Technology to support positive occupational engagement and communication in persons with multiple disabilities

References

1. Lancioni GE, O’Reilly MF, Singh NN, Sigafoos J, Oliva D, Smaldone A, et al. Technology-assisted programs for promoting leisure or communication engagement in two persons with pervasive motor or multiple disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:108–14.10.3109/17483107.2010.496524Search in Google Scholar

2. Sutherland D, van der Meer L, Sigafoos J, Mirfin-Veitch B, Milner P, O’Reilly MF, et al. Survey of AAC needs for adults with intellectual disability in New Zealand. J Dev Phys Disabil 2014;26:115–22.10.1007/s10882-013-9347-zSearch in Google Scholar

3. Taylor JL, Hodapp RM. Doing nothing: adults with disabilities with no daily activities and their siblings. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 2012;117:67–79.10.1352/1944-7558-117.1.67Search in Google Scholar

4. Hreha K, Snowdon L. We all can call: enhancing accessible cell phone usage for clients with spinal cord injury. Assist Technol 2011;23:76–80.10.1080/10400435.2011.567373Search in Google Scholar

5. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Green VA, Oliva D, Buonocunto F, et al. Technology-based programs to support forms of leisure engagement and communication for persons with multiple disabilities: Two single-case studies. Dev Neurorehabil 2012;15:209–18.10.3109/17518423.2012.666766Search in Google Scholar

6. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Boccasini A, La Martire ML, et al. Case studies of technology for adults with multiple disabilities to make telephone calls independently. Percept Motor Skill 2014;119:320–31.10.2466/15.PMS.119c14z4Search in Google Scholar

7. Badia M, Orgaz MB, Verdugo MA, Ullán AM. Patterns and determinants of leisure participation of youth and adults with developmental disabilities. J Intell Disabil Res 2013;57:319–32.10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01539.xSearch in Google Scholar

8. McDougall J, Evans J, Baldwin P. The importance of self-determination to perceived quality of life for youth and young adults with chronic conditions and disabilities. Rem Spec Educ 2010;31:252–60.10.1177/0741932509355989Search in Google Scholar

9. Shogren KA, Broussard R. Exploring the perceptions of self-determination of individuals with intellectual disability. Intellect Dev Disabil 2011;49:86–102.10.1352/1934-9556-49.2.86Search in Google Scholar

10. Bryen DN, Carey A, Friedman M. Cell phone use by adults with intellectual disabilities. Intellect Dev Disabil 2007;45:1–9.10.1352/1934-9556(2007)45[1:CPUBAW]2.0.CO;2Search in Google Scholar

11. Stock SE, Davies DK, Wehmeyer ML, Palmer SB. Evaluation of cognitively accessible software to increase independent access to cellphone for people with intellectual disability. J Intell Disabil Res 2008;52:1155–64.10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01099.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Badia M, Orgaz MB, Verdugo MA, Ullán AM, Martínez M. Relationships between leisure participation and quality of life of people with developmental disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2013;26:533–45.10.1111/jar.12052Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Borg J, Larsson S, Östergren PO. The right to assistive technology: For whom, for what, and by whom? Disabil Soc 2011;26:151–67.10.1080/09687599.2011.543862Search in Google Scholar

14. O’Rourke P, Ekins R, Timmins B, Timmins F, Long S, Coyle E. Crucial design issues for special access technology: a Delphi study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2014;9:48–59.10.3109/17483107.2013.806599Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Bache J, Derwent G. Access to computer-based leisure for individuals with profound disabilities. NeuroRehabilitation 2008;23:343–50.10.3233/NRE-2008-23408Search in Google Scholar

16. Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Oliva D, Cingolani E. Students with multiple disabilities using technology-based programs to choose and access stimulus events alone or with caregiver participation. Res Dev Disabil 2009;30:689–701.10.1016/j.ridd.2008.09.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Stasolla F, Perilli V, Di Leone A, Damiani R, Albano V, Stella A, et al. Technological aids to support choice strategies by three girls with Rett syndrome. Res Dev Disabil 2015;36:36–44.10.1016/j.ridd.2014.09.017Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Lancioni GE, Simone IL, De Caro MF, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, et al. Assisting persons with advanced amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in their leisure engagement and communication needs with a basic technology-aided program. NeuroRehabilitation 2015;36:355–65.10.3233/NRE-151224Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Perilli V, Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Cassano G, et al. Persons with Alzheimer’s disease make phone calls independently using a computer-aided telephone system. Res Dev Disabil 2012;33:1014–20.10.1016/j.ridd.2012.01.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Balla DA. Vineland adaptive behavior scales, 2nd ed. Vineland II, Minneapolis: Pearson, 2005.10.1037/t15164-000Search in Google Scholar

21. Barlow DH, Nock M, Hersen M. Single-case experimental designs: strategies for studying behavior change 3rd ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

22. Fried-Oken M, Beukelman DR, Hux K. Current and future AAC research considerations for adults with acquired cognitive and communication impairments. Assist Technol 2012;24: 56–66.10.1080/10400435.2011.648713Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

23. Lindstedt H, Umb-Carlsson Ö. Cognitive assistive technology and professional support in everyday life for adults with ADHD. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013;8:402–8.10.3109/17483107.2013.769120Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Hatakeyama T, Watanabe T, Takahashi K, Doi K, Fukuda A. Development of communication assistive technology for persons with deaf-blindness and physical limitation. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015;217:974–9.Search in Google Scholar

25. Brown I, Hatton C, Emerson E. Quality of life indicators for individuals with intellectual disabilities: extending current practice. Intellect Dev Disabil 2013;51:316–32.10.1352/1934-9556-51.5.316Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Channon A. Intellectual disability and activity engagement: exploring the literature from an occupational perspective. J Occup Sci 2014;21:443–58.10.1080/14427591.2013.829398Search in Google Scholar

27. Foley A, Ferri BA. Technology for people, not disabilities: ensuring access and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs 2012;12:192–200.10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01230.xSearch in Google Scholar

28. Light J, McNaughton D. From basic to applied research to improve outcomes for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: potential contributions of eye tracking research methods. Augment Altern Commun 2014;30:99–105.10.3109/07434618.2014.906498Search in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Dahlin E, Rydén M. Assistive technology for persons with psychiatric disabilities: accessibility and cost-benefit. Assistive Technology Research Series 2011;29:294–9.Search in Google Scholar

30. Kennedy C. Single case designs for educational research. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

31. Näslund R, Gardelli Å. ‘I know, I can, I will try’: youths and adults with intellectual disabilities in Sweden using information and communication technology in their everyday life. Disabil Soc 2013;28:28–40.10.1080/09687599.2012.695528Search in Google Scholar

32. Ball J, Fazil Q. Does engagement in meaningful occupation reduce challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities? A systematic review of the literature. J Intellect Disabil 2013;17:64–77.10.1177/1744629512473557Search in Google Scholar PubMed

33. Callahan K, Henson R, Cowan AK. Social validation of evidence-based practices in autism by parents, teachers, and administrators. J Autism Dev Disord 2008;38: 678–92.10.1007/s10803-007-0434-9Search in Google Scholar PubMed

34. Lenker JA, Harris F, Taugher M, Smith RO. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013;8:373–80.10.3109/17483107.2012.749429Search in Google Scholar PubMed