Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
and private centers for technical aid provision, allowing them to compare, evaluate, and
improve their own matching model. The actions required by the ATA model to centers for
technical aid can be divided into four fundamental steps: access to the structure and acti-
vation of the process, evaluation and activation of the aid/AT selection, delivery, and fol-
low-up. The ATA is a user-driven process through which the selection of one or more aids/
AT is facilitated by the utilization of comprehensive clinical measures, functional analysis,
and psycho-socio-environmental evaluations that address, in a specific context of use, the
personal well-being of the user through the best matching of user/client and assistive
solution (Scherer et al., Early Online). Because the ATA process and the MPT model and
accompanying measures share a user-driven working methodology and embrace the ICF
biopsychosocial model, they can be integrated within a path aiming for the best combina-
tion of AT to promote user/customer's personal well-being.
References
Bausch, M., and Ault, M. (2008). Assistive technology implementation plan: A tool for improving
outcomes.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 41
(1), 6-14. Retrieved from http://cec.metapress.com/
content/K57165H1X52W5731
Bernd, T., Van Der Pijl, D., and De Witte, L. P. (2009). Existing models and instruments for the selec-
tion of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice.
Scandinavian Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 16
(3), 146-158. doi:10.1080/11038120802449362
Brown, D. L. (1997). Personal implications of functional electrical stimulation standing for older
adolescents with spinal cord injuries.
Technology and Disability, 6
(3), 199-216. doi:10.1016/
s1055-4181(96)00038-6
Brown, D. L., and Merbitz, C. (1995).
Comparison of Technology Match between Two Types of Functional
Electrical Stimulation Hand Grasp Systems
. Paper presented at the RESNA '95 Annual Conference:
RECREAbility. Recreation and Ability: Explore the Possibilities!, Arlington, VA. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id = d1BRAAAAMAAJ
Caudrey, D. J., and Seeger, B. R. (1983). Rehabilitation engineering service evaluation: A follow-
up study of device effectiveness and patient acceptance.
Rehabilitation Literature, 44
(3-4),
80-85.
Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., and Ska, B. (1996). Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of
Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST).
Assistive Technology, 8
(1), 3-13. doi:10.1080/10
400435.1996.10132268
Dijcks, B. P. J., De Witte, L. P., Gelderblom, G. J., Wessels, R. D., and Soede, M. (2006). Non-use
of assistive technology in The Netherlands: A non-issue?
Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive
Technology, 1
(1-2), 97-102. doi:10.1080/09638280500167548
Endler, N. S., and Parker, J. D. A. (1999).
Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): Manual
(2nd ed.). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Federici, S., and Borsci, S. (2011).
The use and non-use of assistive technology in Italy: A pilot study.
In
G. J. Gelderblom, M. Soede, L. Adriaens, and K. Miesenberger (Eds.), Everyday Technology
for Independence and Care: AAATE 2011 (Vol. 29, pp. 979-986). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press.
doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-814-4-979
Federici, S., Corradi, F., Mele, M. L., and Miesenberger, K. (2011).
From cognitive ergonomist to psy-
chotechnologist: A new professional profile in a multidisciplinary team in a centre for technical aids.
In
G. J. Gelderblom, M. Soede, L. Adriaens, and K. Miesenberger (Eds.), Everyday Technology
for Independence and Care: AAATE 2011 (Vol. 29, pp. 1178-1184). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press.
doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-814-4-1178
