| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立陽明大學 === 復健科技輔具研究所 === 95 === Background and purpose: Assistive technology device ameliorate the problems faced by individuals who have disabilities. However, it also requires an effective service delivery system to meet the needs of the users. In Taiwan, the number of people with disability and vulnerable elders are increasing, thus the ministry of the interior established Assistive Technology Resources Centers around the country. The objectives of these Assistive Technology Center are served to unite professional expertise to provide accessible assistive delivery services. Researches have shown the problems of abandonment, appropriate knowledge in assistive technology, service satisfaction and more, which indicates the need of increase in service quality. Accreditation indicators are indirect measures of service and are used for quality maintenance and improvement. At the moment, there are no performances monitoring mechanism for Assistive Technology Centers. Therefore, purpose of this study is to investigate accreditation indicators and develop an accreditation form for Assistive Technology Resources Centers in Taiwan. Methods: Through review of assistive technology service related quality evaluation and indicator literatures, developed an initial accreditation indicators and form which designed for Assistive Technology Resources Centers. The initial accreditation indicators and form is then modified via Delphi Method. Results: The accreditation indicators are categorized into assistive technology service, human resources, resource development and integration, rights of the persons served, facilities, and administrative management. Out of the 19 primary and 47 secondary initial indicators, 26 indicators were modified and 8 indicators were deleted which resulted in 18 primary and 40 secondary initial indicators. Assistive technology service has 15 indicators and is recommend 40% of the total score; human resources has 4 indicators and is recommend 20% of the total score, resource development and integration has 6 indicators and is recommend 10% of the total score, rights of the persons served has 3 indicators and is recommend 8% of the total score, facilities has 4 indicators and is recommend 8% of the total score, administrative management has 8 indicators and is recommend 14% of the total score. Conclusion: The established Assistive Technology Resources Center accreditation indicators can be a reference for service providers to increase their service quality. As well as for the policy makers in planning accreditation policies and may apply to grade Assistive Technology Resources Centers.
|
|---|
