ED 333 684

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 300 440

Vanderheiden, G. C.; And OthersTrace Authored Papers-AOTA 1989-90.Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Trace Center.National Inst. on Disability and RehabilitationResearch (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.90

G008300045; H133E8002122p.; A product of the Trace Research and DevelopmentCenter on Communication, Control and Computer Accessfor Handicapped Individuals.University of Wisconsin, TRACE Research & DevelopmentCenter, Waisman Center, 1500 Highland Ave., Madison,WI 53705-2280 ($3.80).Collected Works - General (020) -- Reports -Descriptive (141) -- Speeches/Conference Papers ;150)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

Communication Aids (for Disabled); Computer SoftwareDevelopment; Databases; *Disabilities; *EvaluationMethods; *Graduate Study; Microcomputers;*Occupational Therapy; *Rehabilitation;Specialization; Staff Role; Technology

IDENTIFIERS ABLEDATA Database; *Augmentative CommunicationSystems; University of Wisconsin Madison

ABSTRACT

This document brings together four papers from theAmerican Occupational Therapy Association Forum, authored byindividuals affiliated with the Trace R & D Center on Communication,Control and Computer Access for Handicapped Individuals. "TheCritical Role of Occupational Therapy in Augmentative CommunicationServices," by Jenifer Angelo and Roger 0. Smith, discusses the roleof the occupational therapist in technology applicatJon and trainingof such functions as seating/positioning, mobility, input/control

interfaces, output/display interfaces, conversational systems, andwriting systems. "Computerizing a System for Integrating andReporting Functional ALsessment" by Roger O. Smith outlines thedevelopment of a theory-i:ased functional assessment paradigm and aninstrument to advance occupational therapy functional assessment thatwould allow therapists to collect data using any reliable, validevaluation. "Technology Specialization for Occupational Therapists:Techspec Education Model," by Robert C. Christiaansen and others,describes a University of Wisconsin-Madison project to provideeducational opportunities for occupational therapy students in thearea of assistive and rehabilitation technologies. "Hyper-ABLEDATA:An Overview" by Marian Hall and Gregg C. Vanderheiden describes thespecial features of a microcomputer format of the ABLEDATA databaseof information on products useful to persons with disabilities.(JDD)

******************************************w****************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

race

ReprintSeries

Ziceentor

Trace R & D Centeron Communication, Control

and Computer Accessfor Handicapped Individuals

S-151 Waistnan CenterUniversity of Wisconsin-Madiw

1500 ifighland AvenueMatson, WI 53705

(608) 262-6966

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOffice ot Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

0'Th1s documenthas been reproduced as

received from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this dOCu,

ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

Trace Authored Papers-AOTA 1989-90

Vanderheiden, G.C., Smith, 13.0.1 Hall. M., Fox, LB.,Christiaansen, R.C., Angelo, J.D.

1990

Papers from the American Occupational TherapyAssociation Forum

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BER1 GRANTED BY

/ c

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

The Critical Role of Occupational Therapy 1

Computerizing A System 6

Technology Specialization for OTs 10

Hyper-ABLEDATA: An Overview 15

3

Scientific/Technical Session208-B

JeniferAngelo

Roger 0.Smith

Jenifer Angelo, PhD. OTR. iS a

Project Coordinator at the

University of Wisconsin-

Madison.

Roger 0. Smith. MOT OTR. iS

the Associate Dinctor of the

Thar Research Center at the

University of Wisconsin-

Madison.

The Critical Role ofOccupationalTherapy inAugmentativeCornmunicationServices

The overall purpose of augmentative communica-tion is for an individual to be able to transmit amessage through production-based or selection-based techniques (Fishman, 1987). Professionals

involved in the augmentative communication field includespeech pathologists, occupational therapists, and physicaltherapists. In some facilities, a rehabilitation engineer, spe-cial education teacher, and social worker may also beinvolved. This team works together to recommend a com-munication system for the client and a plan for its imple-mentation.

According to Rodgers (1985), there are 19 phases of aug-mentative communication services. Generally, these canbe summarized into five categories of services, including:.I . Screening2. Evaluating3. Selecting/recommending4. Acquiring the system/setting-up5. Following up

These five areas of augmentative communication serviceshave another dimension. In order for an augmentativecommunication system to be nvly workable, the five ser-vices need to occur in six functional areas. These are:I . Seating and positioning2. Mobility

I

4

Jentfer Angelo, Roger 0. Smith

3. Input/control interfaces4. Output/display interfaces5. Conversational systems6. Writing systems

The result is a 5x6 matrix of augmentativecommunication clinical functions as illus-trated in Figure I . Figure I also highlightswhat the authors perceive to be the currentinvolvement of occupational therapy in pro-viding these services.

There is a problem, however, in portrayingoccupational therapy involvement withaugmentative cornmunication services inthis way. The chart is a bit simplistic. It israre for an individual requiring an augmen-tative communication system to be evalu-ated and for an appropriate communicat onaid to be easily identified. More frequentlythan not, the ideal augmentative communi-cation system is elusive to even the mostexpert augmentative communication evalu-ation team. A primary reason is that at thetime of evaluation an individual may be ablephysically and cognitively to access a certainlimited augmentative communicationdevice, while with practice he might be ableto access a more powerful communicationsystem. Consequently, a recommendationbased only on current abilities can meanseriously underestimating the potential of

Figure 1Augmentative Communication SystemTechnology Application: Areas of Current OTInvolvement

Screen Enka*Woe

Recomendkw*%ND Fc mom*

Seerneoveoning X X X X X

Motley X X X X

ircuMoneoureerleces X X X

Ou IgNA/Dareey endues X X X

Convermeoner Symms X

Ming Symms X X X X

the individual and technology. The servicedelive,y process is not as simple as evaluat-ing, selecting, and implementing. Theresults of training an individual are of majorconsequence to the type of technologyrequired and the augmentative communica-tion system ultimately needed. Trainingskills must be integrated into augmentativecommunication services.

The concept of identifying the proper com-munication system while concurrently train-ing an individual to advance his abilities isacknowledged informally by most expertclinicians, but very little formal attentionhas been devoted to this technology-humanskill relationship. The Parallel InterventionsModel helps to describe the dynamics ofmatching technology to an individual'sneeds. It highlights the two parallel tracks(adaptation and training) that an OT mustconsider. The Parallel Interventions Modelalso highlights the fact that, as an individualimproves his skills, two diametricallyopposed outcomes can result relating to howthe individual needs technology. As a per-son's intrinsic skills improve, either he isable to use more powerful communicationsystems (see Figure 2) or, alternately, hemay depend on less and less technology(e.g., diminishing use of a speech synthe-sizer as vocal speech is acquired). In prac-tice, this is fairly complicated, but the firststep in its simplification is acknowledgingand understanding the paradigm. In sum-mary, the Parallel Interventions Model con-tains two postulates:I . Assistive/rehabilitation technology cannot be

implemented without a parallel trainingtrack.

2. This training has a profound impact on thetype of technology needed. It either increasesthe sophistication of the technology requiredor decreases the need for the technology.

The Parallel Intei-velitions ModelThe Parallel Interventions Model has signifi-cant implications on the role of occupational

Occupational Therapy in Augmentative Communication Services

Figure 2 Parallel Interventions model

Movement: Gross Motor (2-way)

Movement: Gross Motor (4-way)

Movement: Gross Pointing

Movement: Fine Pointing

therapy in augmentative communication.Whereas augmentative communication hasfrequently been seen as the domain ofspeech-language pathology, it is clear thatspeech-language pathologists are not inher-ently trained to evaluate and provide thera-peutic interventions in many of theinterface functions such as motor controlskills and cognitive-perceptual skills. Theoccupational therapist plays a critical role inworking on the augmentative communica-tion tearn to maximize an individual'smotor skills so he can best access and con-

3

Device: Single SwitchSelection Technique: Scanning

Device: JoystickSelection Technique: Directed Scanning

Device: Expanded KeyboardSelection Technique: Direct (Large Target)

Device: Standard KeyboardSelection Technique: Direct (Small Target)

tTol an augmentative communication sys-tem. Likewise, the occupational therapisthas obligations to maximize cognitive-perceptual skills of an individual, specifi-cally to aid in his perception andcomprehension of the augmentative com-munication system. Other training needsinclude better postural and mobility sk'lls,as well as functional training so that an indi-vidual can use the communication system',itself (particularly in the case of writing sys-tems). These are all critical training func-tions for occupational therapists. Figure 3

6

Muller Angelo, Roger 0. Smith

Figure 3 Augmentative CommunicationSystem Training: Areas of Current OTInvolvement

Sow to/43Pkoon

'hong

&duo MxftsonemPlenring

SOWNowt

Pion Treci Remains*

Seseneoseonmg X XXX, X

Mobley X X X X

hiPueCenvel modem X X X x X

00AMONIxiay Inwlicas X X X

.-

X X

Comoseerm Somme X

Wing Sown X X X X X

portrays the authors' perceptions of occupa-tional therapists current involvement intraining clients for augmentative communi-cation system use.

The Role of Occupational TherapyFew occupational therapists would disagreewith the concepts described above. Tradi-tionally, however, occupational therapistshave not proven to be very helpful on aug-mentative communication teams. Forexample, whereas generic neuromuscularcontrol (using technology such as NDT, PNF,SI. etc.) should always be a goal of occupa-tional therapy, augmentative communica-tion therapy requires two additiond skills.

