I'm responding to two issues - should we boycott the RESNA meeting and does the
ATP mean anything.

First, I disagree with boycotting the meeting. When else do we all have the
opportunity to discuss certification issues? I know that it has been a long time
in coming, but I think that we are very close to having an exam.

Second, there are several changes in Minnesota as a result of the ATP. We have
no certification programs for seating specialists, and the ATP has allowed our
seating specialists to bill Medicaide for their fitting time. In addition, at
Gillette, the ATP has allowed seating specialists to be in a similar pay grade
as certified orthotists. Last, the ATP is used as one criteria for self
identification of "Assistive Technology Specialist". Once identified, the AT
Specilists are listed on a website so that the people that approve waivered
services might pay for our consultation time. (Note I wrote might. Without some
sort of identification process there is no hope.)

For more information on the AT Specialist criteria please see
www.admin.state.mn.us/assistivetechnology/professionals.htm

Patti Bahr
Gillette Technology Center
New Brighton, Minnesota

Just a comment about Jerry Weisman's suggestion in regards to a boycott.

First of all, this idea sprang up out of a conversation over dinner when we were
lamenting the situation in regards to certification for rehabilitation
engineers.  The basis for the laments were that well over ten years ago there
was consensus by both the RE PSG and the RESNA Board of Directors to provide
such certification.  In fact, it was generally agreed upon (including a
statement of support by ALL of the PSG chairs) that RE certification should be
the highest priority for the organization.  In spite of this history and
consensus RESNA ended up developing and offering 2 other certifications first
and still have not completed the RE certification.

Now there have been many barriers to overcome along the way.  Some have been
more valid and real while others have seemed unnecessarily imposed.  Either way,
the delays we have encountered have been excessive by any measure, especially
when viewed in light of the other 2 certifications which have been completed. 
While there may not have been any specific intent to  these delays, they clearly
demonstrate to Jerry and I (as well as  others who have been there since the
beginning) that our organization has not represented the interests of engineers
involved in service delivery in a satisfactory manner, especially given the
proportions of RESNA membership this group represents.

The idea of a boycott was one way we considered sending this message to our
organization.  It seemed like a pretty safe bet not to cause any damage to RESNA
(of which we remain 2 of its strongest supporters)  given that the exam and
certification were supposed to be well in line.  It also seemed like a way to
raise the attention of the organization in regards to better meeting the needs
of its largest constiuency.  Finally, it sent the message that if any other
barriers were encountered that the organization would have to highly prioritize
its efforts to make sure those barriers were overcome.

I certainly appreciate people's reluctance to support a boycott, it's suggestion
was mainly an idea to raise these issues.  However, in the responses which have
been posted I also see much of the desire to avoid confrontation within our
organization which I believe greatly contributed to the long delays in bringing
certification for rehabilition engineers to fruition.  I hope that from this
suggestion you will at least take away the idea that we need to better push for
and represent our own interests close together with those of our beloved
organization.  If we are unwilling to do so I fear we risk the very strength and
character of RESNA as an inderdisciplinary organization that includes engineers.
I say this, because I can readily envision a few activists starting a new home
for rehabilitation engineers elsewhere and being strongly supported in this
effort with funding and resources from a large organization.  If that were to be
the unfortunate case, we would only see further dwindling of our numbers in
RESNA as some would surely chose to somewhat exclusively give allegiance to an
organization willing to focus time and resources on our specific needs.

Sincerely,

Simon Levine

c:  Mary Binion  -  Mary, please feel free to distribute to the BOD at your
discretion
       Larry Pencak

RE-PSG members:

We need 3-5 reviewers for concurrent session proposals for next year's
conference.  This involves reviewing 4 or 5 proposals, completing a review form
on each, and returning them to me.  Deadlines are a little tight, so I need the
names of volunteers within a couple weeks (by 11/9/01).
Below are details regarding this review process (include relevent topic areas to
this PSG), and the process for review of scientific papers, which will start in
December.

I look forward to hearing from those wishing to review.

*****************************

Date: October 26, 2001

RE: Concurrent Session Proposal Review Process

The deadline for Concurrent Session (CS) Proposals was Monday, October 15,
2001.  As of this date we have received 28 proposals as part of the 9 topic
areas.  All proposals have been logged in at the RESNA office, grouped
according to the Topic Area indicated on the submittal form and prepared for
an electronic review process.   This is a peer review process that begins
with the assistance of a Topic Coordinator and Individual Reviewers from
among the SIG(s) and PSG(s) relevant to the Topic Areas.  Through this
process, the proposals are ranked (from highest priority to lowest priority)
in each Topic Area.  Once this is completed, a subcommittee comprised of
representatives from the SIG's, PSGs, the Education Committee and the
Meetings Committee will use the rankings when making the final determination
of the number of available session slots during the conference.

At this time, both Topic Area Review Coordinator and Individual Reviewer
volunteers are needed.  Please send your name, e-mail address, telephone
number and mailing address to Susan Leone at sleone@resna.org or via fax to
(703) 524-6630 by Wednesday, October 31, 2001 if you are interested in
volunteering.  The roles are as follows:

Topic Area Review Coordinator (TARC):
* Recruits 3-5 Individual Reviewers (IR) from among the SIGs and PSGs
most closely related to the Topic Area. (Number of IRs needed depends on the
number of proposals submitted in a given Topic Area.)
* Receives all proposals submitted in the designated Topic Area from
the RESNA office.
* Sends each proposal to a minimum of 3 IRs for review.  (This can be
done in coordination with Susan Leone at the RESNA Office.)
* Receives ALL completed Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms for
each CS from each IR.
* Compiles all comments for each CS review completed by each IR and
completes (1) Author Feedback form for each CS proposal.  (This sheet will
be returned to the author(s) verbatim.)
* Completes (1) Concurrent Session Review Summary Form for the Topic
Area ranking the CSs from highest priority to lowest priority.
* Topic Area Review Coordinator (TARC) - continued:
* Sends the following back to the RESNA Office by the deadline
indicated:
* ALL Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms for each CS completed
by each IR.
* ALL Author Feedback forms for each CS proposal.
* ALL CS Review Summary Forms

Individual Reviewer (IR):
* Receives CS proposals to review from Topic Area Review Coordinator.
* Completes a Concurrent Session Proposal Review Form for each
proposal.  (Typically each IR is asked to review 3-5 proposals depending on
the number submitted in his/her Topic Area.)
* Sends ALL completed Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms to the
designated Topic Area Review Coordinator by the deadline indicated.

Typically, a SIG or PSG Chair relevant to a given Topic Area has acted as
that Topic's Review Coordinator.  However, this is not a rule and may depend
on how some SIGs and PSGs delegate specific tasks.  Each Topic Coordinator
should recruit 3-5 individual reviewers.  Some Topic Areas may need more
depending on the number of proposals submitted.

Please note that the deadline for Scientific Papers is Monday, December 10,
2001.  A separate review process for the scientific papers will occur in
December.  Individual Reviewers and Topic Area Review Coordinators will also
be needed for this peer review process.  Typically, individuals volunteer to
review CS proposals OR papers.  However, it is fine to volunteer for both.
The important dates for the CS review are listed at the bottom of this memo.
Details regarding the review process dates for the Scientific Papers will be
available at a later date.  This may help individuals decide which review
time-line fits best with their given schedule.

The 9 Topic Areas for Concurrent Sessions are as follows:
(Please note: SIG and PSG relevance and descriptions are not inclusive)
* Topic 1:   Technology for Special Populations (SIG 01, 04, 06,
08, 16, 17, 20) (PSG 02, 03, 04, 06, 07) (e.g. cognitive disabilities,
learning disabilities, developmental disabilities, low vision/blindness,
hearing impairments, dysphagia, drooling, elderly and pediatric
interventions)
* Topic 2 : Augmentative and Alternative Communication  (SIG 03)
(PSG 06)
* Topic 3: Computer Access and Use (SIG 11, 15) (PSG 03, 04,
06, 07)
* Topic 4: Environmental Accommodations (SIG 07, 12, 14, 19)
(PSG 02, 03, 04) (e.g. environmental control systems, home and worksite
modifications, ergonomics, farming and other rural interventions, universal
design)
* Topic 5: Functional Control and Assistance (SIG 10, 13) (PSG
04, 05) (e.g. rehabilitation robotics, functional electrical stimulation,
prosthetics and orthotics)
* Topic 6: Service Delivery and Public Policy  (SIG 01, 15, 18,
21) (PSG - ALL) (e.g. service delivery programs and administration, AT
education, distance learning, applications of telecommunications, Tech Act
projects, technology transfer, legislation, reimbursement, credentialing)
* Topic 7: Research / Functional Outcomes (SIG 05) (PSG - ALL)
(e.g. measuring function and functional variables)
* Topic 8: Seating and Mobility (SIG 02, 09) (PSG 01, 02, 03,
04) (e.g. seating and wheelchair intervention, seat pressure measurement,
transportation issues, seating and mobility issues in developing countries)
* Topic 9:  Professional Skills/Development  (e.g., interview skills,
presentation skills, training & staff development strategies, customer
service training, writing grant proposals)

CS Review Process Summary:
1) Proposals are submitted to RESNA Office, logged in and prepared for
electronic review process.
2) All proposals for a given Topic Area are sent to the Topic Area
Review Coordinator (TARC).
3) TARC sends proposals to Individual Reviewers (with assistance from
RESNA office).
4) Individual Reviewers complete (1) Concurrent Session Proposal Review
Form per CS and send all forms back to TARC by deadline indicated.
5) For each CS submitted in a given Topic Area, TARC compiles all
individual review forms and completes (1) an author Feedback Form. TARC also
completes (1) Concurrent Session Review Summary Sheet for the entire Topic
area.
6) TARC sends the following to RESNA Office by deadline indicated:
* All individual reviewer forms for each CS
* (1) Author Feedback form for each CS
* (1) CS Review Summary sheet for entire Topic Area

Important Dates For CS Review:
* by November 7, 2001 - RESNA Office sends all proposals to TARCs
* by November 12, 2001 - TARCs ( with assistance from RESNA office)
* send proposals to IRs
* by November 26, 2001 - IRs send all completed review forms to TARC
* by December 3, 2001 - TARC sends all required paperwork to RESNA
Office


SUSAN P. LEONE
RESNA Meetings Director
1700 North Moore St, Suite 1540
Arlington, VA 22209
703-524-6686, ext 306
703-524-6630 FAX
<sleone@resna.org>

RESNA 2002 Annual Conference, Thursday-Monday, June 27-July 1, 2002, Hyatt
Regency Hotel, Minneapolis, MN



Gregory W. McGrew
Center for Rehabilitation Technology
Helen Hayes Hospital
845-786-4587

Greg,

I am happy to review them.

Rory
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg McGrew" <mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org>
To: <RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <levybs@aol.com>; <SLeone@resna.org>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: [RESNAre-psg] REVIEWERS NEEDED FOR CONCURRENT SESSION PROPOSALS


> RE-PSG members:
>
> We need 3-5 reviewers for concurrent session proposals for next year's
conference.  This involves reviewing 4 or 5 proposals, completing a review
form on each, and returning them to me.  Deadlines are a little tight, so I
need the names of volunteers within a couple weeks (by 11/9/01).
> Below are details regarding this review process (include relevent topic
areas to this PSG), and the process for review of scientific papers, which
will start in December.
>
> I look forward to hearing from those wishing to review.
>
> *****************************
>
> Date: October 26, 2001
>
> RE: Concurrent Session Proposal Review Process
>
> The deadline for Concurrent Session (CS) Proposals was Monday, October 15,
> 2001.  As of this date we have received 28 proposals as part of the 9
topic
> areas.  All proposals have been logged in at the RESNA office, grouped
> according to the Topic Area indicated on the submittal form and prepared
for
> an electronic review process.   This is a peer review process that begins
> with the assistance of a Topic Coordinator and Individual Reviewers from
> among the SIG(s) and PSG(s) relevant to the Topic Areas.  Through this
> process, the proposals are ranked (from highest priority to lowest
priority)
> in each Topic Area.  Once this is completed, a subcommittee comprised of
> representatives from the SIG's, PSGs, the Education Committee and the
> Meetings Committee will use the rankings when making the final
determination
> of the number of available session slots during the conference.
>
> At this time, both Topic Area Review Coordinator and Individual Reviewer
> volunteers are needed.  Please send your name, e-mail address, telephone
> number and mailing address to Susan Leone at sleone@resna.org or via fax
to
> (703) 524-6630 by Wednesday, October 31, 2001 if you are interested in
> volunteering.  The roles are as follows:
>
> Topic Area Review Coordinator (TARC):
> * Recruits 3-5 Individual Reviewers (IR) from among the SIGs and PSGs
> most closely related to the Topic Area. (Number of IRs needed depends on
the
> number of proposals submitted in a given Topic Area.)
> * Receives all proposals submitted in the designated Topic Area from
> the RESNA office.
> * Sends each proposal to a minimum of 3 IRs for review.  (This can be
> done in coordination with Susan Leone at the RESNA Office.)
> * Receives ALL completed Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms for
> each CS from each IR.
> * Compiles all comments for each CS review completed by each IR and
> completes (1) Author Feedback form for each CS proposal.  (This sheet will
> be returned to the author(s) verbatim.)
> * Completes (1) Concurrent Session Review Summary Form for the Topic
> Area ranking the CSs from highest priority to lowest priority.
> * Topic Area Review Coordinator (TARC) - continued:
> * Sends the following back to the RESNA Office by the deadline
> indicated:
> * ALL Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms for each CS completed
> by each IR.
> * ALL Author Feedback forms for each CS proposal.
> * ALL CS Review Summary Forms
>
> Individual Reviewer (IR):
> * Receives CS proposals to review from Topic Area Review Coordinator.
> * Completes a Concurrent Session Proposal Review Form for each
> proposal.  (Typically each IR is asked to review 3-5 proposals depending
on
> the number submitted in his/her Topic Area.)
> * Sends ALL completed Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms to the
> designated Topic Area Review Coordinator by the deadline indicated.
>
> Typically, a SIG or PSG Chair relevant to a given Topic Area has acted as
> that Topic's Review Coordinator.  However, this is not a rule and may
depend
> on how some SIGs and PSGs delegate specific tasks.  Each Topic Coordinator
> should recruit 3-5 individual reviewers.  Some Topic Areas may need more
> depending on the number of proposals submitted.
>
> Please note that the deadline for Scientific Papers is Monday, December
10,
> 2001.  A separate review process for the scientific papers will occur in
> December.  Individual Reviewers and Topic Area Review Coordinators will
also
> be needed for this peer review process.  Typically, individuals volunteer
to
> review CS proposals OR papers.  However, it is fine to volunteer for both.
> The important dates for the CS review are listed at the bottom of this
memo.
> Details regarding the review process dates for the Scientific Papers will
be
> available at a later date.  This may help individuals decide which review
> time-line fits best with their given schedule.
>
> The 9 Topic Areas for Concurrent Sessions are as follows:
> (Please note: SIG and PSG relevance and descriptions are not inclusive)
> * Topic 1:  Technology for Special Populations (SIG 01, 04, 06,
> 08, 16, 17, 20) (PSG 02, 03, 04, 06, 07) (e.g. cognitive disabilities,
> learning disabilities, developmental disabilities, low vision/blindness,
> hearing impairments, dysphagia, drooling, elderly and pediatric
> interventions)
> * Topic 2 : Augmentative and Alternative Communication  (SIG 03)
> (PSG 06)
> * Topic 3: Computer Access and Use (SIG 11, 15) (PSG 03, 04,
> 06, 07)
> * Topic 4: Environmental Accommodations (SIG 07, 12, 14, 19)
> (PSG 02, 03, 04) (e.g. environmental control systems, home and worksite
> modifications, ergonomics, farming and other rural interventions,
universal
> design)
> * Topic 5: Functional Control and Assistance (SIG 10, 13) (PSG
> 04, 05) (e.g. rehabilitation robotics, functional electrical stimulation,
> prosthetics and orthotics)
> * Topic 6: Service Delivery and Public Policy  (SIG 01, 15, 18,
> 21) (PSG - ALL) (e.g. service delivery programs and administration, AT
> education, distance learning, applications of telecommunications, Tech Act
> projects, technology transfer, legislation, reimbursement, credentialing)
> * Topic 7: Research / Functional Outcomes (SIG 05) (PSG - ALL)
> (e.g. measuring function and functional variables)
> * Topic 8: Seating and Mobility (SIG 02, 09) (PSG 01, 02, 03,
> 04) (e.g. seating and wheelchair intervention, seat pressure measurement,
> transportation issues, seating and mobility issues in developing
countries)
> * Topic 9:  Professional Skills/Development  (e.g., interview skills,
> presentation skills, training & staff development strategies, customer
> service training, writing grant proposals)
>
> CS Review Process Summary:
> 1) Proposals are submitted to RESNA Office, logged in and prepared for
> electronic review process.
> 2) All proposals for a given Topic Area are sent to the Topic Area
> Review Coordinator (TARC).
> 3) TARC sends proposals to Individual Reviewers (with assistance from
> RESNA office).
> 4) Individual Reviewers complete (1) Concurrent Session Proposal Review
> Form per CS and send all forms back to TARC by deadline indicated.
> 5) For each CS submitted in a given Topic Area, TARC compiles all
> individual review forms and completes (1) an author Feedback Form. TARC
also
> completes (1) Concurrent Session Review Summary Sheet for the entire Topic
> area.
> 6) TARC sends the following to RESNA Office by deadline indicated:
> * All individual reviewer forms for each CS
> * (1) Author Feedback form for each CS
> * (1) CS Review Summary sheet for entire Topic Area
>
> Important Dates For CS Review:
> * by November 7, 2001 - RESNA Office sends all proposals to TARCs
> * by November 12, 2001 - TARCs ( with assistance from RESNA office)
> * send proposals to IRs
> * by November 26, 2001 - IRs send all completed review forms to TARC
> * by December 3, 2001 - TARC sends all required paperwork to RESNA
> Office
>
>
> SUSAN P. LEONE
> RESNA Meetings Director
> 1700 North Moore St, Suite 1540
> Arlington, VA 22209
> 703-524-6686, ext 306
> 703-524-6630 FAX
> <sleone@resna.org>
>
> RESNA 2002 Annual Conference, Thursday-Monday, June 27-July 1, 2002, Hyatt
> Regency Hotel, Minneapolis, MN
>
>
>
> Gregory W. McGrew
> Center for Rehabilitation Technology
> Helen Hayes Hospital
> 845-786-4587
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

thanks, Rory

Gregory W. McGrew
Center for Rehabilitation Technology
Helen Hayes Hospital
845-786-4587

>>> "Rory A. Cooper, Ph.D." <rcooper@pitt.edu> 10/29 11:26 AM >>>
Greg,

I am happy to review them.

Rory
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg McGrew" <mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org>
To: <RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <levybs@aol.com>; <SLeone@resna.org>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: [RESNAre-psg] REVIEWERS NEEDED FOR CONCURRENT SESSION PROPOSALS


> RE-PSG members:
>
> We need 3-5 reviewers for concurrent session proposals for next year's
conference.  This involves reviewing 4 or 5 proposals, completing a review
form on each, and returning them to me.  Deadlines are a little tight, so I
need the names of volunteers within a couple weeks (by 11/9/01).
> Below are details regarding this review process (include relevent topic
areas to this PSG), and the process for review of scientific papers, which
will start in December.
>
> I look forward to hearing from those wishing to review.
>
> *****************************
>
> Date: October 26, 2001
>
> RE: Concurrent Session Proposal Review Process
>
> The deadline for Concurrent Session (CS) Proposals was Monday, October 15,
> 2001.  As of this date we have received 28 proposals as part of the 9
topic
> areas.  All proposals have been logged in at the RESNA office, grouped
> according to the Topic Area indicated on the submittal form and prepared
for
> an electronic review process.   This is a peer review process that begins
> with the assistance of a Topic Coordinator and Individual Reviewers from
> among the SIG(s) and PSG(s) relevant to the Topic Areas.  Through this
> process, the proposals are ranked (from highest priority to lowest
priority)
> in each Topic Area.  Once this is completed, a subcommittee comprised of
> representatives from the SIG's, PSGs, the Education Committee and the
> Meetings Committee will use the rankings when making the final
determination
> of the number of available session slots during the conference.
>
> At this time, both Topic Area Review Coordinator and Individual Reviewer
> volunteers are needed.  Please send your name, e-mail address, telephone
> number and mailing address to Susan Leone at sleone@resna.org or via fax
to
> (703) 524-6630 by Wednesday, October 31, 2001 if you are interested in
> volunteering.  The roles are as follows:
>
> Topic Area Review Coordinator (TARC):
> * Recruits 3-5 Individual Reviewers (IR) from among the SIGs and PSGs
> most closely related to the Topic Area. (Number of IRs needed depends on
the
> number of proposals submitted in a given Topic Area.)
> * Receives all proposals submitted in the designated Topic Area from
> the RESNA office.
> * Sends each proposal to a minimum of 3 IRs for review.  (This can be
> done in coordination with Susan Leone at the RESNA Office.)
> * Receives ALL completed Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms for
> each CS from each IR.
> * Compiles all comments for each CS review completed by each IR and
> completes (1) Author Feedback form for each CS proposal.  (This sheet will
> be returned to the author(s) verbatim.)
> * Completes (1) Concurrent Session Review Summary Form for the Topic
> Area ranking the CSs from highest priority to lowest priority.
> * Topic Area Review Coordinator (TARC) - continued:
> * Sends the following back to the RESNA Office by the deadline
> indicated:
> * ALL Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms for each CS completed
> by each IR.
> * ALL Author Feedback forms for each CS proposal.
> * ALL CS Review Summary Forms
>
> Individual Reviewer (IR):
> * Receives CS proposals to review from Topic Area Review Coordinator.
> * Completes a Concurrent Session Proposal Review Form for each
> proposal.  (Typically each IR is asked to review 3-5 proposals depending
on
> the number submitted in his/her Topic Area.)
> * Sends ALL completed Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms to the
> designated Topic Area Review Coordinator by the deadline indicated.
>
> Typically, a SIG or PSG Chair relevant to a given Topic Area has acted as
> that Topic's Review Coordinator.  However, this is not a rule and may
depend
> on how some SIGs and PSGs delegate specific tasks.  Each Topic Coordinator
> should recruit 3-5 individual reviewers.  Some Topic Areas may need more
> depending on the number of proposals submitted.
>
> Please note that the deadline for Scientific Papers is Monday, December
10,
> 2001.  A separate review process for the scientific papers will occur in
> December.  Individual Reviewers and Topic Area Review Coordinators will
also
> be needed for this peer review process.  Typically, individuals volunteer
to
> review CS proposals OR papers.  However, it is fine to volunteer for both.
> The important dates for the CS review are listed at the bottom of this
memo.
> Details regarding the review process dates for the Scientific Papers will
be
> available at a later date.  This may help individuals decide which review
> time-line fits best with their given schedule.
>
> The 9 Topic Areas for Concurrent Sessions are as follows:
> (Please note: SIG and PSG relevance and descriptions are not inclusive)
> * Topic 1:  Technology for Special Populations (SIG 01, 04, 06,
> 08, 16, 17, 20) (PSG 02, 03, 04, 06, 07) (e.g. cognitive disabilities,
> learning disabilities, developmental disabilities, low vision/blindness,
> hearing impairments, dysphagia, drooling, elderly and pediatric
> interventions)
> * Topic 2 : Augmentative and Alternative Communication  (SIG 03)
> (PSG 06)
> * Topic 3: Computer Access and Use (SIG 11, 15) (PSG 03, 04,
> 06, 07)
> * Topic 4: Environmental Accommodations (SIG 07, 12, 14, 19)
> (PSG 02, 03, 04) (e.g. environmental control systems, home and worksite
> modifications, ergonomics, farming and other rural interventions,
universal
> design)
> * Topic 5: Functional Control and Assistance (SIG 10, 13) (PSG
> 04, 05) (e.g. rehabilitation robotics, functional electrical stimulation,
> prosthetics and orthotics)
> * Topic 6: Service Delivery and Public Policy  (SIG 01, 15, 18,
> 21) (PSG - ALL) (e.g. service delivery programs and administration, AT
> education, distance learning, applications of telecommunications, Tech Act
> projects, technology transfer, legislation, reimbursement, credentialing)
> * Topic 7: Research / Functional Outcomes (SIG 05) (PSG - ALL)
> (e.g. measuring function and functional variables)
> * Topic 8: Seating and Mobility (SIG 02, 09) (PSG 01, 02, 03,
> 04) (e.g. seating and wheelchair intervention, seat pressure measurement,
> transportation issues, seating and mobility issues in developing
countries)
> * Topic 9:  Professional Skills/Development  (e.g., interview skills,
> presentation skills, training & staff development strategies, customer
> service training, writing grant proposals)
>
> CS Review Process Summary:
> 1) Proposals are submitted to RESNA Office, logged in and prepared for
> electronic review process.
> 2) All proposals for a given Topic Area are sent to the Topic Area
> Review Coordinator (TARC).
> 3) TARC sends proposals to Individual Reviewers (with assistance from
> RESNA office).
> 4) Individual Reviewers complete (1) Concurrent Session Proposal Review
> Form per CS and send all forms back to TARC by deadline indicated.
> 5) For each CS submitted in a given Topic Area, TARC compiles all
> individual review forms and completes (1) an author Feedback Form. TARC
also
> completes (1) Concurrent Session Review Summary Sheet for the entire Topic
> area.
> 6) TARC sends the following to RESNA Office by deadline indicated:
> * All individual reviewer forms for each CS
> * (1) Author Feedback form for each CS
> * (1) CS Review Summary sheet for entire Topic Area
>
> Important Dates For CS Review:
> * by November 7, 2001 - RESNA Office sends all proposals to TARCs
> * by November 12, 2001 - TARCs ( with assistance from RESNA office)
> * send proposals to IRs
> * by November 26, 2001 - IRs send all completed review forms to TARC
> * by December 3, 2001 - TARC sends all required paperwork to RESNA
> Office
>
>
> SUSAN P. LEONE
> RESNA Meetings Director
> 1700 North Moore St, Suite 1540
> Arlington, VA 22209
> 703-524-6686, ext 306
> 703-524-6630 FAX
> <sleone@resna.org>
>
> RESNA 2002 Annual Conference, Thursday-Monday, June 27-July 1, 2002, Hyatt
> Regency Hotel, Minneapolis, MN
>
>
>
> Gregory W. McGrew
> Center for Rehabilitation Technology
> Helen Hayes Hospital
> 845-786-4587
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Greetings

I  am happy to  review for the concurrent  sessions


Bryan  Hobbs
Temasek polytechnic


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg McGrew [mailto:mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:33 AM
To: RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RESNAre-psg] REVIEWERS NEEDED FOR CONCURRENT SESSION
PROPOSALS


thanks, Rory

Gregory W. McGrew
Center for Rehabilitation Technology
Helen Hayes Hospital
845-786-4587

>>> "Rory A. Cooper, Ph.D." <rcooper@pitt.edu> 10/29 11:26 AM >>>
Greg,

I am happy to review them.

Rory
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg McGrew" <mcgrewg@helenhayeshosp.org>
To: <RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <levybs@aol.com>; <SLeone@resna.org>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: [RESNAre-psg] REVIEWERS NEEDED FOR CONCURRENT SESSION PROPOSALS


> RE-PSG members:
>
> We need 3-5 reviewers for concurrent session proposals for next year's
conference.  This involves reviewing 4 or 5 proposals, completing a review
form on each, and returning them to me.  Deadlines are a little tight, so I
need the names of volunteers within a couple weeks (by 11/9/01).
> Below are details regarding this review process (include relevent topic
areas to this PSG), and the process for review of scientific papers, which
will start in December.
>
> I look forward to hearing from those wishing to review.
>
> *****************************
>
> Date: October 26, 2001
>
> RE: Concurrent Session Proposal Review Process
>
> The deadline for Concurrent Session (CS) Proposals was Monday, October 15,
> 2001.  As of this date we have received 28 proposals as part of the 9
topic
> areas.  All proposals have been logged in at the RESNA office, grouped
> according to the Topic Area indicated on the submittal form and prepared
for
> an electronic review process.   This is a peer review process that begins
> with the assistance of a Topic Coordinator and Individual Reviewers from
> among the SIG(s) and PSG(s) relevant to the Topic Areas.  Through this
> process, the proposals are ranked (from highest priority to lowest
priority)
> in each Topic Area.  Once this is completed, a subcommittee comprised of
> representatives from the SIG's, PSGs, the Education Committee and the
> Meetings Committee will use the rankings when making the final
determination
> of the number of available session slots during the conference.
>
> At this time, both Topic Area Review Coordinator and Individual Reviewer
> volunteers are needed.  Please send your name, e-mail address, telephone
> number and mailing address to Susan Leone at sleone@resna.org or via fax
to
> (703) 524-6630 by Wednesday, October 31, 2001 if you are interested in
> volunteering.  The roles are as follows:
>
> Topic Area Review Coordinator (TARC):
> * Recruits 3-5 Individual Reviewers (IR) from among the SIGs and PSGs
> most closely related to the Topic Area. (Number of IRs needed depends on
the
> number of proposals submitted in a given Topic Area.)
> * Receives all proposals submitted in the designated Topic Area from
> the RESNA office.
> * Sends each proposal to a minimum of 3 IRs for review.  (This can be
> done in coordination with Susan Leone at the RESNA Office.)
> * Receives ALL completed Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms for
> each CS from each IR.
> * Compiles all comments for each CS review completed by each IR and
> completes (1) Author Feedback form for each CS proposal.  (This sheet will
> be returned to the author(s) verbatim.)
> * Completes (1) Concurrent Session Review Summary Form for the Topic
> Area ranking the CSs from highest priority to lowest priority.
> * Topic Area Review Coordinator (TARC) - continued:
> * Sends the following back to the RESNA Office by the deadline
> indicated:
> * ALL Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms for each CS completed
> by each IR.
> * ALL Author Feedback forms for each CS proposal.
> * ALL CS Review Summary Forms
>
> Individual Reviewer (IR):
> * Receives CS proposals to review from Topic Area Review Coordinator.
> * Completes a Concurrent Session Proposal Review Form for each
> proposal.  (Typically each IR is asked to review 3-5 proposals depending
on
> the number submitted in his/her Topic Area.)
> * Sends ALL completed Concurrent Session Proposal Review Forms to the
> designated Topic Area Review Coordinator by the deadline indicated.
>
> Typically, a SIG or PSG Chair relevant to a given Topic Area has acted as
