From SETT to TEST: Evaluating Assistive Technology Presenter: Nadiya Destiny

Agenda Evaluation Teams ◦ Members Assistive Technology Evaluation ◦ SETT Framework ◦ WATI ◦ QIAT Indicators ◦ Toolbelt Theory

AT Evaluation Team Varies depending on place: ◦ No one ◦ One person who has many other responsibilities ◦ One person with a reduction in responsibilities ◦ A small team  Usually SLP, OT, and teacher ◦ A larger team ◦ AT Teams in every agency location with a backup AT Resource team

AT Evaluation Team Each member of the team should have knowledge of the individual They should focus on their area of expertise ◦ Language – SLP ◦ Curriculum – Teacher ◦ Motor – OT/PT ◦ Resources of Agency – Administrator ◦ Individual – Individual or Family of Individual Teams vary based on the needs of the individual

SETT Framework Developed by Joy Smiley Zabala Group of questions to guide Assistive Technology Decision Making Focuses on: ◦ The Student ◦ The Environment ◦ The Tasks ◦ The Tools Be as specific at possible when answering questions

The Student What does the student need to do? What are the student’s strengths? What are the student’s needs?

The Environment What materials and equipment are currently available in the environment? What is the physical arrangement? Are there any special considerations? What is the instructional arrangement? Are there going to be any changes? What supports are available to the individual? What resources are available to the people supporting the individual?

The Tasks What naturally occurring activities take place in the environment? What is everyone else doing? What activities support the student’s curricular goals? What are the critical elements of the activities? How might the activities be modified to accommodate the student’s special needs? How might technology support the student’s active participation in those activities?

The Tools What no tech, low tech, and high tech options should be considered when developing a system for a student with these needs and abilities doing these tasks in these environments? What strategies might be used to invite increased student performance? How might these tools be tried out with the student in the customary environments in which they will be used?

WATI AT Consideration Guide Consideration not assessment Uses known information Information collected helps guide further assessment Should be able to complete this form in one sitting Looks at: ◦ What is already in place ◦ What is being looked at for the future

Consideration Guide Page 1

Consideration Guide Page 2

WATI AT Assessment Assessment goes into more detail Three parts ◦ Information Gathering ◦ Decision Making ◦ Trial Use

Areas Information Gathered About Fine Motor Related to Computer or Device Access Motor Aspects of Writing Composing Written Material Communication Reading Learning and Studying Math Recreation and Leisure Seating and Positioning Mobility Vision Hearing General

AT Assessment Pages 1 and 2

Section 4: Communication

Environmental Observation Guide Basically the Environment part of SETT Areas: ◦ Describe the environment ◦ Sensory Stimulation ◦ People Present During Observation ◦ Access to Assistive Technology ◦ Observation Summary  Activity/Task(s) Observed  Ways that typical students participated  Ways the target student participated  Barriers to target student’s participation

AT Decision Making Key Elements ◦ Problem Identification  Identification and definition of a specific problem ◦ Solution Generation  Suggestion of possible solutions ◦ Solution Selection  Evaluation of suggestions and choosing a solution to create an action plan ◦ Implementation  Carrying out of the plan ◦ Follow up  Meeting again to evaluate the solution

AT Decision Making Throughout the decision making process ◦ Present information in written as well as spoken format where everyone will have access ◦ Record all information and meetings ◦ Share roles and responsibilities  Members at meetings:  Facilitator – moderates the meeting  Recorder – writes down information gathered  Timekeeper – ensures that all topics are covered; pace

AT Decision Making During Problem Identification: ◦ SETT Framework During Solution Generation: ◦ Use brainstorming rules to create a climate of trust  All suggestions are written down  No comments allowed  No judgments passed ◦ Goal is to generate as many ideas as possible ◦ Create a two minute time limit ◦ If there are few assistive technology ideas, seek help ◦ Use the WATI Assessment Technology Checklist as a resource

WATI AT Checklist

AT Decision Making During Solution Selection: ◦ Encourage combining, sequencing, and prioritizing ◦ Obtain consensus from all participants before adjourning meeting During Implementation: ◦ Follow the plan completely For Follow up: ◦ Have a planned schedule and follow it

AT Decision Making Guide

AT Trial Summary

QIAT Indicators Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services Used to guide: ◦ School districts in the development and provision of quality AT services which are aligned to federal, state, and local mandates ◦ AT service providers in the evaluation and improvement of their services ◦ Consumers of AT services in the selection of adequate AT services ◦ University faculty and professional development providers in the delivery of programs that develop knowledge and skills needed to offer quality AT services ◦ Leaders in the development of regulations and policies related to the use of AT in education

QIAT Indicators QIAT Indicators in the following areas: ◦ Consideration of AT needs ◦ Including AT in the IEP ◦ Evaluation of the Effectiveness of AT ◦ AT Transition ◦ Administrative Support of AT ◦ Professional Development and Training in Assistive Technology

Toolbelt Theory: Who Developed by Ira Socol Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant at Michigan State University Assistive Technology Specialist at Michigan Rehabilitation Services

Toolbelt Theory: Basic Idea Teach individuals ◦ How to analyze tasks ◦ The task-completion environment ◦ Their own skills and capabilities ◦ An appropriate range of available tools Help them learn to make their own decisions

Toolbelt Theory: Designed Designed to: ◦ Break the dependence cycle ◦ Develop lifespan technology skills ◦ Limit limitations ◦ Empower student decision making ◦ Prepare students for life beyond school

Toolbelt Theory: TEST not SETT Task ◦ Choices about tools are based on the task at hand Environment ◦ Where is the task to be completed Skills ◦ What skills does the person have ◦ What skills does the person need Tools ◦ What is available

Toolbelt Theory: Task What needs to be done? ◦ Good idea to break it down into a task analysis

Toolbelt Theory: Environment Where must the task be completed or where is it typically done? What are the time constraints? What is the standard method of task completion? How does the individual interact within this environment? Who is the task being done for?

Toolbelt Theory: Skills What specific strengths does the individual bring to this task? What specific weaknesses interfere with the individual’s ability to complete the task? What is the individual’s tool acquisition aptitude? What tools are they currently comfortable with?

Toolbelt Theory: Tools What tool best “bridges the gap” between the current skill set? What is needed for task completion? If the tool is not already “in the toolbox”, how does the environmental timeline match with the needed learning curve? If it is not possible to use the “best tool” within this environment, what is the back-up tool? How do we pre-train so the best tool can be used the next time?

Resources - Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative Transition Packet Assessment Package Assessment Forms AT Checklist QIAT Indicators QIAT Home RESNA Home Family Guide to Assistive Technology Assistive Technology Training Online Project National Assistive Technology Research Institute – A Toolbelt for the Lifespan SETT Framework