Assistive Technology Research Update: A Synthesis of the Research on Assistive Technologies From 2013 Through 2019

By Derrick W. Smith and Stacy M. Kelly

Derrick W. Smith is an associate dean and professor in the College of Education at the University of Alabama Huntsville in Huntsville, Alabama.

Stacy M. Kelly is a professor in the Visual Disabilities Program at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois.

Abstract

This synthesis examined the literature pertaining to the topic of assistive technology used by individuals with visual impairments published between the dates of June 1, 2013 and December 31, 2019. This study replicates the same methodology of two previous studies to the greatest extent possible. In this present study, the authors located and reviewed 376 articles for evidence-based research on assistive technology that had a positive impact on educational performance. Of the 376 studies, only one provided promising evidence-based practices. The results from this synthesis were consistent with the findings of the two previous studies.

Keywords

Assistive technology, early childhood education, elementary school education, middle/junior high, high school education, synthesis, technology development/innovation

 

In 2011, Kelly and Smith conducted an extensive synthesis of the research literature of assistive technology (AT) for students with visual impairments. For that synthesis, the authors examined the literature from January 1965 through August 2009, and they found 256 studies with only two (n = 2) providing promising evidence-based practices. Then, in 2014, Smith and Kelly continued this synthesis, extending this literature search from September 2009 through May 2013, and found 141 studies with again only two (n = 2) articles that showed evidence-based practices. While these syntheses that covered this 48-year time period from January 1965 through May 2013 found very few studies that met the “gold standard” of evidence-based research (Odom et al., 2005; What Works Clearinghouse [WWC], 2011), there were far more research studies found in the later years of the synthesis period. It is hypothesized that the growth of the research on educational technology and AT grew for three primary reasons. First, the availability of computers and educational software in school-based settings exploded beginning in the early 1980s (Blinn-Pike, 2009). Secondly, the creation and growth of the internet as a repository for knowledge and a tool for learning during the early 2000s obviously impacted the use of technology within education (Pew Research Center, 2002). Thirdly, legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) (2004) and No Child Left Behind (2002) required schools to use “evidence-based practices.”

Over the past decade, personal technology has greatly evolved and the impact on education is apparent (Pew Research Center, 2020). Given all the advancements in technologies that have the potential to impact the education and rehabilitation of individuals with visual impairments, this study revisits this topic 10 years after the original research synthesis conducted by Kelly and Smith (2011) and seven years after the replication study conducted by Smith and Kelly (2014). In the 2011 article, the authors stated that “assistive technology tends to be developed faster than researchers can evaluate it” (Kelly & Smith, 2011, p. 74) and this statement remains true today. At the same time, the need for evidence-based practices has not changed. Therefore, this synthesis intends to provide a review of the literature regarding the effectiveness of technology for students with visual impairments. Since this study replicates the methodologies of the 2011 and 2014 studies, the same two research questions will be utilized: “What is the knowledge base regarding assistive technology and the education of individuals with visual impairments?” and “To what extent has the field determined, through rigorous, scientific-based methods, the effectiveness of assistive technology for individuals with visual impairment?” (Kelly & Smith, 2011, p. 75).

Method

This study replicates the same methodology of the two previous syntheses to the greatest extent possible from the Kelly and Smith (2011) and Smith and Kelly (2014) articles. While using the same methods, this synthesis of AT research in the field of blindness and low vision looked at new publications from June 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019, not discussed in the previous articles. The definitions of AT devices, “effectiveness,” and “assistive technology research” from the 2011 and 2014 studies were utilized again. The initial research was searched in four electronic databases using the same methods (and terms) in the prior studies (2011 and 2014).

General Criteria for Inclusion in This Study

The synthesis required the following general criteria (shown in Table 1) be met to be included in this study (as a replication of the Kelly and Smith [2011] and Smith and Kelly [2014] articles). The authors categorized each of the articles that met this inclusion criteria shown in Table 1 in one of nine categories shown in Table 2. The categories are based on the WWC (2011) and Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Division for Research standards (Odom et al., 2005) that the 2011 and 2014 studies also followed.

Table 1
General Search Criteria Required To Be Included in This Study

Inclusion Criteria Description*
Address the topic AT used for classroom-based educational interventions;
Include participants in the study who were blind or visually impaired, with or without additional disabilities, ages 3 through 21, in preschool through twelfth grade education programs; and
Published between June 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, in English language, peer-reviewed journals.

*Note: All of the inclusion criteria requirements explained in Table 1 are required in order to be included in this study.

