Measurement of Assistive Technology Outcomes Associated with Computer-Based Writing Interventions for Children and Youth with Disabilities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Development of the Family Impact of Asssistive Technology Scale for Writing Interventions (FIATS-WI)
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Phase 1: Item Reduction and Internal Reliability
- Discard items where less than 20% or 25 respondents provide no rating.
- Discard items where over 80% of respondents selected the same rating for a particular item.
- Identify items with low item-total subscale correlations (Pearson’s |r| < 0.2). Correlate these items with ‘other’ subscales. If the item–other subscale correlation was greater than 0.2, conditionally, reassign the item to the ‘other’ subscale if it related conceptually to that subscale. Otherwise, eliminate the item.
- Calculate item–total other subscale correlations for the remaining items to confirm that they were assigned to the correct subscales. Reassign an item if it had a higher item–subscale total correlation with another subscale, and was conceptually related to it.
- Identify within-scale items with high inter-item correlations (r > 0.9). Eliminate the item that has the lower item-subscale correlation.
- Calculate inter-dimensional correlations to flag possible redundancy in measured constructs. Review constructs that have high correlations (r > 0.9) to judge whether one dimension should be eliminated from the FIATS-WI.
2.2. Phase 2: Test–Retest Reliability and Convergent Construct Validity
3. Results
3.1. Phase 1: Item Reduction and Internal Reliability
3.2. Phase 2: Test–Retest Reliability and Convergent Construct Validity
4. Discussion
4.1. Phase 1: Item Reduction and Internal Reliability
4.2. Phase 2: Test–Retest Reliability and Convergent Construct Validity
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Disability in Canada: A 2006 Profile; Cat. No.: HS64-11/2010; Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Canadian Government Publishing Services: Gatineau, QC, Canada, 2011.
- Browning, N. Literacy of children with physical disabilities: A literature review. Can. J. Occup. Ther. 2002, 69, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koppenhaver, D.; Williams, A. A conceptual review of writing research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment. Altern. Commun. 2010, 26, 158–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Machalicek, W.; Sanford, A.; Lang, R.; Rispoli, M.; Molfenter, N.; Mbeseha, M.K. Literacy interventions for students with physical and developmental disabilities who use aided AAC devices: A systematic review. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 2010, 3, 219–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, A.R.; MacKinnon, J.R.; Miller, L.T. Assistive technology and handwriting problems: What do occupational therapists recommend? Can. J. Occup. Ther. 2004, 71, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carpe, A.; Harder, K.; Tam, C.; Reid, D. Perceptions of writing and communication aid use among children with a physical disability. Assist. Technol. 2010, 22, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peterson-Karlan, G.; Hourcade, J.J.; Parette, P.A. Review of assistive technology and writing skills for students with physical and educational disabilities. Phys. Disabil. 2008, 26, 13–32. [Google Scholar]
- Priest, N.; May, E. Laptop computers and children with disabilities: Factors influencing success. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2001, 48, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batorowicz, B.; Missiuna, C.A.; Pollock, N.A. Technology supporting written productivity in children with learning disabilities: A critical review. Can. J. Occup. Ther. 2012, 79, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cullen, J.; Richards, S.B.; Frank, C.L. Using software to enhance the writing skills of students with special needs. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 2008, 23, 33–44. [Google Scholar]
- Mirenda, P.; Turoldo, K.; McAvoy, C. The impact of word prediction software on the written output of students with physical disabilities. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 2006, 21, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simmons, K.D.; Carpenter, L.B. Spelling and assistive technology: Helping students with disabilities be successful writers. Phys. Disabil. 2010, 29, 5–19. [Google Scholar]
- Tam, C.; Archer, J.; Mays, J.; Skidmore, G. Measuring the outcomes of word cueing technology. Can. J. Occup. Ther. 2005, 72, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garrett, J.T.; Wolff, K.H.; Fowler, L.P.; Alberto, P.A.; Fredrick, L.D.; O’Rourke, C.M. Using speech recognition software to increase writing fluency for individuals with physical disabilities. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 2011, 26, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, R.B.; Graves, A.W.; Ashton, T.M.; Kieley, C.L. Word processing tools for students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 1998, 13, 95–108. [Google Scholar]
- Mezei, P.; Heller, K.W. Evaluating word prediction software for students with physical disabilities. Phys. Disabil. 2005, 23, 93–113. [Google Scholar]
- Mezei, P.J.; Heller, K.W. Effects of word prediction on writing fluency for students with physical disabilities. Phys. Disabil. 2012, 31, 3–26. [Google Scholar]
- Handley-More, D.; Deitz, J.; Billingsley, F.F.; Coggins, T.E. Facilitating written work using computer word processing and word prediction. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2003, 57, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Light, J.; McNaughton, D.; Weyer, M.; Karg, L. Evidence-Based literacy instruction for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A case study of a student with multiple disabilities. Semin. Speech Lang. 2008, 29, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Millar, D.C.; Light, J.C.; McNaughton, D.B. The effect of direct instruction and writer’s workshop on the early writing skills of children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment. Altern. Commun. 2004, 20, 164–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borgestig, M.; Falkmer, T.; Hemmingsson, H. Improving computer usage for students with physical disabilities through a collaborative approach: A pilot study. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2013, 20, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Breivik, I.; Hemmingsson, H. Experiences of handwriting and using a computerized ATD in school: Adolescents with Asperger’s syndrome. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2013, 20, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tam, C.; Wells, D. Evaluating the benefits of displaying word prediction lists on a personal digital assistant at the keyboard level. Assist. Technol. 2009, 21, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lancioni, G.E.; Singh, N.N.; O’Reilly, M.F.; Sigafoos, J.; Green, V.; Chiapparino, C.; Stasolla, F.; Doretta, O. A voice-detecting sensor and a scanning keyboard emulator to support word writing by two boys with extensive motor disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2008, 30, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burne, B.; Knafelc, V.; Melonis, M.; Heyn, P.C. The use and application of assistive technology to promote literacy in early childhood: A systematic review. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2011, 6, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: A Profile of Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities; Cat. No.: 89-628-X no. 005; Statistics Canada, Canadian Government Publishing Services: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2008.
- Light, J.; McNaughton, D. Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research priorities. Assist. Technol. 2012, 24, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindsay, S.; Tsybina, I. Predictors of unmet needs for communication and mobility assistive devices among youth with a disability: The role of socio-cultural factors. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2011, 6, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dusing, S.; Skinner, A.; Mayer, M. Unmet need for therapy services, assistive devices, and related services: Data from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. Ambul. Pediatr. 2004, 4, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scherer, M.J.; Jutai, J.W.; Fuhrer, M.J.; Demers, L.; Deruyter, F. A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil. Rehabil. 2007, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, S.E.; Klejman, S.; Gibson, B.E. Measurement of the product attitudes of youth during the selection of assistive technology devices. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2013, 8, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ottenbacher, K.J.; Cusick, A. Goal attainment scaling as a method of clinical service evaluation. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 1990, 44, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Law, M.; Baptiste, S.; McColl, M.; Opzoomer, A.; Polatajko, H.; Pollock, N. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Can. J. Occup. Ther. 1990, 57, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Streiner, D.; Norman, G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbons, E.J.; Morris, C.; Fitzpatrick, R. Child and Parent Reported Outcome Measures: A Scoping Report Focusing on Feasibility for Routine Use in the NHS; Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- McConachie, H.; Colver, A.F.; Forsyth, R.J.; Jarvis, S.N.; Parkinson, K.N. Participation of disabled children: How should it be characterised and measured? Disabil. Rehabil. 2006, 28, 1157–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Voepel-Lewis, T.; Malviya, S.; Tait, A.R. Validity of parent ratings as proxy measures of pain in children with cognitive impairment. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2005, 6, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vance, Y.H.; Morse, R.C.; Jenney, M.E.; Eiser, C. Issues in measuring quality of life in childhood cancer: Measures, proxies, and parental mental health. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatr. 2001, 42, 661–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandak, K.; O’Neill, T.; Light, J.; Fosco, G.M. Bridging the gap from values to actions: A family systems framework for family-centered AAC services. Augment. Altern. Commun. 2017, 33, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mortenson, W.B.; Demers, L.; Fuhrer, M.J.; Jutai, J.W.; Lenker, J.; DeRuyter, F. How assistive technology use by individuals with disabilities impacts their caregivers: A systematic review of the research evidence. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 91, 984–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saito, Y.; Turnbull, A. Augmentative and alternative communication practice in the pursuit of family quality of life: A review of the literature. Res. Pract. Persons Sev. Disabil. 2007, 32, 50–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuhrer, M.J.; Jutai, J.W.; Scherer, M.J.; DeRuyter, F. A framework for the conceptual modeling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003, 25, 1243–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. ICF, International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Child and Youth Version; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenbaum, P.; King, S.; Law, M.; King, G.; Evans, J. Family-Centred service: A conceptual framework and research review. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 1998, 18, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, S.; Skelton, H.; Rosenbaum, P. Assistive devices for children with functional impairments: Impact on child and caregiver function. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2007, 50, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schonberger, A. Content Validity of the Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale for Writing Devices; Final Research Report for Master of Science in Occupational Therapy; Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, S.E.; Campbell, K.A.; Rigby, P.; Germon, B.; Chan, B.; Hubley, D. Development of the New Family Impact Assistive Technology Scale (FIATS). Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2006, 29, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yeoman, R. Item Generation and Face Validity of the Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale for Writing Devices; Final Research Report for Master of Science of Occupational Therapy; Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, S.E.; Campbell, K.A.; Rigby, P. Reliability of the Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale for families of young children with cerebral palsy. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007, 88, 1436–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed.; Wiley & Sons: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Cappelleri, J.C.; Lundy, J.J.; Hays, R.D. Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcome measures. Clin. Ther. 2014, 36, 648–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coster, W.; Bedell, G.; Law, M.; Khetani, M.A.; Teplicky, R.; Liljenquist, K.; Gleason, K.; Kao, Y.C. Psychometric evaluation of the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2011, 53, 1030–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delarosa, E.; Horner, S.; Eisenberg, C.; Ball, L.; Renzoni, A.M.; Ryan, S.E. Family impact of assistive technology scale: Development of a measurement scale for parents of children with complex communication needs. Augment. Altern. Commun. 2012, 28, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dimension | Definition | Number of Items | Sample Item |
---|---|---|---|
Attitudes Towards Writing | Degree to which the child has a positive attitude towards writing. | 8 | My child likes to write. |
Caregiver Relief 1 | Degree to which parent needs relief from caregiving. | 9 | I need help to take care of my child. |
Contentment 1 | Degree to which the child is content during the day. | 9 | My child gets frustrated easily. |
Doing Activities 1 | Degree to which the child has control over his or her own actions. | 5 | My child can communicate with others. |
