Open 2013: Best Practices for Assistive Technology Design Classes and Their Products

Department of Veterans Affairs

Best Practices for Team-Based Assistive Technology Design Courses


Mary Goldberg, MEd

Jon Pearlman, PhD

Education & Outreach Coordinator

Assistant Professor, RST, SHRS

Department of Rehabilitation Science and TechnologySchool of Health and Rehabilitation SciencesHuman Engineering Research Laboratories


Outline

• Background & Introduction• Literature review• Methods• Results • Best Practice Recommendations


Background: Departmental Structure

• Rehabilitation Science & Technology

• Human Engineering Research Laboratories

• Veterans Affairs• QoLT• Education & Outreach

Programs


Background: Product Development Training• TIPeD program funded by NCIIA

• Augment ASPIRE & QoLT REU programs

• Led to development of design ecosystem & course series


Background: Design Curricula

Fall

TIPeD-C: Fundamentals of

Rehab Design and Fabrication

FabLab

Spring

TIPeD-C: Rehab Design Project

FabLab

RET

Summer

TIPeD-P: [facilitated in collaboration with

the NSF REU program] and with business and law

students

RET

ELeVATE


Background: Motivation AT

• Assistive technology & participation in society

• Inappropriate designs• Design shortcomings• Improve independence and safety of

users• 3rd party payers• Academic institutions & technology

transfer


Background: Product Development

• Design & fabrication facilities• Commercialized 5 products• 3 patents awarded; 9 pending• Research & user-driven innovations • Business partners• Multidisciplinary faculty, students, & staff


Goals

1. Literature Review

2. Case Study on HRS 2706/2718– Course Evaluation

3. Generate Best Practice Recommendations


Literature Review: Themes

• Projects• Process• Recommendations for Improving the

Process


Literature Review: Projects• Range from low-tech to high-tech24, 26, 21

• Low-tech often focus on international or low-cost products to broaden access

• Primary (ADL) to secondary (IADL) to “for fun” (recreational) products1, 26

• Client-based (individual & group)

• Promote collaborations while benefitting local use3

• Persons with disabilities as clients– Demonstrate inequities & lack of resources4

– Consider additional needs & universal design18


Literature Review: Process• Students uncomfortable with lack of

instruction4

• Products meeting users’ needs as correct solution

• Profession-specific language1 – Process-oriented vs. solution-oriented

– Engagement in process vs. didactic learning

Ulrich & Eppinger, 2011


Literature ReviewProcess: Design with Service Provision in Mind23

• Evaluation of client needs and skills for assistive technology

• Acquisition of assistive technologies

• Selection, design, repair, and fabrication of assistive technology systems

• Coordination of services with other therapies

• Training of both individuals with disabilities and those working with them to use the technology effectively


Case Study of HRS 2706/2718• Pre/post survey

– Mixed methods including 7 short answer & 2 Likert series related to design, rehabilitation, and career perceptions & skills

• MBTI– Used to identify team roles

• Mid-Point interviews with all students• Ethnographic observations by co-instructor

in-person and online


Course Overview: Learning Objectives• Be able to

– Execute needs assessment for a client;

– Develop product concepts;

– Convert product concepts and specifications into a prototype;

– Perform concept refinement & selection to system & detail design (emphasizing participatory action design through all phases);

– Develop a prototyping and testing plan;

– Fabricate and test the prototype;

– Interact with a client in a professional capacity as rehabilitation engineer

– Investigate IP considerations and methods of technology transfer.


Course Overview: Project

• Assistive feeding device for a woman with a progressive disorder


Quantitative Results (n=7)• Significant increase (p=0.03, M=.571, SD=.535) in students’

identification and comfort with his/her individual team role

• Nearly significant increase pre/post class– In self-assessment on confidence in various skills (p=0.07, M=.258 ,

SD=.31)

– In knowledge of commercially available assistive technology (p=0.07, M=.429, SD=.787)

– In confidence in design skills (p=0.07, M=.429 , SD=.535)

• Nearly significant Relationship between gender and scores (p=.07, M=.144, SD=.929)


Example Qualitative Results• Before: “I think I am learning a lot of things, that will allow

me to succeed in the field. Perhaps I will need to have more real world experience with clients, and also learn more technical things, (Electronics, Programing, design software) to feel more confident in applying technology to rehabilitation.”

• After: “I feel I am part of the community. It gives me satisfaction that my designs could someday help a lot of individuals in ways that a consumer device rarely does. I am committed to the field and would like to see it grow further and increase the involvement of end users in the design process.”


Recommendations: Lit reviewRecommendation Why?

Use multidisciplinary teamsHelps train system integration,

increased responsibility, teamwork and competition

Add projects to database Helps with commercialization and avoids repeated solutions

Disseminate Training Modules Supports methods improvement

Apply for funding and publish results Supports commercialization

Share information related to tech-transfer and liability

Ensures that all parties are aware of legal status of invention


Recommendations: ClassRecommendation Why?

Identify client through reliable clinical partner

Allows for transparency and trust with client, full understanding of

their clinical needs

Allow for transparency between instructors, client, and team(s)

Conveys expectations related to frequency of communication and

liability with products

Use a process-oriented vs. solution-oriented product

development model

Ensures students execute due diligence and complete necessary

steps

Use a project management software to facilitate and archive

communication and outputsOrganize weekly objectives

Facilitate client interaction frequently through in-person,

phone, and online communication

More communication results in better design


Recommendations: Class

Recommendation Why?

Seek to develop professional role confidence to inspire students’

commitment to engineering/rehab

Provide opportunities that are not common in didactic curricula

Publish student designs on repositories

Motivates students and enables creativity, disseminates design

Integrate design competitions and commercialization plans into

deliverables

Interests potential investors and teaches students about

commercialization

Incorporate formal and informal education opportunities

Increases’ students confidence to tackle design problems


Acknowledgements & Questions• Financial support

– University of Pittsburgh

– Human Engineering Research Laboratories

– NCIIA

– NSF QOLT ERC

• Our client• HRS 2706/2718 students

Documents

Open 2013: Best Practices for Assistive Technology Design Classes and Their Products