Stakeholders' views of the introduction of assistive technology in the classroom: How family‐centred is Australian practice for students with cerebral palsy?

BACKGROUND With family-centred care widely recognized as a cornerstone for effective assistive technology service provision, the current study was undertaken to investigate to what extent such approaches were used by schools when assistive technology assessments and implementation occurred in the classroom. METHOD In this cross-sectional study, we compare survey results from parents (n = 76), school staff (n = 33) and allied health professionals (n = 65) with experience in the use of high-tech assistive technology. Demographic characteristics and the stakeholders' perceived helpfulness and frequency attending assessment and set-up sessions were captured. To evaluate how family-centred the assistive technology services were perceived to be, the parents filled out the Measure of Processes of Care for Caregivers, and the professionals completed the Measure of Processes of Care for Service Providers. Descriptive statistics and one-way analysis of variance were used to conduct the data analysis. RESULTS Findings show that parents are more involved during the assessment stage than during the implementation and that classroom teachers are often not involved in the initial stage. Speech pathologists in particular are seen to be to a great extent helpful when implementing assistive technology in the classroom. This study found that family-centred service is not yet fully achieved in schools despite being endorsed in early intervention and disability services for over 20 years. No statistically significant differences were found with respect to school staff and allied health professionals' roles, their years of experience working with students with cerebral palsy and the scales in the Measure of Processes of Care for Service Providers. CONCLUSION To enhance the way technology is matched to the student and successfully implemented, classroom teachers need to be fully involved in the whole assistive technology process. The findings also point to the significance of parents' involvement, with the support of allied health professionals, in the process of selecting and implementing assistive technology in the classroom.

[1]  D. Bailey,et al.  Creating Family-Centered Services in Early Intervention: Perceptions of Professionals in Four States , 1992, Exceptional children.

[2]  Joy Zabala.  The SETT Framework: Critical Areas To Consider When Making Informed Assistive Technology Decisions. , 1995 .

[3]  P. Rosenbaum,et al.  PARENTS‘ PERCEPTIONS OF CAREGIVING: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MEASURE OF PROCESSES , 1996, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[4]  G. King,et al.  Evaluating family-centred service using a measure of parents' perceptions. , 1997, Child: care, health and development.

[5]  Linda Viscardis.  The Family-Centred Approach to Providing Services , 1998 .

[6]  Gillian King,et al.  Family-Centred Service , 1998 .

[7]  D. Angelo.  Impact of augmentative and alternative communication devices on families , 2000 .

[8]  G. King,et al.  Family-Centered Service: Developing and Validating a Self-Assessment Tool for Pediatric Service Providers , 2001 .

[9]  S. Rodger,et al.  Towards family‐centred practice in paediatric occupational therapy: A review of the literature on parent–therapist collaboration , 2002 .

[10]  Lynda H. Webb,et al.  A provision framework and data logging tool to aid the prescription of electronic assistive technology , 2002 .

[11]  M. Scherer,et al.  Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process , 2002 .

[12]  M. Law,et al.  Factors affecting family-centred service delivery for children with disabilities. , 2003, Child: care, health and development.

[13]  J. Ziviani,et al.  Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. , 2004, Occupational therapy international.

[14]  Mary M. Murray,et al.  Evaluation of a Family-Centered Early Childhood Special Education Preservice Model by Program Graduates , 2004 .

[15]  G. King,et al.  Family-centered service for children with cerebral palsy and their families: a review of the literature. , 2004, Seminars in pediatric neurology.

[16]  G. King,et al.  Evaluating Health Service Delivery to Children With Chronic Conditions and Their Families: Development of a Refined Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC−20) , 2004 .

[17]  H. P. Parette,et al.  Family‐centered and Culturally Responsive Assistive Technology Decision Making , 2004 .

[18]  Mary M. Murray,et al.  On-the-Job Practices of Early Childhood Special Education Providers Trained in Family-Centered Practices , 2006 .

[19]  A. Eliasson,et al.  The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. , 2006, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[20]  Rita L. Bailey,et al.  Family members' perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. , 2006, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[21]  P. Dyke,et al.  Use of the measure of process of care for families (MPOC-56) and service providers (MPOC-SP) to evaluate family-centred services in a paediatric disability setting. , 2006, Child: care, health and development.

[22]  Linda Chmiliar.  Perspectives on Assistive Technology: What Teachers, Health Professionals, and Speech and Language Pathologists Have to Say , 2007 .

[23]  T. Lyons,et al.  Parents' and service providers' perceptions of family-centred practice in a community-based, paediatric disability service in Australia. , 2007, Child: care, health and development.

[24]  Jodie Copley,et al.  Use of a Team-Based Approach to Assistive Technology Assessment and Planning for Children With Multiple Disabilities: A Pilot Study , 2007, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[25]  H. Hemmingsson,et al.  Students with disabilities participating in mainstream schools: policies that promote and limit teacher and therapist cooperation , 2007 .

[26]  D. Keen,et al.  A Review of Processes and Outcomes in Family-Centered Services for Children With a Disability , 2008 .

[27]  P. Rosenbaum,et al.  Content validity of the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification System , 2008, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[28]  S. Egilson,et al.  Participation of students with physical disabilities in the school environment. , 2009, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[29]  H. Leonard,et al.  Evaluation of the processes of family-centred care for young children with intellectual disability in Western Australia. , 2010, Child: care, health and development.

[30]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  Developing and validating the Communication Function Classification System for individuals with cerebral palsy , 2011, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[31]  L. Matthews,et al.  Parent and service providers' perceptions regarding the delivery of family-centred paediatric rehabilitation services in a children's hospital. , 2011, Child: care, health and development.

[32]  I. Autti-Rämö,et al.  Professional background and the comprehension of family-centredness of rehabilitation for children with cerebral palsy. , 2012, Child: care, health and development.

[33]  P. Raghavendra,et al.  School Participation and Social Networks of Children with Complex Communication Needs, Physical Disabilities, and Typically Developing Peers , 2012, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[34]  J. Millsteed,et al.  The impact of switching on family caregivers of children with cerebral palsy , 2013, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[35]  G. Baird,et al.  Speech, communication and use of augmentative communication in young people with cerebral palsy: the SH&PE population study. , 2014, Child: care, health and development.

[36]  Nicole Fassbinder,et al.  Assistive Technology Access For All Students , 2016 .