Assistive Technology Assessment Models—Class 5

There are a number of models used to assess whether individuals with disabilities are using appropriate assistive technology.  I will describe five models in detail and note the similarities and differences amongst the models.

 

 

 

 

Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) Model

 

 

The HAAT model offers a framework for understanding AT in the lives of those with disabilities.  Components include the human, the activity, the AT, and the context in which all three exist, all of which must be considered when matching AT to the user.  The activity could be daily life, work, or leisure, and is determined by the individual’s life roles.  Activities can be broken down into smaller steps so that the specific part an individual needs help with can be pinpointed.  The human has physical, cognitive, and affective dimensions, and various skills and abilities of the individual must be recognized when assessing appropriate AT.  The context consists of physical, social, cultural, and institutional components as outlined on the diagram.  When assessing the appropriateness of AT for a user, all these components must be considered.  This framework is not specific to students like SETT and ETP.  It is more general and could apply to anyone requiring AT for any part of life so is more similar to MPT in that regard.

 

 

 

Education Tech Points (ETP) Framework

This model focuses on planning and providing technology services to meet the special education needs of children with disabilities.  It is based on six tech points to ensure effective service delivery:

1.      Referral—identifying students who may need services

2.      Evaluation—considers if and when student needs AT

3.      Extended assessment—a trial period with one or more AT devices

4.      Plan development—considering when AT is required and how the student fared while using the AT during the extended assessment

5.      Implementation—student training, staff training, and equipment management are all important components of this tech point

6.      Periodic review—team reviews information from implementation and decides if changes are required

This framework is specific to the school setting and would be used by a program planning team.

 

 

 

Student, Environment, Task, and Tools (SETT) Framework

This model asserts that the student, environment, and task should be investigated before tools are selected, as the combination of these factors will impact an individual’s ability to effectively use tools.  The linked video describes details of the SETT framework.

This is a bit different from the HAAT model because it recognizes that one could consider any component as isolated from the context, but when performance is of interest, all the components overlap and student abilities and disabilities, the task to be performed, and the tools available must be considered in the particular environment the task is to be performed.  These factors parallel human, activity, AT, and context from the HAAT framework.  This framework is also designed specifically for students.

 

 

 

Matching Person and Technology (MPT) Framework

 

This framework is based on a series of worksheet/checklist instruments that assess the anticipated purpose for the technology, the environment in which the person will use the technology, the person’s preferences and needs, and the functions and features of the technology.  Each of these components can positively or negatively impact technology use, so the goal is to ensure positive influences that result in an appropriate technology match with the person, allowing the AT to be used successfully.  This framework requires input from both the user and the provider of the AT, whereas in HAAT and SETT frameworks, this requirement does not seem to be as explicit.  This framework is focused on adults, but there is an instrument specific for students.

 

 

 

Lifespace Access Profile (LAP) Framework

This framework is designed for individuals with severe disabilities.  Assessment for the LAP considers individual ability in five areas.  The physical resources section considers health and mobility, and the cognitive resources evaluate an individual’s ability to understand cause-and-effect as well as communication skills.  The emotional resources part identifies distractors, positive reinforces, and tolerance for change.  Support resources notes if caregivers have the time and skill to effectively use the AT.  The environmental analysis recognizes whether the individual can use the AT in multiple environments.  This framework would not apply to a great number of students.  The fact that this framework considers the individual in their environment as well as the human supports that are in place is good.

 

 

The Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI) might also be of interest to some readers of this blog.

A good overview of most of the models is offered here.