02/08/[email protected] 49th annual ctevh conference 2008 “assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
[email protected]/08/2008
49th Annual CTEVH Conference 2008
“Assessment Strategies to Empower People with Vision
Impairment to Achieve Life Goals”
Leslie BurkhardtLow Vision Rehabilitation Specialist
[email protected]://www.freewebs.com/lowvisionstuff/index.htm
[email protected]/08/2008
“Assessment Strategies to Empower People with Vision Impairment to Achieve Life Goals”
Introduction• Workshop participants will explore strategies to assist
persons with low vision in learning to assess Self, Environments, Tasks and Tools (SETT) to accomplish goals.
• Specifically, vision and functional vision assessment will be emphasized within the context of the many other variables that will determine how a task is accomplished.
• The SETT Framework, developed by Joy Zabala, Ph.D., will be used to organize these variables into meaningful and manageable components.
[email protected]/08/2008
“Assessment Strategies to Empower People with Vision Impairment to Achieve Life Goals”
Empowering People
“Students with low vision must be given opportunities by teachers and family members to understand and communicate their visual impairment and their visual needs to others.”
(Sacks, Lueck, Corn & Erin, 2006)
[email protected]/08/2008
“Assessment Strategies to Empower People with Vision Impairment to Achieve Life Goals”
Achieving Life Goals• This workshop explores commonalities and
differences of both educational and rehabilitation goals for younger students, as well as adults with recent vision loss.
• Task assessment and tool/technique selection is usually considered to be objective-oriented, but a goal-related orientation also can be a relevant and useful perspective.
[email protected]/08/2008
Please Share Your Views!
I encourage all participants in this workshop to voice their perspectives, even (or especially) if those perspectives contradict something I have presented. In this way, we will all learn more about the task of assisting people with low vision to accomplish tasks in the most efficient, effective way possible.
[email protected]/08/2008
SELF + ENVIRONMENTS + TASKS + TOOLS
Describe specific abilities and areas of concern using task-related, functional language. “Teachers of the Visually Impaired (TVIs) are responsible for functional vision assessments.”
(Lueck, Erin, Corn, & Sacks, 2006)
[email protected]/08/2008
SELF + ENVIRONMENTS + TASKS + TOOLS
VISION ASSESSMENTS:• Use assistance/reports from ophthalmologists, optometrists,
LVR practitioners whenever possible.• Eyeglasses (always; never; near only; far only; issues of ocular
accommodation: young vs. old eye, crystalline lens vs. artificial lens)
• Preferred eye• Visual abilities (observed/reported)
– acuity (Measure size of viewed object and viewing distance, e.g. 24-point print at 6 inches; 6-inch tall numbers at 3 feet)
– field (describe how the person moves in their environment; describe their ability to find objects in their environment)
• Issues of reading speed and duration/effort• Issues related to progressive eye conditions• Other visual considerations (e.g., contrast, glare sensitivity,
night blindness, etc.)
[email protected]/08/2008
VISION SIMULATIONS
People with “average” vision need to have an experiential understanding of the functional
significance of vision impairment. • Scotoma Simulation Awareness Exercise
(Burkhardt, 2007)• Advanced visual field restriction simulation:
Place a pinhole through an index card. Put the index card up to your eye, and look around the room with it.
[email protected]/08/2008
SELF + ENVIRONMENTS + TASKS + TOOLS
OTHER ASSESSMENTS:
• Other senses
• Other physical conditions
• Reasoning/memory/language abilities
• Social/emotional considerations
[email protected]/08/2008
SELF + ENVIRONMENTS + TASKS + TOOLS
• Physical (potential supports & barriers)
• Social (potential supports & barriers)
[email protected]/08/2008
SELF + ENVIRONMENTS + TASKS + TOOLS
• List and prioritize.• Describe objective & underlying goal.• How much?• How long?• How fast?• Variations in each task.• Document specifics.
[email protected]/08/2008
SELF + ENVIRONMENTS + TASKS + TOOLS
• Usefulness (i.e. preferred tools accomplish multiple targeted tasks)
• Comparative Assessments• Significant Functional
Benefit• Team Members• Personal Assistance
(interdependence skills)
• Efficiency• Cost• Simplicity• Availability• Durability• Safety• Portability• Ergonomics• Like-ability
[email protected]/08/2008
SELF + ENVIRONMENTS + TASKS + TOOLS
COMPARE ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
• Visual*
• Audio
• Tactile
*Refer to Assessing Vision Enhancement Devices (Burkhardt, 2007) and Low Vision Rehabilitation: Functional Assessment (Burkhardt, 2006).
[email protected]/08/2008
SELF + ENVIRONMENTS + TASKS + TOOLS
ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES
• Significant Functional Benefit vs. New, Large, Complex, Expensive
• Each individual situation is unique, and needs to be assessed as a unique situation.
• Assessments that use the actual person, environments, tasks and tools will have the best chance for accurate results.
• SETT Framework Forms (Montgomery County, MD Public Schools Assistive Technology Team, 1998) or form-free?
• What team members can help? LISTEN to the consumer!• Single-Subject Assessments (to increase assessment
objectivity)– “Single-subject methods allow unequivocal analysis of the relationship between
individualized interventions and change in valued outcomes.” (Horner, et Al, 2005) “UNEQUIVOCAL?!?” HA! Placebo/Hawthorne effects and W.T. (wishful thinking) are only a few possible confounds of any assessment method.
– Refer to chapter at allpsych.com on Single Subject Design (allpsych.com, 2007)
[email protected]/08/2008
Which Rain Protector?Assessment Strategy:
Self:
Environment:
Tools:
Tasks:
02/08/2008 [email protected] 16
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS
Allpsych.com (2007). Single Subject Design. In Research Methods. Retrieved December 23, 2007 from http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/ababdesign.html
Braille Institute (2007). Low vision functional reading assessment card. Burkhardt, L. (2005). Assessing vision enhancement devices. Burkhardt, L. (2007). Assessment Strategies to Empower People with Vision Impairment to Achieve Life Goals. PowerPoint Presentation. Burkhardt, L. (2007). Low vision rehabilitation: Functional assessment. Burkhardt, L. (2007). An overview of low vision rehabilitation. Burkhardt, L. (2007). Scotoma simulation awareness exercise. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-
based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149-164. Retrieved December 23, 2007 from http://education.uoregon.edu/grantmatters/pdf/DR/Single_Subject.pdf
Lueck, A.H., Erin, J.N., Corn, A.L., Sacks, S.Z. Position paper on low vision, part I: Facilitating visual efficiency and access to
learning for students with low vision. Retrieved December 23, 2007 from http://www.cecdvi.org/positionpapers.html
Montgomery County, MD Public Schools Assistive Technology Team (1998). The SETT framework – Part I. Retrieved December 23, 2007 from http://www.2learn.ca/institute/institute2006/handouts/ModifiedSETTFrameworkForms.pdf
Sacks, S.Z., Lueck, A.H., Corn, A.L., Erin, J.N. Position paper on low vision, part II: Supporting the social and emotional needs of
students with low vision to promote academic and social success. Retrieved December 23, 2007 from http://www.cecdvi.org/positionpapers.html
Zabala, J. Update of the SETT Framework, 2002. Retrieved December 23, 2007 from http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/SETTUPDATE.PDF