AT outcomes studies are needed that report data regarding (a) the impact of AT on participation, (b) costs of AT provision and (c) key elements in the AT service delivery process. Future studies will be further strengthened to the extent that their methodologies actively assimilate consumer perspectives. Implications for Rehabilitation Consumers highly value the impact of AT devices on their independence, subjective well-being and participation in work and school. The process of acquiring assistive technology devices is often lengthy and frustrating for consumers. Future AT outcomes research should report descriptive data regarding service delivery processes, as well as long-term impacts for consumers. Practitioners and researchers should avoid the use of potentially confusing professional jargon when administering surveys to consumers.

The USAT, when developed, is projected to be valid and useful for AT outcomes research as well as clinical practice. The use of the USAT will enable researchers and clinicians to comprehensively identify factors that underlie effectiveness and efficiency in AT device use and establish intervention protocols to optimize user-AT interaction.

Conceptual models provide a theoretical basis for advancing scientific knowledge and improving professional practice. Although numerous assistive technology-related models have appeared in the literature, there has been no systematic effort to assess them. Six conceptual models are reviewed here: Cook and Hussey's Human-Activity-Assistive Technology model; the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health; Scherer's Matching Person and Technology model; Gitlin's model of an AT user's "career"; social cognition decision-making theories; and Rogers' Perceived Attributes Theory. The models are reviewed in terms of six domains: background and goals; descriptive characteristics; indication of outcome measures; predictive characteristics; validation in the literature; and utility to assistive technology practitioners, developers, and consumers. The salient strengths and limitations are highlighted for each. Application of the models to advance theory, research, and practice is discussed.

Although there have been numerous calls for increasing the quantity and quality of assistive technology outcomes research, no one has analyzed the nature of data that the field has been accumulating. This article summarizes our evaluation of 82 outcome studies, published between 1980 and 2001, addressing assistive technology devices (ATDs). Our data indicate that the "typical" ATD outcomes study published in the past 20 years is one that (a) used a sample population that was diverse in terms of age, disability population, and type of ATD being used; (b) measured user-reported dependent variables with instruments designed specifically for the study; (c) did not report adequate information on the reliability and validity for the measurement instruments that were used; (d) did not discuss the staff workload associated with learning, administering, and scoring its data collection tools; and (e) did not differentiate its findings in terms of distinguishable participant subgroups. Several suggestions are provided to guide future development of assistive technology outcome measures in the domains of usability, quality of life, and social role performance. In addition, seven recommendations are offered to outcomes researchers, policy makers, journal editors, and reviewers in order to improve the reporting of assistive technology outcomes research.

OBJECTIVE To demonstrate experimentally that an assistive technology (AT) intervention improves older AT users’ activity performance and satisfaction with activity performance, and decreases their caregivers’ sense of burden. DESIGN A delayed intervention, randomized control trial. Baseline data were collected on 44 community-dwelling, AT user-caregiver dyads in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Montreal, Quebec. The primary outcome measures for AT users were the satisfaction and accomplishment scales from the Assessment of Life Habits. The primary outcome measure for caregivers was the Caregiver Assistive Technology Outcome Measure which assessed burden associated with dyad-identified problematic activities. RESULTS Compared to the delayed intervention group, assistance users in the immediate intervention group reported significantly increased satisfaction with activity performance (p<.001), and improved accomplishment scores (p =.014). Informal caregivers in the immediate intervention group experienced significantly decreased burden with the dyad-identified, problematic activity (p=.013). Participants in the delayed intervention group experienced similar benefits following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS This is the first experimental study to demonstrate that the provision of AT decreases caregiver burden. If confirmed and extended by subsequent research, the findings have significant policy and practice implications and may enable health-care providers to advocate for improved access to AT provision and the related follow-up services.