Assistive Technology Consideration, Assessment, and Evaluation: What Is the Difference?

OVERVIEW

Consideration, assessment, and evaluation are used constantly in assistive technology, often interchangeably, and often to mean different things depending on who is speaking. A school team, a rehabilitation clinic, a health plan, and an employer may each use the same word for a different activity.

This article explains what each term generally means, where the differences matter, and why not every assistive technology decision requires the same formal process. It is educational and general. It does not describe what any particular school, provider, employer, or plan does.

WHY THE TERMS GET CONFUSED

There is no single national definition that applies across every system. The terms developed separately in education, rehabilitation, and health care, and each field uses them in ways that make sense internally.

Two specific sources of confusion are worth naming.

First, the same word can describe different activities. In the school context, evaluation of effectiveness means checking whether assistive technology is working after it has been implemented. In a clinical or service context, evaluation often means the comprehensive process of determining what a person needs in the first place. These are close to opposite ends of the same process.

Second, the terms describe points on a continuum rather than three separate boxes. In practice they overlap, and a single meeting may include parts of all three.

CONSIDERATION

Consideration is the question of whether assistive technology may be needed at all. It is a decision point, not a process with a fixed structure, and it does not automatically involve testing, trials, or a written report.

In schools, consideration has a specific legal meaning. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when a team develops, reviews, or revises an Individualized Education Program, it must consider special factors, including whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services. That requirement appears at 34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(v).

Two points about the school requirement are frequently misunderstood.

Consideration is required for every child with an IEP, not only for children whose teams expect assistive technology to be relevant. It is a standing part of the IEP process.

Consideration does not mean a device will be provided. It means the team has to address the question. The outcome may be that no assistive technology is needed, that something already available is sufficient, that the team needs more information, or that a device or service should be provided. What the team may not do is skip the question.

Outside schools, consideration happens less formally. A clinician, employer, or family member may simply notice that a task is difficult and ask whether technology might help.

Education, IDEA and IEPs explains the school process in more depth.

ASSESSMENT

Assessment is the process of gathering information to answer a question, usually a fairly specific one. It is more structured than consideration and generally narrower than a comprehensive evaluation.

An assessment might look at how a student accesses written material, whether a particular access method is viable, what a person can operate reliably from their current seated position, or which of two configurations is more accurate for them.

Assessment usually involves observation in the setting where the task actually happens, information from the person and the people around them, and often some structured trial of options. It may be carried out by a single professional or by a team, depending on the question.

In schools, assessment of assistive technology needs is one of the quality indicator areas identified by Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology, a widely used framework in educational practice. Assessment there is described as a collaborative, ongoing process carried out by a team with the knowledge and skills relevant to the questions being asked, conducted in the student's customary environments.

EVALUATION

Evaluation is the term most often used for a comprehensive process that pulls the whole picture together, considers multiple areas of function and multiple environments, compares options through trials, and produces recommendations and documentation.

An evaluation in this sense is usually more involved than an assessment. It may include intake and background information, identification of the functional tasks and barriers that matter to the person, observation, trials and comparison of options, consideration of environments, attention to the person's preferences, recommendations, and a written report.

What to Expect During an Assistive Technology Evaluation describes that process in more detail.

The word also has a second, different use. In the school quality indicator framework, evaluation of effectiveness refers to monitoring whether assistive technology that has already been implemented is actually working, using data collected over time. That is a post implementation activity rather than a selection activity.

When someone says evaluation, it is usually worth clarifying which of these they mean.

DEVICE TRIALS

Trials sit inside assessment and evaluation rather than alongside them. A trial is a period of using a device or configuration in a real setting to find out how it performs.

Trials matter because how something performs in daily use is hard to predict from specifications or from a short demonstration. They are also one of the more effective ways to reduce the risk that a device ends up unused, which is discussed in Why Assistive Technology Gets Abandoned and How to Reduce Device Nonuse.

Trials vary in length and formality. Some happen within a single session as a comparison between options. Others run for weeks in a classroom, workplace, or home. State Assistive Technology Act programs often support trials through device demonstration and short term device loan.

DOCUMENTATION

Documentation serves different purposes in different systems.

In schools, decisions about assistive technology are recorded through the IEP process, and what is documented shapes what the school is responsible for providing.

In clinical and service settings, a written report typically records what was examined, what was tried, what was observed, and what is recommended, often with the detail a funding source requires.

In workplaces, documentation is generally tied to the accommodation process rather than to an educational or clinical record.

The level of documentation that is appropriate depends on what it is for. A short note may be sufficient for a low cost tool someone is going to try. A funding request for significant equipment usually requires considerably more.

TEAM DECISION MAKING

Across systems, assistive technology decisions are generally better when made by a group that includes the person who will use the technology.

In schools, the IEP team makes the decision, and the team includes the parents and, where appropriate, the student. In clinical settings, decisions typically involve the person, relevant clinicians, and often a supplier or assistive technology professional. In workplaces, the process usually involves the employee, the employer, and sometimes an external specialist.

The person who will use the technology is the one who knows what the day actually looks like. Leaving them out of the decision is associated with devices going unused.

NOT EVERY DECISION NEEDS THE SAME PROCESS

It is worth saying clearly: not every assistive technology decision requires a comprehensive evaluation.

If a student needs a pencil grip, or an employee needs the screen magnification already built into their operating system turned on, the appropriate process is to try it. Requiring a full evaluation for every decision delays help, consumes professional time that other people need, and can discourage people from asking.

Conversely, a complex decision involving a significant device, several environments, and multiple funding considerations is not well served by an informal try it and see approach.

Matching the depth of the process to the complexity of the question is a judgment, and it is a reasonable one to discuss openly with a team.

HOW THE SYSTEMS DIFFER

The same words carry different obligations depending on the system.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, assistive technology consideration is required for every child with an IEP, and devices and services determined necessary for a free appropriate public education are provided by the public agency responsible for the child's education at no cost to families.

In postsecondary education, the IDEA framework does not apply. An IEP does not transfer to college. Students generally request accommodations from the institution's disability or accessibility services office under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act, through an eligibility based process that differs from the K to 12 system. Assistive Technology for College and Postsecondary Education covers this.

In employment, accommodations including assistive technology are generally addressed through the employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Employment and Workplace Accommodations covers that process.

In health care and rehabilitation, evaluation and funding are tied to the relevant plan or program's own rules.

Nothing in this article states what any individual is entitled to receive. Eligibility, funding, and outcomes depend on individual circumstances and on the rules of the relevant system.

RELATED ASSISTIVETECHNOLOGY.ORG RESOURCES

For the general framework behind matching a person, a task, an environment, and an access method, see AT Assessment and Selection. For assistive technology in schools, see Education, IDEA and IEPs. For postsecondary access, see Assistive Technology for College and Postsecondary Education. For workplace accommodation processes, see Employment and Workplace Accommodations. For what an evaluation involves in practice, see What to Expect During an Assistive Technology Evaluation.

AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES

• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(v), for the requirement that IEP teams consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services

• U.S. Department of Education, Assistive Technology Devices and Services for Children With Disabilities Under the IDEA, for federal guidance on assistive technology in schools

• Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology, for the indicator areas covering consideration, assessment, implementation, and evaluation of effectiveness

• ADA.gov, for disability rights information relevant to postsecondary and workplace access

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

This article is provided for general educational purposes and is maintained by Accessibility Clinic, Inc. Terminology and process vary by system, state, institution, and provider. This article does not constitute legal, medical, or educational advice, does not describe any specific program, and does not constitute an individualized assistive technology evaluation. For an individualized evaluation, see AssistiveTechnologyEvaluations.org.