1. QA in AT Quality Assurance Measurement in the Assistive Technology Process Stephanie Lancaster, OTR/L, ATP University of Tennessee Health Science Center Department of Occupational Therapy Memphis, TN

2. A.T. Assessment 3 essential components 7 quality indicators Implementation Plan Template 7 quality indicators Quality Indicators A.T. Consultant competencies Free self- assessment tool Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

3. How are decisions about A.T. being made by service providers in the field? Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

4. PT Other OT Education SLP Assistive Technology Team Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

5. What is Quality Assurance? Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

6. Why is QA in A.T. important? Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

7. User feedback can be gathered through standardized forms. Outcome measures can determine user satisfaction and device performance. Most users felt their needs were met by devices recommended. Of those who weren’t satisfied, follow-up phone calls resolved the issue in most cases. Measuring Quality Assurance: A Pilot Study of a Prospective Monitoring Program Source: Kohn, J. G., LeBlanc, M., & Mortola, P. (1994). Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

8. Measuring the Outcomes of Assistive Technology: Challenge and Innovation Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014 Source: Smith, R. O. (1996).

9. What can be done to assess the quality of A.T. interventions? Free tool: The Quality Indicators in Assistive Technology (QIAT) Self-Evaluation Matrices http://indicators.knowbility.org/indicators.html Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

10. Eight Areas Assessed by the Quality Indicators Consideration of AT Needs Assessment of AT Needs AT in the IEP AT Implementation Evaluation of Effectiveness of AT AT in Transition Administrative Support for AT AT Professional Development Consideration of AT Needs Assessment of AT Needs AT in the IEP AT Implementation Evaluation of Effectiveness of AT AT in Transition Administrative Support for AT AT Professional Development Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

11. Quality Indicator Areas Needing the Most Improvement Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

12. Three Essentials to the Effective Assessment of A.T. Needs SETT Process Guidelines applied in natural environmentDocumentation of reason for the referral and strengths/areas of needCommunication/teamwork Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

13. Designing an Individualized Implementation Plan Image from http://rentalbloom.com/fail-plan-plan-fail/ Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

14. A Template for an Implementation Plan Available for download at http://tinyurl.com/qh2vfkn Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

15. The Most Efficient Way to Improve the Quality of A.T. Services Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

16. Evaluation of Effectiveness of A.T. Clearly defined responsibilities for each A.T. Team member Data collected on progress towards goal(s) for each student Quantitative & qualitative measurement of changes in student performance Effectiveness examined across environments Data analyzed to look at student achievement and barriers in using A.T. Changes made in student’s program according to data collected Monitoring is a dynamic, responsive, ongoing process Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

17. Quality Indicators for Professional Development & Training in A.T. Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

18. Source: Pennsylvania Dept. of Education: A.T. Consultant Competencies (2012) Stephanie Lancaster TAAT 2014

19. References and Recommended Resources  A.T. Blog – Hand In Hand: http://stephanielancasterot.wordpress.comhttp://stephanielancasterot.wordpress.com  Demers. L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disabilities, 14, pp. 101—105.  Engler, T. E., & Hauser, S. (2012). Top 10 technology-related legal issues in special education. Oak Brook, IL: Sraga Hauser LLC. doi: http://www.texasat.net/default.aspx?name=resources.webinarshttp://www.texasat.net/default.aspx?name=resources.webinars  Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Ithaca, NY: State University of New York Press.  Kohn, J. G., LeBlanc, M., and Mortola, P. (1994). Measuring quality and performance of assistive technology: Results of a prospective monitoring program. Assistive Technology, 6(2), pp. 120--125.  Pennsylvania Assistive Technology Consultant Competencies (August 2012). Pennsylvania Department of Education. doi: http://indicators.knowbility.org/docs/resourcebank/PA_AT_Competencies_Aug12.pdfhttp://indicators.knowbility.org/docs/resourcebank/PA_AT_Competencies_Aug12.pdf  QIAT Consortium. (2005). Quality indicators for assistive technology services. doi: http://www.qiat.org  Reed, P. and Lahm, E. A. (Eds.) (2004). Assessing students’ needs for assistive technology: A resource manual for school district teams (4 th ed.). Milton, WI: Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative.  Smith, R. O. (1996). Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: Challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology, 8(2), p. 71—81.  Zabala, J. S., & Carl, D. F. (2005). Quality indicators for assistive technology services in schools. In D. L. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.). The handbook of special education technology research and practice. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc. Stephanie Lancaster, OTR/L, ATP 2014 TAAT Conference