First, a eierapist must understand augmen-tative communication technology. Single-switch scanning selection, enc ding,directed scanning, and direct selection mustbe part of the occupational therapist's work-ing vocabulary. The therapist must also befamiliar with the hardware and softwarewhich might be implemented. What is thedifference between strict multi-level branch-ing and semantic compaction software?What is EZ Keys, and how does it differfrom the Touch Talker? Second, not onlymust the occupational therapist understandthe technology, but must focus interventionon technology. Effectively operating a single

4

switch may be the only barrier to successfulcommunication for a child. Someone needsto refine the child's motor skills and directlytrain single-switch operations.

SummaryOccupational therapists must clarify theirparticipation in augmentative communica-tion teams. While occupational therapistsmay not need to see their role as coordinat-ing an augmentative communication team,although this is possible (Finkley, 1988), thecontribution they make in the overall aug-mentative communication service deliveryeffort is substantial. Figure 4 recapitulates allof the functions critical to augmentativecommunication service delivery. This revi-sion updates the role of occupational therapyin augmentative communication servicedelivery to what the authors believe it ide-ally to be.

Figure 4 Occupational Therapy Role inAugmentative Communication Services

Saw EyelessSOW

Recommend

*wedSW* Ft* fined

Seahncyroankeung 0 0 0 0*too 0 0 0 0Inenuconsto freedom

0,itmoilawbvidacw

Coneemaeonl Soles* 0 0 0 0 0Wrong Sown§ 0

r Trameng

Saw 10,

ADOMMIM

Twang

Emmette

TIMIW4Memiel

SMICI

TIMMPIM Try kodede

Sieeneoolaanmg 0 0 0Moe*

Infne/Conece ~aces I IOutpubasplay Modaces 0 0conwswona Siam, 0 0 0 0Writing Systems

0 *maim Seemed ROI I Pnmary RoM 0 SKOndin Rd*

Occupational Therapy in Augmentative Communication Services

This delineation acknowledges that all occu-pational therapists must serve in primaryand secondary roles in augmentative com-municafion service delivery. Additionally,advanced training is essential for occupa-tional therapists to specialize in augmenta-tive communication services.

ReferencesFink ley, E. (1988). Occupational therapy in

augmentative communication.Occupational Therapy News, 42 (5),pp. 14, 17,

5

Fishman, I. (1987). Electonic communicationaids. Boston: Little, Brown andCompany.

Rodgers, Barry L. (1985, May). A flawperspective on the holistk use of technology forpeople with disabilitits, Version 2.1.Madison: University of Wisconsin,Trace Research and DevelopmentCenter. Based on paper presented at theDiscovery '84: Technology for DisabledPersons Conference, Chicago, IL.

8

Institute 8

Roger 0.Smith

Roger 0. &with, MOE OM is

Azociate Director, 'axe

Research and Development

Center, Madison, Wsconsin.

Computerizing ASystem forIntegrating AndRepo'ngFunctionalAssessment

11

n 1985 a team from the University ofWisconsin-Madison set out to develop a theory-based functionalassessment paradigm and a new instrument toadvance occupational therapy functional assessment.

If possible this instrument was to provide a functional out-come measure and to diagnose functional performancedeficits for treatment planning. The instniment alsoneeded to integrate the wide variety of functional areasthat occupational therapists evaluate (the AOTAs UniformTerminology, 1989, lists about 90) and allow therapists tocollect the data using any reliable, valid evaluation. Fur-thermore, the tool was targeted to be relevant to all occu-pational therapists, regardless of dr setting in which theyworked or the varitd populations they treated.

This mission was undoubtedly ambitious. Several tech-niques new to functional assessment design, however,were developed and incorporated into the instrument.This made it possible to formulate a genetic occupadonaltherapy system for collecting, compiling, and reportingfunctional assessment data. In 1988, an early workingversion of a System for Integrating and Reporting Occupa-tional Therapy Functional Assessment (SIR-OTFA) wasproduced.

SIR-OTFA is organized by a hierarchical conceptual modelof function. (See Figure 1.) The ability It) perform a func-tional activity is described as dependent on lower level

Roger 0. Smith

abilities. For example, the ability to dress isdependent on a set of skills such as handfunction, problem solving, and visual per-ception skills. These in turn, are dependenton a set of lower level functional compo-nents. Hand function is dependent on tactilesensation, range e'motion, strength, pain,etc. SIR-OTFAs master hierarchical taxon-omy includes 213 items. All 213 functionalcategories, though, are not needed by everytherapist for every patient. To make theprocess more efficient, SIR-OTFA employs abranching decision tree format. This processadds 42 decision nodes, but allows thera-pists to bridge over large numbers of func-tional assessment categories that areirrelevant to a specific patient or setting. Forexample, a therapist working in mentalhealth is only asked two screening-typequestions regarding neuromuscular func-tion. If there is no indication of any deficit in

Figure 1

neuromuscular areas, no further questioningin the details of neuromuscular function(such as strength, endurance, reflexes, orrange of motion) would follow. On the otherhand, if deficits were highlighted throughthe general screening questions, furtherdetailed inquiry would ensue. Figure 2 pro-vides an example of screening questions andhow this decision tree is portrayed. Theproduct of this branching process is a tai-lored assessment that only addresses the setof functional assessment questions specificto the needs of Oi..e person with the disabil-ity. The paper and pencil version of SIR-OTFA resembles a self-teaching textbookthat asks questions, and deper -ling on theanswers, moves the user to the next ques-tion. jumps ahead to another part of thetextbook for advanced work, or returns toprevious materials for remedia!instructions.

MNIOINOMI1VM1101MIIIM

RELATIONSHIP OF FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT AREAS

ENVIRONMENT

Smug/Culturale.g. financialmow=

Physical0.9. onnoecs

111111IMINIIIIIMINWMAIIIME01111111111004101MMIMIIIMIMMINIMMO

INTEGRATED AREAS OF PERFORMANCERole Balance

FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITIES OF PERFORMANCEPersonal Care Amylase

Occupsaonal R010 Related ACtivitioll

FUNCTIONAL SKILLS OF PERFORMANCEMoor Integration SION

Sinewy ImegrattonCArerve Wiegman SIUlls

Social Imegrason SkiesPsychologocal ImegaMon

THERAPYINTERVENTION

UNDERLYING COMPONENTS OF PERFORMANCENeuromuscular Components

Sensory Awareness ComponentsCogratiw Components

Socutl ComponentsPsycholosncal Components

7

1 0

.114116

Computerizing A System for integrating And Reporting Functional Assessment

Figure 2

Example, Decision Paradigmfrom SIR-OTFA Scoring Guide

FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITIES OF PERFORMANCE

A. PERSONAL CARE ACTIVITIES

2. Medical and Health Management Activitiesa. Medication Routine

Obtains medication; accesses contained; takes appropriatequantities, using correct schedule; and exhibits knowledgeof side effects and precautions.

No Deficit 2Partial Deficit 1

Total Deficit 0

Not Applicable NANot Examined NE

if Score 1, continue.If Score < > 1, go to b. Exercise Program/Routine, page 8.

SIR-OTFA also applies a second technique tooptimize its efficiency. It incorporates anintuitive scoring method by using a trichoto-mous scale. This scale requires a therapist tofocus on one defined functional area at atime and score performance as "no deficit"."total deficit", or "partial deficit". (See Fig-ure 3 for definitions of these scores.) Whenthis trichotomous scaling is applied in con-junction with the tailored branching system,functional categories have a sensitive rangeof many points but are easy to xore. For thecategory of dressing, for example, a scorecan range from 0 to 14. The therapist, how-ever, is never required to make clinicaljudgernents any more complex then the tri-chotomous (no deficit, partial deficit, or totaldeficit) response.

Problems with the Paper-and-PencilSIR-OTFAPreliminary local and national field testingin 1987 and 1988 highlighted severalimportant administrative problems withSIR-OTFA. While beta test users of SIR-OTFA responded vety positively to the sys-tem (many requested permission tocontinue using the early research version),several critical difficulties in using SIR-OTFA

a

were brought to the forefront. Basically,users explained that the procedure of usingSIR-OTFA was extremely complex. Therewere over 100 pages of reading in the man-uals and scoring guide. The scoring responsesheet was a trifold sheet with 254 items ofresponse. It required therapists to makedozens of mathematical calculations. Theconsequence of this complexity was thatSIR-OTFA was taking therapists three to fourhours to complete, and there wIre numer-ous errors in the scoring calculations (asmany as 50% of the score sheets exhibitederrors).

Additionally, the paper-and-pencil design ofSIR-OTFA had limited the depth and detailof the system. During the formulation of thetaxonomy it was acknowledged that 250scoring responses was extensive. Anextreme amount of page turning wasrequired, and scoring and graphing proce-dures were already burdensome. Conse-quently, many of the functional assessmentcategories were generalized and much of thedetail required in certain areas of occupa-tional therapy practice was omitted in favorof a more generic and useable paper-and-pencil SIR-OTFA.

1 1

Roger. 0. Smith

Figure 3

Legal SIR-OTFA Responses and Their Definitions

2 (No Deficit): should be selected if theperson's performance in the categorymeets all defined criteria.

(Partial Deficit): should be selected ifthe person's performance in the cate-gory meets some, but not ail of thedefined criteria.

0 (Total Deficit): should be selected if theperson's performance in the cate-gory meets none of the defined criteria.

4=on,

NA (Not Applicable): should be used forany category not applicable to the clientbeing assessed. For example, "Employ-ment and Volunteer Preparation Activi-ties" for a 6-year-old-boy would scorean NA. rtat.__Lirrig_pficattif.there is any uncertainty as to theirapplicability status.

