THE POTENTIAL OF IDEVICES FOR ASSISTING ADULTS WITH COMPLEX COMMUNICATION NEEDS TO REALISE THEIR PARTICIPATION GOALS DENISE WOOD, PAMMI RAGHAVENDRA, JANELLE SAMPSON, MARGIE CHARLESWORTH, SHEILA SCUTTER, CAROLYN BILSBOROW, CAITLIN FRY AND IAN KIRK
TWO RELATED PROJECTS The potential of mainstream mobile devices such as tablet computers as assistive technologies for people with disabilities who have complex communication needs. “Private Narratives and Public Policy” project, which aims to record and analyse the experiences of people with disabilities in South Australia.
“SEEN AND UNHEARD” RELATED PROJECTS (WITH TELSTRA, THERAPY BOX APPS & DCSI)
TWO STAGED PROCESS Two projects: Telstra funded project investigating the potential of mainstream iDevices to improve communication for people with disabilities who have complex communication needs. Collaborative project with Disability SA at Highgate Park, which adopts a grounded research design to bring private narratives to bear on public disability policy.
TRIAL OF A RANGE OF APPS Apps contributed by Therapy Box Apps (UK)
AIMS OF STAGE ONE The major aims of the first stage: o To investigate the benefits of iPad hardware and applications on the communication experiences of those with complex communication needs. o To investigate the potential communicative uses of iPad applications, such as ‘Predictable’, for individuals with disabilities who have complex communication needs. o To contribute to the data for the subsequent stages of the broader ‘ Private Narratives and Public Policy’ research project, as well as informing the methodology for collection and interpretation.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS The research questions are: 1. How effective are mainstream technologies such as iPad tablet computers and applications in enabling people with complex communication needs to actively share their experiences first hand? 2. How can mainstream technologies such as iPad tablet computers facilitate the communication and social participation for those with complex communication needs? 3. How can researchers use mainstream technologies as data collection tools, especially with participants who have complex communication needs?
METHODOLOGY The assessment tools selected in consideration of participation and social networking research iPad to be part of the toolkit for communicative participation for people with CCN Any aspect of communicative participation considered within scope (any modality and for any purpose) Inclusion of support and follow up in the project. – collecting data on what is really required and how this process works best
PARTICIPANTS Target group Adult residents of a high dependency unit with complex communication needs and voluntary involvement in the project. Have eligibility to therapy services but limited involvement. Co-Researchers – two adults with CCN who are co-researchers – participatory research model.
ASSESSMENT TOOLS Pre-int inter erven enti tion on: Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (Law et al, 2000) Social Networks: A Communication Inventory for Individuals with Complex Communication Needs and their Communication Partners (Blackstone & Hunt Berg, 2003) University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale 2.0 Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) (Kiresuk, Smith & Cardillo, 1994) Post st-int inter erven enti tion: on: Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) COPM Social Networks Loneliness Scale GAS
ASSESSMENT TOOLS - COPM Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement (Law et al, 2000) Issues and self perceived performance are discussed in relation to communication Prompts: Self care Productivity Leisure Participant lists areas of concern and then rates performance and satisfaction from 1-10.
