User and technical documentation for the RB Switch
For Students with Cerebral Palsy and CVI / Visual Impairment
Developed by Michael Ryan Hunsaker, M.Ed., Ph.D. · Version of 2026-10-03
Download the printable package (Word)
This page holds the same content as RB_Switch_Evaluation_Package.docx, a fill-in package for evaluating, teaching, and documenting adaptive switch access. Use the Word file when you want to print the checklists and data sheets and fill them in by hand. The Word file is generated from this page (see CONTRIBUTING).
The package is general: it is not specific to the RB Switch, and it covers any switch, mount, or access site. It was written for evaluating students with cerebral palsy and cortical/cerebral visual impairment (CVI), but the stage-by-stage structure applies to other learners as well.
Using the RB Switch in these trials
The RB Switch has three small mechanical buttons: SW1 sends Left Arrow, SW2 sends Enter, and SW3 sends Right Arrow. How it fits each stage depends on the host device and app, so confirm the behavior in the actual app before you start collecting data.
| Package stage | How the RB Switch can be used |
|---|---|
| Stage 1 and 2: cause and effect, purposeful activation | Use any one button as the switch. Check that the app (or the Switch Control / Switch Access action you assign to the button) responds before collecting data. |
| Stage 3: single-switch scanning | Assign one button to Select and turn on auto scanning in iOS Switch Control or Android Switch Access. Record the scan speed on the data sheet. |
| Stage 4: two-switch step scanning | Use SW3 as Next (advance) and SW2 as Select. This is the two-switch setup Android’s wizard supports. |
| Stage 5: multi-item and AAC | Use all three buttons: SW1 Previous, SW3 Next, SW2 Select. On Android, the third button is added after the wizard. |
Keep these limits in mind when you complete Section 4 (Motor & Access Site Assessment):
Setup steps are in Setup & Pairing, the host-side steps are in Android Switch Access and iOS/iPadOS Switch Control, and problems with the device itself are covered in Troubleshooting. Appendix F of this package is a separate guide to student performance problems, not equipment faults.
Note: This package is an educational and clinical-practice resource. It does not replace individualized assessment, medical guidance, OT/PT positioning expertise, SLP/AAC assessment, TVI/CVI assessment, manufacturer instructions, or local educational requirements.
Student & Evaluation Information
| Field | Entry | Field | Entry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student Name | Evaluator Name | ||
| Date of Birth | Title / Credentials | ||
| Grade / Classroom Placement | Evaluation Dates | ||
| Diagnoses | School / District |
Assessments Completed
| Stage | Date | Initials |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | ||
| Stage 2 | ||
| Stage 3 | ||
| Stage 4 | ||
| Stage 5 |
3-Year Re-Evaluation
| Due | Completed | Date |
|---|---|---|
| ☐ Yes ☐ No |
Adaptive switches are alternative access devices that allow individuals with physical, cognitive, and/or sensory disabilities to control technology without using standard touch or keyboard input. A switch is essentially a simple on/off interface—when activated (pressed, squeezed, blown into, moved toward, etc.), it sends a signal to a device, completing an action selected by scanning software or cause-effect applications.
For students with cerebral palsy (CP) and cortical/cerebral visual impairment (CVI), adaptive switches can unlock access to communication, learning, play, and environmental control that would otherwise be inaccessible.
The switch itself is not the intervention; it is the access mechanism that connects the person’s response to a meaningful activity or outcome.
Effective switch access can be understood as a chain with six linked components:
Important — Training principle: If performance is poor, do not assume the student needs more prompting. Examine every link in the access chain before increasing assistance.
A student can physically press a switch without demonstrating functional switch use. Functional access requires a relationship between the response, the timing of the response, the selected target, and the meaningful outcome. Intentionality—not simple physical activation—determines readiness to advance through the stages.
Important — Key Principle: The progression from cause-effect to scanning is NOT linear in a strict developmental sense—it is an instructional sequence shaped by cognitive readiness, motor access, and visual processing. Students should move to the next level when they demonstrate consistent intentionality, NOT simply when they can physically activate a switch. A student may require one stage for one activity while using a more advanced method for another.
The instructional hierarchy for switch access typically proceeds through five stages:
| Stage | Primary skill | Typical access arrangement | Primary evidence of learning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Cause and effect | Action produces a predictable consequence | One switch + contingent stimulus | Repeated independent activations tied to the outcome |
| 2. Purposeful/timed activation | Action occurs at a meaningful moment | One switch + structured opportunity | Timing and communicative/operational intent |
| 3. Single-switch scanning | One switch selects among sequential choices | Auto-scan or step scan | Accurate selection of targets |
| 4. Two-switch scanning | Separate advance and select responses | Two switches | Deliberate navigation and selection |
| 5. Multi-item/AAC integration | Navigation, selection, and message construction | Multiple switches or scanning | Functional communication/control across contexts |
Cerebral palsy affects motor control in ways that range from minor coordination difficulties to complete absence of voluntary limb movement. Students may have spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, or mixed types, each affecting the precision, timing, and consistency of switch activation differently. CP can also affect tone, range of motion, motor planning, timing, strength, coordination, endurance, and movement consistency—so switch selection must be individualized to the student’s specific presentation. A site-by-site motor assessment is essential before any switch trials.
Cortical/Cerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is a neurological condition affecting how the brain processes visual information. It is the leading cause of visual impairment in children in developed countries and frequently co-occurs with CP due to shared neurological etiology. CVI manifests along a spectrum (Roman-Lantzy CVI Range: Phase I–III) and profoundly affects:
These visual processing characteristics directly affect switch interface design—apps, overlays, scanning highlights, icon size, contrast, and background must be calibrated to the student’s CVI phase.
Visual impairment—including blindness—does not automatically prevent switch use. It changes how the evaluator should establish orientation to the task, feedback, target presentation, auditory cues, and scanning.
The use of switch-based assistive technology is supported by a robust evidence base across multiple disciplines:
These sources are complementary rather than interchangeable: SETT and HAAT organize feature matching and context; QIAT addresses service delivery; CVI assessment informs visual access; AAC research addresses communication outcomes; and microswitch studies provide examples of people with severe or profound disabilities learning to control meaningful environmental or social events.
| Year | Study | Population / visual status | Microswitch function | Training relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | A computer system serving as a microswitch for vocal utterances of persons with multiple disabilities: Two case evaluations | Persons with multiple disabilities (published in Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness) | Computer-based detection of vocal utterances functioned as microswitch-like access | Switch access need not be a mechanical button; alternative response modalities are viable |
| 2005–2006 | An optic micro-switch for an eyelid response to foster environmental control in children with minimal motor behaviour | Children with profound multiple disabilities and minimal motor behavior | Optic sensor on eyeglass frame detected marked eyelid/eye-opening movement and activated preferred stimulation | Extremely small responses can be made functional when detection is engineered around the available movement |
| 2005 | Further evaluation of microswitch clusters to enhance hand response and head control in persons with multiple disabilities | Participants with profound intellectual disabilities, spastic tetraparesis, and visual impairment | Pressure microswitch for adaptive hand response combined with a position microswitch for head position | Multiple switch conditions can support both engagement and postural goals |
| 2006 | A microswitch-based program to enable students with multiple disabilities to choose among environmental stimuli | Students with severe/profound disability and motor and visual impairment | Two microswitches linked to computer-presented preferred/nonpreferred stimulus choices | Directly relevant to choice-making, preference assessment, and two-response access |
| 2007 | Enabling students with multiple disabilities to request and choose among environmental stimuli through microswitch and computer technology | Students with multiple disabilities | Two basic microswitches triggered presentation of stimulus samples | Model for teaching choice, requesting, and contingent access |
| 2008 | Enabling two persons with multiple disabilities to access environmental stimuli and ask for social contact through microswitches and a VOCA | Participants with multiple disabilities; one nearly totally blind with profound intellectual and motor disabilities | Two microswitches provided direct access to preferred stimuli; VOCA provided caregiver contact | Strong example of combining environmental control and social communication |
| 2008 | Three persons with multiple disabilities accessing environmental stimuli and asking for social contact through microswitch and VOCA technology | Three participants with multiple disabilities | Two microswitches for environmental stimuli plus VOCA for social contact | Supports combining switch-based environmental control with communication rather than treating them as competing systems |
| 2009 | Persons with multiple disabilities access stimulation and contact the caregiver via microswitch and VOCA technology | Eight children/adolescents with combined intellectual, motor, and visual disabilities | Microswitch for direct access to selected environmental stimuli plus VOCA for caregiver contact | Relevant to integrated access and generalization across response forms |
| 2014 | Microswitch-aided programs to support physical exercise or adequate ambulation in persons with multiple disabilities | Study I involved a woman with blindness and severe intellectual and motor disabilities who used a wheelchair | Microswitch-aided program delivered preferred stimulation contingent on head and arm/hand movements | Microswitch contingencies can be designed around posture and physical activity, not only communication or toy control |
Related research also includes people with blindness or severe visual impairment using computer-aided telephone systems, indoor-navigation systems, and other technology-aided programs. These studies support the broader principle of accessible technology but should not be cited as direct evidence that a particular mechanical switch or scanning configuration is effective.
Warning — Evidence limitation: Most microswitch research is based on small samples and single-case or case-series designs. It is highly useful for demonstrating feasibility and functional relationships in individuals with complex disabilities, but it does not establish a universal switch type, scan speed, or success rate for all students.
Switch access should ultimately serve functional outcomes such as:
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student Name | |
| DOB | |
| Evaluator | |
| Date |
| Item | Response |
|---|---|
| CP Type | ☐ Spastic ☐ Dyskinetic/Athetoid ☐ Ataxic ☐ Mixed ☐ Unknown |
| CP Topography | ☐ Hemiplegia ☐ Diplegia ☐ Quadriplegia ☐ Monoplegia |
| GMFCS Level | ☐ I ☐ II ☐ III ☐ IV ☐ V |
| MACS Level | ☐ I ☐ II ☐ III ☐ IV ☐ V |
| CVI Diagnosis | ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Suspected but not formally diagnosed |
| CVI Phase (if known) | ☐ Phase I (0–3) ☐ Phase II (4–7) ☐ Phase III (8–10) Score: ___ |
| Additional Diagnoses | |
| Seizure Disorder | ☐ Yes (last seizure: ____) ☐ No ☐ Controlled with medication |
| Cognitive Level (estimated) | ☐ Age-appropriate ☐ Mild ID ☐ Moderate ID ☐ Severe ID ☐ Profound ID |
| Communication Status | ☐ Verbal ☐ Functional AAC user ☐ Emerging AAC ☐ Pre-symbolic |
Describe any previous switch access or AT device trials, including outcome:
Setting: ☐ General Ed with supports ☐ Resource ☐ SDC ☐ NPS ☐ Home/Hospital
IEP Goals related to AT / Communication / Access:
☐ New evaluation — no prior switch use
☐ Re-evaluation — existing switch user, determine advancement
☐ Transition to new device/platform
☐ Regression or plateau in switch use
☐ AAC system change requiring new access method
☐ Other: __________________________
Apply the SETT framework before selecting tools. Define the student by functional characteristics, not diagnosis or GMFCS/MACS level alone.
Student — Document the student’s motor repertoire, voluntary movement, tone, range, endurance, communication, cognition, sensory profile, vision, hearing, visual latency, preferences, and typical patterns of initiation.
Environment — Identify where switch access must work: classroom, therapy, cafeteria, playground, home, community, transportation, and other relevant environments. Record seating systems, table height, device location, lighting, noise, people moving behind the display, caregiver availability, and device-management demands.
Tasks — Specify the real activity. “Use switch” is not a functional task. Examples include “request continuation of a song,” “select a preferred story,” “answer yes/no during a classroom routine,” “call caregiver,” or “select a word in AAC.”
Tools — Select the least complex tool that provides reliable access to the required task. Consider switch type, activation force, travel, sensitivity, mounting, cable routing, connector, interface, scan mode, scan speed, feedback, and durability.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Observer | |
| Setting | |
| Date |
Complete this checklist across at least 2 natural settings before formal switch trials begin. These observations establish a functional baseline and inform switch type, placement, and interface design. Observing in natural settings ensures the student’s posture, motivation, fatigue, and communication behavior are representative.
Rate both consistency and functional usefulness. A movement that occurs only rarely may still be valuable if it is highly discriminable and easy to detect.
| Skill Area | 0 – Not observed | 1 – Emerging | 2 – Developing | 3 – Consistent | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reaches toward preferred objects | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Demonstrates palmar grasp | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Demonstrates pincer/lateral pinch | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Opens hand voluntarily | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Pushes objects away intentionally | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Strikes/hits surface voluntarily | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Moves head toward/away from stimuli | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Controlled head/neck movement (midline) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Knee or foot press movement | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Controlled eye movement (gaze toward stimulus) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Breath control (for sip-and-puff potential) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Finger isolation (index or any single digit) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Tip: Look for repeated, non-random patterns. A student who activates a device twice when music stops is demonstrating more intentionality than one who activates randomly.
| Skill Area | 0 – Not observed | 1 – Emerging | 2 – Developing | 3 – Consistent | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repeats an action to maintain a preferred outcome | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Ceases action when outcome stops (recognizes contingency) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Looks toward screen/device after activation | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Shows anticipatory response before expected outcome | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Shows disappointment or protest when preferred outcome is removed | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Initiates interaction without prompting | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Sustains attention to screen/activity for >5 seconds | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Differentiates between preferred and non-preferred stimuli | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Skill Area | 0 – Not observed | 1 – Emerging | 2 – Developing | 3 – Consistent | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visually attends to single-color, high-contrast items | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Responds to movement in visual field | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Consistent visual field preference (note in comments) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Visual latency observed (delay of >3 sec before response) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Tolerance for complexity (simple vs. busy backgrounds) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Near vs. far visual preference (note optimal distance) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Responds to light/glowing stimuli | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Maintains visual attention after initial fixation | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Optimal viewing distance observed: _____
Visual field preference: ☐ Left ☐ Right ☐ Inferior ☐ Superior ☐ Central
Warning: A low activation rate can result from poor positioning, excessive switch force, poor switch placement, inadequate motivation, excessive visual complexity, insufficient wait time, fatigue, or an inappropriate response criterion. Conversely, a high activation rate can reflect accidental contact or a movement that is not under intentional control. Analyze the contingency—do not just count switch presses.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| OT/PT Evaluator | |
| Setting | |
| Date |
Important: This section should be completed in collaboration with the student’s occupational therapist and/or physical therapist. Seating, positioning, and optimal access site must be established BEFORE switch trials to ensure motor performance is not confounded by postural instability.
| Item | Response |
|---|---|
| Primary seating system | ☐ Manual WC ☐ Power WC ☐ Activity chair ☐ Standard chair ☐ Floor sitter ☐ Stander ☐ Other: ___ |
| Postural supports in use | ☐ Trunk support ☐ Head support ☐ Hip positioning ☐ Footrests ☐ Tray ☐ None |
| Head control | ☐ Functional/independent ☐ Assisted ☐ Head support required ☐ Absent |
| Optimal working posture | |
| Fatigue considerations | Expected tolerance for sustained activity: ____ minutes |
Positioning sequence:
Test each potential access site systematically. Record activation reliability using the following rating: R = Reliable (>80%), V = Variable (40–79%), U = Unreliable (<40%), NT = Not Tested. Treat these as evaluation descriptors rather than universal clinical cutoffs; the decisive question is whether the site is sufficiently reliable for the functional task being targeted.
| Access Site | Switch Type Tested | Reliability Rating | Activation Force | Activation Time | Recommend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right hand (palm/finger) | |||||
| Left hand (palm/finger) | |||||
| Right foot / knee | |||||
| Left foot / knee | |||||
| Head (right lateral) | |||||
| Head (left lateral) | |||||
| Head (posterior/occipital) | |||||
| Chin | |||||
| Elbow | |||||
| Breath (sip-and-puff) | |||||
| Eye gaze (if applicable) | |||||
| Other: _______ |
Access-site considerations:
| Access site | Potential response | Advantages | Common risks to examine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right/left hand | Palm, finger, grasp, push | Often intuitive; can support direct manipulation | Tone, involuntary movement, fatigue, poor isolation |
| Right/left foot or knee | Press or contact | May be available when upper limbs are difficult to use | Postural changes, footwear, accidental activation |
| Head, lateral | Turn/lean | Useful when head control is stronger than limb control | Neck fatigue, unwanted activation |
| Head, posterior/occipital | Backward head movement | Can work with specific head-control patterns | Mounting safety and head-support interaction |
| Chin | Forward/downward movement | Useful with limited limb movement | Positioning, cervical range, device alignment |
| Elbow | Push/press | May provide a larger movement than fingers | Arm positioning and unintended contact |
| Breath | Sip-and-puff | Can be useful with very limited limb movement | Breath control, tubing, hygiene |
| Proximity/position sensor | Movement toward/away | Can detect minimal movement without force | False activations and calibration |
| Eye/eyelid | Eye or eyelid movement | Can capture very small responses | Visual burden, calibration, privacy, fatigue |
Initial switch-fit protocol:
Primary site: ________________
Secondary/backup site: ________________
Recommended switch type:
☐ Large plate ☐ Small button ☐ Pillow/cushion ☐ Wobble ☐ Proximity ☐ Sip-and-puff ☐ Micro-switch ☐ Other: ____________
Switch mounting:
☐ Arm mount ☐ Wheelchair mount ☐ Table-mounted flex arm ☐ Floor stand ☐ Clamp ☐ Hand-held ☐ Other: ____________
Activation force required (estimated):
☐ Feather (<10g) ☐ Light (10–50g) ☐ Medium (50–150g) ☐ Heavy (>150g)
| Observed need | Potential feature | What to test | Data to collect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Very small movement | Micro/low-force switch or proximity sensor | Reliable detection without accidental activation | Activation reliability, false activations, fatigue |
| Large, imprecise movement | Large plate or cushion switch | Whether the switch tolerates variable contact location | Successful activations / opportunities |
| Head movement | Wobble, proximity, position sensor | Right/left/forward/back response | Range, consistency, latency |
| Limited hand use | Palm, finger, or button switch | Contact area and force | Independent activation percentage |
| Foot/knee response | Large plate or pedal-like switch | Alignment and leg movement | Accuracy, fatigue, posture |
| Minimal visual access | Auditory feedback and simplified display | Response without visual clutter | Correct selection, latency |
| CVI with visual latency | Extended wait time | 5+ second response window as appropriate | Latency and correct response rate |
| AAC scanning | Auto-scan or step scan | Several scan speeds and array sizes | Accuracy, latency, errors, fatigue |
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| TVI / Evaluator | |
| CVI Phase | |
| Date |
Students with CVI require deliberate, phase-matched interface design. This section documents the specific visual parameters that must be incorporated into all switch-access materials and digital interfaces.
Visual access is separate from motor access: a student may have an excellent motor response but still perform poorly if the interface cannot be visually located or discriminated. Conversely, a student with very limited useful vision may perform well when the task is primarily auditory or tactile.
Phase I Characteristics (Score 0–3) — Interface Adaptations Required:
| Characteristic | Interface Adaptation |
|---|---|
| Strong color preference (yellow, red) | Use single preferred color for switch & screen elements; black background |
| Need for movement to attract/hold gaze | Animated targets; moving switch indicator; lights on switch |
| Latent visual response (>3 second delay) | Extend inter-trial interval; do not interpret latency as lack of response |
| Visual field preference (typically lateral) | Position screen and switch in preferred field |
| Near viewing preference | Screen within 8–12 inches; switch within field of view |
| Single target presentation | One item on screen at a time; no competing visual elements |
| Non-purposeful gaze / reflexive looking | Do not score reflexive glances—require sustained gaze (2+ sec) |
Phase II–III Characteristics (Score 4–10) — Interface Adaptations:
| Characteristic | Interface Adaptation |
|---|---|
| Emerging color recognition (multiple colors) | Can introduce 2–3 color options; still keep high contrast |
| Increasing complexity tolerance (Phase III) | Gradually introduce more items per screen; monitor fatigue |
| Improved visual field range | Expand item placement; test central vs. peripheral placement |
| Reduced visual latency | Can slightly reduce inter-trial interval; still monitor for delays |
| Emerging distance vision | Gradually increase viewing distance; test at 18” and 24” |
| Visual fatigue remains a concern | Build in visual rest periods; limit high-visual-demand tasks |
| Variable | Assessment question | Possible training adjustment |
|---|---|---|
| Color | Is one color more consistently detected? | Use the preferred color for targets/highlights and reduce competing colors. |
| Visual field | Does the student respond more reliably in a particular field? | Place the screen/switch and important feedback in the usable field. |
| Movement | Does movement attract or sustain visual attention? | Use purposeful, limited animation rather than decorative motion. |
| Latency | How long does the student need to respond? | Increase wait time before prompting or advancing. |
| Complexity | How many items can be presented without loss of access? | Reduce array size and background clutter. |
| Distance | What viewing distance supports the strongest response? | Adjust screen/switch distance and gradually generalize. |
| Fatigue | Does visual performance decline over time? | Use scheduled rest and shorter high-demand trials. |
Warning: Do not treat a CVI phase or score as a substitute for individualized observation. Interface features should be tested against the student’s actual response pattern.
| Parameter | Response |
|---|---|
| Preferred color(s) | |
| Background color | |
| Icon/target size | ☐ Full screen ☐ Large (>3”) ☐ Medium (1–3”) ☐ Small (<1”) |
| Optimal viewing distance | |
| Screen position | ☐ Centered ☐ Left ☐ Right ☐ Below eye level ☐ Above eye level |
| Auditory accompaniment | ☐ Required ☐ Helpful ☐ Neutral ☐ Distracting—avoid |
| Scanning highlight style | ☐ Solid color box ☐ Animated border ☐ Glowing ☐ None |
| Visual rest interval needed | ☐ Yes—every ____ min ☐ No specific requirement |
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Collector | |
| Session # | |
| Date |
Important — Stage Goal: Student demonstrates understanding that activating the switch produces a specific, predictable outcome. Criterion: 8 out of 10 independent activations with clear intentional movement across 3 sessions.
App/Activity Used: _______ Switch type: _______ Placement: _________
CVI adaptations in place: _________ Scan speed: N/A (cause-effect) Scan type: N/A
Objective: establish a reliable contingency between the student’s action and a predictable, meaningful outcome.
Treat the 8/10 criterion as a template that can be individualized when fatigue, response rate, or medical/educational considerations justify another criterion.
PP = Physical (full) · PP- = Physical (partial) · M = Model · G = Gesture · V = Verbal · I = Independent
Response Coding: ✓ = Correct independent activation · P = Prompted activation · NR = No response · IR = Incorrect / non-purposeful · WD = Withdrew / refused
| Trial # | Date | Latency (sec) | Prompt Level | Response | % Correct | Effect Achieved? | Gaze to Screen? | Notes / Observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial 1 | ||||||||
| Trial 2 | ||||||||
| Trial 3 | ||||||||
| Trial 4 | ||||||||
| Trial 5 | ||||||||
| Trial 6 | ||||||||
| Trial 7 | ||||||||
| Trial 8 | ||||||||
| Trial 9 | ||||||||
| Trial 10 |
Session Total: /10 % Independent: __% % Prompted: _____%
Average Latency: ___ sec
Mastery Criterion Met? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Sessions at criterion: ___/3 required
Best trial conditions (time of day, positioning, activity):
Barriers observed:
Recommended next steps:
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Collector | |
| Session # | |
| Date |
Important — Stage Goal: Student activates the switch at a specific moment (e.g., to answer yes/no, to stop a song, to request more). Student demonstrates understanding of when AND why to activate—not just that activation causes something. Criterion: 80% accuracy across 3 sessions in at least 2 different activities.
Activity: _______ Task demand: ☐ Yes/No response ☐ Request more ☐ Stop/go ☐ Choice between 2 (single step) ☐ Other: _____
Switch type: _______ Placement: _______ CVI adaptations: _________
The instructional question changes from “Can the student make the switch activate?” to “Does the student activate when activation serves a specific purpose?”
PP = Physical (full) · PP- = Physical (partial) · M = Model · G = Gesture · V = Verbal · I = Independent
| Trial # | Date | Latency (sec) | Prompt Level | Response | % Correct | Timed Correctly? | Communicative Intent? | Notes / Observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||
| 10 |
Session Total: /10 % Timed Correctly: __% % With communicative intent: _____%
Mastery Criterion Met? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Progressing ☐ Not Progressing
Notes: __________________________
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Collector | |
| App / Activity | |
| Date |
Important — Stage Goal: Student uses a single switch with auto-scan (switch activates to select the highlighted item) to navigate an iPad app or activity with at least 2 choices. Criterion: 80% correct selections over 3 sessions with no more than a verbal prompt.
App: ________ # of items in scan array: __ Scan speed: ___ sec Scan type: ☐ Auto ☐ Manual/Step
Switch: _______ Site: _______ CVI adaptations: _________
In auto-scan, the system advances through targets automatically and the student activates the switch to select. In step/manual scan, the student uses the switch to advance and selects with the same switch or another mechanism, depending on the software.
Tip: Scan speed should be individualized from observed response latency rather than selected arbitrarily. If the highlight moves past the target before the student can orient and respond, accuracy will be suppressed. If the scan is excessively slow, attention and motivation may decline. Test multiple speeds and document both accuracy and fatigue.
PP = Physical (full) · PP- = Physical (partial) · M = Model · G = Gesture · V = Verbal · I = Independent
| Trial # | Date | Latency (sec) | Prompt Level | Response | % Correct | Target Item | Selected Item | Notes / Observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||
| 10 |
Session Total: /10 % Accuracy: ____% Most common error: ☐ Too early ☐ Too late ☐ No activation ☐ Random activation
Mastery Criterion Met? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Scan speed adjustment needed? ☐ Faster ☐ Slower ☐ No change
Notes: __________________________
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Collector | |
| App / Activity | |
| Date |
Important — Stage Goal: Student uses Switch 1 to advance through the array and Switch 2 to select. Student demonstrates ability to wait, scan to a desired item, and activate the selection switch deliberately. Criterion: 80% correct selection accuracy over 3 sessions with at most a gestural prompt.
Switch 1 (advance): _______ Site/color: _______
Switch 2 (select): _______ Site/color: _______
App: ________ Array size: __
Visual feedback: ☐ Highlight ☐ Animation ☐ Audio ☐ Other: ___
Two-switch scanning separates navigation from selection: Switch 1 advances; Switch 2 selects. This reduces the consequences of an accidental activation and gives the student more control over selection timing.
PP = Physical (full) · PP- = Physical (partial) · M = Model · G = Gesture · V = Verbal · I = Independent
| Trial # | Date | Target | # Advances | Advances Correct? | Selection Switch Used? | Correct Item? | Prompt Level | Latency (sec) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||||||||
| 2 | |||||||||
| 3 | |||||||||
| 4 | |||||||||
| 5 | |||||||||
| 6 | |||||||||
| 7 | |||||||||
| 8 | |||||||||
| 9 | |||||||||
| 10 |
Session % Accuracy: ___%
Average advances before selection: ___
Most common error type: ___________
Mastery Criterion Met? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Proceed to multi-item? ☐ Yes ☐ Not yet
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Collector | |
| Setting | |
| Date |
Tip — Usage Note: Use this sheet when the team is deciding between auto-scan and step/manual scan modes. Run at least 3 sessions of each and compare accuracy, latency, and fatigue.
| Parameter | AUTO-SCAN (switch = select only) | STEP/MANUAL SCAN (switch = advance) |
|---|---|---|
| Session accuracy (%) | ||
| Average latency (sec) | ||
| False activations / session | ||
| Fatigue observed (session)? | ☐ None ☐ Mild ☐ Significant | ☐ None ☐ Mild ☐ Significant |
| Student preference (observed) | ☐ Preferred ☐ Neutral ☐ Avoided | ☐ Preferred ☐ Neutral ☐ Avoided |
| Teacher/caregiver ease of setup | ☐ Easy ☐ Moderate ☐ Difficult | ☐ Easy ☐ Moderate ☐ Difficult |
| Optimal scan speed found | N/A | |
| Recommendation |
Mode comparison:
| Feature | Auto-scan | Step/manual scan |
|---|---|---|
| Student controls | Selection timing | Advance and selection timing |
| Typical switch demand | One selection switch | One or two switches depending on system |
| Strength | Fewer switch actions; useful with limited motor repertoire | Greater control over scan timing |
| Potential challenge | Missed targets if scan is too fast | More motor actions and cognitive demands |
| Best evaluation metric | Correct selection vs. timing | Advance accuracy + deliberate selection |
| Common adjustment | Change scan speed or dwell | Change advance response, selection response, or array size |
Scan-speed trial protocol: Test several scan speeds before fixing the configuration.
| Condition | Scan speed | Accuracy | Average latency | False activations | Fatigue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | |||||
| B | |||||
| C |
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Collector | |
| AAC App / Grid | |
| Date |
Important — Stage Goal: Student navigates a grid or page set with 4+ items, selects target items, and (where applicable) combines selections to produce multi-symbol messages. Criterion: 80% first-attempt accuracy over 3 sessions with items presented in varied positions.
AAC App: ________ Grid size: __ x __ Total items: __ Scan type: ☐ Row-column ☐ Linear ☐ Block
Switch(es): _______ Sites: _______ Scan speed: ___ sec
At this stage, the switch system becomes a general access method rather than a single-purpose activity. The student may navigate pages, scan rows and columns, select symbols, construct messages, and control multiple functions.
AAC considerations:
Communication functions to target: requesting (“more,” “music,” “go”); rejecting/protesting (“no,” “stop,” “finished”); choosing between options; social contact (calling a caregiver or communication partner); commenting; and repair (indicating that an incorrect selection occurred).
Important: Do not reduce switch use to compliance. A switch provides agency—training should include opportunities to choose, reject, request, initiate, and control outcomes. Communication opportunities must include rejection and protest as well as requesting.
Preference assessment: Assess preference repeatedly—a stimulus that was motivating yesterday may not be motivating today. For students with limited expressive communication, changes in approach, activation frequency, anticipation, and sustained engagement can provide useful preference information when interpreted cautiously.
PP = Physical (full) · PP- = Physical (partial) · M = Model · G = Gesture · V = Verbal · I = Independent
| # | Date | Target Message | Produced Message | # Errors | Error Type | Prompt | Latency | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||
| 10 |
Session accuracy: ___%
Most common error type: ☐ Row scan ☐ Column scan ☐ False select ☐ No select ☐ Wrong page
Row-column scanning accuracy separately: Row: __% Column: __%
Notes: __________________________
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Goal Area | |
| Target Criterion | |
| Tracking Period |
| Session | Date | Stage | App / Activity | Trials | Correct | % | Primary Prompt Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||||||
| 2 | |||||||
| 3 | |||||||
| 4 | |||||||
| 5 | |||||||
| 6 | |||||||
| 7 | |||||||
| 8 | |||||||
| 9 | |||||||
| 10 | |||||||
| 11 | |||||||
| 12 | |||||||
| 13 | |||||||
| 14 | |||||||
| 15 | |||||||
| 16 | |||||||
| 17 | |||||||
| 18 | |||||||
| 19 | |||||||
| 20 |
Tip: Plot each session’s % correct. Draw a goal line at the mastery criterion (typically 80%). Note changes in conditions, prompting levels, or switch/app adjustments directly on the graph.
| % | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 | S11 | S12 | S13 | S14 | S15 | S16 | S17 | S18 | S19 | S20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 90% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 80% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 70% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 60% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 50% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 40% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 30% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 20% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 10% | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 0% |
Session Number →
| Measure | Definition | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Independent accuracy | Correct response without prompt | Primary indicator of independent access |
| Prompt level | Least-to-most or most-to-least assistance required | Shows whether independence is increasing |
| Latency | Time from cue/target availability to response | Guides scan speed and wait time |
| False activation | Activation not associated with the intended response | Indicates poor mounting, sensitivity, or motor discrimination |
| Error type | Too early, too late, wrong target, no activation, wrong switch, etc. | Identifies the actual barrier |
| Fatigue | Observed decline in performance or tolerance | Prevents overestimating access during short trials |
| Generalization | Performance across people, tasks, settings, and times | Determines functional rather than laboratory-only success |
Tip: Ten-trial data sheets support direct comparison across sessions, but preserve enough context to interpret the numbers: activity, time of day, positioning, switch placement, scan speed, prompt level, visual adaptations, and relevant fatigue or behavior observations.
Look at the trajectory rather than a single percentage. A student who moves from 20% to 40% to 65% may be demonstrating meaningful learning even if the formal criterion has not been met. A student who moves from 95% to 70% to 50% may require investigation of fatigue, mounting, motivation, or interface changes.
| Finding | Possible interpretation | Next action |
|---|---|---|
| High accuracy + low prompts | Access may be well matched | Generalize and increase functional complexity cautiously |
| High accuracy + high prompts | Skill may be prompt-dependent | Fade prompts and strengthen natural cues |
| Low accuracy + consistent early selections | Timing may be too fast or target anticipation weak | Test slower scan speed and longer response window |
| Low accuracy + no activations | Switch/site may be physically inaccessible or motivation low | Reassess access site, force, positioning, and preference |
| High activation + low correct selection | Possible accidental or impulsive activation | Change activation requirement, scan mode, or switch placement |
| Performance drops with duration | Fatigue or visual load may be limiting | Shorten sessions, add rest, or modify visual demands |
Progression sequence:
Generalization matrix:
| Dimension | Example variation | Criterion to consider |
|---|---|---|
| Person | Teacher → paraprofessional → parent | Independent response with natural cue |
| Activity | Music → classroom choice → leisure | Same access response serves meaningful functions |
| Setting | Classroom → home → community | Performance remains usable after environmental change |
| Time | Morning → afternoon | Performance maintained despite fatigue differences |
| Array | 2 → 4 → 8 items | Accuracy remains acceptable as complexity increases |
| Response | Same movement with different outcomes | Student understands functional contingency |
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Student | |
| Evaluator | |
| Date of Report | |
| Pages |
Student was referred for an assistive technology evaluation to assess the appropriateness of adaptive switch access as an assistive technology intervention. Evaluation was conducted in accordance with the SETT Framework and QIAT Standards for AT Services in Educational Settings.
Evaluation Period: From _____ to ________ Total sessions: __ Total hours: ___
Team Members Involved:
The following assessment methods were used to determine AT needs and trial switch access:
Primary access site identified: _________ Switch type: _________
Activation reliability at primary site: ___%
Secondary site: ___________
Positioning requirements: __________________________
CVI Phase: _ CVI Range Score: ___ Preferred color(s): _________
Interface requirements identified: ________________________
Criterion met? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Emerging
Sessions to criterion: ___
Final session accuracy: ___%
Notes: __________________________
Criterion met? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Emerging
Sessions to criterion: ___
Final session accuracy: ___%
Notes: __________________________
Criterion met? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Emerging
Optimal scan speed: ___ sec
Scan type: ☐ Auto ☐ Step
Notes: __________________________
Criterion met? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Emerging ☐ Not yet assessed
Notes: __________________________
Criterion met? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Emerging ☐ Not yet assessed
Notes: __________________________
Tip — Evaluator Guidance: Determine efficacy based on data across ALL sessions. Consider accuracy trajectory (improving, stable, declining), prompt dependency trend (fading or not), generalization across settings, and student engagement/preference indicators.
| Efficacy Indicator | Finding |
|---|---|
| Accuracy trajectory | ☐ Improving (>5% per 3 sessions) ☐ Stable ≥ criterion ☐ Stable below criterion ☐ Declining |
| Prompt fading trend | ☐ Fading successfully ☐ Maintenance required ☐ Prompt dependency increasing |
| Generalization to new activities | ☐ Generalizes ☐ Partial ☐ Does not generalize ☐ Not yet tested |
| Student engagement / preference | ☐ Clear preference ☐ Neutral ☐ Avoidance ☐ Unable to determine |
| Family/caregiver report | ☐ Positive / reports impact ☐ Neutral ☐ Concerns noted |
| Functional outcome achieved | ☐ Yes—describe below ☐ Partially ☐ Not yet |
☐ EFFECTIVE: Adaptive switch access is an appropriate and effective AT intervention for this student. Data support continued use, expansion of skills, and integration into IEP goals and daily routines.
☐ EMERGING: Switch access shows promise but student has not yet met criterion. Continued trials with specified modifications are recommended before a final determination.
☐ NOT INDICATED AT THIS TIME: Data do not support switch access as effective for this student currently. Alternative access methods or prerequisite skill development is recommended.
Based on evaluation findings, the following recommendations are made:
| Role | Signature | Printed Name | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluator / AT Specialist | |||
| Special Education Teacher | |||
| Speech and Language Pathology | |||
| Occupational Therapy | |||
| Teacher for Students with Visual Impairments | |||
| Parent/Guardian | |||
| Principal / Administrator |
| Code | Prompt Type | Description | Fading Goal |
|---|---|---|---|
| PP | Physical – Full | Hand-over-hand or full body guidance to complete the action | Fade to partial physical |
| PP- | Physical – Partial | Light touch, gestural touch to initiate movement | Fade to model |
| M | Model | Evaluator demonstrates the action; student imitates | Fade to gesture |
| G | Gesture | Point, nod, or look toward switch without touch or verbalization | Fade to verbal |
| V | Verbal | Spoken direction: ‘activate your switch’ or ‘push’ | Fade to natural cue |
| NC | Natural Cue | Environmental cue only (e.g., item appears on screen) | Target level |
| I | Independent | No prompt—student self-initiates in response to natural cue | Goal level |
Avoiding prompt dependency:
Use this checklist to verify that all switch access interfaces, apps, and overlays are configured appropriately for the student’s CVI phase before beginning each session.
| Skill Area | ☐ Yes | ☐ Some | ☐ No | ☐ N/A | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single preferred color used for primary target/switch | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Black or plain background—no patterned backgrounds | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Movement used to attract gaze (animation, blinking, or moving stimulus) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Single item displayed per screen (Phase I) or limited items (Phase II) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Target presented in preferred visual field | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Optimal viewing distance established and maintained | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Auditory cue paired with visual target | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Wait time of ≥5 seconds allowed before prompting (latency) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Scanning highlight high-contrast and in preferred color | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| No competing visual stimuli in background (phone, people moving behind screen) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Visual rest period scheduled every ___ minutes | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | |
| Complexity increased only after consistent response at simpler level | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Warning: Availability and features change over time. Verify current platform support, switch-access capabilities, licensing, and accessibility before selecting a product.
| App / Tool | Platform | Stage | CVI Friendly | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CauseEffect (various) | iPad | Stage 1 | High—can configure | Simple animations, single item; pair with switch interface |
| Switch Zoo | iPad/Web | Stage 1–2 | Moderate | Free app; animal animations triggered by switch |
| Sensory App House | iPad | Stage 1–2 | High | Designed for complex needs; excellent CVI adaptations |
| Inclusive TechTalk AAC | iPad | Stage 3–5 | Configurable | Built-in switch scanning; full AAC system |
| Proloquo2Go | iPad | Stage 3–5 | Configurable | Partner scanning and switch access; AAC leader |
| TouchChat / LAMP WFL | iPad | Stage 3–5 | Configurable | Switch access via iOS switch control |
| iOS Switch Control | iPad | All | Configurable | Built-in Apple accessibility; configure scan speed, sound, highlight |
| CommunicoTot | iPad | Stage 2–3 | Good | Early AAC; large images, simple scanning |
| AbleNet switch/access ecosystem | iPad | All stages | High | Purpose-built switch-access hardware and software |
| Grid 3 (Sensory Software) | Windows | Stage 3–5 | High | Full AAC/environmental control; excellent switch access |
| Snap + Core First | iPad/Win | Stage 3–5 | Moderate-High | Partner/switch scanning; word-based AAC |
| YouTube Kids (with switch) | iPad | Stage 1–2 | Use with CVI filter | Motivation tool; use iOS switch control to start/stop |
Tip — How to use: Goals below are written using the format: Condition + Student will + Behavior + Criterion + Generalization/Consistency. Replace bracketed placeholders with student-specific information.
Given a [preferred sensory stimulus / cause-effect app] presented at [distance] with [CVI adaptations], [Student] will activate [switch type] at [primary access site] to produce a contingent outcome independently (without physical prompting) in 8 out of 10 trials across 3 consecutive data collection sessions, as measured by direct observation data.
Given a structured [yes/no / turn-taking / requesting] opportunity using a [switch type] mounted at [site], [Student] will activate the switch at the appropriate time (within [x] seconds of the communicative opportunity) to indicate [choice/request/protest] with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions in at least 2 different activities, as measured by teacher/therapist data sheets.
Given an iPad application with [number]-item auto-scan array set to [x]-second scan speed with [CVI adaptations], [Student] will activate [switch] to select a target item from a field of [number] when prompted by a natural environmental cue, with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions, as measured by direct observation data.
Given a two-switch setup (Switch 1 = advance, Switch 2 = select) and an [app/AAC device] with [number]-item array, [Student] will advance to and select a named target item using step scanning with 80% first-attempt accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions in at least 2 different settings, as measured by collected trial data.
Given [AAC app/device] with [number]-item grid using row-column scanning at [x]-second scan speed, [Student] will navigate to and select vocabulary items to produce [single-word / 2-symbol] messages to communicate [wants/needs/comments] during [activity/setting] with 80% accuracy over 3 consecutive sessions, as measured by SLP/teacher data.
After meeting stage criterion in structured trials, [Student] will independently initiate switch access to communicate or control [activity] in [at least 2 natural settings] with no more than a verbal prompt, across 5 consecutive observation opportunities per setting, as measured by staff data across settings.
Home routines should use the same access method when feasible but should not become a second therapy session. Examples include requesting music, controlling a preferred activity, calling a caregiver, participating in meal routines, or selecting entertainment.
As skills become reliable, assess access in less controlled environments. Noise, lighting, people moving, transportation, device battery, cable management, and mounting stability can all change performance.
| Problem | Check first | Possible modification |
|---|---|---|
| No response | Positioning, switch connection, force, motivation, latency | Reposition, reduce force, increase wait time, retest preference |
| Too many accidental activations | Switch sensitivity, movement path, mounting | Increase specificity, move switch, use different sensor |
| Student hits switch but misses target | Scan speed, target size, visual latency | Slow scan, enlarge target, simplify array |
| Student becomes fatigued | Session length, posture, visual demand | Shorten trials, rest, adjust seating, reduce visual complexity |
| Student responds only with adult prompt | Prompt timing and natural cue | Delay prompt, fade hierarchy, strengthen meaningful consequence |
| Performance changes after mounting | Switch angle and distance | Reproduce measured access geometry |
| CVI student does not look at target | Color, visual field, complexity, distance | Return to simpler display and preferred field/color |
| AAC errors increase with larger grid | Motor and visual complexity | Reduce grid size or use hierarchical scanning |
| Staff report inconsistent performance | Environmental variation | Standardize critical parameters and collect contextual data |
Warning:
- Do not force a movement that causes pain, abnormal strain, or unsafe posture.
- Do not alter wheelchair or seating components outside the evaluator’s competence.
- Keep cables and mounting hardware away from entanglement hazards.
- Inspect switches and mounts routinely for damage.
- Follow manufacturer instructions for electrical and battery-powered equipment.
The purpose of switch access is functional participation and control. Preferred stimulation should not be used to coerce participation or to withhold essential care. Communication opportunities should include rejection and protest as well as requesting.
OT/PT should address positioning, movement, range, and physical access. SLP/AAC professionals should address communication and language access. TVIs and CVI specialists should address visual access. AT specialists integrate the access system across person, environment, task, and technology.
Beukelman, D. R., & Light, J. C. (2020). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2015). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (4th ed.). Elsevier Mosby.
Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Singh, N. N., Sigafoos, J., Oliva, D., & Baccani, S. (2007). Enabling students with multiple disabilities to request and choose among environmental stimuli through microswitch and computer technology. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2005.12.001
Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Singh, N. N., Sigafoos, J., Oliva, D., & Severini, L. (2008). Three persons with multiple disabilities accessing environmental stimuli and asking for social contact through microswitch and VOCA technology. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52(4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.01024.x
Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Singh, N. N., Sigafoos, J., Oliva, D., & Severini, L. (2008). Enabling two persons with multiple disabilities to access environmental stimuli and ask for social contact through microswitches and a VOCA. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2006.10.001
Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Singh, N. N., Sigafoos, J., Oliva, D., Smaldone, A., La Martire, M. L., Antonucci, M., De Pace, C., & Chiapparino, C. (2009). Persons with multiple disabilities access stimulation and contact the caregiver via microswitch and VOCA technology. Life Span and Disability, 12(2).
Lancioni, G. E., Saponaro, F., O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Singh, N. N., & Oliva, D. (2010). A microswitch to enable a woman with acquired brain injury and profound multiple disabilities to access environmental stimulation with lip movements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110(2), 488–492. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.110.2.488-492
Lancioni, G. E., Singh, N. N., O’Reilly, M. F., Oliva, D., & Montironi, G. (2004). A computer system serving as a microswitch for vocal utterances of persons with multiple disabilities: Two case evaluations. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98(2).
Lancioni, G. E., Singh, N. N., O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Alberti, G., Perilli, V., Campodonico, F., Oliva, D., & Buono, S. (2014). Microswitch-aided programs to support physical exercise or adequate ambulation in persons with multiple disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(10), 2549–2559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.05.015
Lancioni, G. E., Singh, N. N., O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Oliva, D., Costantini, A., Gatto, S., Marinelli, V., & Putzolu, A. (2006). An optic microswitch for an eyelid response to foster environmental control in children with minimal motor behaviour. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
Lancioni, G. E., Singh, N. N., O’Reilly, M. F., Oliva, D., Scalini, L., Vigo, C. M., & Groeneweg, J. (2005). Further evaluation of microswitch clusters to enhance hand response and head control in persons with multiple disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100(3), 689–694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.100.3.689-694
Lancioni, G. E., Singh, N. N., O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., & Oliva, D. (2008). Microswitch-based programs for persons with multiple disabilities: An overview of some recent developments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106(2), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.106.2.355-370
Lancioni, G. E., Singh, N. N., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M. F., & Oliva, D. (2013). Technology-aided programs for persons with severe/profound and multiple disabilities: A selective review. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology (QIAT) Leadership Team. (2012). Quality indicators for assistive technology services in school settings.
Roman-Lantzy, C. (2007). Cortical visual impairment: An approach to assessment and intervention. American Foundation for the Blind.
Roman-Lantzy, C. (2019). Cortical visual impairment: Advanced principles. American Foundation for the Blind.
Zabala, J. (2005). Ready, SETT, go! Getting started with the SETT framework.
Adaptive Switch AT Evaluation Package · Developed by Michael Ryan Hunsaker, M.Ed., Ph.D., for Educational AT Teams