NE (Not Examined): should be used whenthe setting or the particular circum-stances prevent assessing the client inthat category

Computerization as a SolutionIn 1989, a proof-of-concept computerizedSIR-OTFA was developed. Preliminary test-ing revealed many advantages. First, whilethe paper-and-pencil version required threeID four hours to complete and was prone tomathematical errors. the software version ofSIR-OTFA took 20 to 30 minutes and wasenor-free. Second, the computerized SIR-OTFA immediately generated and displayedsummary graphs and totals. Third, comput-erizing SIR-OTFA removed page turning.Thus, therapists only viewed the functionalcategories that were appropriate for theirindividual patients in their setting, and didnot need to page around irrelevant ques-tions. Lastly. computerization of SIR-OTFAallows virmally unlimited depth and detailin functional assessment categories. Forexample. in the paper-aid-pencil version ofSIR-OTFA. there are only five categories scm-tinizing functional performance pertainingto employment or other work-related activi-ties. The software version ofSIR-OTFAallows the extension of these categories tobetter collect data in the area of workevaluationwithout adding unnecessarypaperwork.

SLR-OITA: Today and TomorrowSIR-OTFA software is being made availableto occupational therapists from the Ameri-can Occupational Therapy Asr ?lation. It isimportant to note. however, th,i, vvhile theearly version of the paper-and-ptucil SIR-OTFA has been tested for preliminary relia-bility and validity (with encouragingresults). extensive further research anddevelopment efforts are required for both thepaper-and-pencil And computer versions.Additional reliability and validity studiesaimed at specific populations and settingsare planned. as well as further developmentof SIR-OTFA categories to fully use the com-puter potential of functional assessment. Anintriguing aspect of SIR-OTFA research anddevelopment is the "futuristic" potential ofcomputerized functional assessment.Already on the drawing boards is a softwaremodule for computer-assisted report wr:ingand a module to assist therapists in translat-ing the dysfunction profile directly into atreatment planning process.

AcknowledgmentsThis project is basedon initial woric sumorted by agrant from the Amaican Occupational TherapyFoundation.

TechnologyForum

Robert C.Christiaansen

Roger 0.Smith

Laurie B.Fox

Robert C Christiaansen,

ms MFA. iS PMfeSSOr Of

Ocamationd Therapy and

Prognvn Co-Coadinator,

School of Allied Health

Pmfessiats, Department of

Ocacational Thtrapy,

University of Warortsin-

Madison, Madison,

Wisconsin.

Roger O. mor ant isAssociatt. :flavor, Are

Researrh and Devekpment

Center, Madison, Wisconsin,

Lawie B. Fox, BSEE. 0Th, is

Pchnology and interface

Specialist, Dace Research and

Development Center,

Madison, Wisconsin.

TechnologySpecialization forOccupationalTherapists:TechspecEduc.tion Model

The explosion of technology in rehabilitation andeducation has demanded a major adjustment inprofessional training programs. Occupationaltherapists emerging from their basic professional

training are being increasingly required to apply a knowl-edge base in assistive and rehabilitation technologies. Dur-ing the early 1980's this educational need became a majorconcern of the Trace Research and Development Centerand the Occupational Therapy Program at the University ofWisconsinMadison. Review of Madison graduatesrevealed that they had developed substantial backgroundsin anatomy, physiology, psychosocial functioning, andeducational and medical disabilities, but received virtuallyno preservice experience with newer elecumicsbasedtechnologies. This was particularly disturbing given thatthe University of Wisconsin-Madison campus supportedseveral nationally recognized research and developmentprograms in assistive and rehabilitation technologies. Stu-dents had no mechanism for tapping these resourcesnoway of learning about technological advances and theirapplications.

In the fall of 1988, the Preservice Technology Specializa-tion Program (TechSpec) was started with the support of agrant from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilita-tion Services, U.S. Department of Education. The primarymission of the TechSpec program is to provide educationalopportunities for occupational therapy students in the area

1 3

Robert C. Christiaanson, Roger 0. Smith, Laurie B. Fox

of assistive and rehabilit&ion technologies.The program addresses the need on threelevels: locally, within the university, andnationwide.

Figure 1 depicts the program's stfategy formeeting the overall educational need. Thestrategy consists of three components. First,the program provides foundation-level skillsfor the majority of occupational therapy stu-dents coming through the University ofWisconsin-Madison. (The TechSpec modelrecognizes that while all occupational thera-pists need some background, not all need tobecome specialists.) Second, the programserves the need for specialists in technologythrough a certificate program, where a selectgroup of students obtain a more in-depth

Figure 1

knowledge base in applying technology.Third, the program is developing a set ofcourse guides and documentation describingthe TechSpec program for other programsacross the country that are developing orupdating technology curricula. (SeeFigure 1.)

