The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review

Abstract Purpose This systematic review examines the impact of assistive technology (AT) on educational and psychosocial outcomes for students with disabilities (SWDs) in higher education. Materials and methods Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method studies were identified through systematic searches of five databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC and Web of Science (Social Science Citation Index). The search was conducted in January 2018. Thematic synthesis was carried out to collate findings across papers and the methodological quality of included papers was assessed using a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results Twenty-six papers were included for analysis. Four analytic themes were identified; “AT as an enabler of academic engagement”; “barriers to effective AT use can hinder academic engagement”; “the transformative possibilities of AT from a psychological perspective”; and “AT as an enabler of participation”. Conclusions This systematic review identifies that AT can promote educational, psychological and social benefits for SWD. However, AT users and AT officers must be aware of certain factors, such as inadequate AT training, inadequacies of devices, availability of external support and the challenge of negotiating multiple information sources, can hinder effective AT use and thus restrict engagement in the higher education environment. Future AT practices should focus on harnessing the potential of mainstream devices as AT for all students, thus facilitating inclusion and reducing stigma. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Students with disabilities face academic, psychological and social challenges within the higher education environment. Assistive technology (AT) use can enable academic engagement and social participation and be transformative from a psychological perspective. Disability support staff in higher education should ensure that the AT needs of students with disabilities are met in order to enhance the educational experience. Harnessing the potential of mainstream devices as AT for all students will facilitate inclusion and reduce stigma.

[1]  Alexa Smith-Osborne,et al.  Perceived Influence of Adoption of Personal Electronic Response Systems by Students With and Without Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency in Small Social Work Classes , 2014 .

[2]  Renee O. Hawkins,et al.  Use of Reading Pen Assistive Technology to Accommodate Post-Secondary Students with Reading Disabilities , 2012 .

[3]  M. Kenny,et al.  Participation in higher education for students with disabilities: an Irish perspective , 2004 .

[4]  Alan R Foley,et al.  The use of mobile devices as assistive technology in resource-limited environments: access for learners with visual impairments in Kenya , 2015, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[5]  A. Vanbiervliet,et al.  Predictors of assistive technology use: The importance of personal and psychosocial factors , 2005, Disability and rehabilitation.

[6]  Kristina L. Hauschildt,et al.  Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe , 2015 .

[7]  Mike Wald,et al.  Exploring the technology experiences of disabled learners in higher education: challenges for the use and development of participatory research methods , 2008 .

[8]  Dennis McDougall,et al.  Comprehension and Time Expended for a Doctoral Student with a Learning Disability when Reading with and without an Accommodation. , 2012 .

[9]  Thomas D. Snyder,et al.  Digest of Education Statistics , 1994 .

[10]  James A Lenker,et al.  Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes , 2013, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[11]  N. Schreuer,et al.  Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education: Performance and participation in student's experiences , 2011 .

[12]  J. Popay,et al.  Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[13]  Zhuang Fengqing,et al.  Patients’ Responsibilities in Medical Ethics , 2016 .

[14]  Max Ito,et al.  Effect of assistive technology in a public school setting. , 2010, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[15]  M. Preyde,et al.  The lived experience of students with an invisible disability at a Canadian university , 2013 .

[16]  Thomas W. Christ.  Technology support services in postsecondary education: A mixed methods study , 2008 .

[17]  Karen Jacobs,et al.  Activities and interim outcomes of a multi-site development project to promote cognitive support technology use and employment success among postsecondary students with traumatic brain injuries. , 2015, NeuroRehabilitation.

[18]  A. Frank,et al.  Electric-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs): users' views of influence on family, friends and carers , 2010, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[19]  M J Scherer,et al.  A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[20]  Abdullah Kuzu.  The Factors that Motivate and Hinder the Students with Hearing Impairment to Use Mobile Technology. , 2011 .

[21]  Shweta Mishra,et al.  Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe: EUROSTUDENT V 2012–2015; Synopsis of Indicators , 2015 .

