Assistive Technology Evaluation Report
Generated by EvAAL · Evaluating Adaptive & Assistive Learning · evaaltools.com
Referral & Background
Alex Rivera was referred for an assistive technology evaluation by the IEP team at Lincoln Elementary School to identify technology supports for reading comprehension, written expression, and mathematics access. Alex has been receiving special education services since 2nd grade under the eligibility of Specific Learning Disability with a secondary identification of Other Health Impairment (ADHD-Combined Presentation).
Current AT in use includes an iPad with the NaturalReader app for text-to-speech support during reading assignments. The IEP team noted that Alex's handwriting is illegible and independent writing production is limited to 1–2 sentences. Goals include increasing written output and improving math computation accuracy.
Assessment Summary
The EvAAL Assistive Technology battery was administered in a single session on July 17, 2026. All 10 subtests were completed in approximately 55 minutes. Alex was cooperative and motivated throughout the evaluation, particularly during the interactive computer-based tasks. Verbal praise was provided after each subtest and Alex responded positively to structured feedback. No behavioral concerns were noted during the assessment session.
Results across the 10 EvAAL subtests indicate that Alex demonstrates reliable and accurate direct touch and mouse access, confirming standard device input is not a barrier to technology-based learning. Visual and auditory processing findings suggest Alex benefits from multi-sensory instructional supports — particularly text-to-speech and enlarged text. Keyboarding speed is emerging at 22 WPM with strong accuracy (91%), and speech recognition performance (78% average accuracy) indicates voice-to-text is a viable writing alternative. Written expression scores indicate difficulty with independent composition. Taken together, findings support a comprehensive AT plan targeting reading access, written expression support, and math computation tools.
Subtest Results Summary
| # | Subtest | Status | Key Metric | AT Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Student Profile | ✓ Complete | SLD + OHI; current AT: iPad/NaturalReader | Contextual profile — informs all recommendations |
| 2 | Visual Preferences | ✓ Complete | 18px font · 1.6× line spacing · Standard contrast | Visual overlays, screen reader display settings |
| 3 | Auditory Preferences | ✓ Complete | TTS enabled · Female voice · 0.9× rate | TTS tools, auditory feedback preferences confirmed |
| 4 | Mouse Control | ✓ Complete | 87% accuracy · 1.4s avg reaction · 20/24 hits | Standard mouse access appropriate; no alternative pointing device needed |
| 5 | Direct Selection | ✓ Complete | 93% accuracy · 2.8s avg response · 14/15 correct | Direct touch/click access confirmed; no adaptive stylus needed |
| 6 | Math Skills | ✓ Complete | 75% overall · 8/10 computation · 5/8 word problems | Digital calculator access, math-specific apps |
| 7 | Speech to Text | ✓ Complete | 78% avg accuracy · 5 prompts · Best: 94% | Voice-to-text is viable alternative for composition |
| 8 | Keyboarding | ✓ Complete | 22 WPM avg · 91% accuracy · 3 rounds | Word prediction recommended for extended writing |
| 9 | Written Expression | ✓ Complete | 73% score · 11/15 prompts · Speech-to-text not used | Writing support tools, sentence starters, word prediction |
| 10 | Evaluator Observations | ✓ Complete | Strong task engagement; benefits from verbal feedback | Structured task completion supports motivation |
Mouse Control
No Barrier Identified| Round | Target Size | Hits | Misses | Accuracy | Avg Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 — Large | 80px | 8/8 | 0 | 100% | 1.1s |
| 2 — Medium | 48px | 7/8 | 1 | 88% | 1.4s |
| 3 — Small | 28px | 5/8 | 3 | 63% | 1.7s |
Alex demonstrated accurate and reliable mouse control on large and medium targets across Rounds 1 and 2, with no misses on the large-target round and only one miss on medium targets. Performance declined on small targets (28px), which is consistent with developmental norms for a 10-year-old. Reaction time was well within expected range across all three rounds. Standard mouse access is appropriate; no adaptive pointing device is indicated. The evaluator noted no tremor, unusual grip, or fatigue during the task.
Direct Selection
No Barrier IdentifiedAlex demonstrated reliable and accurate direct touch selection across all 15 trials in two exercises. Response latency averaged 2.8 seconds, within expected range for age and grade. One missed selection occurred in Exercise 2 (letter identification) under time pressure. Overall accuracy of 93% confirms that direct device input — touchscreen, mouse click, or stylus tap — is not an access barrier. Switch access, eye gaze, or alternative input are not indicated at this time.
Keyboarding & Written Expression
AT Support Recommended| Round | Difficulty | WPM | Accuracy | Correct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Easy | 18 WPM | 94% | 17/18 |
| 2 | Medium | 24 WPM | 89% | 21/24 |
| 3 | Hard | 24 WPM | 90% | 27/30 |
Keyboarding speed of 22 WPM is emerging and functional for short tasks, but may create fatigue and reduced output on extended writing assignments. Typing accuracy of 91% is strong, indicating Alex makes few mechanical errors when typing. Written expression scoring of 73% (11/15 prompts completed) reveals difficulty with idea generation and sentence-level organization when working digitally. Alex did not use speech-to-text during the written expression task. Word prediction software and sentence starters are recommended to reduce cognitive load during written assignments.
