Leaders of the disabilities rights movements have said that technology will be the equalizer of the 21st century (Flippo, Inge and Barcus,1995). However, assistive technology devices are, for the most part, useless in and of themselves. The promise of assistive technology relies on coordination of many elements into a smooth operating system of assistive technology.

This article will define the elements of the system, present barriers to systems operation and present a model for investigating and organizing the elements into a coordinated operating system to enhance the performance of students with disabilities.

The term assistive technology means different things to different people. In this section, several definitions will be presented to illustrate the wide range of definitions used to describe assistive technology. Some definitions focus on the hardware, some focus on the function of the AT and some focus on the requirements needed for a person to qualify for use of AT.

Assistive technology may be high or low tech. High technology includes devices which incorporate electronics or microchips to perform some function. Low technology does not require a power source. An example of high technology is a computer. An example of low technology would be a pair of eyeglasses or a hand operated reaching device.

Hard technology is technology which is tangible versus soft technology which cannot be seen. An example of hard technology is a calculator. An example of soft technology is a computer program which assists with cognition, decision making, and concept formation.

Appliances are examples of AT which do an entire task alone. Tools, on the other hand are AT’s which assist an individual in task performance.

Minimal technology, i.e. a wrist support for eating, supports an individual in task performance whereas maximal technology performs a task for the individual, i.e. a robotic arm feeding an individual.

Adaptive/assistive technology is used to help an individual versus rehabilitative/educational technology is used to teach an individual. (Cook & Hussey, 1996; Trefler & Hobson,1997).

There are many other ways of categorizing and describing AT, however in defining AT it is important to remember that AT does not function alone. In order to be successful AT must be used by a person who is able and willing to use the device in a meaningful context. AT must be part of an overall AT system. The next definition which is presented recognizes that there is more to AT than a device.

The Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 (PL 100-407) describes assistive technology as a device and/or a service. An assistive technology device is "any item, piece of equipment, or product system whether acquired off the shelf, modified, or customized that is used to increase, maintain or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities."

An assistive technology service is defined as "any service that directly assists an individual with a disability in the selection, acquisition or use of an assistive technology."

Services include:

These definitions of assistive technology have also been adopted in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 101-476). Further, in the Tech Act Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-218) "systems change" and "advocacy" activities were mandated by the law to insure that polices and regulations relating to assistive technology are designed to be consumer responsiveness.

The above definitions present a basis for looking at AT as part of a complex system of elements which need to be coordinated for success. Before looking at what successful AT systems can do, please review the ten myths regarding AT (page 5) that can present barriers to successful systems planning.

With an understanding of the multiple definitions of AT and the myths that may present barriers to successful formulation of AT systems, we need to consider what goes into making AT work.

Again it must be emphasized that AT must be used by an individual in order to promote or enhance functional performance. Thus we must look at AT as part of a system composed of an individual and an AT device which work together to perform some needed and or valued occupation in a particular context.

One can begin to see that by only concentrating on one part of the system for example the device may seriously impair the systems ability to function towards achieving a goal.

One model, proposed by Galvin & Scherer (1996), considers multiple elements of AT use and is called the Matching Person and Technology (MPT) Model. The model proposes that devices must be adapted to the individual user's capabilities and personality. In this model, three broad areas must be considered when matching a person with AT.

First one must consider the Milieu or environment, both physical and psychosocial. Next the Personality of the individual, both temperament and preferences, must be considered. Finally the characteristics of the Technology itself must be considered.

In order for a good fit to occur the individual, in partnership with the team, must establish goals and expectations for the technology. Next the team must explore no, low and high tech options.

Once the individual’s temperament and preferences have been discussed, then a match between the person and the technology is possible.

Crucial to making the system work is training the person to use the device, evaluating the outcomes and continuing ongoing assessment of the individual’s AT needs.

Using a systematic model such as the MPT can guide AT teams in providing individuals with AT systems that will enhance their performance is needed and valued occupations.