Eight basic competencies are identified toserve as educational objectives for graduat-ing therapists. The first three ice foundationcompetencies that all occupational therapygraduates should exhibit. (1) Graduatesshould understand technology in rehabilita-tion and education. This includes the his-tory, potential, constructs and applications,and limitations. (2) Graduates should befamiliar and comfortable with the use of

The need torOo-apadonalTherapists tobe competentin technologyapplication

TechSpic Design

Direct Training

Direct TrainingFounditlon competencies

1Direct Training Specializationcompetencies

Resource Developmentand Dissemination

Curriculum guides andImplementadon reports

National dissemination tooccupational *wavycurricula and to the public

ra

41 Use of Model andmaterials by othereductitional programsto devetop curricula

1 I I IIIL_

Evaluation Plan and Procedures

Technology.,:ltent

OccupationalTherePiste

14

11

Techno%ogy Specialization for Occupational Therapists: Techspec Education Model

technology. (3) Graduates should be awareof resources and how to use them appropri-ately.

Beyond the three foundation competenciesfive additional competencies are expectedfor occupational therapists who are special-izing in technology. (1) Graduates should befamiliar with a core set of technological sys-tems and their applications. (2) Graduatesshould be able to assess a person's skill anddeficit areas related to technology applica-.tion. (3) Graduates should be able to matchtechnological applications to an individual'sparticular skills and deficits to increase theirfunctional level. (4) Graduates should beable to train children and young adults touse appropriate technologies. (5) Graduatesshould understand and be able to apply thebenefits of interdisciplinary teaming.

In addition to the eight educational objec-tives above, the TechSpec program incorpo-rates six design features to make theprogram more accessible to students. First,the TechSpec program has an interdiscipli-

Figure 2

nary focus that coordinr tes a variety ofdepartments, state-of-the-art research cen-ters, clinical facilities, and information dis-semination programs representing severaldisciplines. Second. TechSpec tries to useinnovative scheduling for coursework.Third, while the focus of this program is onoccupational therapy students, additionalstudents from outside occupational therapyare encouraged to participate. Fourth, bothfoundation and specialization tracks areviewed as essential for flexible student par-ticipation. Fifth, annual enrollment allowsstudents to enter the program with a realistictimeframe for completion. Finally, the cur-riculum design incorporates a variety ofeducational media including lectures, read-ings within course work, laboratory and dis-cussion experiences, independent study,and practicum formats.

The initial two years of the TechSpec pro-gram have produced several specific results.In terms of enrollment in the program, stu-dent enrollment in foundation and speciali-zation courses exceeded initial projections

Enrollment by Discipline

OTSrs

OTJrs

(Year 1)

OTGrads PT

IndEng

SpecEduc

Introduction to RehabilitationEducational Technology

4

5

10

9 13

Computer Applications inOccupational Theraey_

Technology Design for Persons WithDisabilities

Construction and Adaptation ofPersons With Disabilities 15 27

Practica 10

. TOTALS 54 66 7 1 13

1 5

12

Robert C. Christiaansen, Roger 0. Smith, Laurie B. Fox

by 500%. Figure 2 depicts actual enroll-ments for the first year. During this timethree new courses were developed; revi-sions were made in two existing courses;and two course guides and several papers/presentations relating to the Tech Spec pro-gram were written.

Program evaluation activities have shownthe initial success of the Tech Spec program.Data substantiating its effect include stu-dents' subjective assessment of their skills,objective testing of their knowledge devel-oprr mt, and comments from the Tech SpecAdvisory and Evaluation Committee. Figure3 illustrates results of the self-perception rat-ing scale compared to the number of Tech-Spec courses taken. The more TechSpeccourses taken, the more confident studentswere with their skills. Figure 4 depicts scorescompared between non-TechSpec and Tech-Spec students. TechSpec students respondedwith more confidence in their skills thannon-TechSpec students. Resuits from the 25-question multiple choice test showed similar

Figure 3 Comparison of Stue-mt Self-Perception: by Number of Cou.ses Taken

10

8 --7

6

5

4

3

2

1

1 I i I

0 1 2 3Number of Technology Courses Taken

13

differences. Test scores increased as thenumber of courses increased and TechSpecstudents' scores were higher than non-TechSpec students.

At the close of the first year, the project staffmet with a panel of experts in technologyand education whose purpose was to reviewand assess the progress of the program. TheAdvisory and Program Evaluation Panelwas composed of individuals from severaluniversity departments and units, staff fromthe State Department of Public Instruction,the American Occupational Therapy Associ-ation (AOTA), and individuals from technol-ogy research and development centers. Twomajor items were dominant in the panel'sreview. The first was that training individ-uals to become competent technologists isextremely difficult and requires a long-termprocess. Second, the panel highlighted thatstudents not only need to be able to exhibitappropriate knowledge about technologies,but they also need to understand how toapply them. The panel encouraged more

Figure 4 Comparison of Student Self-Perception: TechSpec versus non-TechSpecStudents

1 0

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

/6

Non-TechSpec TechSpecStudent Student

Technology Specialization for Occupational Tharapists: Techspec Education Model

attention to the process of technology appli-cation and less emphasis on the technologyitself.

The first two years of the Tech Spec programhave been acknowledged by students, pro-gram staff, and the advisory panel as a suc-cess. For the future, Tech Spec will continueto aim for the best technology education

1 7

possible for its students and share its experi-ences with interested others.

AcknowledgmentsThis paper is supported in pat by the Office ofSpecial Education and Rehabilitation, U.S.Department of Education, grant#H029F80083-89.

Scientific/Technical Session3 13-A

MarianHall

Gregg C.Vander-heiden

Marian Hail, orx. is Drnctor,

Adaptiw Equipmmt Center,

Newington Children's Hos-

pital, Newington,

Connectkut.

Gfflgg C VeDukdritkn, PhD. is

Director, Dace Research and

Development Center,

Madison, Wisconsin.

Hyper-ABLEDATA:An Overview

ABLEDATA is a database with information onproducts that are useful to persons with disabili-ties. It is produced and maintained by the Adap-tive Equipment Center at Mewington Children's

Hospital in Newington, Connecticut, and is funded by theNational Institute on Disability and RehabilitationResearch (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education.Through a cooperative effort, the Trace Center at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin-Madison has developed a microcom-puter format for the database called Hyper-ABLEDATA.

ABLEDATA includes all types of rehabilitation or assistivetechnology products. The database format and terminol-ogy are expanded to include any changes as new types ofproducts become available. The major categories of prod-ucts included in ABLEDATA are: Personal Cam Home Man-agement, Vocational Management, Educational Management,Mobility, Seating, Dansportation, Communkation, Remotion,Ambulation, Sensory Disabilities, °anodes, Prostherks, TherapeuticAids, Architectural Elements, Computer, and Controls. Thereare more than 17,000 individual products listed, fromover 2,200 companies. Products listed include commer-cial products and do-it-yourself products and ideas.

Each product listed in ABLEDATA includes the following:Generic Name: Common name for the

product or type ofproduct.

15

1 8

Marian Hall, Gregg C. Vanderheiden

Brand Name: Manufacturer's namefor a product.

Manufacturer: Name, address, andphone of the manufac-turer.

Code Number: Reference numberassigned to the manu-facturer.

Availabilky: Indicates when prod-uct is available fromthe manufacturer orfrom local vendors.

Cost: Cost of the product,including month andyear of the price list.

Description: Brief description of theproduct.

Identifiers: Controlled vocabularyfrom the ABLEDATAThesaurus.

Comments: Subjective informationabout the product, usu-ally from sources otherthan the manufactur-er's literature.

Evaluation: Product evaluationinformation with refer-ence to original source.Evaluation data is notavailable for everyproduct.

ABLEDATA was available for many yearsonly through BRS Information Technologies,a public database vendor that providesaccess to public databases through a sub-scription service. The advent of HyperCardhas radically changed the method of accessto ABLEDATA. The Tmce Center at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin-Madison designed aHyperCard program for the Macintosh com-puters that provides desktop access to theentire ABLEDATA database. The Macintoshversion of ABLEDATA is called Hyper-ABLEDATA.

Hyper-ABLEDATA is available for any orga-

16

nization, individual, or facility to install inits own office, for unlimited use, with nohourly charges. HyperABLEDATA is pres-ently available only for Macintosh com-puters, with the requirement of at least 1megabyte of RAM and either 20M of harddisk storage (for Hyper-ABLEDATA withoutpictures or sound samples), 40M of harddisk storage or a CD player (for Hyper-ABLEDATA with pictures and sound sam-ples). Other versions will be available in thefuture for IBM-compatible computers. Theinitial cost of setting up a system may behigh if the organization must purchase aMacintosh computer, but the long-termcosts are much lower because there are nohourly charges.

Even more significant than its availability"on desktop" is the format of the informa-tion within Hyper-ABLEDATA. The Hyper-card format provides on-screen "buttons"designed for specific retrieval functions andthe searcher clicks the mouse on the buttonsto select operations. There are three optionsfor initiating a search in Hyper-ABLEDATA:Search by Company Name, Search by Prod-uct Name, which is the brand name of theproduct, and Search by Type of Product aslisted in the ABLEDATA Thesaurus outline.(See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

Hyper-ADM/0'A allows you to searchfor product or oustpeny information indifferent ways.

Main Menu screen for Hyper-ABLEDATA.

19

Hyper-ABLEDATA provides the ability tojump from virtually any point in the pro-gram to any other point, and to easily returnto the original point of depanu.,:. Also, anyword can be searched in the Thesaurus out-line (Function Outline), with all the occur-rences showing on the screen. By clickingon any of the lines the computer will moveto that place in the outline.

