Review of Assistive Technology Device/System Reports

The review panel for the AbilityOne® Design Challenge will screen all reports by answering the following questions:

• Is the assistive technology device/system a solution to a barrier that prevents a person with a severe disability from entering or advancing in the workplace? If the answer is "No", the submission will not be reviewed further and will be considered to be out of contention.
• Was a prototype built? If the answer is "No", the submission will not be reviewed further and will be considered to be out of contention.
• Was the device/system designed in collaboration with a person who has a disability? If the answer is "No", the submission will not be reviewed further and will be considered to be out of contention.
• Is the device/system currently being used or intended for use by the end of the current school year? If the answer is "No", the submission will not be reviewed further and will be considered to be out of contention.
• Was the design developed with consultation from a NISH affiliated NPA? Additional consideration is given to those that worked with a NISH affiliate. (University Only)

The review panel will then score each submitted paper based on the following criteria. Those papers that are found to be closest to these statements will receive the highest scores. The more errors found or information missing in a paper will result in a lower score:

Abstract: The abstract clearly describes the content of the paper and is a good, quick and easy, overview.

Usefulness of Device/System: The applicant(s) clearly communicated how this design is different, better, set-apart from what already exists. The device will allow an individual or population of workers not currently employed to find employment or employed people with disabilities to have significant gains in productivity. The judges deem the device to be very useful and unique.

Solution (Overall): The applicant(s) clearly communicate what the solution is, who the device is for and how it helps people with disabilities in the workplace. The judges concur with the conclusions.

Solution (Cost): Material list and cost are clear and complete. The cost seems reasonable.

Solution (Ease of use and implementation): The device is very easy to implement and use in the workplace. Solution (Safety/safety features): Device is very safe. Safety features have been added or are intrinsic to the design.

Prototype (Construction quality and accuracy): Device exemplifies high quality and accuracy.

Prototype (Consistent and accurate function): Device functions correctly without flaws.

Testing and Evaluation (Is there an increase in productivity?): Test procedures are clear and well documented. Photos of setup are provided. Results are well documented, valid, and reliable. Evaluation was performed and the device clearly facilitates the entry to, productivity of or advancement of people with severe disabilities in the workplace. Percent increase in productivity must be documented.

Conclusions: Conclusions are well thought out and accurate. The judges concur with all of the conclusions.

Overall Report (Quality): Report is complete, clear, neat, and well organized with no grammatical or spelling errors. Figures and/or charts are clear and references are provided. Report is within the 5-page limit.

In addition to the above, use the following checklist of to ensure a higher score:

• State whether or not this device was developed for an individual, a large market or universal design, and indicate the transferability of the technology.
• State before and after measures (i.e., first the individual/ group was doing this, now they are able to...).
• • Indicate and explain the intent of the design: conceptual creativity and innovation, practicality, replicable, or immediate use for a specific individual or population.
• Indicate how this design is different, better, set-apart from what already exists in the market. Indicate the devices' marketability.
• Describe the design process: what was considered, what was abandoned and why (too cumbersome, too outdated, too many steps, etc...).
• Indicate what level of independence this device will provide for an individual/group.
• Describe interaction with faculty, staff, individuals with disabilities, job coaches, physical therapists, etc. in the development of the device.
• (University Only) Indicate whether or not a NISH affiliated NPA was consulted with during the design process. If so, which one, and how much time was spent in consultation. If student(s) did not work with a NISH affiliated NPA, then clearly indicate who they worked with and the nature of the interaction.