JSET ejournal
AM MEMBERS
TAM Site Link
Todis and Walker (1993) identified one of the critical shortcomings
of staff training as a failure to link operation of the device
to student goals. They found that the staff working with the
students were not always clear that the goal of assistive technology
services was not device use by the student, but rather, the student
using the device for specific tasks and IEP goals. They concluded
that, the most pervasive barrier to effective use of assistive
technology was a lack of understanding of the interaction of
the different factors that influence effective use of assistive
technology.
Findings related to staff training and preparedness also were
noted by MacGregor and Pachuski (1996), stating the need for
"interdisciplinary planning teams to develop carefully considered
programs and supports for the use of assistive devices"
(p. 14). This study, like the previous study, emphasized the
need for careful planning and the importance of the interconnectivity
of factors that influence the provision of assistive technology
devices and services.
Hutinger,et al. (1996) identified similar barriers to device
use in their longitudinal case study research. In each of the
six cases reviewed, differing perspectives and attitudes between
families and school personnel were cited as barriers to the effective
use of assistive technology by students. Other major barriers
were related to differing perspectives and attitudes. These included:
(a) the student's educational placement, (b) transitions from
one school environment to another, and (c) the means by which
technology was acquired. Primary among the many barriers
identified in this study were barriers related to a lack of alignment
of goals and expectations and the lack of collaboration. In the
conclusion and recommendations, the researchers called for an
increase in (a) proactive, collaborative planning, (b) staff
training, (c) parental support, (d) equipment management, (e)
proactive administrators, and (f) a clearly defined system of
policies and procedures.
In order for school districts, school personnel, and family members
to participate effectively in assistive technology decision making
and planning, they must be well informed about the complex web
of interrelated issues that have been shown to impact the effectiveness
of assistive technology service delivery. Although this analysis
has focused on the barriers that impede effective assistive technology
service delivery, it supports the idea that a problem must be
identified correctly before effective solutions can be considered.
A major aspect of this problem identification appears to be closely
aligned to the differing perspectives, attitudes, knowledge,
skills, and levels of preparedness of the many people who have
a role in the consideration, development, delivery, and evaluation
of assistive technology services in school settings. It is complicated
by the lack of a consistent, clearly understood description of
quality assistive technology services.
Development of Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology
(QIAT)
Services in School Settings
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services (QIAT) is
a set of descriptors of critical elements related to major functions
involved in the provision of assistive technology services. Currently,
quality indicators have been developed for six functions including
Administration, Consideration, Assessment, Documentation in the
IEP, Intervention, and Evaluation of Effectiveness, . The
primary purpose of QIAT is to support thoughtful development,
provision, and evaluation of assistive technology services for
students with disabilities, regardless of where the services
are provided or the specific model used to support service provision.
Further, QIAT supports the idea that the services should address
not only the needs of students, but also the needs of family
members and school personnel who work with students who require
assistive technology devices and services to receive FAPE. This
section details the activities involved in the development and
dissemination of QIAT.
Initial Development
In mid-1998, 14 assistive technology service providers from across
the nation met to share common concerns about the complexity
of issues and processes related to assistive technology training
and service delivery. Though each individual had a history of
expertise and leadership in assistive technology in K-12 school
settings at national, state, or local levels, the group was,
by intention, geographically and professionally diverse (See
Table 1). The original purpose of the meeting was to discuss
the possibility of aligning assistive technology professional
development efforts across the country. However, early in the
discussions, group members confirmed that there were no consistent,
clearly defined descriptors of quality assistive technology services
to serve as the guide for alignment of their professional development
efforts.