> that Topic's Review Coordinator.  However, this is not a rule and may
depend
> on how some SIGs and PSGs delegate specific tasks.  Each Topic Coordinator
> should recruit 3-5 individual reviewers.  Some Topic Areas may need more
> depending on the number of proposals submitted.
>
> Please note that the deadline for Scientific Papers is Monday, December
10,
> 2001.  A separate review process for the scientific papers will occur in
> December.  Individual Reviewers and Topic Area Review Coordinators will
also
> be needed for this peer review process.  Typically, individuals volunteer
to
> review CS proposals OR papers.  However, it is fine to volunteer for both.
> The important dates for the CS review are listed at the bottom of this
memo.
> Details regarding the review process dates for the Scientific Papers will
be
> available at a later date.  This may help individuals decide which review
> time-line fits best with their given schedule.
>
> The 9 Topic Areas for Concurrent Sessions are as follows:
> (Please note: SIG and PSG relevance and descriptions are not inclusive)
> * Topic 1:  Technology for Special Populations (SIG 01, 04, 06,
> 08, 16, 17, 20) (PSG 02, 03, 04, 06, 07) (e.g. cognitive disabilities,
> learning disabilities, developmental disabilities, low vision/blindness,
> hearing impairments, dysphagia, drooling, elderly and pediatric
> interventions)
> * Topic 2 : Augmentative and Alternative Communication  (SIG 03)
> (PSG 06)
> * Topic 3: Computer Access and Use (SIG 11, 15) (PSG 03, 04,
> 06, 07)
> * Topic 4: Environmental Accommodations (SIG 07, 12, 14, 19)
> (PSG 02, 03, 04) (e.g. environmental control systems, home and worksite
> modifications, ergonomics, farming and other rural interventions,
universal
> design)
> * Topic 5: Functional Control and Assistance (SIG 10, 13) (PSG
> 04, 05) (e.g. rehabilitation robotics, functional electrical stimulation,
> prosthetics and orthotics)
> * Topic 6: Service Delivery and Public Policy  (SIG 01, 15, 18,
> 21) (PSG - ALL) (e.g. service delivery programs and administration, AT
> education, distance learning, applications of telecommunications, Tech Act
> projects, technology transfer, legislation, reimbursement, credentialing)
> * Topic 7: Research / Functional Outcomes (SIG 05) (PSG - ALL)
> (e.g. measuring function and functional variables)
> * Topic 8: Seating and Mobility (SIG 02, 09) (PSG 01, 02, 03,
> 04) (e.g. seating and wheelchair intervention, seat pressure measurement,
> transportation issues, seating and mobility issues in developing
countries)
> * Topic 9:  Professional Skills/Development  (e.g., interview skills,
> presentation skills, training & staff development strategies, customer
> service training, writing grant proposals)
>
> CS Review Process Summary:
> 1) Proposals are submitted to RESNA Office, logged in and prepared for
> electronic review process.
> 2) All proposals for a given Topic Area are sent to the Topic Area
> Review Coordinator (TARC).
> 3) TARC sends proposals to Individual Reviewers (with assistance from
> RESNA office).
> 4) Individual Reviewers complete (1) Concurrent Session Proposal Review
> Form per CS and send all forms back to TARC by deadline indicated.
> 5) For each CS submitted in a given Topic Area, TARC compiles all
> individual review forms and completes (1) an author Feedback Form. TARC
also
> completes (1) Concurrent Session Review Summary Sheet for the entire Topic
> area.
> 6) TARC sends the following to RESNA Office by deadline indicated:
> * All individual reviewer forms for each CS
> * (1) Author Feedback form for each CS
> * (1) CS Review Summary sheet for entire Topic Area
>
> Important Dates For CS Review:
> * by November 7, 2001 - RESNA Office sends all proposals to TARCs
> * by November 12, 2001 - TARCs ( with assistance from RESNA office)
> * send proposals to IRs
> * by November 26, 2001 - IRs send all completed review forms to TARC
> * by December 3, 2001 - TARC sends all required paperwork to RESNA
> Office
>
>
> SUSAN P. LEONE
> RESNA Meetings Director
> 1700 North Moore St, Suite 1540
> Arlington, VA 22209
> 703-524-6686, ext 306
> 703-524-6630 FAX
> <sleone@resna.org>
>
> RESNA 2002 Annual Conference, Thursday-Monday, June 27-July 1, 2002, Hyatt
> Regency Hotel, Minneapolis, MN
>
>
>
> Gregory W. McGrew
> Center for Rehabilitation Technology
> Helen Hayes Hospital
> 845-786-4587
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Fellow Engineers,

