Johnson extended the method of investigation that began with the RAATS in her study of AT (or RT – rehabilitation technology, the term used in vocational rehabilitation) use of clients served by the State of Wisconsin Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services (2006). As part of a multi-faceted exploration of RT across stakeholders in the system, she developed and implemented the ATOMS-Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Consumer Survey (A/D-CS) which included questions about experiences with RT services and devices, including mechanisms to make comparisons with other interventions. During survey development the initial six intervention questions grew to 19. Reasons were specific to the vocational rehabilitation model. The figure below demonstrates the instrument translation in this project.
Among the findings, Johnston reports that A/D-CS is an effective instrument in isolating the contribution of concurrent interventions and to measure the impact of AT on employment goals. It gathered data on interventions the participants received regardless of whether the DVR counselor (vocational model) or another rehabilitation model provided the services. It therefore is useful in determining service outcomes using a wider lens. Data collected in this study included intervention approaches provided by the vocational, medical, education and independent living models. During the write-up of the DVR studies, “I3” was adopted as the nomenclature to represent this line of outcomes inquiry.
| Stakeholders who provided feedback | Modifications based on feedback |
|---|---|
|
DVR administrators ATOMS staff and researchers Two survey professionals from the UWM Survey Research Institute Three Assistive Technologists (all OT/Interface Specialists) Four working adults with disabilities who use RT and are known by ATOMS researchers Two individuals without a disability and do not use AT |
Simplification of the items that required substantial interviewer explanation in order for the participants to comprehend the question to increase validity of responses by consumers. Reduction of some items that were multi-faceted and therefore did not isolate the true effects of the individual interventions. The elimination of items that were not aspects of the IMPACT2 Model. Separation of RT devices and RT services to examine the affects of both devices and services. The addition of probing questions to support responses to the impact of intervention. |
| I3 Question | Six Interventions and Sub-factors |
|---|---|
| I. Rehabilitation technology (4 questions) | |
| 1 | A. AT Devices (score for each device) |
| B. RT Services | |
| 2 | 1. Evaluation |
| 3 | 2. Training and Set up |
| 4 | 3. Technical support, follow up services |
| II. Personal Assistance (2 questions) | |
| 5 | A. Assistance at home |
| 6 | B. Assistance at work |
| III. Environment (5 questions) | |
| 7 | A. Physical Environment |
| B. Attitude of human beings in the environment | |
| 8 | 1. Family members |
| 9 | 2. Close friends |
| 10 | 3. Supervisors or teachers |
| 11 | 4. Co-workers or fellow students |
| IV. Reduce the Impairment (6 questions) | |
| 12 | A. Physical skills (e.g. strength, endurance, pain) |
| 13 | B. Cognitive skills (e.g. problem solving, memory) |
| 14 | C. Personal attitude (e.g. depression, anxiety) |
| 15 | D. Communication skills (e.g. ability to speak) |
| 16 | E. Hearing skills |
| 17 | F. Vision skills |
| 18 | V. Compensation (change how the task is done) |
| 19 | VI. Redesign the task |
Johnson, R. J. (2006). The impact of assistive technology devices and services on DVR goal achievement. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI. Available through the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Library.