Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

2020 Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Assisting People with Physical Disabilities Through Technology

  • Katerina MavrouEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_144



The term physical disabilities often refers to a broad range of disabilities of people facing difficulties in limitation on physical functioning, mobility, dexterity, or stamina. These may include orthopedic and neuromuscular disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, rheumatoid arthritis, spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, ALS, and other orthopedic difficulties inherent or acquired), as well as sensory disabilities (e.g., visual or hearing impairment), and chronic health issues, cardiovascular or respiratory difficulties. Furthermore, the complexity of a number of diagnoses of physical disabilities often involve identification of difficulties in various aspects and interrelated sectors of the human activity and quality of life. Hence, as Heward (2011) identifies, people with physical disabilities compose...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Abbott C (2007) Report 5: E-inclusion: learning difficulties and digital technologies. Futurelab, Bristol, p 2007Google Scholar
  2. Abbott MA, McBride D (2014) AAC decision-making and Mobile technology: points to ponder. Perspect Augment Altern Commun 23(2):104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alper S, Raharinirina S (2006) Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Spec Educ Technol 21(2):47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelo J (2000) Factors affecting the use of a single switch with assistive technology devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 37(50):591–598Google Scholar
  5. ASHA (2018) Augmentative and alternative communication. Overview. Available at https://www.asha.org/Practice-Portal/Professional-Issues/Augmentative-and-Alternative-Communication/. Accessed 6 Mar 2018
  6. Beyer S (2012) The progress towards integrated employment in the UK. J Vocat Rehabil 37:185–194Google Scholar
  7. Bondy A, Frost L (2001) The picture exchange communication system. Behav Modif 25(5):725–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgestig M, Falkmer T, Hemmingsson H (2013) Improving computer usage for students with physical disabilities through a collaborative approach: a pilot study. Scand J Occup Ther 20(6):463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgestig M, Sandqvist J, Parsons R, Falkmer T, Hemmingsson H (2016) Eye gaze performance for children with severe physical impairments using gaze-based assistive technology – a longitudinal study. Assist Technol 28(2):93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calculator SN (2009) Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. Int J Incl Educ 13(1):93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke M, Kirton A (2003) Patterns of interaction between children with physical disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication systems and their peers. Child Lang Teach Ther 19(2):135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook AM, Polgar JM, Hussey AM (2008) Cook & Hussey’s assistive technologies: principles and practices. Mosby-Elsevier, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  13. Copley J, Ziviani J (2004) Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occup Ther Int 11(4):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Copley J, Ziviani J (2005) Assistive technology assessment and planning for children with multiple disabilities. Br J Occup Ther 68:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Copley J, Ziviani J (2007) Use of a TeamBased approach to assistive technology assessment and planning for children with multiple disabilities: a pilot study. Assist Technol 19:109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costigan FA, Newell KM (2009) An analysis of constraints on access to augmentative communication in cerebral palsy. Can J Occup Ther 76(2):153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cruz AM, Ríos Rincón AM, Rodríguez Dueñas WM, Daniel Alejandro Quiroga Torres DA, Bohórquez-Heredia AF (2017) What does the literature say about using robots on children with disabilities? Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 12(5):429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CSUN Centre of Disabilities (2006) Assistive technology applications certificate program. CSUN Centre of Disabilities, NorthridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Dorrington P, Wilkinson C, Tasker L, Walters A (2016) User-centered design method for the design of assistive switch devices to improve user experience, accessibility, and independence. J Usability Stud 11(2):66–82Google Scholar
  20. Edyburn DL (2001) Models, theories, and frameworks: contributing to understanding special education technology. Spec Educ Technol Pract 4(2):16–24Google Scholar
  21. Hersh MA (2010) The design and evaluation of assistive technology products and devices part 1: design. In: Blouin M, Stone J (eds) International encyclopedia of rehabilitation [online]. CIRRIE, New York, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  22. Hersh MA, Johnson MA (2008a) On modelling assistive technology systems part 1: modelling framework. Technol Disabil 20(3):193–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hersh MA, Johnson MA (2008b) On modelling assistive technology systems part 2: applications of the comprehensive assistive technology model. Technol Disabil 20(4):251:270Google Scholar
  24. Heward W (2011) Exceptional Children, an Introduction to Special Education. Athens: ToposGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang I-C, Sugden D, Beveridge S (2009) Assistive devices and cerebral palsy: the use of assistive devices at school by children with cerebral palsy. Child Care Health Dev 35(1):130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO 9999:2016 Assistive products for persons with disability – Classification and terminology, available at https://www.iso.org/standard/60547.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2018
  27. Judge SL (2000) Early childhood special education: accessing and funding assistive Technology for Young Children with disabilities. Early Childhood Educ J 28:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kay D (2014) Holistic approach to physical motor access assessment in pediatric AAC. Perspect Augmen Altern Commun 23(2):84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kintsch A, DePaula R (2002) A framework for the adoption of assistive technology. SWAAAC 2002: supporting learning through assistive technology 1–10Google Scholar
  30. Layton N (2012) Barriers and facilitators to community mobility for assistive technology users. Rehabil Res Pract 2012:1–9Google Scholar
  31. Lazar J, Jaeger P (2011) Reducing barriers to online access for people with disabilities. Issues Sci Technol Winter:69–82Google Scholar
