Applying the Matching Person and Technology Evaluation Process

Citation

Scherer, M. and Craddock, G. (2001), "Applying the Matching Person and Technology Evaluation Process", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 18 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn.2001.23918aad.001

Applying the Matching Person and Technology Evaluation Process

David Johnson, Column Editor

Applying the Matching Person and Technology Evaluation Process

Marcia Scherer and Gerald Craddock

[Ed.: "EASI Access to Library Technology," a regular feature of Library Hi Tech News, examines new technology, information sources and services, and other news of interest to librarians concerned with providing quality services to their patrons with disabilities. EASI (Equal Access to Software and Information), in affiliation with the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE), is concerned with new and emerging technologies for computer users with disabilities.]

Technology trends

It often seems as if there are two opposing forces libraries must contend with today: people with disabilities who want more technologies and services available to them; and the realities of the need to contain costs and provide services in the most cost-efficient manner possible. While it may be tempting to rely heavily on technologies to help patrons with disabilities become more independent in their library and materials use, more than ever, people with disabilities say they need and want the "personal touch" ­ to know that they are valued patrons and are not viewed as merely individuals requiring "special services and accommodations".

There are a number of ways to characterize technologies for persons with disabilities. Technologies often encountered by librarians may be those designed to help people in their primary functional tasks, which are called assistive technologies. Wheelchairs, portable Braille devices, and FM communication devices fit into this category. Educational and information technologies are those used by anyone, with or without a disability, to access informational material, and to participate in learning. Computers are often referred to as "access technologies" because they help people operate or otherwise control assistive or educational/informational technologies. Most libraries today have technologies designed to read print materials for people with low or no eyesight. Technologies for people who are deaf are also common, and these include TT/TDDs and captioned video. Are these assistive, access, educational, or information technologies? For persons who rely on them in order to participate in today's data and information-rich society, they can be all of the above.

Many individuals accessing library materials and information require adaptations to computers. Monitors' background colors may be adjusted so that people with low vision can better see the text appearing on the screen. For example, some people may be able to see best when the background screen color is yellow and the text is in bold black print. Another simple adaptation easily achievable includes enlarging the screen text by increasing the font size and "zoom".

A trend that is increasing for students with learning disabilities is the use of alternate means of both computer input and output. With the appropriate software, information can be input into computers through voice commands rather than by keystroke. Synthesized voice output, which reads the text on the screen, is beneficial not just for people with low vision or blindness, but also for students with learning disabilities as they can have the dual output of print and audio.

Further assistance for students with learning disabilities can be particular arrangements of icons, software programs that include appointment and task reminders, and increased use of graphic or visual cues. One online resource regarding learning disabilities and resources for achieving these accommodations is at http://www.Ldonline.org. This is the site for LD OnLine, a service of The Learning Project at WETA, Washington, DC, in association with The Coordinated Campaign for Learning Disabilities.

The concept of universal design (or "everyone fits") will increasingly predominate. Universal design ideally results in environments and products that are usable by everyone, and thus, their relevance to and usability by persons with disabilities is assumed and is as invisible as possible. As the outcomes of human factors research advances, we will continue to see more ergonomic keyboards, voice input and output, better arrangements of icons, and improved methods of information display so that individuals with varying learning needs and preferences (such as aging persons, people with learning disabilities, and young children) can all benefit from the same technologies through easily achieved adaptations that take into account unique user characteristics. One online resource for information on how to achieve such accommodations is from the Trace Research and Development Center at the University of Wisconsin. The URL is http://www.trace.wisc.edu/world

Other trends under way or on the horizon include the following:

• •

  In keeping with the principles of universal design, more attention will be paid to the usability of devices (Scherer, 2000). People select technologies based, first, on how well they satisfy needs and preferences, then according to their attractiveness and appeal. If it meets the person's performance expectations and is easy and comfortable to use, then a good match of person and technology has been achieved.

• •

  The coordinated management of multiple devices will undoubtedly become a key consideration in the near future. There are complexities encountered when equipping any individual with multiple devices, each likely having its own means of input, control, and demands on the user (Scherer, 2000; Scherer, forthcoming). It also becomes important to consider issues arising from over-equipping persons and problems from device overuse and cognitive strain.

• •

  Trial periods with devices should be available before final device selections are made, and people should be assessed and trained in the settings in which they will actually be using the devices. The perspective of the patron should be the driving force in device selection, not which technology is most affordable or quickest to obtain.

As noted in an earlier EASI Access column (Johnson, 1999), the rate of technology non-use and abandonment remains high despite the growth in available technology options. Solutions are often sought and found before the goals are fully defined and users' needs and preferences determined. A particular technology should never become the place to start; the needs of the library's patrons should be the beginning point.

Professionals are increasingly being trained to understand and better match persons with technology devices and services. In spite of more information being available, however, many professionals (including librarians), teachers, parents, and consumers say they do not have the information or training they need to confidently consider technology options (Scherer, 2000; Scherer, forthcoming). Much more education about technology devices and services is needed. There must be incentives for professionals to get this training, and it has to be affordable.

A Model for the Future: The Irish APHRODITE and STATEMENT Projects

In the Republic of Ireland, grant funds from the European Union's Horizon Programme allowed Client Technical Services, Central Remedial Clinic, to establish an innovative educational program to inform a wide variety of professionals and consumers about assistive and adapted technologies and to offer a certificate in assistive technology applications (CATA) (Craddock and Murphy, 1998). Many consumers who participated in this training were later designated local contacts and peer mentors for individuals seeking information about and assessments for such technologies (Craddock, 2000).

Another Horizon Programme grant awarded to Client Technical Services was for the "STATEMENT" project (Systematic Template for Assessing Technology Enabling Mainstream Education ­ National Trial) which was funded as a one-year pilot program. The aim of the project was to develop a model of good practice in identifying the assistive technology and training needs of students through the provision of a formal Statement of Assistive Technology Need prior to students moving from second-level education (high school) to third-level education (college), employment or vocational training.

The total number of students who applied to the project was 86 and the breakdown by disability type is shown in Table I.

Fifteen percent of the students participating in STATEMENT had learning disabilities, although this figure is likely to under-represent the total eligible population. It is generally believed that students with learning disabilities do not perceive themselves as having disabilities per se, and as such may be less likely to respond to a project centrally linked to disability.

Achieving a Student-Centered Evaluation Component

Roulstone (1998) identifies ineffective assessment services for assistive technology as being those in which:

• •

  the primary focus is on the technology provider;

• •

  the needs of the provider override those of the person with a disability; and

• •

  the assessor or provider focuses on disability rather than ability.

The STATEMENT project adapted the Matching Person and Technology (MPT) assessments (Scherer, 1994) as a means of addressing these issues while taking into account the broader factors that lead to a request for assistance and which will likely impact their use or non-use of technology. The importance of ensuring a client-centered approach, and relevant evaluation process, is clearly highlighted in the increasing corpus of research examining technology use by people with disabilities and which highlights the fact that consumers are less likely to use recommended devices when their needs are neither fully addressed nor understood during the technology selection process.

The MPT assessment instruments are based on self-perception checklists relating to consumer predispositions to and outcomes of technology use, taking into account:

• •

  the environments in which the person uses the technology;

• •

  the wider environment and perceived barriers to access and progress;

• •

  the individuals' characteristics and preferences; and

• •

  the technology itself.

While the MPT model was developed and evaluated in the USA, the STATEMENT project was the first time in which the model was adapted for use in the Irish context. In particular, the MPT model was adapted to take into account the different educational environment and curriculum, different use of language, as well as the different environmental, social, cultural, and personal factors potentially impacting the use of technology by students with disabilities. The first months of the project were substantially concerned with researching, developing, and piloting the MPT questionnaires.

Through the research, development, and piloting of the MPT model, the STATEMENT project introduced an innovative evaluation tool to support evaluation teams in providing effective evaluation to people with disabilities. The experiences of the STATEMENT project have added significantly to the development of effective assessment tools, to the understanding of the issues impacting on the use of technology by students, and to the structures, resource requirement, and challenges inherent in creating client-centered, cost-effective evaluation services, which ensure the maximum benefit and utilization of technology by people with disabilities. According to the project's final report,

The Matching Person and Technology evaluation piloted as part of the project provided the mechanism for achieving [a client focused evaluation service] and the overwhelming positive reaction from participating students is illustrative of the effectiveness of this approach (STATEMENT Pilot Programme, 2000, p. iii).

Assistive technology use in school, the home, workplace, and community has enhanced the available opportunities for persons with disabilities in Ireland to participate in all major life activities. One of the students who participated in STATEMENT and the MPT evaluation process articulated the difference the appropriate technology made in his life:

Since I received the technology, my life has become unbelievably easier. Now instead of 3-4 hours it takes me 45 minutes to an hour. The pressure that I was under is practically gone. For the first time in my life I am interested and excited about reading and I am realising how restricted I was ­ I could never have believed that reading and studying could be this enjoyable (STATEMENT Pilot Programme, 2000, pp. iii-iv).

In the future, more consumers like this student will receive college degrees and enter the workforce as professionals and managers. These consumers will demand access to a variety of global information materials and will be lifelong users of libraries. As important as being able to access information in the most personally appropriate means, consumers will seek out information providers who are person- and user-centered and not technology-centered. Increasingly, consumers will "partner" with those service providers, as happened in Ireland, in product evaluation and selection. For these partnerships to be effective, however, perspectives, preferences, and needs as well as constraints need to be openly shared and discussed. The Matching Person and Technology assessment process was found to be useful in the STATEMENT project as a means of making such a discussion possible and its use by secondary, university, and public librarians may prove to be equally fruitful.

It is critical that users have a choice of options and that libraries make them available since each individual will find that some of the available options are more productive and work better than others. Often, by consulting and partnering with consumers, library personnel can identify effective technologies that are also affordable. Many bells and whistles can be eliminated, thereby freeing up library funds for key technology functions and features. But beyond the identification of appropriate technologies, library personnel who partner with consumers will have preserved the highly valued "personal touch" and helped many more persons experience the excitement which accompanies success in accessing information, so well articulated by the student in Ireland who said: "For the first time in my life I'm interested and excited about reading and I'm realising how restricted I was. I could never have believed that reading and studying could be this enjoyable."

More information about the Matching Person and Technology model may be found at http://members.aol.com/IMPT97/MPT.html.

Marcia Scherer is Director of the Institute for Matching Person and Technology, Webster, New York, USA. Her e-mail address is IMPT97@aol.com.

Gerald Craddock is Manager for Client Technical Services in the Central Remedial Clinic, Dublin, Ireland. He may be contacted at gcraddock@crc.ie

David Johnson is an abstractor/information specialist at the National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC). Readers with questions, comments, or suggestions may e-mail him at DJohnson@kra.com