Table 2
Results of Systematic Literature Review of Classroom-Focused AT Articles in the Current Study and Previous Studies

	Current Study		2014 Results		2011 Results
Categorization Explanation	n	%	n	%	n	%
1. The article discussed theories, beliefs, or practices without a research design or method.	84	32	38	27	122	48
2. The article discussed reviews or evaluations of products without a research design or method.	81	31	23	16	34	13
3. The study used a research design or method that did not include an intervention, control group, and comparison group.	33	13	13	9	57	22
4. The study included an appropriate control and comparison group, but insufficient data were presented in the article to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.	0	0	0	0	17	7
5. The study included participants (parents, patients, families, teachers, or adult learners) who were not preK-12 students.	45	17	47	33	11	4
6. The study used a qualitative and/or action based research design (which falls outside the realm of scientifically based research).	8	3	18	13	6	2
7. The results and conclusions of the study are subject to validity concerns (all the participants in the study received the treatment, and the resulting effects of the intervention could not be interpreted unambiguously).	1	.5	0	0	4	2
8. The study used an inappropriate sighted comparison group.	11	4	0	0	3	1
9. The study presented sufficient data to determine the effectiveness of an intervention with appropriate participants, intervention, control group, and comparison group.	1	.5	2	1	2	1
Total	264		141		256

Categorization of Studies

As first described by Kelly and Smith (2011), the articles meeting the general inclusion criteria shown in Table 1 were examined further for interventions with impact to students who are blind or have low vision. All studies were examined for a comparison or control group as well as an intervention that included a research design that was experimental (Kelly & Smith, 2011). The group of participants who do not receive the intervention or treatment in a study/experiment is the control group and random assignment is required. The control group is called a comparison group when random assignment is not part of the participant grouping methods for a particular study. The present study adhered to Warren’s (1994) individual differences approach and, in doing so, meant that any comparison group could not be inclusive of students who were sighted, because to do so would be an unfair and inappropriate comparison (Kelly & Smith, 2011; Smith & Kelly, 2014).

Results

The current synthesis found a total of 1,283 articles of various types of assistive technology publications pertaining to persons with visual impairments. Of those, 909 articles were removed as they did not fit the established parameters for the search (i.e., they did not meet the general inclusion criteria shown in Table 1). For example, the majority of these articles were not focused on AT used in a classroom setting (n = 534, 58.7%) or were medical research (n = 133, 14.6%). A large subset was focused on the impact of AT on orientation and mobility (O&M) (n = 193, 21.2%). This result is consistent with the findings of Kelly and Smith (2011) and Smith and Kelly (2014). It is encouraging to see that continued research has taken place in these areas of research. Therefore, the remaining 376 articles were included in the systematic review as they met the general inclusion criteria outlined in the methods section of this manuscript for the already established categories (i.e., categories 1 through 9 presented in Table 2).

The study categorized the articles into these nine distinct categories shown in Table 2. The number of articles listed in each category are noted in Table 2. For comparison purposes, Table 2 also includes the data from the early Kelly and Smith (2011) and Smith and Kelly (2014) studies.

Limitations

The standard of scientific methodology that was applied to this study produces limitations and considerations for future research. The rigorous criteria required by the WWC (2011) evidence-based practices is limiting in and of itself to less than 1% of the research base on this topic of AT. The other 99% of the research articles are worthy of a high degree of acknowledgement that the WWC does not allow for in its current form. Furthermore, the present study and the studies that were replicated for the purposes of this present study included journals that are in English and no other languages, and focused only on school-aged individuals with visual impairments (Kelly & Smith, 2011; Smith & Kelly, 2014).

Discussion and Conclusion

Comparison Between Years

When comparing between prior studies, it is clear that the topic of AT in the educational setting has continued to grow. The 2011 study by Kelly and Smith found 256 articles and the 2014 study by Smith and Kelly found 141 that met the inclusion criteria, while this review found 264. When one realizes that the present synthesis only covers approximately 7 years, while the 2011 article covered over 45 years, it is apparent that the topic has grown in the literature. In looking closely at the data by categories shown in Table 2 (i.e., “types of articles/publications”), we also find some interesting themes. First, Category Area 1 (theories, beliefs, and practices) and Category Area 2 (reviews or evaluations of products) still compose the majority of the published literature on the topic of AT in the educational setting (combined 60% in 2020 versus 61% in 2011). However, there seems to be a major increase in the number of published product evaluations (34 versus 108), which may show a heightened interest in articles that explain novel assistive technologies. There was also a small growth between 2011 to 2020 related to the types of participants in Category Area 5 (participants not school-aged children; 11 to 60) and Category Area 8 (comparison to sighted peers; 3 to 16). Most interestingly, based upon the established criteria, there was only one published article found that met the inclusion criteria (as compared to two in the 2011 article).

Analysis of the Category Areas

Category Area 1: Theory, Beliefs, and Practices Without a Research Design

This continues to be the largest type of article published through 2019 (32% of all articles in this time period). It is evident that since AT in the educational setting is still relatively “young,” many researchers are still writing to support the foundational principles that AT has a positive impact on the education of students with visual impairments. In reviewing the articles, the majority provide anecdotal evidence of the impact of AT. While there are limited research methods in these types of articles, they still provide a valuable service to the field by expanding our understanding of the potential of AT for students with visual impairments.

Category Area 2: Product Evaluations and/or Reviews

The second largest category area for this synthesis consists of articles that provide a product evaluation and/or review with limited or no research design. The majority of these articles (31% of the total for this time period) were published in journals or as conference proceedings connected to engineering and/or technology organizations. While the articles did not provide any empirical research, they support an important role in the research and development of innovative technologies.

Category Areas 3-8: Methodological Issues

These six categories all had different types of methodological issues that excluded them from the “gold standard” of research established by the What Works Clearinghouse (2011). For instance, the 63 articles in Category Area 3 that did not have an intervention, control group, and experimental group. However, of those, 16 were single-subject design research articles, which have their own established methodological strengths. Many social scientists utilize single-subject designs with low-incidence and/or heterogeneous groups (such as visual impairments) and this type of research is considered a valid and reliable part of the research continuum (Horner et al., 2005). Included in this category are also secondary analyses of pre-existing data and literature reviews, which also provide findings that support the progression of the field. The review also located eight (8) qualitative articles that sought to more deeply understand the impact of the AT.

There were no articles found in Category Area 4, which provides some evidence that published research may produce sufficient data to determine the effectiveness of the interventions. At the same time, no articles were noted that had “validity issues” (Category Area 7). Category Areas 5 and 8 both have issues with the type of participants included in the study. Articles in Category Area 5 were not focused on school-aged children, but instead focused primarily on adults (n = 61), and of those, 15 were focused on teachers of students with visual impairments (TVIs). There were 16 articles published that included sighted children as the control/comparison group, which is a 433% increase over the 2011 synthesis. It should be noted that these articles were published primarily in engineering journals, which may not view comparative research with sighted students the same as special education journals.

Category Area 9: Met All Criteria for Presenting Sufficient Data to Determine Effectiveness

The sole article that met the established criteria was a pilot study conducted by Campaña and Ouimet (2015), which researched the use of an iPad with children with multiple disabilities as an educational tool as compared with a standard Light Box from the American Printing House for the Blind. The study found that students made greater gains using the iPad when compared to the Light Box.

Conclusion

This analysis of the literature on the use of AT in classroom interventions continues to grow within the field. Even though the majority of the published literature on this topic does not meet the WWC criteria for “gold-standard” research, it is clear that the body of research on AT in visual impairments continues to grow. As noted in the earlier reviews, the field needs to continue to conduct rigorous research, replicate important studies, and work with AT developers during the development period to conduct research within classroom contexts.

References

Blinn-Pike, L. (2009). Technology and the family: An overview from the 1980s to the present. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6-8),567-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494920903224459

Campaña, L. V., & Ouimet, D. A. (2015). iSimulation: Apple iPad use with children who are visually impaired, including those with multiple disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(1),67-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1510900110

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(2), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004). https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1350

Kelly, S. M., & Smith, D. W. (2011). The impact of assistive technology on the educational performance of students with visual impairments: A synthesis of the research. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(2), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1110500205

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 115, Stat. 1425. (2002). https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1

Odom, S. L., Bratlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Council for Exceptional Children, 71(2),137-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201

Pew Research Center (2002, September 15). College students say the internet helps them. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2002/09/15/college-students-say-the-internet-helps-them/

Pew Research Center (2020, April 30). 53% of Americans say the internet has been essential during the COVID-19 outbreak. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/04/30/53-of-americans-say-the-internet-has-been-essential-during-the-covid-19-outbreak/

Smith, D. W., & Kelly, S. M. (2014). Assistive technology for students with visual impairments: A research agenda. In D. Hatton (Ed.), Current issues in the education of students with visual impairments, Vol. 46, (pp. 23-53). Academic Press.

Warren, D. H. (1994). Blindness and children: An individual differences approach. Cambridge University Press.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2011). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 2.1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565673.pdf

The Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research is copyright (c) 2022 to the National Federation of the Blind.