribute Co-Variates.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 32
Components and Levels: This model contains 3 components and 4 subcomponents. Examples are given under each.
Examples of Categories:
I. Environment
II. Individual
a. Integrated roles of performance
b. Activities of performance
c. Integrated skills of performance
d. Underlying components of performance
III. Therapy intervention
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents the relationship of outcome assessment areas. The center of the model is the individual, which includes four levels of functional performance. These four levels increase from lowest to highest and include components of performance, integrated skills of performance one level up, activities of performance another level up, and integrated roles of performance at the top. On one side of the individual performance is the environment, which includes social support systems, financial support systems, orthotics, assistive technology, and other. On the other side of the individual performance is therapy intervention. This comprehensive model of outcome shows that the individual's overall performance is dependent on the full combination of the environment, the individual and the therapeutic interventions.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure is titled "Relationship of Outcome Assessment Areas". Three vertical rectangles comprise this figure. The left rectangle is titled "ENVIRONMENT" Underneath this title are the words "e.g.", "Social Support System", "Financial Support System", "Orthotics", and "Assistive Technology". The Center rectangle is larger in size and is titled "INDIVIDUAL" Underneath this title are 4 horizontal rectangles, connected by a vertical line. The first rectangle has the words "INTEGRATED ROLES OF PERFORMANCE" in it. The second rectangle is titled "ACTIVITIES OF PERFORMANCE". Underneath this titles are the words "Personal Care Activities" and "Occupational Role Related Activities". The third rectangle is titled "INTEGRATED SKILLS OF PERFORMANCE". Underneath this title are the words "Motor Integrations Skills", "Sensory Motor Integration Skills", "Cognitive Integration Skills", "Social Integrations Skills" and "Psychological Integrations Skills". The fourth rectangle is titled "Underlying Components of Performance". Underneath this title are the words "Neuromuscular Components", "Sensory Awareness Components', "Cognitive Components", "Social Components" and "Psychological Components". A picture of a person is located underneath this last rectangle. The third vertical rectangle is titled "THERAPY INTERVENTION". Underneath this title are the words "e.g.", "Sensory Integrations", "ADL Training", "Self ROM", "Work Hardening". A line extends from the right and left side of each of the four horizontal rectangles located in the center, vertical rectangle to the two other vertical rectangles. A curved line leads from the bottom of the left and right vertical rectangles to the person located in the center, vertical rectangle.
44. Taxonomy of Quality of Life
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 1996
Author(s): Spilker, B.
Reference: Spilker, B. (1996). Quality of Life and Prarmoacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The taxonomy proposed suggests that there are two main types of quality of life: health related quality of life and non-health related quality of life. Health related quality of life (HRQL) represents those parts of quality of life that directly relate to an individual's health.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This taxonomy consists of two main components: health-related quality of life (HRQL) and non-health-related quality of life. Within each component are four total levels.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway
1. NHRQL
a. Personal-internal
i. Values and beliefs
1. individual factors
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
45. AOTA Uniform Terminology
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 0
Author(s): American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA)
Reference: Uniform terminology for reporting occupational therapy services. (1979). Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: Detailed grid consisting of performance areas and components that provides a framework for the program planning process.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: The UT3 has 120 components and subcomponents in a numbered outline format. It contains three main sections (performance areas, performance components, and performance context) with a maximum of five levels.
Examples of Categories:
II. PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS
a. Sensory
i. Sensory Awareness
ii. Sensory Processing
1. Tactile
2. Proprioceptive
3. Vestibular
4. Visual
5. Auditory
6. Gustatory
7. Olfactory
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
46. Wiles Model of Human Performance Technology
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1996
Author(s): Wile, D.
Reference: Wile, D. (1996). Why doers do. Performance and Instruction, 35(2), 30-35.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: Wile's model suggests that performance can be affected by seven variables 1. organizational systems, 2. incentives, 3. cognitive support, 4. tools, 5. physical environment, 6. skills/knowledge, and 7. inherent ability. The variables can be classified into two parts: those that are internal to the performer and those that are external. The external elements are further divided into a performer's environment and a performer's resources. Organizational systems and incentives are environmental components that are external to the performer. Cognitive support, tools, and physical environment are resources external to the performer. Skills/knowledge and inherent ability are internal to the performer. This model suggests that technology is not a simple panacea for remediating performance problems.
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 33
Components and Levels: This model consists of 12 components and 30 subcomponents fashioned in a hierarchal flowchart format.