Speech to Text
Viable Alternative Input| Prompt | Accuracy | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| "The dog ran fast." | 94% | 0.91 |
| "I like to read books." | 88% | 0.86 |
| "My teacher helps me learn." | 80% | 0.79 |
| "The weather outside is sunny today." | 66% | 0.64 |
| "Mathematics is my favorite subject at school." | 62% | 0.58 |
Alex's average speech recognition accuracy of 78% is sufficient for functional voice input use with practice and system calibration. Performance was strongest on short, common phrases and declined on longer sentences with academic vocabulary — a pattern consistent with speech recognition tools that benefit from user-specific voice training. The evaluator observed clear articulation with occasional hesitation on multi-syllabic words. A 6-week trial of Google Docs Voice Typing or Dragon by Nuance is recommended for all writing assignments exceeding one paragraph.
Visual & Auditory Preferences
Visual Display Settings
Auditory / TTS Settings
Alex showed clear preference for auditory reading support throughout the session and requested TTS during the Written Expression task.
AT Recommendations
The following recommendations are ranked by priority based on Alex's assessment performance and current areas of need. All tools should be trialed prior to formal IEP inclusion. The IEP team should document student response within 6 weeks of implementation.
Text-to-Speech (TTS) — Reading Access
Implement TTS across all reading tasks — digital textbooks, assessments, and classroom materials. Alex demonstrated strong auditory preference and clear benefit from audio support. Speech rate should be set to 0.9× with Samantha (female) voice.
Word Prediction — Written Expression
Word prediction will reduce keyboarding demands and support spelling during all written assignments. Co:Writer Universal is the recommended starting point — it pairs word prediction with sentence starters to scaffold idea organization at the sentence level.
Speech-to-Text — Extended Writing
For writing tasks exceeding one paragraph, speech-to-text is a functional alternative to typing. Alex's 78% recognition accuracy is sufficient for use with practice. A 6-week trial with Google Docs Voice Typing is recommended before evaluating more robust tools like Dragon.
Digital Math Tools — Computation Support
On-screen calculator access should be provided for all math computation tasks per IEP accommodation. Visual math apps support Alex's 75% math performance and preference for visual scaffolding. Talking calculator feature recommended based on evaluator observation of auditory preference.
Visual Display Accommodations
Alex selected 18px font size and 1.6× line spacing during the visual preferences subtest — settings that exceed classroom defaults. All digital materials should be configured to these specifications. Alex did not require dyslexia font or high contrast but should be re-evaluated annually.
Suggested IEP Goal Language
The following goal language is suggested for consideration by the IEP team and should be modified to align with Alex's current baselines, assessment data, and instructional context.
Given access to text-to-speech software, Alex will independently activate and use TTS during 3 out of 4 reading assignments per week, as measured by teacher observation and digital access logs, with 80% consistency over 6 consecutive data-collection weeks.
Given access to word prediction software, Alex will produce written responses of 3 or more complete sentences with fewer than 15% spelling errors (compared to a handwritten baseline), as measured by monthly writing samples over two grading periods.
Given access to speech-to-text software and a quiet environment, Alex will independently dictate a 5-sentence paragraph on a familiar topic with 75% accuracy on the first attempt, as measured by evaluator-scored writing samples collected bi-weekly across 8 weeks.
Given access to a digital calculator, Alex will independently complete multi-step computation problems with 85% accuracy on classroom assessments, compared to a current baseline of 65% without calculator access, as measured by monthly graded assessments over one semester.
Evaluator Observations
Alex demonstrated strong task engagement and perseverance throughout the full evaluation session. Alex asked clarifying questions before beginning each subtest, which reflects positive self-advocacy skills. Eye contact with the screen was appropriate and sustained. Physical fatigue was not observed during the session. Alex expressed preference for computer-based tasks over paper-pencil and verbally noted "I like this better than writing." The evaluator recommends that the IEP team prioritize AT tool training as part of the implementation plan, as tool proficiency is typically the primary factor in successful AT outcomes at this age.
A follow-up check-in at 6 weeks post-implementation is recommended to assess AT tool adoption and adjust recommendations as needed. Annual re-evaluation with EvAAL is advised to track progress and update the AT plan as Alex's skills and curriculum demands evolve.
This report was generated using EvAAL (Evaluating Adaptive & Assistive Learning) and reflects the results of standardized digital subtests administered on the date above. Recommendations should be reviewed and approved by the evaluator of record and the IEP team prior to implementation.
Dr. K. Dunn, EdD, AT Specialist · Dr. Dunn EduTech Solutions · evaaltools.com
Ready to run a real evaluation?
Create your account and complete a full AT or AAC assessment in one session. Reports are generated instantly.