  32. Lee KS, Thomas DJ (1990) Control of computer-based technology for people with physical disabilities: an assessment manual. University of Toronto press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  33. Light J, Macnaughton D (2014) From basic to applied research to improve outcomes for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: potential contributions of eye tracking research methods. Augment Altern Commun 30(2):99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lilienfeld M, Alant A (2005) The social interaction of an adolescent who uses AAC: the evaluation of a peer-training program. Augment Alternat Commun 21(4):278–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lopresti EF, Koester HH, Simpson R (2008) Toward automatic adjustment of pointing device configuration to accommodate physical impairment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 3(4):221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mavrou K (2011a) Assistive technology as an emerging policy and practice: processes, challenges and future directions. Technol Disabil 23(1):41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mavrou K (2011b) Augmentative and alternative communication and (digital) literacy: the experience of assistive technology application in cyprus through a case study (in Greek). In: Paper presented at the 14th international conference of the hellenic pedagogical association: Ekpaidefsi atomon me eidikes anagkes: Mia proklisi gia to sxolio kai tin koinonia [Educating individuals with special needs: A challenge for school and society], December 1st–3rd 2011. University of Macedonia, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  38. Mavrou K (2016) Assistive technology and AAC in Cyprus: a case study experience. In: Communication support world network newsletterGoogle Scholar
  39. Mavrou K, Meletiou-Mavrotheris M, Karki A, Sallinen M, Hoogerwerf EJ (2017) Opportunities and challenges related to ICT and ICT-AT use by people with disabilities: an explorative study into factors that impact on the digital divide. Technol Disabil 29:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Malley P, Jenkins S, Wesley B, Donehower C, Rabuck D, Lewis MEB (2013) Effectiveness of using iPads to build math fluency. Online SubmissionGoogle Scholar
  41. Oppenheim M (2016) HeadBanger: controlling switchable software with head gesture. J Assist Technol 10(1):2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scherer MJ (1998) The Matching Person & Technology (MPT) model manual, 3rd edn. The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc, WebsterGoogle Scholar
  43. Scherer MJ (2004) Connecting to learn: educational and assistive Technology for People with disabilities. American Psychological Association (APA), Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scherer MJ (2005) Living in the state of stuck: how technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities, 4th edn. Brookline Books, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  45. Scherer MJ, Craddock G (2002) Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil, Special Issue: The assessment of Assistive Technology Outcomes, Effects and Costs 14(3):125–131Google Scholar
  46. Scherer MJ, Cushman LA (2000) Predicting satisfaction with assistive technology for a sample of adults with new spinal cord injuries. Psychol Rep 87:981–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scherer MJ, Cushman LA (2001) Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: a validation study of the assistive technology device predisposition assessment. Disabil Rehabil 23(9):387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scherer MJ, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, Cushman LA, Scherer J (2005) Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 27(21):1321–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schlieder C, Schmid U, Munz M, Stein K (2013) Assistive technology to support the mobility of senior citizens – overcoming mobility barriers and establishing mobility chains by social collaboration. Künstl Intell 27:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seymour W (2005) ICTs and disability: exploring the human dimensions of technological engagement. Technol Disabil 17:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith M (2015) Adolescence and AAC: intervention challenges and possible solutions. Commun Disord Q 36(2):112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith M, Connolly I (2008) Roles of aided communication: perspectives of adults who use AAC. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 3(5):260–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Standen PJ, Camm C, Battersby S, Brown DJ, Harrison M (2011) An evaluation of the Wii Nunchuk as an alternative assistive device for people with intellectual and physical disabilities using switch controlled software. Comput Educ 56(1):2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Veigl C, Deinhofer M, Aigner B, Miesenberger K (2017) Personalized computer access for people with severe motor disabilities. AsTeRICS, FLipMouse and the two-level personalization software engineering method. In: Proceedings of the international conference on human aspects of IT for the aged population, May 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58530-7_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Watts EH, O’Brian M, Wojcik BW (2004) Four models of assistive technology consideration: how do they compare to recommended educational assessment practices? J Spec Educ Technol 19(1):43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wehmeyer ML, Palmer SB, Smith SJ, Parent W, Davies DK, Stock S (2006) Technology use by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to support employment activities: a single-subject design meta- analysis. J Vocat Rehabil 24:81–86Google Scholar
  57. WHO (2016) Priority assistive products list. Available at http://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/global_survey-apl/en/. Accessed 30 Mar 2013
  58. WHO (2017) Improving access to assistive technology: report by the director-general. Available at http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB142/B142_21-en.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2013
  59. Zabala J (2005) Using the SETT framework to level the learning field for students with disabilities. Available at http://www.joyzabala.com/uploads/Zabala_SETT_Leveling_the_Learning_Field.pdf
  60. Zaphiris P, Siang Ang C (2009) Human computer interaction: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. Information Science Reference, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education SciencesEuropean University CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Section editors and affiliations

  • Vassilios Argyropoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept of Special EducationDepartment of Special Education, University of ThessalyVolosGreece