Adoption of Assistive Technologies for Reading Disabilities: Cultural, Literacy, and Technological Aspects

For people with disabilities, many aspects of daily life can be inaccessible. Legally, various disability laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997) mandate that reasonable accommodations should be provided for employees and students with reading disabilities. Computer-based assistive technologies are one way to provide accommodations. For designers of assistive technologies, the goal is to develop tools and applications that help people with disabilities participate in work, school, or other aspects of daily life. However, any benefits of an assistive technology (AT) only occur if the technology is adopted and used. Unfortunately, studies have shown that, in general, at least a third of all assistive technologies are abandoned after purchase (Phillips & Zhao, 1993; Martin & McCormack, 1999; Riemer-Reiss & Wacker, 2000). Such abandonments are problematic for multiple reasons. Abandoned technologies represent a waste of time, funds, and resources for the user as well as the other individuals involved in selecting and recommending the technologies (King, 1999). Moreover, negative experiences with an assistive device (e.g., difficulty using the technology, inaccurate matching between the technology and the user’s needs, etc.) can lead to increased disillusionment about the potential of AT to positively impact the life of the user (Martin & McCormack, 1999). Understanding the various factors that lead to the adoption or abandonment of assistive technologies can work towards preventing these consequences. However, translating the results of previous AT adoption studies into workable policies and practices reveals several weaknesses in these earlier efforts. As Dawe (2006) notes, earlier AT adoption studies lump together users with different disabilities, ranging from mobility impairments to sensory disabilities to cognitive disabilities. Although the findings highlight general themes about AT adoption, the diversity of both the assistive tools and the user populations are obscured. Moreover, these studies have tended to focus only on whether a technology is adopted or rejected. Emphasizing these end states neglects the actual underlying process involved in technology adoption (Rogers, 2003) and thereby limits potential interventions to prevent rejection. In addition to Dawe’s criticisms, early AT adoption studies also fail to consider the range of sociocultural and environmental contexts surrounding adoption. Some assistive devices are purchased medically, others through school systems. Each institution has different policies concerning funding and priorities (King, 1999). The individuals themselves may have different responsibilities as well. While in grades K-12, the schools hold the responsibility for insuring accommodations are provided, but afterwards it is the disabled person’s responsibility for requesting and proving the need for accommodations (Cory, 2005). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, cultural views and stigmas vary across different disabilities and are likely to influence the