Qualitative_Article_Review

Qualitative Article Review: Liberty University Summary In this article, Assistive Devices for Children with Functional Impairments: Impact on Child and Caregiver Function, the authors, Stacey Henderson, Heather Skelton and Peter Rosenbaum, aim to determine the impact of assistive devices on the components of functioning as defined by the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The ICF is both a model for considering functioning and a classification system to describe health status. It defines health as the result of a dynamic interaction between a person’s domains (Body Structure and Function, Activity, and Participation) and two contextual factors (Environmental and Personal). Thus, interventions provided at any point in this systemic framework may have a far-reaching impact on other aspects of a person’s life and function. Each of the 54 studies reviewed in this report identified one or more functional impairments towards which an assistive device was targeted: accessing a computer (n=3 [studies]), activity assistance (n=2), behavior changes (n=3), communication (n=30), independent feeding (n=1), living skills (n=1), mobility (n=9), modifying the environment (n=1), nutrition (n=4), and postural stability (n=2). The studies included in this review were selected based on characteristics of the intervention, study population, and outcomes measured. To be included, studies were required to identify provision of an assistive device(s). Studies were limited to reports of interventions targeted to people who were under 19 years of age. The research design/data analyses used were case studies. The method used were abstracts of studies screened for inclusion by the first two authors. Those selected were pooled, divided, and reviewed. Study outcomes were identified and classified as belonging to the domains and/or contextual factors of the ICF. If concerns arose about the appropriateness of a study it was read by both lead authors and discussed until consensus was reached. Early in the review process, five studies were selected which represented a variety of designs and interventions; these were read and summarized by both reviewers. Results were compared and discrepancies discussed until consensus was reached. This activity was repeated late in the review process to ensure consistency was being maintained. No consequential discrepancy was found in the data extracted. Study design was also considered in determining inclusion for this review: only primary research was included, reporting studies published in a peer reviewed journal. Conclusion The child-focused outcomes, mainly classified under the categories of activity, participation, and personal factors, were overwhelmingly positive with few undesirable outcomes reported. Results of this study show a strongly positive impact of assistive devices, suggesting that providing them to children with functional impairments can be an important intervention strategy. Critical Analysis Results of this study show a strongly positive impact of assistive devices, suggesting that providing them to children with functional impairments can be an important intervention strategy. However, the outcome did not show the devices effect on speech for the users. It did not show whether the use of the devices hindered verbal communication in the children. I think that is an opportunity for further research. The effect of assistive devices on verbal communication for children who have some language and for those who have none should be studied. This study was useful in identifying the breadth of the literature but limits the ability to translate results into specific practice recommendations. There was often uncertainty about the psychometric properties of the outcome measures, leaving open to question the validity of the findings, or how the studies might be replicated. These observations point to the continuing need for valid and reliable standardized measures of these outcomes. Results of this study show a strongly positive impact of assistive devices, suggesting that providing them to children with functional impairments can be an important intervention strategy. Peer Editing Rubric for the Qualitative Article Review Author of Review: Peer Editor: |Summary |2.5 |2 |1.5 |1 |0 |Total | |Description of |Thorough description of |Good description of |Acceptable |Little, if any, |Incomplete |2.5 | |Participants/Sample |participants/sample, |participants sample and|description of |description of | | | | |including sample |sample selection |participants sample |sample. No mention of| | | | |selection. |procedures. |and sample selection.|sampling procedures. | | | |Research Design |Research Design |Research Design |Research Design |No research design |Incomplete |2 | | |documented with |documented with a |documented. |indicated. | | | | |indicators of why this is|general recognition of | | | | | | |an appropriate design. |why this is an | | | | | | | |appropriate design. | | | | | |Data Collection & |Method of data collection|Method of data |Method of data |No method of data |Incomplete |2.5 | |Analysis |and analysis indicated |collection & analysis |collection and |collection and | | | | |and explained thoroughly.|indicated and somewhat |analyzing date |analysis indicated. | | | | | |explained. |unclear | | | | |Results |Tightly focused writing |Generally focused |Somewhat focused |Scattered random |Incomplete |1.5 | | |summarizing the results |summary of the results |summary of the |writing without focus| | | | |of the study |of the study |results of the study |on the results of the| | | | | | | |study | | | |Analysis | | | | | | | |Validity/rival hypotheses|Complete yet concise |Concise and generally |Validity/rival |Incomplete |Incomplete |2 | | |discussion of the |recognizes most aspects|hypotheses tend to be|validity/rival | | | | |validity/rival hypotheses|of the validity/rival |one-sided with |hypotheses discussion| | | | | |hypotheses |aspects of the | | | | | | | |validity/rival | | | | | | | |hypotheses missing. | | | | |Original |Insight/Criticism based |Generally good evidence|Evidence only |Opinion entirely |Incomplete |2 | |insight/Criticism |on fact, research, or |given in support of |somewhat supports |unsupported. | | | | |scholarly authority. |opinion. |opinion. | | | | |Implications |Complete yet concise |Identifies implications|Unclear implications |No connection between|Incomplete |1.5 | | |discussion of |for practice. |for practice. |research and | | | | |implications of research | | |practice. | | | | |on practice | | | | | | |Writing/Style | | | | | | | | | | | | |Total |/25 | |Peer Comments: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |