Technological advances relevant to the needs of adaptations and technological devices, (b)persons with severe handicaps are emerging at a strategies for the selection, design, and use of rapid rate. These devices and adaptations have adaptations and technological devices, and (c) significant potential for enhancing oppor-an approach for incorporating technology into amities for integration, independence, and per-the integrated team planning process. Consonal choice for this group of individuals. This sideration is given to ethical and philosophical article discusses several critical issues related to issues that must guide the application of new the use of technology: (a) obstacles to the use of technological advances.Persons with severe and multiple disabilities frequendy have difficulty in learning activities that will enable maximal independence as adults. Impairments in vision, hearing, communication, and movement frequently become major obstacles in the absence of well-trained instructors, integrated input from related services personnel, and appropriate use of adaptations and technological devices (Campbell, in press; York, Nietupski, 8c Hamre-Nietupski, 1985). One approach to incorporating those students with the most significant handicaps into appropriate educational programs has been to use the principle of partial participation (Baumgart et al., 1982). Application of this principle assumes that some students will be unable to fully perform the wide variety of skills that make up a specific activity but that all will be able to perform at least one part of an activity. An adaptation inventory is conducted and yields possible individually designed adaptations or technological devices to allow student performance of specific components of a task. Adaptations may include: adapted materials, personal assistance, adapted skill sequences, adapted rules, and social/attitudinal adaptations (Baumgart et al., 1982). Technological devices may include: computer applications, electronic interfaces, videodiscs, augmentative communication devices, and microswitches (Esposito 8c Campbell, 1987; Hofmeister 8c Friedman, 1986).

Objective The objective of this study is to measure the activity levels of patients admitted to adult general inpatient rehabilitation units in regional areas. These included physical, social, cognitive and self‐care activities. A secondary aim was to explore differences in activity levels across different diagnostic groups. Design An observational study using behavioural mapping. Patient activity was mapped every 15 minutes, over a 12‐hour period (07:00‐19:00), on two, non‐consecutive days. Setting 2 inpatient rehabilitation units, inner regional NSW. Participants All patients were admitted for rehabilitation in an adult general rehabilitation unit. Patients presented with diverse diagnoses (eg neurological, musculoskeletal, orthopaedic, pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases). The sample had a mean age of 74.4 years with a range of 33‐96 years. Main outcome measures The percentage of the day spent in physical, cognitive or social activities was recorded. In addition, the patients’ location and interacting personnel were recorded. Results Fifty‐six participants across 8 diagnosis groups were observed. A total of 2285 observations were made. Patients were observed being active physically for 10% of their day, socially active for 23%, and cognitively for 6%. Patients engaged in other activities such as watching TV or eating 21% of their time, and completing self‐care activities 7% of their time. Patients were inactive for 27% of their day. There was no statistically significant difference between the diagnostic groups and activity categories. Conclusion Patients spent a large proportion of their time inactive and alone in rehabilitation. In order to maximise outcome, rehabilitation units can look at new opportunities to maximise activity and promote engagement.

No abstract

Standardized tests of intelligence have long been the stock and trade of the school psychologist. Recent court decisions and professional debates have questioned the utility of such a practice. The arguments continue, and school psychologists find themselves caught in the tempest of a violent storm. The time has come to reconsider the issue and propose alternative uses for traditionally standardized evaluation procedures. Such an approach is limited only by the bounds of our imagination.