Examples of Categories:
I. PERFORMANCE
a. External to performer
i. Environmental (Intangibles)
1. Org Systems
2. Incentives
ii. Resources (Tangibles)
1. Cognitive Support
2. Tools
3. Physical Env
b. Internal to performer
i. Skills/Knowledge
ii. Inherent Ability
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model provides support in assessing performance problems as well as explaining those assessments to clients. The top of the model is divided into external, occurring outside of the body, and internal, occurring inside the body, human performance factors. The external factors are then divided into environment and performer's resources. Environment, performance resources, and internal factors are then divided further into less discrete human performance elements, such as organizational systems, incentives, cognitive support, tools, physical environment, skills and knowledge, and inherent ability. Examples of each of these are provided below its heading.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: A hierarchal flowchart is shown. At the top is “performance” with arrows leading to “external to performer” and “internal to performer”. From “internal” are two arrows leading to “6: skills/knowledge” and “7: inherent ability”. Below “6” are listed “training”, “on-the-job training”, and “self-study”. Below “7” are listed “intelligence”, “emotional ability”, “physical attributes”, “education”, “artistic gifts”, and “internal motivation”. “External” has two arrows pointing to “environmental (intangibles)” and “resources (tangibles)”. From “environmental” are two arrows. One leading to “1: org systems” and the other leading to “2: incentives”. Below “1” are listed “clear goals”, “job design”, “clear policies”, “authority”, “appropriate workload”, and “access to right people”. Below “2” are “compensation”, “feedback”, “positive reinforcement”, and “interesting, meaningful work”. From “resources” are three branches. One goes to “3: cognitive support” and below this is “job aids” and “documentation”. The second is “4: tools” and below this is “computers”, “software”, “VCRs”, “calculators”, and “automobiles”. The third is “5: physical environment” and below are “noise”, “light”, “temperature”, and “physical layout”.
47. Lifespace Access Profile
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 1992
Author(s): Williams, W. B., Stemach, G., Wolfe, S., & Stanger, C.
Reference: Williams, W. B., Stemach, G., Wolfe, S., & Stanger, C. (1995). Lifespace access profile: Assistive technology assessment planning for individuals with severe or multiple disabilities. Irvine, CA: Lifespace Access Assistive Technology Systems.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The Lifespace Access Profile is a client-centered, team-based collection of observations that point to next steps in a comprehensive program utilizing technology. It turns the overwhelming task of determining how technology can benefit individuals with physical disabilities into a systematic, co-operative search for solutions that work. The original Lifespace Access Profile was developed in 1992 to answer the need to “match” a severe or multiply disabled individual and his/her needs to the growing number of assistive devices that were on the market. In 1994 the authors added an “upper extension” to address the needs of the group of physically handicapped individuals who are cognitively normal or above. In 1998 the group is offering the Lifespace Profile in a computer program.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This taxonomy is divided into five main components with each component having a total of three levels. The main components are followed by a profile summary and reports.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway
1. PHYSICAL
a. Health and attendance (rate 0-10)
i. explanation of rating result
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
48. Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI): Assessing Students' Needs for Assistive Technology (ASNAT)
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 1998
Author(s): Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI)
Reference: Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI). (1998). Assessing students' needs for assistive technology (ASNAT) (3rd ed.). Oshkosh, WI: WATI.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The mission of the Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative is to ensure that every child in Wisconsin who needs assistive technology (AT) will have equal and timely access to an appropriate evaluation and the provision and implementation of any needed AT devices and services. A primary goal is to improve the outcomes and results for children and youth with disabilities through the use of assistive technology to access school programs and curriculum. The project is designed to increase the capacity of school districts to provide assistive technology services by making training and technical assistance available to teachers, therapists, administrators and parents throughout Wisconsin.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: This is a guide broken down into 10 main components each structured a bit differently. 6 of these are specific to AT evaluation. Within these components are subcomponents with approximately 4 levels, the number of which varies.
Examples of Categories:
Sample Pathway
I. AT FOR WRITING, INCLUDING COMPUTER ACCESS
a. AT and writing
i. Low tech adaptations to improve handwriting
1. Try different paper
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
49. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH)
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 1980
Author(s): Wood, P.
Reference: Wood, P. (1980). Appreciating the consequences of disease: The international classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. World Health Organization Chronicle, 34, 376-380.
International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. (1980). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Website: N/A
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: Taxonomy created by the World Health Organization as standardized terminology to be used in a broad epidemiological study of the consequences of disease. Created in response to a shift in the focus of medicine. Reduced mortality, increased longevity, and survival of those impaired with congenital illness spawned the creation of this taxonomy,
Is it AT specific?: No
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 30
Components and Levels: There are 4 components to this taxonomy.
Examples of Categories:
I. Disease or Disorder (intrinsic situation)
II. Impairment (exteriorized)
III. Disability (objectified)
IV. Handicap (socialized)
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model represents the progression of disease or disorder, to impairment, to disability, and then to handicap, as seen by the ICIDH. Although this model is represented in a linear fashion, it does not always occur this way, which also represented in the model by an underscoring arrow going from impairment to handicap. This can occur without the mediating disability.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: Starting from the left of the figure are the words "DISEASE or DISORDER (Intrinsic situation)". An arrow leads from these words and points to the right to the word "IMPAIRMENT (exteriorized)". Another arrow leads from these words to the right and points to the words "DISABILITY (objectified)", and a third arrow leads to the words "HANDICAP (socialized)". Another arrow leads from the word "IMPAIRMENT" to the word "HANDICAP".
50. International Classification of Functioning (ICF)
Type (model or taxonomy): Taxonomy
Year: 2001
Author(s): World Health Organization
Reference: World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
International classification of functioning, disability, and health (2001). World Health Organization. Retrieved 4/15/2003, from the World Wide Web: http:www3.who.int
Website: http://www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The overall aim of the classification is to provide a unified and standard language and framework for the description of health and health related states. Moves away from being a "consequences of disease" classification to become a "components of health" classification. Takes a neutral stand with regards to etiology so that researchers can draw causal inferences using appropriate scientific methods.
Is it AT specific?: Somewhat
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): Figure on pg. 18
Components and Levels: This taxonomy has 5 levels and is structured in a hierarchal format. There are 17 components with two main parts.
Examples of Categories:
I. ICF
a. Functioning and disability
i. Body Functions & Structures
1. Change in body function
a. Item levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th)
2. Change in body structure
a. Item levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th)
i. Activities & Participation
1. Capacity
a. Item levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th)
2. Performance
a. Item levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th)
b. Contextual Factors
i. Environmental Factors
1. Facilitator/barrier
a. Item levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, & 4th)
ii. Personal Factors
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This model provides a multi-perspective approach to the classification of functioning and disability as an interactive and evolutionary process. It shows the interaction of the components of the ICF and how they relate to each other. The diagram how each component is on a different level in a sort of hierarchy. Each component has a subcomponent that directly relates and further details the main component. This classification specifies the problem right down to the exact item that is causing it.
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure: This figure begins at the top with a box labeled "ICF.". The figure takes the form of a family tree from this point, where the branching represents the different levels of the ICF. It branches downwards into two parts, Part 1: Functioning and Disability on the left and Part 2: Contextual Factors on the right. Part 1 then branches off into two more boxes. The box on the left is labeled "body functions and structures" and the box on the right is labeled "activities and participation." Body functions and structures then breaks off into two more boxes titled "change in body function" on the left and "change in body structure" on the right. Both of these boxes has one more branch off of it that is labeled "Item levels, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and 4th." Activities and participation branches off similar to body functions and structures. There are two boxes that branch off of activities and participation and they are labeled "capacity" on the left and "performance" on the right. These two boxes also have a branch each that is labeled "Item levels, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and 4th." Part 2 also branches off into two boxes, which are labeled "environmental factors" and "personal factors." Environmental factors has one branch off of it labeled "facilitator/barrier" which in turn has a branch labeled "Item levels, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and 4th."
51. The Student, the Environment, the Tasks, and the Tools (SETT)
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 1995
Author(s): Zabala, J. S.
Reference: Zabala, J. S. (2002). Resources for assistive technology in education: About the SETT framework. 2006.
Website: https://web.archive.org/web/20081227210347/http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/JoySETT.html(Archived Copy)
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: The SETT model provides a framework to aid in gathering and organizing information that can be used to assist the AT team in making decisions. This model considers Student's unique needs and abilities, the Environment in which the student operates, and the Tasks required for the student to participate actively in the education setting, as well as the Tools needed by the student to address the tasks. Each stage consists of a sequence of guiding questions that assist team members in progressing through the stages of planning an educational program that includes AT.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: There are four main components to this model followed by 15 subcomponents in the form of questions.
Examples of Categories:
Four main components:
I. Student
II. Environments
III. Tasks
IV. Tools
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
52. The Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services
(QIAT Consortium)
Type (model or taxonomy): Model
Year: 2000
Author(s): Zabala, J. S.
Reference: Zabala, J. S. (2004). Quality Indicators fo Assistive Technology Services. 2006.
Website: https://web.archive.org/web/20090106152905/http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/QIAT.html(Archived Copy)
Brief Description of Model/Taxonomy: QIAT is a "set of descriptors of critical elements related to major functions involved in the provision of AT services". Quality indicators have been developed for six functions: 1) Administration, 2) Consideration, 3) Assessment, 4) Documentation in the IEP, 5) Intervention, and 6) Evaluation of Effectiveness. The primary purpose of QIAT is to "support thoughtful development, provision, and evaluation of assistive technology services for students with disabilities, regardless of where the services are provided or the specific model used." Also, services should address not only the needs of the student but also the needs of family members and school personnel who work with the students. The resultant set of descriptors can be used as a guide for: 1) school districts in development and provision AT services 2) AT service providers in the evaluation and improvement of their services 3) consumers of AT in the selection of AT services 4) university faculty and professional development providers in the delivery of AT service programs and 5) leaders in the development of regulations and policies related to the use of AT in education.
Is it AT specific?: Yes
Figure Location of Model/Taxonomy in Original Source (if applicable): No figure
Components and Levels: There are 6 quality indicators that comprise the QIAT.
Examples of Categories:
I. Quality indicators for administrative support
II. Quality indicators for consideration of AT needs
III. Quality indicators for assessment of AT needs
IV. Quality indicators for documentation in the IEP
V. Quality indicators for AT implementation
VI. Quality indicators for evaluation of effectiveness
Summary Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Detailed Text Description of Model/Taxonomy Figure:
Back to Models and Taxonomies Relating to Assistive Technology Report