ASSESSMENT TOOLS – SOCIAL NETWORKS Social Networks: A Communication Inventory for Individuals with Complex Communication Needs and their Communication Partners (Blackstone & Hunt Berg, 2003) Information on current AAC use Telecommunications and social networking also included in CCPs Additional scale for CCPs to give more information - Rating Interaction with people in the Circles of Communication Partners – frequency, and satisfaction with interaction Circle Frequency of Contact with the people in each circle How satisfied are you with your interactions with the people in each circle? More 1-2 not daily 1-2 not weekly Occasionally very dissatisfied more or satisfied very than per but more per but more dissatisfied less satisfied twice a day than 1-2 week than satisfied day per week monthly 1 2 3 4 5
ASSESSMENT TOOLS University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale 2.0 Selected because we wanted to look for real changes that may be achieved through increased social networks or communicative competencies Example Questions: – “I do not feel alone” – “I feel in tune with people around me” – “My interests and ideas are not shared by those around me”
PROCESS (TO DATE) Administration of assessment tools & goal setting. Can the iPad be used as a tool to support any aspect of identified goals? Goal Attainment Scaling for identified areas Brainstorming apps and how they will be used Problem solving & personalising (accessories, access), Training or coaching (examples of use; technical aspects; programming; model other uses beyond identified goals) Reviewing goals – change and add as needed Post intervention measures
COPM – PARTICIPANTS PARTICI RTICIPANT ANT 1: Original inal goals s listed d during g assessm essmen ent t phase: se: Dealing with patronising people 1. Giving presentations to groups 2. Administration and funding options (mostly by phone) 3. Ad Addit itiona onal goals s added d since ce she began an using g the iPa Pad Making people feel comfortable when talking to her or taking part in a 1. meeting. Increasing speed of text entry for work, emails, writing presentations 2. Talking on the phone 3. Answering questions in presentations 4. PARTICI RTICIPANT ANT 2: Original inal goals s listed d during g assessm essmen ent t phase: se: Increase typing speed for e-mail etc. 1. Finding time and writing his book. 2. Text messages to schedule PAs. 3. Talking to people at church (social). 4. Social interaction with friends. 5. Reading speed. 6. Social interaction with family 7.
CCP’ S Participant 1: • Ext xten ensiv sive numbe bers s in all circles les except cept for circle le 4 ( (few) w) and circle le 1 a as lives es alone ne independ penden ently tly. . Close ose friends ends take e on roles es typic icall ally taken en by family ily. . • Frequen ency y of contact act – most st contact act with h work rk relat lated ed commun munic icat ation ion partn tner ers. • Sati tisf sfaction ction with h this s was high h apart t from m unfamili miliar ar people le (as s consist isten ent t with th COPM). PM).
OUTCOMES TO DATE: PARTICIPANT 1 Apps Used: • Speak It and Predictable for presentations • Photos folder (text and graphics) or Scene and Heard for quick & succinct messages • Predictable or Digital Storytelling apps for introductory strategies • Message Templates, Predictable and Custom Keys for text entry • Informant for scheduling and appointment templates, etc .
OUTCOMES TO DATE: PARTICIPANT 1 Met some goals to expected level almost instantly. Has added additional goals each time we’ve met. Use of device for other purposes means availability when needed for communication. Follows mainstream models of iPad use - particularly social networking and utility type apps. Personality - awareness of her own attitudes & perceptions of others.
MARGIE’S VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmiNtr_i-80 14
CCP’ S Participant 1: Participant 2: Circle 1 – family members but • Ext xten ensiv sive numbe bers s in all • infrequent contact circles les except cept for circle le 4 ( (few) w) (“occasionally”) and circle le 1 a as lives es alone ne independ penden ently tly. . Close ose friends ends • Circle 2 – no names listed take e on roles es typic icall ally taken en by • Circle 3 – only 2 names with family ily. . occasional contact. • Frequen ency y of contact act – most st • Circle 4 – very large category contact act with h work rk relat lated ed (includes volunteers) – and commun munic icat ation ion partn tner ers and most frequent contact ‘cats’. • Circle 5 – medium sized • Sati tisf sfaction ction with h this s was category with varied contact high h apart t from m unfamili miliar ar • “satisfied "with interaction for people le (as s cons nsist isten ent t with th all circles COPM) PM). .
OUTCOMES TO DATE: PARTICIPANT 2 Key interest is efficiency of text entry. Finding it difficult to focus on other uses yet due to time stresses. Less exposed to use of iPad and other challenges limiting use. Not interested in using it as a face to face device at this stage. Exploring text entry, use for organisation and scheduling carers. 13
Recommend
More recommend
