“…For the other two (i.e., Gail and Amy), the percentages tended to be lower than those obtained previously. The first consideration to make in light of this evidence may be that (a) the data need to be viewed with caution as they concern small groups of patients (i.e., eight with previous technologies and four in Study II), and (b) the different outcomes could be more directly related to the characteristics of the patients and/or of the travel routes than to the technology resources per se (Lancioni et al, 2007). An additional consideration may be that even the data of the less successful patients of Study II suggest a practically relevant performance change that could have implications for the patients (i.e., in terms of enhanced social image and travel opportunities) and their environment (i.e., in terms of objectives considered viable for their daily programs) (Brown et al, 2009;Gibson, MacLean, Borrie, & Geiger, 2004;Lancioni et al, 2012Lancioni et al, , 2013Marquardt & Schmieg, 2009;Sunderland, Catalano, & Kendall, 2009;Tsuchiya & Adolphs, 2007;Wood, Harris, Snider, & Patchel, 2005).…”