Purpose. Evaluating the usefulness of the Matching Assistive Technology and CHild (MATCH) measure in the process of aid assignment to infants and children in an Italian centre for technical aids. Methodology. After a pre-experimental phase, during which the translation of the MATCH was performed, the Italian version of the MATCH was administered to parents/caregivers and professionals, according to the details of each set of worksheets, during the experimental phase. Participants. The MATCH was administered to a pilot-sample of 15 users of Ausilioteca (centre for technical aids) of “Leonarda Vaccari” Institute in Rome, Participants were split into two groups: 8 users (EPG) were administered the MATCH during the assistive technology (AT) evaluation process, along with other AT assessment tools normally adopted by the Ausilioteca team in order to match infants and children with the most appropriate AT; 7 users (FUG) were administered the MATCH during a follow-up phase of the AT evaluation process. Data analysis and results. Data from the EPG group showed that MATCH is a good tool when included in the Ausilioteca’s aid assessment process. Data from the FUG group showed that it is a feasible and effective follow-up instrument. It also allows checking the use or abandonment of the aid recommended through the previous matching process of Ausilioteca and the possible need to revise the matching in the light of new requirements and/or difficulties. Conclusion. The MATCH seems to help professionals in the process of assignment of aids to infants and children when used with other assessment tools. In a follow-up phase, it is a very good instrument for prevening abandonment of the aid through a technology utilization analysis or assessing the need to review the previous matching process.

The Adaptation and Use of the Italian Version of the Matching Assistive Technology and CHild (MATCH) Measure

FEDERICI, Stefano;
2009

Abstract

Purpose. Evaluating the usefulness of the Matching Assistive Technology and CHild (MATCH) measure in the process of aid assignment to infants and children in an Italian centre for technical aids. Methodology. After a pre-experimental phase, during which the translation of the MATCH was performed, the Italian version of the MATCH was administered to parents/caregivers and professionals, according to the details of each set of worksheets, during the experimental phase. Participants. The MATCH was administered to a pilot-sample of 15 users of Ausilioteca (centre for technical aids) of “Leonarda Vaccari” Institute in Rome, Participants were split into two groups: 8 users (EPG) were administered the MATCH during the assistive technology (AT) evaluation process, along with other AT assessment tools normally adopted by the Ausilioteca team in order to match infants and children with the most appropriate AT; 7 users (FUG) were administered the MATCH during a follow-up phase of the AT evaluation process. Data analysis and results. Data from the EPG group showed that MATCH is a good tool when included in the Ausilioteca’s aid assessment process. Data from the FUG group showed that it is a feasible and effective follow-up instrument. It also allows checking the use or abandonment of the aid recommended through the previous matching process of Ausilioteca and the possible need to revise the matching in the light of new requirements and/or difficulties. Conclusion. The MATCH seems to help professionals in the process of assignment of aids to infants and children when used with other assessment tools. In a follow-up phase, it is a very good instrument for prevening abandonment of the aid through a technology utilization analysis or assessing the need to review the previous matching process.
2009
9781607500421
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11391/170985
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact