Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
incurring multiple collisions. Our approach was to measure and report task
completion time, collisions, and cognitive workload (measured through the
NASA Task Load Index [
4
]) without trying to choose a single indicator upon
which to base comparisons.
An alternative to evaluating AT in the lab is to evaluate AT “in the field”
or “in the real world.” Testing AT in unconstrained environments is appeal-
ing because that is how we ultimately hope it will be used, but there are
challenges, as well. For example, there may be only one existing prototype
of the device being tested, which makes field trials much less ecient than
laboratory trials. In addition, real world environments are (by definition) less
controlled than laboratories, making it di
cult to replicate conditions across
subjects. Field trials can also take much longer to generate data. For exam-
ple, an entire day in a wheelchair user's life may feature much less driving
than a single hour in a laboratory.
6.3 Evaluating Technology in the Clinic
Choosing the most appropriate AT is a collaborative decision-making process
involving the consumer, clinician(s), and third-party payers. The challenges
involved in a successful AT intervention include:
1.
Evaluating and documenting client's goals, needs, and abilities [
5
].
2.
Choosing the most appropriate AT to address these diculties.
3.
Configuring the technology to the user's needs.
4.
Training the user in appropriate use of the system [
10
,
12
,
14
].
5.
Providing continuous follow-up to ensure that the interface remains well-
suited to the user [
2
,
9
,
16
,
14
,
7
].
The consequences of failing to successfully meet any one of these challenges
include wasted human and material resources spent in the intervention pro-
cess, unnecessary obstacles placed in the individual's path toward personal
goals, and technology abandonment [
9
,
11
].
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to effective clinical evaluation is the number
of devices that are available. The fact that there are numerous mobility de-
vices, communication devices, computer access devices, and other AT, each
of which offers multiple configuration options, can be both a blessing and a
curse. The existence of multiple products increases the odds that there exists
at least one product that is well-suited for each consumer's specific needs.
On the other hand, the variety of products and configuration options can
be dicult to navigate when time (for both the clinician and the client) is
constrained.
Clinicians are limited in the amount of time they can devote to a single
client. Devices that can be trialled more eciently may be emphasized over
devices that require a lot of time for set-up in the clinic. Similarly, clients
