Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
recommends the use of the SOTU and ATD-PA. The SOTU helps to identify technologies
that an individual feels comfortable with or has success in using so that a new technol-
ogy can be built around existing comfort or success. This instrument explores the type
of technology that the client already uses, his/her experience, both past and present, and
his/her point of view on the technology currently being used. Furthermore, the SOTU
values some personal and social characteristics of the user. The client and the provider
each independently fill out a version. However, the provider responds by trying to figure
out the answers of the client. After administration, the client and the provider discuss the
critical discrepancies between the two filled-out forms. The ATD-PA is useful for select-
ing the most appropriate assistive solution. Each ATD-PA (ATD-PA-Client and ATD-PA-
Provider) is divided into two parts: the first part must only be filled out once, whereas
the second part must be filled out for each technology. In the client's form version, the
client is required to self-evaluate his/her capacity and performance and some personality
traits. Furthermore, the client indicates his/her feeling about using a particular AT. For
the provider's part, the provider must (1) list what factors and to what extent they can be
an incentive or an obstacle to the use of a specific technology, (2) assess whether or not the
client's resources are tailored to the characteristics of the specific technology, and finally
(3) evaluate what personality traits of the client are particularly implicated in the use of
the specific technology.
The WHODAS II (WHO 2004) evaluates disability from a different viewpoint than that
of the normal tools of measurement. In fact, whereas the ICF Checklist was developed as
a practical tool to elicit clinicians' overall impressions of a patient's condition and to record
information on functioning and disability, the WHODAS II directly rates the nature of a
disability from the patient's responses. Therefore, the ICF Checklist offers an external (objec-
tive) view on disability whereas the WHODAS II offers an internal (subjective) one. The
WHODAS II assesses the limitations to activities and the restrictions in participation that
are experienced by an individual, independently of a medical diagnosis. Specifically, the
instrument is designed to evaluate the functioning of the individual in six activity domains:
1. Understanding and communicating
2. Getting around
3. Self-care
4. Getting along with people
5. Life activities
6. Participation in society
There are several different WHODAS II forms, each of which has been structured in rela-
tion to the number of items (6, 12, 24, 12 + 24, and 36), the mode of administration (self-
administered or administered by an interviewer), and the user who is to be interviewed
(subject, clinician, or caregiver). In any case, WHO recommends the use of the 36-item
form, administered by an interviewer, for completeness. The participants who are inter-
viewed are asked to indicate the level of “difficulty” experienced (none, mild, moderate,
severe, extreme) by taking into account the way in which they normally perform a given
activity, including the use of any support and/or help provided by a person (aids). For
every item that receives a positive answer, the next question asks the number of days (“in
the last 30 days”) in which the interviewee met such a difficulty in terms of a five-point
ordinal scale: (1) only 1 day; (2) up to a week (from 2 to 7 days), (3) up to 2 weeks (from
8 to 14 days), (4) more than 2 weeks (from 15 to 29 days), (5) every day (30 days). Then, the
