Best Evidence: O&M for Individuals Under 21. Tessa Wright Carlsen, Vanderbilt University Beth Harris, University of Arizona Eric Sticken, University of Arizona. 1. Background.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Best Evidence: O&M for Individuals Under 21 Tessa Wright Carlsen, Vanderbilt University Beth Harris, University of Arizona Eric Sticken, University of Arizona 1 Background Using the criteria for scientifically based research as outlined by No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 115 STAT. We sought to determine what the research base was for orientation and mobility (O&M) tools used with students under 21 years of age since 1965. We defined O&M tools as devices manipulated by the student when traveling including : canes, dog guides, electronic travel devices (ETDs), an maps. Inclusion criteria: scientifically based, participants from birth to 21 with a VI, articles in peer reviewed journals were preferred, published between 1965 and 2005. Exclusion Criteria: non-experimental works, sighted participants, participants over 21, articles not available in English
Methods 2 • We conducted an exhaustive review of the literature. • Articles meeting inclusion criteria were passed along to two expert reviewers so DIADs could be completed. • Effect sizes were calculated for studies ultimately included. • Statistical and narrative synthesis was attempted. Cohen’s d was used when possible, if not possible, other formula’s were employed with the F statistic
4 Conclusion • The current studies found several moderate effect sizes • The current literature, however were not synchronous enough, however, to allow statistical aggregation and analysis. • Research regarding tactile maps is the most prevalent. • Replication is needed. • Meta-analysis is not the best method of research synthesis on the given topic, perhaps a best evidence synthesis would allow for more conclusions to be drawn.
5 References Berla, E. P. (1973). Strategies in scanning a tactual pseudomap. Education of the Visually Handicapped, 5, 8-19. Berla, E. P. & Murr, M. J. (1975). The effects of noise on the location of point symbols and tracking a line on a tactile pseudomap. The Journal of Special Education, 9(2), 183-190. Clarke, K. L., & Sainato, D. M. (1994). Travel performance of preschoolers: the effects of mobility training with a long cane versus a precane. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88. Easton, R. D., & Bentzen, B. L. (1980). Perception of tactile route configurations by blind and sighted observers. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 74(7), 254-265. Franks, F. L. (1974). Introduction to map study: Teaching locational and directional referents to young blind students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers. Sapp, W. (2003). Cognitive mapping of large scale simple environments in 10-17 year old children who are blind : use of tactual maps, tactual models, and verbal descriptions. Unpublished dissertation, Vanderbilt University. Ungar, S., Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (1997). Teaching visually impaired children to make distance judgments from a tactile map. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 91. Ungar, S., Blades, M., Spencer, C., & Morsley, K. (1994). Can visually impaired children use tactile maps to estimate directions? Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 88.