Historical technology transfer activities and productivity of NIDLRR grantees.

This paper analyzes the technology-related outputs from The National Institute of Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). We seek to answer the questions: What are the types and frequency of assistive technology (AT) technology transfer (ATTT) outputs from NIDILRR grants? How does NIDILRR's ATTT generation compare to other granting organizations? What types of ATTT outputs occur, how, and what is the relative productivity of the most frequently funded universities and small businesses performing with funding by NIDILRR grants? An online search was conducted for indications of ATTT from grants funded from 1983-2021 through publicly available databases, the National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), and the internet. This data was then categorized across relevant output types and analyzed. NIDILRR funded 662 organizations and 951 different investigators from 1983 to 2021. The NIDILRR-funded portfolio includes 6,996 papers, 438 informational websites, 163 patents, 120 software products, and 29 hardware products. Compared to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIDILRR produced slightly more products per dollar. Our results highlight the substantial portfolio of technology-related outputs generated with NIDILRR funding and demonstrate how productivity measures can be calculated to guide future funding strategies.

Test-Retest Reliability of the Electronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA): A Cohort Study.

IMPORTANCE: Currently, no self-report instruments exist for assessing satisfaction with performing instrumental activities of daily living and occupations for people with disabilities using internet-connected assistive devices like accessible smartphones, tablets, laptops, and apps. OBJECTIVE: To assess the test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the Electronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA) self-report outcome tool. DESIGN: Repeated-measures cohort study with a time frame of 7 to 21 days. SETTING: Multicity online recruitment at assistive technology clinics, nongovernmental organizations, advocacy and peer support groups for people with disabilities, and higher education institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four participants with disabilities, age 18 yr or older, with a mean age of 43.3 yr (range = 19-75 yr), and 57% female. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The a priori study hypotheses were that the EISA test-retest reliability scores would be above the minimum acceptable level (Rs > .80) and that internal consistency would be good (Cronbach's α = .70-.90). RESULTS: On the basis of the study data, the EISA, Version 1.0, demonstrated good test-retest reliability (Rs = .81) and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .88). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of the test-retest reliability and internal consistency analyses provide good support for the EISA to be used in clinical settings. What This Article Adds: This article documents the reliability and internal consistency of, to our knowledge, the first-ever self-report instrument for assessing satisfaction with performance of everyday occupations for people with disabilities using internet-connected assistive devices such as smartphones, tablets, laptops, and apps.

Barriers and facilitators to technology transfer of NIDILRR grantees.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this mixed-methods study were to gather survey and interview data about the barriers and facilitators from grantees funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) and to extract themes that could inform program changes that would increase technology translation (TT) success in assistive technology (AT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a TT Barriers and Facilitators survey consisting of Likert scale and multiple-choice questions about barriers and facilitators to TT. With survey respondents who were willing, we conducting a semi-structured interview and asked pointed questions to expand upon survey response rankings and perceived barriers and facilitators. The questions were framed to explore the grantee's personal experience with ATTT and what helped and hindered their individualised processes. RESULTS: Across survey and interview respondents, the three most common themes when exploring the barriers and facilitators of TT were funding, incentives, and collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that there is a need for increased collaboration and access to additional resources such as funding for pilot grants, support to assess technology marketability, help to navigate regulatory and legal aspects, and assistance in establishing goals to help grantees successfully transfer assistive technologies to consumers. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONA large amount of research and development into assistive technology does not lead to tech transfer which means that these technologies are not getting to the people that need them.Educating tech transfer offices at universities about how to transfer AT would improve outcomes greatly.Creating a community of practice where grantees can find academic or industry partners would also increase the likelihood of tech transfer.Some tools to catalyse these improvements are: mentoring, access to consultants, podcasts, and online training.

Best practices for team-based assistive technology design courses.

Team-based design courses focused on products for people with disabilities have become relatively common, in part because of training grants such as the NSF Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities course grants. An output from these courses is an annual description of courses and projects but has yet to be complied into a "best practices guide," though it could be helpful for instructors. To meet this need, we conducted a study to generate best practices for assistive technology product development courses and how to use these courses to teach students the fundamentals of innovation. A full list of recommendations is comprised in the manuscript and include identifying a client through a reliable clinical partner; allowing for transparency between the instructors, the client, and the team(s); establishing multi-disciplinary teams; using a process-oriented vs. solution-oriented product development model; using a project management software to facilitate and archive communication and outputs; facilitating client interaction through frequent communication; seeking to develop professional role confidence to inspire students' commitment to engineering and (where applicable) rehabilitation field; publishing student designs on repositories; incorporating both formal and informal education opportunities related to design; and encouraging students to submit their designs to local or national entrepreneurship competitions.