Using microswitches with persons who have profound multiple disabilities: evaluation of three cases

From assistive to inclusive? A systematic review of the uses and effects of technology to support people with pervasive support needs

BACKGROUND

Although particular technologies can enhance the quality of life (QoL) of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (we use the term pervasive support needs), their objectives and outcomes are understudied. A systematic literature review was therefore conducted to explore this topic.

METHOD

A search of four databases yielded 64 studies. Data were extracted on their general characteristics, methods and sample characteristics as well as the technology types, QoL domains and application within ecological systems. A narrative synthesis was subsequently developed.

RESULTS

Most of the studies applied assistive technology (AT) and focused on personal development and self-determination on an individual level.

CONCLUSIONS

Technology can enhance the QoL of people with pervasive support needs. There are indications that although MT and UD-based technology are used in practice, few studies have examined these technologies. Therefore, there is a knowledge gap regarding the kinds of technology that are used in practice.

Microswitch programs for persons with multiple disabilities: an overview of the responses adopted for microswitch activation

BACKGROUND

To introduce a person with multiple disabilities to a microswitch-aided program, one has to select a plausible response(s), that is, a response(s) that can be performed reliably and without excessive effort by the person and can successfully activate the microswitch(es) available (producing preferred stimuli). This paper provides an overview of the responses adopted for microswitch activation in research studies during the last 20 years.

METHOD

Computerized and manual searches were carried out to identify the studies published between 1986 and 2005. Forty-eight research studies were identified. They concerned the use of (1) a single (typical) response, (2) a single (non-typical) response, (3) multiple (typical and non-typical) responses, and (4) multiple (vocal) responses.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results showed that 151 of the 190 participants involved in the studies had a positive outcome (i.e., clear increases in their responding, which suggested that they had learned the association between responding and consequent preferred stimuli). Failures were largely concentrated in the first group of studies. The discussion focused on (a) the importance of selecting plausible responses for increasing the chances of success, (b) the need of non-typical responses for persons with minimal motor behavior, (c) implications of programs with multiple responses on engagement and choice, and (d) relevance of using vocal utterances. Some suggestions for future research concerning these points were also examined.