Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
valid for every assessment. Additionally, the only guiding principle for a proper mea-
surement is the clarity of the purpose of the measurement. The second section focuses
on how to measure individual functioning by both pointing out some guiding principles
for choosing and applying a set of measures and by suggesting some tools that fit these
principles. The third section suggests some measurement tools for an ATA process used in
a center for technical aid.
References
Altman, B. M., and Gulley, S. P. (2009). Convergence and divergence: Differences in disability preva-
lence estimates in the United States and Canada based on four health survey instruments.
Social
Science and Medicine, 69
(4), 543-552. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.06.017
Andrich, R., and Besio, S. (2002). Being informed, demanding and responsible consumers of
assistive technology: An educational issue.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 24
(1-3), 152-159.
doi:10.1080/09638280110064778
Brown, M., and Gordon, W. A. (2004). Empowerment in measurement: “muscle,” “voice,” and sub-
jective quality of life as a gold standard.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85
(2
Suppl.), S13-S20. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.110
Carswell, A., McColl, M. A., Baptiste, S., Law, M., Polatajko, H., and Pollock, N. (2004). The Canadian
Occupational Performance Measure: A research and clinical literature review.
Canadian Journal
of Occupational Therapy, 71
(4), 210-222.
Day, H., and Jutai, J. (1996). Measuring the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices: the PIADS.
Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 9
(2), 159-168.
Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., Arnold, D. L., and Wolfson, C. (2002). Reliability, validity,
and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology
(QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 24
(1-3), 21-30.
doi:10.1080/09638280110066352
Demers, L., Weiss-Labrou, R., and Ska, B. (2000). Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of
Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST).
Assistive Technology, 12
(2), 96-105. doi:10.108
0/10400435.2000.10132015
DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commit-
ment?
Assistive Technology, 7
(1), 3-8. doi:10.1080/10400435.1995.10132246
Elliott, T. R., Kurylo, M., and Carroll, M. N. (2002). Personality assessment in medical rehabilita-
tion. In M. J. Scherer (Ed.),
Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful
Rehabilitation
(pp. 47-48). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
EUSTAT. (1999).
Empowering Users through Assistive Technology: Final Report
. (Project DE3402 EUSTAT).
Retrieved from http://www.siva.it/research/eustat/index.html
Federici, S., and Meloni, F. (2010a). A note on the theoretical framework of World Health
Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 32
(8), 687-691.
doi:10.3109/09638280903290012
Federici, S., and Meloni, F. (2010b). WHODAS II: Disability self-evaluation in the ICF conceptual
frame. In J. Stone and M. Blouin (Eds.),
International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation
(pp. 1-22).
Buffalo, NY: Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and Exchange
(CIRRIE). Retrieved from http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/299/
Federici, S., Meloni, F., Mancini, A., Lauriola, M., and Belardinelli, M. O. (2009). World Health
Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II: Contribution to the Italian validation.
Disability
and Rehabilitation, 31
(7), 553-564. doi:10.1080/09638280802240498
