Page 115 - Handbook of Electronic Assistive Technology

102 HANDBOOK OF ELECTRONIC ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Jutai, J.W., Fuhrer, M.J., Demers, L., Scherer, M.J., DeRuyter, F., 2005. Toward a taxonomy of assistive tech-
nology device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 84 (4), 249–302.
Kerrigan, A.J., 1997. The Psychosocial Impact of Rehabilitation Technology, Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation: State of the Art Reviews, vol. 11, pp. 239–252.
Kohler, F., Connolly, C., Sakaria, A., Stendara, K., Buhagir, M., Mojadidi, M., 2013. Can the ICF be used as a
rehabilitation outcome measure? A study looking at the inter- and intra-rater reliability of ICF catego-
ries derived from an ADL assessment tool. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 45 (9), 881–887.
Layton, N., 2012. Barriers and facilitators to community mobility for assistive technology users.
Rehabilitation Research Practice, 2012, 9. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/rerp/2012/454195/.
Lenker, J.A., Scherer, M.J., Fuhrer, M.J., Jutai, J.W., DeRuyter, F., 2005. Psychometric and administrative
properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assistive Technology
17, 7–22.
Lilford, R.J., Brown, C.A., Nicholl, J., 2007. Use of process measures to monitor the quality of clinical prac-
tice. BMJ 335 (7621), 648–650.
Lorig, K., Stewart, A., Ritter, P., Gonzalez, V., Laurent, D., Lynch, J., 1996. Outcome Measures for Health
Education and Other Health Interventions. Sage Publication.
Mallick, M., Aurakzai, J.K., Bile, K.M., Ahmed, N., 2010. Large-scale physical disabilities and their manage-
ment in the aftermath of the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 16
(Supp.), 98–105. WHO.
Murphy, J., Markova, I., Collins, S., Moodie, E., 1996. AAC systems: obstacles to effective use. European
Journal of Disorders of Communication 31, 31–44.
Murphy, J., Gray, C., Cox, S., 2007. The use of Talking Mats to improve communication and quality of care
for people with dementia. Housing, Care and Support 10 (3), 21–28.
Nordic Centre for Rehabilitation Technology (NUH), 2007. Nordic Cooperation on Disability Issues.
Provision of Assistive Technology in Nordic Countries. Available at: http://www.hinnovic.org/wp-
content/uploads/2008/11/pdf_provisionassistivetechnology.pdf.
Phillips, B., Zhao, H., 1993. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology 5 (1), 35–45.
Reiman, A.S., 1988. Assessment and accountability: the third revolution in medical care. New England
Journal of Medicine 319, 1220–1222.
Scherer, M.J., 1996. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation
18, 439–448.
Scherer, M.J., 2002. The change in emphasis from People to person. Introduction to special issue on
Assistive Technology. Disability and Rehabilitation 24, 1–4.
Scherer, M., Jutai, J., Fuhrer, M., Demers, L., Deruyter, F., 2007. A framework for modelling the selection of
assistive technology devices. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2 (1), 1–8.
Turner-Stokes, L., 2009. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Clinical
Rehabilitation 23 (4), 362–370.
United States Assistive Technology Act, 1998. Public Law, 105–394. Outline and findings available at:
https://www.section508.gov/assistive-technology-act-1998.
Verza, R., Lopes Carvalho, M.L., Battaglia, M.A., Messmer Uccelli, M., 2006. An interdisciplinary approach
to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Multiple Sclerosis
Journal 12 (1), 88–93.
Wessels, R., Persson, J., Lorentsen, O., Andrich, R., Ferrario, M., Oortwijn, W., VanBeekum, T., Brodin, H.,
de Witte, L., 2002. IPPA: individually prioritised problem assessment. Technology and Disability 14,
141–145.