Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
of the respondents' reasons behind the simple “Yes,” “No,” “Neutral” vote.
Agreement in assessment (“Yes,” “No,” “Neutral”) was not necessarily syn-
onymous with agreement in reasons. In some questions, participants agreed
on the reason, yet came to different conclusions. In addition, in some ques-
tions with a high percentage of “Neutral” responses, many respondents stated
that the question did not address the proper issue. This was still quite infor-
mative, since respondents often provided their own assessment of the relevant
issue. Consider Question 1C, which falls into both of these categories:
Suppose the University has in place an evaluation system in which a certified oc-
cupational therapist assesses the student's capabilities. Based on this assessment
the needs of the student are determined and a recommendation is made to provide
assistance. Should the occupational therapist consider the cost to the school when
identifying assistance required for the student?
Question 1C elicited a variety of responses, including the following:
No
because the OT should make recommendations based on what is required of the
student regardless of cost, but then someone OTHER than the OT should make a
final decision that does take cost into consideration.
Yes
because the OT should make recommendations based on what is required of the
student regardless of cost, but in high cost cases, also outline what can be achieved
with a lower cost option and what limitations this places on the student. Then an
informed decision can be made.
In this case, the reasons behind “No” and “Yes” revealed that the respondents
believed that the question missed the relevant issue. While the question had
been designed to elicit a prioritization of the student's or the school's needs,
the issue of who ultimately made the informed decision was found to be more
pertinent. Without the additional information provided in the reasons, “Yes”
and “No” have far less meaning.
The results of the survey were incorporated into “seed” questions to facili-
tate roundtable, small-group, interdisciplinary discussions in (a) Evaluation,
(b) Sensing, (c) Networking, and (d) Safety and Mobility. Some of the ques-
tions with high “Neutral” responses were useful in honing issues for discussion
that would be of the most multidisciplinary interest. Some of the questions
that did not have high “Neutral” responses, and were particularly divisive
(5), were used as “icebreakers.” Ultimately, workshop participants were given
the leeway, as was found useful in the survey, to pose and answer questions
they believed were most relevant. The initial list of questions identified for
each discussion session is listed in Appendix
3
.
9.5 Conclusion
The AT Survey was successful in generating both qualitative and quantita-
tive results in response to the issues associated with assistive technologies
and which formed much of the discussion during the workshop. Rather than
merely producing one type of data or another, the survey has provided a more
comprehensive set of data upon which further analysis can be performed.
