Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-8cnds Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:01:46.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A USER-CENTRED DESIGN FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPEUTIC TOYS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Emanuel Balzan ,
Philip Farrugia  and
Owen Casha
Emanuel Balzan*
Affiliation:
University of Malta
Philip Farrugia
Affiliation:
University of Malta
Owen Casha
Affiliation:
University of Malta
*
Balzan, Emanuel, University of Malta, Dept. of Indus. and Manuf. Engineering, Malta, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Therapy in early childhood is facilitated through toys and play. While mainstream toys are designed for children, therapeutic toys need to satisfy requirements from clinicians, caregivers, and children. The study presented in this paper investigated the challenges that 22 international toy designers encounter during the design process and whether support is required when developing products for speech and language therapy, through a mixed-method approach. Results show that considerable challenges are encountered during the early design stages. Nonetheless, the toy design process remains unsupported, while no support is available for designers to consider therapeutic needs. Based on the feedback received, eleven requirements were identified upon which a user-centred design support framework was proposed to assist toy designers during the task clarification stage, taking into account the affordances that therapeutic toys should have without inhibiting the creative process.

Keywords

User centred designEarly design phasesNew product developmentTherapeutic toys designaffordances
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 303 - 312
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Barr, R. (2019) ‘Growing Up in the Digital Age: Early Learning and Family Media Ecology’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), pp. 341–346. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkovich, M., Leimeister, J. M. and Krcmar, H. (2011) ‘Requirements engineering for product service systems: A state of the art analysis’, Business and Information Systems Engineering, 3(6), pp. 369–380. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12599-011-0192-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanco, T. et al. (2016) ‘Xassess: crossdisciplinary framework in user-centred design of assistive products’, Journal of Engineering Design, 27(9), pp. 636–664. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1200717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L. T. M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009) ‘DRM, a Design Research Methodology’, p. 397. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. https://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J., Moodley, M. and Reynell, J. (1979) ‘The Developmental Language Programme. Results from a Five Year Study’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 14(1), pp. 57–69. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13682827909011346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darlington, M. J. and Culley, S. J. (2002) ‘Current research in the engineering design requirement’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 216(3), pp. 375–388. https://dx.doi.org/10.1243/0954405021520049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. L. (2020) How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things. The MIT Press (Design Thinking, Design Theory). https://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11967.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drigas, A. and Petrova, A. (2014) ‘ICTs in Speech and Language Therapy’, International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 4(1), p. 49. https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v4i1.3280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fikar, P., Güldenpfennig, F. and Ganhör, R. (2018) ‘The Use(fulness) of Therapeutic Toys’, in Proceedings of the 2018 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2018 - DIS ’18. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 289–300. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furlong, L. et al. (2018) ‘Mobile apps for treatment of speech disorders in children: An evidence-based analysis of quality and efficacy’, PLoS ONE, 13(8), pp. 1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadi, A. M. (2019) ‘Improving the communication for children with speech disorders using the smart toys’, arXiv, 10(3), pp. 25–40. https://dx.doi.org/10.5121/ijaia.2019.10303.Google Scholar
Kudrowitz, B. M. and Wallace, D. R. (2010) ‘The play pyramid: a play classification and ideation tool for toy design’, International Journal of Arts and Technology, 3(1), pp. 36–56. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2010.030492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J. R. A. and Fadel, G. M. (2009) ‘Affordance based design: A relational theory for design’, Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), pp. 13–27. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertala, P. et al. (2016) ‘The value of toys: 6–8-year-old children's toy preferences and the functional analysis of popular toys’, International Journal of Play, 5(1), pp. 17–27. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2016.1147291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1999) ‘Affordance, conventions, and design’, Interactions, 6(3), pp. 38–43. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G. et al. (2007) Engineering design: A systematic approach, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, D. et al. (2016) ‘Smart Toys Designed for Detecting Developmental Delays’, pp. 1–22. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s16111953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Silva, J. R. S. et al. (2016) ‘Using therapeutic toys to facilitate venipuncture procedure in preschool children’, Pediatric Nursing, 42(2), pp. 61–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Sureeyatanapas, P. (2016) ‘Comparison of rank-based weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making’, Kku Engineering Journal, 43(S3), pp. 376–379. https://dx.doi.org/10.14456/kkuenj.2016.134.Google Scholar
Williams, S. E. and Matesi, D. V. (1988) ‘Therapeutic Intervention With an Adapted Toy’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42(10), pp. 673–676. https://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.42.10.673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed