the adaptions of MPT and MATCH assessments and provide examples of assessment forms and case examples. The third section of this book provides an in-depth review of the research application on the MPT outcomes in cognitive rehabilitation, secondary education, vocational rehabilitation, and pre- inservice education for health care and educators. This section also includes a chapter on personal realization of the benefit of technology. Also discussed within this section are strategies in conducting an effective interview with the AT consumer to assure user-involvement. THE MATCHING PERSON AND TECHNOLOGY FRAMEWORK: The Matching Person and Technology model developed by Dr. Marcia Scherer is a user-centered framework that that aims to match the person and AT based on personal and contextual fac- tors that can impact the person’s use of AT (Scherer, 2005; Scher- er & Craddock, 2002; Scherer, 1998, 1997). The framework is de- signed as a rotating wheel (Figure 1) in aligning with the idea of a continuous and dynamic model. The center of the wheel is the goal of matching person/child to appropriate AT. Within the first layer of this framework is the person or consumer of AT and personal factors that can contribute or influence a person’s use of AT, such as lifestyle and customary routines, history of using AT, and psychosocial considerations such as motivation and flex- ibility. These factors are based on research that resulted in the development of the MPT and MATCH-ACES assessments (Zapf et al. 2016, Scherer, 2005; Scherer & Craddock, 2002; Scherer, 1998). The next layer is the milieu (environmental) factors that can im- pact a person’s use of AT. This is an area often overlooked but plays a critical role in the use of AT. If the environment does not support the AT, it is likely that the AT will not be used. Factors identified in the environmental/milieu include; the attitudes of others, environmental structure, the culture, economics, and po- litical laws and policies that affect the service and delivery of the AT. The third layer of this comprehensive model is technology that is being considered for the person. This layer includes spe- cific device features, usability factors of the device, performance, appearance, availability, and cost, all of which can impact the selection of AT and realization of benefit from use. The outer layer of the MPT process is the continuous process of evaluat- ing, selecting the device, accommodating needs and potential changes with service follow-up, and use of AT. When all three layers are assessed properly there is a better chance of meeting the goal of matching the person and technology.
Figure 1.
SO HOW DOES THE MPT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK DIFFER FROM OTHER MODELS? This question was posed in a presentation at Closing the Gap Conference in 2023 as many educational AT Teams utilize the SETT (Student, Environment, Task, and Technology) Frame- work (Zabala, 2005) within the school setting. Both the MPT and SETT assessment frameworks are valuable, and each AT pro- vider will need to determine which evaluation process meets their requirements and the needs of the client/student they are assessing along with best consideration practice in using a person-centered and evidence-based assessment process. The models are compatible and the MPT was used to help inform the SETT. At the ATIA conference in 2004, Dr. Scherer, Dr. Za- bala, Dr. Reed, as well as other AT colleagues discussed current models of AT assessment and commonality of the person, envi- ronment, and technology concepts that were integrated across each of these AT models (Zabala et al., 2004). While these AT as- sessments complement each other with a goal to provide pro- fessionals with options for AT evaluations, there are clear differ- ences between these assessment frameworks and the research validating the frameworks. The SETT is a framework whereas the MPT is a framework with an accompanying research-based as- sessment process that includes specific forms to guide support selection and then outcomes of use. As an Assistive Technology Professional (ATP) in both clinical and educational practice, I uti- lize the MPT process to guide my evaluation process because of the evidence to support the process, person-centered focus, and the flexibility in the assessment forms to streamline the process. As stated above, one value of the MPT assessments is the depth of research to validate this assessment process. The MPT process
7
December, 2023 / January, 2024 | www.closingthegap.com/membership
BACK TO CONTENTS
Closing The Gap © 2024 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator