RESNA Annual Conference - 2020

Common Functional Tasks Using Electronic Assistive Devices

A. H. Quamar1, D. M. Collins2, M. Schmeler3

1University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2University of Texas Medical Branch

 3University of Pittsburgh


Assistive technology (AT) professionals prefer solutions for consumer problems to be commercially available devices that have universal appeal and are typically less expensive than those devices specifically designed for Persons with Disabilities (PWD);[1]. Thus, using Information Communication Technology (ICT), such as mobile technology devices and the internet of things, is appealing to meet every day functional needs of PWD. Both able-bodied and PWD have adopted computers, laptops, apps, smartphones, smart speakers, and the internet as convenient ways to participate in banking, navigating to new places, restaurant reservation making and communicating with one another [2]. Curious as to how PWD use of ICT differs from people without disabilities, we sought to determine what are common functional tasks that all individuals with or without disabilities use ICT to complete. We set out to understand which domains of daily functioning these internet-connected devices have impacted. As a result, we conducted an exploratory literature review identifying the common domains of functional tasks that people complete using electronic assistive devices (EADs). For this study, EADs refers to any ICT or electronic device or software such as smartphone, laptops, the internet, or apps, that assist with promoting, maintaining, or enhancing the ability of PWD to live independently in society or improve the quality of their lives.


  1. Cook AM, Polgar JM, Hussey SM. Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview. Cook & Hussey's Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice; 3rd Ed. Mosby Elsevier, St. Louis, Missouri
  2. Burgess M. What is the Internet of Things? WIRED explains. Accessed on 2/27/20 at URL:
  3. Bouwman H, van den Hooff B, van de Wijngaert L, & van Dijk J. Information and communication technology in organizations: Adoptions, implementation, use and effects: 2005. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  4. Greene R. Enhancing communication through the use of augmentative and alternative communication in patients status post traumatic brain injury. 2011. University of Central Florida, Orlando. FL.
  5. Muncert ES, Bickford SA, Guzic BL, Demuth BR, Bapat AR, & Roberts JB. Enhancing the quality of life and preserving independence for target needs populations through integration of assistive technology devices. Telemed J E Health,2011; 17(6):478-483. doi:10.1089/tmj.2010.0206
  6. LoPresti E F, Mihailidis A, & Kirsch N. Assistive technology for cognitive rehabilitation: State of the Art. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation; 2004; 14(1-2SPEC ISS.),5-39. doi:10.1080/09602010343000101
  7. Wendt O, Quist RW, & Lloyd LL, Assistive technology: Principles and applications for communication disorders and special education. Augmentative and Alternative Communication Perspectives. 2011;4:1-20. Emeral Group Publishing Limited, Howard House, Bingley, UK
  8. Hart T, Buchhofer R, & Vaccaro M. Portable electronic devices as memory and organizational aids after traumatic brain injury: A consumer survey study. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004;19(5):351-365.
  9. Sawyer S, Griffiths M, Light B, Lincoln S, & Ashton D. Playstations and workstations: Identifying and negotiating digital games work. Information Technology & People, 2011;24(1):10-25. doi:10.1108/09593841111109396
  10. Family Caregiver Alliance. (2011). Assistive technology. Retrieved from
  11. Lee KR. (2002). Impacts of Information Technology on Society in the new Century. Retrieved from Zurich:
  12. Roselli, J., & Gulick, E. (2013). Information and communications technology: New research: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.