Establishing Routines | Degree to which the child and family establish daily routines. | 5 | My child looks forward to going to school each morning. |
Exertion | Degree of energy needed to assist the child. | 7 | It is hard work helping my child to write. |
Independence | Degree to which the child writes independently. | 7 | My child writes without help. |
Parent Well-Being | Degree to which the parent’s physical and psychological health is affected. | 8 | My life is challenged due to my child’s communication difficulties. |
Quality of Writing | Degree to which the child produces quality written work. | 8 | My child’s written communication is clear. |
Social Adaptability | Degree to which the child interacts with others in various social situations. | 8 | My child writes to other people all the time. |
Supervision 1 | Degree to which the child requires attention from family members. | 7 | My child needs me nearby to do many activities. |
Writing Activities | Degree to which the child performs written tasks. | 7 | My child writes without getting tired. |
Characteristic | Number | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Respondent | ||
Mother | 100 | 82.6 |
Father | 16 | 13.2 |
Other 1 | 5 | 4.2 |
Child Profile | ||
M | 78 | 64.5 |
F | 43 | 35.5 |
Primary Diagnosis | ||
Cerebral palsy | 36 | 29.8 |
Developmental delay | 22 | 18.2 |
Acquired brain injury | 17 | 14.0 |
Autism spectrum disorder | 13 | 10.7 |
Other diagnoses 2 | 33 | 27.3 |
Writing technologies used | ||
Switches | 2 | 1.7 |
Special keyboard | 22 | 18.2 |
Special mouse | 14 | 11.6 |
Special personal computer | 24 | 19.8 |
Special software | 68 | 56.2 |
Standard keyboard | 79 | 65.3 |
Standard mouse | 73 | 60.3 |
Standard personal computer | 87 | 71.9 |
Standard software | 52 | 43.3 |
Other writing devices 3 | 11 | 9.1 |
Dimension | Number of Items/Dimensions | n | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|
Total FIATS-WI | 10 | 121 | 0.86 |
Attitudes Towards Writing | 8 | 111 | 0.88 |
Caregiver Relief | 9 | 112 | 0.90 |
Contentment | 7 | 115 | 0.66 |
Doing Activities | 5 | 119 | 0.60 |
Exertion | 6 | 114 | 0.82 |
Independence | 8 | 117 | 0.87 |
Quality of Writing | 8 | 112 | 0.90 |
Social Adaptability | 8 | 113 | 0.79 |
Supervision | 7 | 116 | 0.79 |
Writing Activities | 8 | 111 | 0.76 |
Dimension | Time 1 (n = 33) | Time 2 (n = 28) | Test–Retest Reliability | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ICC | 95%CI | |
Total FIATS-WI | 45.32 | 8.02 | 44.48 | 7.48 | 0.94 | 0.88–0.97 |
Attitudes Towards Writing | 4.32 | 1.36 | 4.20 | 1.44 | 0.93 | 0.86–0.97 |
Caregiver Relief | 4.02 | 1.37 | 4.00 | 1.40 | 0.95 | 0.89–0.98 |
Contentment | 4.63 | 1.02 | 4.54 | 1.01 | 0.93 | 0.85–0.97 |
Doing Activities | 5.45 | 0.96 | 5.39 | 1.12 | 0.90 | 0.78–0.95 |
Exertion | 3.94 | 1.44 | 4.05 | 1.29 | 0.87 | 0.71–0.94 |
Independence | 4.62 | 1.41 | 4.33 | 1.17 | 0.90 | 0.78–0.95 |
Quality of Writing | 4.59 | 1.15 | 4.31 | 1.17 | 0.94 | 0.84–0.98 |
Social Adaptability | 4.44 | 1.21 | 4.56 | 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.84–0.97 |
Supervision | 4.46 | 1.12 | 4.35 | 1.23 | 0.92 | 0.84–0.96 |
Writing Activities | 4.84 | 0.96 | 4.75 | 1.03 | 0.92 | 0.83–0.96 |
Dimensions | How Often (n = 28) | How Involved (n = 27) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
rs | p-Value | rs | p-Value | |
Total FIATS-WI | 0.41 * | 0.03 | 0.42 * | 0.02 |
Attitudes Towards Writing | 0.17 | 0.39 | 0.26 | 0.20 |
Caregiver Relief | 0.34 | 0.08 | 0.37 | 0.05 |
Contentment | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.19 |
Doing Activities | 0.34 | 0.07 | 0.28 | 0.16 |
Exertion | 0.07 | 0.72 | 0.12 | 0.55 |
Independence | 0.06 | 0.75 | 0.16 | 0.43 |
Quality of Writing | 0.07 | 0.73 | 0.22 | 0.28 |
Social Adaptability | 0.17 | 0.40 | 0.22 | 0.28 |
Supervision | 0.42 * | 0.03 | 0.34 | 0.08 |
Writing Activities | 0.11 | 0.57 | 0.28 | 0.15 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ryan, S.E.; Sophianopoulos, M.-B. Measurement of Assistive Technology Outcomes Associated with Computer-Based Writing Interventions for Children and Youth with Disabilities. Technologies 2017, 5, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies5020019
Ryan SE, Sophianopoulos M-B. Measurement of Assistive Technology Outcomes Associated with Computer-Based Writing Interventions for Children and Youth with Disabilities. Technologies. 2017; 5(2):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies5020019
Chicago/Turabian StyleRyan, Stephen E., and Mary-Beth Sophianopoulos. 2017. "Measurement of Assistive Technology Outcomes Associated with Computer-Based Writing Interventions for Children and Youth with Disabilities" Technologies 5, no. 2: 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies5020019