Given the delay between sending my e-mail and seeing a response I thought that I had managed to upset the entire Dis-forum list yet again.
It is indeed good to know that I am not a lone voice in the wilderness.
Whilst I agree in principle with the sequence etc indicated by Ian and David in their messages I try to concentrate my efforts primarilly in understanding the precise nature and effect of the disability on the individual. They are afte all human beings not just a set of symptoms. I then combine this with as clear an understanding as I can muster on HOW they learn, in as much detail as I can manage. By doing this I believe I can make the appropriate evaluation at a level that avoids the introduction of the solution which theoretically looks OK but in practice has significant faults even to a point where missing some indicators can cause actual damage to the individual being assessed. I see technology as a means to an end albeit an important and essential means and in view of this I demonstrate software very rarely. When dealing with software that is an essential part of a strategy I treat any demonstration I may give as a selling exercise, If I get the individual identifying the benefits I have highlighted as part of my assessment it would be foolish not to sell it vigerously and gain agreement.What I don't expect is for the client to remember anything of the demonstration apart from the fact that the product in conjunction with the STRATEGY worked well. From my own experience I have seen so many examples where an assessment appears generally acceptable but if the assessor had understood the learning process and existing strategies of the individial more fully they should have seen that their solution could (and unfortuantely in many cases has) caused damage to the intended benefactor.
I would have hoped that in these times where individuals are almost anxious to challange and sue, we assessors would be more aware of our responsibilities. Not only does the commitment to technologically based solutions leave our employers at risk of litigation I am sure that in certain cases (if not all) the assessor themselves can be held responsible for the advice and solutions implemented.
Many assessors avoid doing ergonomic assessments because of their highly complex nature and the potential for causing harm, but it is equally important to realise that the same potential for damage exists when doing a dyslexia assessment as there would be for someone with complex multiple disabilities.
Terry Hart
Usual disclaimers apply.
|