Special FeatutesHyper-ABLEDATA provides several specialfeatures on the company cards and the prod-uct entry cards that are not available on theBRS version of the database. (See Figures 2and 3.) One is the availability of enlargingthe print on the screen for persons with lowvision. There is a small magnifying glassicon on each screen. By clicking on the iconthe print enlarges and becomes boldface intwo steps, and clicking a third time returnsto normal size print. There are 500 samplephotographs of products in the database.These are viewed by clicking on the picturebutton. There are also some sound samplesfor products where sound quality is criticalto product selection (i.e., voice synthesizers,artificial larynxes). Both the pictures and thesound samples have been provided as proto-type features on the current version ofHyper-ABLEDATA, but it is anticipated thatmore will be collected and incorporated inthe future as funding is available.

Figure 2

1~ l (VOIS 156

*mg ootCt maul LA caw,. e

DWIOM wow oleOw Otos ( sr/IOW WO MOW

VOI$ I $ê ii Si. opprottomil 'Meow ~Poet Ito MI I 3$ vsott adoptteoinetwe0 141 tie ter envoi t too ii.. twat4141. PO ISIS *ewe gm mos Pe WWI 5lu?555 1q11.ii51001000014POI 111, 5511114 SiO ...IC. SW OW P4vtVg *5401511 WO Poslilll 1015* 00 14 11110155

ffirht 4111mt. fir NIS I le VOW se MOH lismitele 0511 1011GS)

$3.000 00$1,39$ 00. I$1311

0C P 00 ovr

Cel lIN*0" lacif C4101/ ant

505. CP 04141S-1113 - 4000

..m51144.t t

0110

1011111Er1110.19/7"17""ir"11

ov.

LW

Sample product entry card from Hyper-ABLEDATA.

Hyper-ABLEDAYA: An Overview

Figure 3

Phonix tar -Inc

250 Cuomo Alto66,1 Wily. CA

*494

1111111110Ala MOIL IC III thosomiess)1010110101 Mitt IC I (10aOhawl)10 ten taPPOMIK otta006510.11 000. Pt NO MIO Pt 000 WHOinettolt. PINGPINK WI /MOM TUT MIMS. lot 11100 Min0001P6 SIIIINOM /PI MOM*, I00II1113 SWUM Pt oilMINK taO 111116111140 101U01,01V MOOING 11111.0 Pt 411 I Do sooph

Sample company card from Hyper-ABLEDATA.

Users are able to attach their own notes toproduct entries or company cards. In thisway they can customize the database fortheir own needs, and when the database isupdated the user notes reattach to the sameentries in the new version of the database.The searchable notes can be used for listinglocal information like vendors of a product,or users in the area that art willing to sharetheir experiences with a product.

Hyper-ABLEDATA is extremely simple touse, and it has all the required instructions touse it right on the screens. At the beginningthere are basic instructions on how to usethe various features, and most of the buttonshave self-explanatory names. For furtherassistance there is a Help note on eachscreen. The Help note displays informationas each button is touched with the mousepointer, and even more information is avail-able by clicking on the Help buttons. Theinstructions at the beginning also explainseveral advanced feawres including how touse Boolean commands that allow morerefined searches. The Boolean commandscan he used to further limit a particularsearch or to limit a search of the whole data-base for products with specific features.

As flexible as Hyper-ABLEDATA is, how-ever, it does have some limitations.Although it is possible to increase the size of

Marian Nall, Gregg C. Vanderhelden

the characters on the screen for persons withlow vision, access to Hyper-ABLEDATA bypersons who are totally blind is impossiblebecause of the reliance on the mouse andpull-down menus to access the system. Useby persons who have motor impairments isalso greatly restricted by the dependence onthe mouse. Future version of Hyper-ABLEDATA are being planned to alleviatethese problems. as well as providing a ver-sion for IBM and compatible computers.

Requests for copies of Hyper-ABLEDATAshould be made to the Trace Center, Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison, S-151 WaismanCenter, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison,WI 53705-2280, 608-262-6966. For infor-mation on BRS subscriptions, please call orwrite BRS Information Technologies, 1200Route 7, Latham, NY 12110, 518-783-1161or 800-345-4277.

For occasional users of the database, or per-sons without direct access, the AdaptiveEquipment Center at Newington Children'sHospital has information specialists avail-able to provide searches. Anyone may callor write to have searches completed forthem for a nominal fee. The ABLEDATAstaff is also available to provide assistance topersons having questions related to tech-niques or problems of searching the data-base either through BRS or with Hyper-ABLEDATA. The information specialists areavailable at the Adaptive Equipment Center,Newington Children's Hospital, 181 EastCedar Street, Newington, CT 06111, 800-344-5405 or 203-667-5405 (CT), voice orIDD from 8:30 to 5:00 Eastern time Mon-day through Friday.

18

21

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Partial funding for this work was provided under Grant it'sG008300045, H133E80021 and from the National Institute ofDisability and Rehabilitation Research, United States Department ofEducation.

22