[22]  Gary R Maslow,et al.  College Freshmen with Chronic Illness: A Comparison With Healthy First-Year Students , 2014 .

[23]  M. Maclachlan,et al.  Opening the GATE to inclusion for people with disabilities , 2015, The Lancet.

[24]  Frank DeRuyter,et al.  Psychometric and Administrative Properties of Measures Used in Assistive Technology Device Outcomes Research , 2005, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[25]  Tali Heiman,et al.  Students With LD in Higher Education , 2012, Journal of learning disabilities.

[26]  S. Chatterji,et al.  The definition of disability: what is in a name? , 2006, The Lancet.

[27]  Roger D. Wessel,et al.  Pre-Enrollment Considerations of Undergraduate Wheelchair Users and Their Post-Enrollment Transitions. , 2015 .

[28]  Matt P. Malcolm,et al.  Self-reported assistive technology outcomes and personal characteristics in college students with less-apparent disabilities , 2019, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[29]  Thomas W. Reynolds,et al.  Speech Recognition, Disability, and College Composition. , 2015 .

[30]  Marcia J Scherer,et al.  Assistive technology and people: a position paper from the first global research, innovation and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit , 2018, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[31]  K. Yu,et al.  Gender differences in the academic and clinical performances of undergraduate nursing students: a systematic review. , 2014, Nurse education today.

[32]  S. Hignett,et al.  Evaluating Evidence: Defining Levels and Quality Using Critical Appraisal Mixed Methods Tools , 2014, HERD.

[33]  Ted S. Hasselbring,et al.  Assistive Technology and Universal Design for Learning : Two Sides of the Same Coin , 2007 .

[34]  S Holm,et al.  Assistive technology, telecare and people with intellectual disabilities: ethical considerations , 2009, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[35]  C. Pope,et al.  Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example , 2002, Journal of health services research & policy.

[36]  Shirley G Fitzgerald,et al.  Effect of a pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchair on the functional capabilities of persons with tetraplegia. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[37]  Frans Verhey,et al.  Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review , 2010, Clinical rehabilitation.

[38]  Sanjay Kumar,et al.  A comprehensive digital environment for visually impaired students: user's perspectives , 2017, Libr. Hi Tech.

[39]  Stacey Lowery Bretz,et al.  Seeing Chemistry through the Eyes of the Blind: A Case Study Examining Multiple Gas Law Representations , 2013 .

[40]  Laura A Rice,et al.  Differences in participation based on self-esteem in power and manual wheelchair users on a university campus: a pilot study , 2015, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[41]  L. D. de Witte,et al.  Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice , 2009, Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy.

[42]  David R. Jones,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods , 2005 .

[43]  Sharon Judge,et al.  The Efficacy of Assistive Technology on Reading Comprehension for Postsecondary Students with Learning Disabilities , 2012 .

[44]  Michael D. Fetters,et al.  Meta-integration for synthesizing data in a systematic mixed studies review: insights from research on autism spectrum disorder , 2016 .

[45]  A. Majnemer,et al.  Quality of life and leisure participation in children with neurodevelopmental disabilities: a thematic analysis of the literature , 2012, Quality of Life Research.

[46]  D. Sugden,et al.  Children's perceptions of their use of assistive devices in home and school settings , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[47]  Catherine Law,et al.  Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[48]  J. Jutai,et al.  Evaluation of the longer-term use of the David Hart Walker Orthosis by children with cerebral palsy: a 3-year prospective evaluation , 2006, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[49]  Pierre Pluye,et al.  Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. , 2014, Annual review of public health.

[50]  M. Malcolm,et al.  The impact of assistive technology services in post-secondary education for students with disabilities: Intervention outcomes, use-profiles, and user-experiences , 2017, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[51]  Kika Hadjikakou,et al.  The Experiences of Students with Mobility Disabilities in Cypriot Higher Education Institutions: Listening to their voices , 2010 .

[52]  Matthew T. Marino,et al.  Universal Design for Learning and Assistive Technology: Leadership Considerations for Promoting Inclusive Education in Today’s Secondary Schools , 2010 .

[53]  Julia B. Stoner,et al.  Perspectives of Assistive Technology from Deaf Students at a Hearing University. , 2008 .

[54]  Avi Kaplan,et al.  Disability Identity and Use of Services Among College Students With Psychiatric Disabilities , 2018, Qualitative Psychology.

[55]  Julie N. Causton-Theoharis,et al.  “Moving quietly through the door of opportunity”: Perspectives of College Students who Type to Communicate , 2012 .

[56]  P. Pluye,et al.  Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. , 2012, International journal of nursing studies.

[57]  Guy M. Goodwin,et al.  Introduction to Systematic Reviews , 2004, Journal of psychopharmacology.

[58]  Chon-Haw Tsai,et al.  An Eye-Tracking Assistive Device Improves the Quality of Life for ALS Patients and Reduces the Caregivers’ Burden , 2014, Journal of motor behavior.

[59]  Marianne Storm,et al.  Status of knowledge on student‐learning environments in nursing homes: A mixed‐method systematic review , 2018, Journal of clinical nursing.

[60]  Patrick Onghena,et al.  Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential , 2013 .

[61]  M. Lauritsen,et al.  Parental Self-perception in the Autism Spectrum Disorder Literature: a Systematic Mixed Studies Review , 2016 .

[62]  Skip Stahl,et al.  Assistive Technology, Universal Design, Universal Design for Learning: Improved Learning Opportunities , 2003 .

[63]  Elizabeth R. Lorah,et al.  A Systematic Review of Tablet Computers and Portable Media Players as Speech Generating Devices for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder , 2015, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[64]  D. Rowan,et al.  Disabled students’ experiences of higher education in Sweden, the Czech Republic, and the United States – a comparative institutional analysis , 2016 .

[65]  Tonya N. Davis,et al.  Using iPods(®) and iPads(®) in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: a systematic review. , 2013, Research in developmental disabilities.

[66]  H. Seelen,et al.  Functional added value of microprocessor-controlled knee joints in daily life performance of Medicare Functional Classification Level-2 amputees. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[67]  M. Davies,et al.  Disabilities , 2000, Washington Information Directory 2021–2022.

[68]  L. Swartz,et al.  Experiences of visually impaired students in higher education: bodily perspectives on inclusive education , 2016, Disability & society.

[69]  Lisa B. Elliot,et al.  Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students' Memory of Lectures with Speech-to-Text and Interpreting/Note Taking Services , 2009 .

[70]  P. Pluye,et al.  Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[71]  P. A. Mosia,et al.  Access to curriculum for students with disabilities at higher education institutions: How does the National University of Lesotho fare? , 2017, African journal of disability.

[72]  F. Rauch,et al.  The psychosocial experience of individuals living with osteogenesis imperfecta: a mixed-methods systematic review , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[73]  FuNCTIoNAL ADDeD vALue oF MICRoPRoCeSSoR-CoNTRoLLeD PRoSTHeTIC KNee JoINTS IN DAILy LIFe PeRFoRMANCe oF MeDICARe FuNCTIoNAL CLASSIFICATIoN LeveL-2 AMPuTeeS , 2011 .

[74]  A. Harden,et al.  Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[75]  W. Lan,et al.  Accommodation Strategies of College Students with Disabilities. , 2010 .

[76]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[77]  M. Malcolm,et al.  Assistive technology outcomes in post-secondary students with disabilities: the influence of diagnosis, gender, and class-level , 2017, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[78]  L. Mortari,et al.  The Inclusion of Students with Dyslexia in Higher Education: A Systematic Review Using Narrative Synthesis , 2014, Dyslexia.

[79]  Mairin Kenny,et al.  Including young people with disabilities: Assessment challenges in higher education , 2007 .

[80]  Lise Bird Claiborne,et al.  Supporting students with impairments in higher education: social inclusion or cold comfort? , 2011 .

[81]  Diane Pedrotty Bryant,et al.  Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities , 2002 .

[82]  Karla K. McGregor,et al.  Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Comput. Educ..