Implementing a routine outcome assessment procedure to evaluate the quality of assistive technology service delivery for children with physical or multiple disabilities: perceived effectiveness, social cost, and user satisfaction

L. Desideri*, M. Bizzarri, C. Bitelli, U. Roentgen, G.J. Gelderblom, L.P. de Witte

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


There is a lack of evidence on the effects and quality of assistive technology service delivery (ATSD). This study presents a quasi-experimental 3-months follow-up using a pre-test/post-test design aimed at evaluating outcomes of assistive technology (AT) interventions targeting children with physical and multiple disabilities. A secondary aim was to evaluate the feasibility of the follow-up assessment adopted in this study with a view to implement the procedure in routine clinical practice. Forty-five children aged 3-17years were included. Parents were asked to complete the Individual Prioritised Problem Assessment (IPPA) for AT effectiveness; KWAZO (Kwaliteit van Zorg [Quality of Care]) and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) 2.0 for satisfaction with ATSD; Siva Cost Analysis Instrument (SCAI) for estimating the social cost of AT interventions. At follow-up, 25 children used the AT recommended. IPPA effect sizes ranged from 1.4 to 0.7, showing a large effect of AT interventions. Overall, parents were satisfied with ATSD, but Maintenance, Professional Services, and AT Delivery were rated not satisfactory. SCAI showed more resources spent for AT intervention compared to human assistance without technological supports. AT may be an effective intervention for children with disabilities. Issues concerning responsiveness and feasibility of the IPPA and the SCAI instruments are discussed with a view to inform routine clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)30-40
Number of pages11
JournalAssistive Technology
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2016


  • developmental disability
  • knowledge translation
  • multiple disabilities
  • outcomes
  • service delivery
  • CARE

Cite this