1. Assessment Models
Assistive Technology
A comparison between educational
assessment practices and selected models of
the assistive technology by MJ. Maxwell

3. Assessment
 A group of activities
conducted to determine a
child’s specific needs.

4. Who Makes The Decision?

5. Multiple Environments
 AT use in the school-or in any environment-is
only as effective as the assessment of the
learners in their multiple environments.
 Effective AT assessment leads to finding
devices that build on the strengths of the
learners in their various environments in order
to improve the weaknesses in their
environments.

6. AT assessment means:
 Beginning with the learners and their multiple
life environments,
 finding where the environments affect the
learners in troublesome ways,
 and then looking for a device (or devices) that
lessen that impact by building on the learner's
strengths.

8. Successful or Not?
 AT assessment for school is successful if it
finds a device or devices that will be useful to
the learner in multiple school environments.
 AT assessment is not successful if it provides a
prescription for a device that the learner does
not find useful, which is likely to be
abandoned.

9. Purpose
 The purpose of AT assessment is to find ways
to meet the needs of the learners by matching
the strengths and weaknesses of the
learner to the device.

10. Objective
 to keep the learner's strengths and abilities at
the forefront of the assessment
 to use these to ameliorate potential difficulties
in the classroom.

11. Bells and Whistles??
 If the assessor loses sight of the learner and
becomes too enamored of "gee-whiz"
technology - for example, voice-activated
devices - then the learner is no longer at the
center of the assessment process and may not
find much of a functional use for the AT
device.

13. The learner
 1. What purposeful motoric movement does
the individual have?
 2. How willing is the learner in trying new
activities or tasks?
 3. What does the learner desire from the use of
AT?
 4. What supports will the learner require in
using the device?

14. The learner cont:
 5. What level of training will the learner and
others who interact with the learner need?
 6. What impact will the learner's
socioeconomic status and cultural background
have on the use of AT?

16. The school environment
 1. How do the teachers of learners using AT
present information to the learners?
 2. What is the preferred learning-teaching
interaction style of the classroom-a
cooperative learning style, an individualized
style, project driven, or small independent and
dependent groups?

17. Environment cont:
3. What is the primary method of assessment in
the classroom?
4. How receptive is the teacher to having a
learner who uses AT in the classroom?
5. What is the physical structure of the
classroom and school?

19. The devices
 1. How durable is the device?
 2. How easy is the device to update and/or
repair?
 3. What is the willingness of the vendor of the
device to provide a trial or loaner period of use
for the learner?
 4. What is the general reputation of the
company in terms of construction, service,
training, and reliability?

20. Devices cont:
 5. Does the AT user have the psychomotor
skills needed to use the device in a functional
manner where benefit is gained.
 6. Is the device aesthetically acceptable to the
learner?

21. Devices cont:
 7. Will the device meet the needs of the
individual in the school environment in a
manner that is easily understood by those who
interact with the learner?
 8. How portable is the device?

23. Chambers’ model
 contains a series of open-ended questions
arranged in a flowchart configuration.
 The initial question addresses the student’s
needs within the educational program from a
deficit perspective.
 The model facilitates documentation of the
consideration process,
 and supports evidence gathering as the team
attempts to answer each question.

24. Lifespace Access Profile for Individuals with
Severe or Multiple Disabilities
The purpose is to provide a “client-centered,
team-based collection of observations that
point to next steps in a comprehensive
program utilizing technology”
Target audience for the LAP is those with
severe/profound disabilities.

25. LAP cont:
 The LAP consists of an assessment protocol
that evaluates the individual’s current abilities
across five domains:
 Physical Resources, Cognitive
Resources, Emotional Resources,
Support Resources, and Environmental
Analysis.

26. MTP Model
 The Matching Person and Technology (MPT)
model considers users’
 expectations, preferences, background,
family and environmental influences,
and economic factors in the determination
of appropriate AT

27. Wisconsin Assistive Technology
Initiative
The WATI targets school-age children with
disabilities and school districts. It provides
both the process as well as specific guides
relevant to the 10 sections of the model.
The outcomes of the WATI assessment process
focus on consideration of AT in the IEP and
that the student receives AT devices and
services needed to access the curriculum and
meet IEP/IFSP goals and objectives.

28. Education Tech Points model
 based on a process associated with the delivery
of vocational rehabilitation services.
 The developers of the model propose that the
model integrates AT into the special education
service delivery process.

29. SETT framework
 focuses the attention of the individualized education
plan team on four explicit areas:
(1) the student,
 (2) the student’s environment,
 (3) the tasks required for active participation in the
environment,
 (4) the tools (AT) that enable student to access
environments, participate, and gain skills or enhance
performance.


30. SETT cont:
 A series of questions in each of the four
areas are intended to stimulate thought,
promote dialogue and consensus among
team members, and guide the decision-
making process.

31. Unifying Functional Model
Places emphasis on the interrelationships
among numerous dynamic elements,
including;
1. home and school environments,
2.the student’s personal perceptions, and
3.resources available to the student.
All of the elements guide the functional response
of the school team.

33. Try it out
 Once the process of information gathering is
complete and device possibilities have been
decided on, it is time to introduce the learner
to the device in the learner's various
environments.
 AT assessment leads to device selection, but
only after the learner has tried the devices in
as many possible environments as the learner
frequents.

34. Who’s reality is it?
 The learner's reality, not the assessment
team's, ultimately determines device selection
and utility. Learners may not select the "best"
device from a technological point of view.
 Nevertheless, they will select devices that give
them what they want in their lives, and
understanding this is the key to AT
assessment.

35. Comparative analysis
 A comparative analysis of the models reveals
both similarities and differences.
 They share an ultimate goal – to match a
person to the most effective AT that will meet
his/her needs within the environments in
which it will be used.
 All models in some capacity explore and assess
the person, the environments, and the
tasks for which the technology is
needed.

36. Comparison cont:
 Each model emphasizes the process of
assessment.
A multidisciplinary, collaborative team
approach is strongly emphasized in all
models.
They all follow an ecological, functional
assessment approach. The SETT, ETP, LAP,
and WATI are primarily designed for AT
assessment within school settings.

37. Comparison cont:
 The SETT and LAP programs could easily be
adapted for adults and non-school settings, the
ETP and WATI less so.
 “In some ways, a comparative analysis of these
models is a bit like the proverbial comparison
of apples and oranges. Evaluated separately,
they each have specific characteristics,
strengths, and emphases. Taken together, they
make a good fruit salad!”

38. References
 Watts, Emily H.; O'Brian, Mary; Wojcik, Brian
W.; Journal of Special Education Technology,
Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 43-56
Publication Date: Winter 2004
 Bromley, Barbara E., Ph.D. Home
Modification Resources College of
Education and Integrative Studies
Cal Poly Pomona bbromley@csupomona.edu


39. References cont:
 Beigel ,Andrew R. (2000) Assistive
Technology Assessment: More Than the
Device, SUNY New Paltz, OMB 208, New
Paltz, NY 12561; e mail:
beigel@npum.newpaltz.edu