My email reviews some past history and proposes a possible solution (which
is open to modification).

My recollection is that when RESNA came out with qualifications to take
the ATP/ATS exams a degree in engineering with specialization and/or
clinical experience in rehabilitation was not included.  This was
extremely disheartening to me as it represented a general disinterest in
having engineers participate in RESNA.  This was changed at the
request of the RE-PSG.

Since then engineers in RESNA have experienced other prejudices
such as having conference papers rejected because they are "too
technical" or contain mathematical formulas.  For a while, RESNA
members with no engineering credentials were using the title
"rehab engineer".

I think the whole situation (along with certification development)
demonstrates why important people like Drs Levine and Weisman
would talk about a boycott. Its sad that the attitude of RENSA in
general has not changed given the amount of time that has passed.

I have not seen a change in this type of attitude.  While chairing the
NIDRR fellows at Pitt (2000), we hosted Alexandria Enders who was
serving as RENSA president at the time.  At dinner the discussion got
into diagnostic coding for reimbursement.  There appeared to me to be
little interest on the part of RESNA in supporting development
of codes for RE services.  This was represented as a task for the
RE-PSG.  There does not appear to be an understanding that while
therapists have separate professional organizations working
for them,  Engineers rely on RESNA.

Unfortunately, to me this sounds the same as the response I talked
about above concerning the ATP and the situation related to RE
certification.  As a "rehabilitation engineer", I do not feel RESNA
represents my interests all that well.

Regarding a boycott, I think two points are important:
(1) Engineers have already been leaving RESNA;
(2) Even still if engineers fully boycotted the annual conference,
        RESNA would likely not be able to hold conferences in the
        future due to the financial situation.
I doubt a call for a boycott would be all that successful seeing
as the engineers actively involved in RESNA have far too much
at stake to risk killing the conference or the organization.  Plus
on has to ask whether this really solves the problem?

I propose a different course of action.

Over the course of RESNA's history, engineers have slowly left the
organization.  Reviewing the diversity of the conference proceedings and
vendor participation makes this point rather obvious.  RESNA has pretty
much been reduced to an organization focusing on mobility, at least
from an engineering sense.  People don't go to RESNA anymore to
display their most recent software, etc.  I would attribute this exodus
resulting largely from RESNA practicing the mentality which has got us
to the place we are now where boycotts are being proposed as a response.

So the problem isn't just a lack of resources, but a lack of inter-disciplinary
spirit.  An understanding that without any component of the rehab team,
sub-standard products and services result.

I would request that RESNA officially restate its commitment to being a
mutli-disciplinary organization via specific/dated commitments.  Each
commitment would be allocated a percentage of funds/staff for its
completion.  Oversight that a commitment is progressing would be by
a committee composed of 3 members of the PSG(s) it affects and one
member of each PSGs it does not effect.  Deviation from funding
commitments would need to be approved by greater than 50% of
members of the PSG(s) it affects.  This solution does not need to
substantially weaken the Board, the President or the executive of
RESNA, but it does put the issues on the table and requires an
unambiguous statement of goals.

I welcome comments/responses to this proposal.

Thank you,

Brian T. Fay

University of Texas
Bellmont 222
Austin, TX 78712

(512) 232-2684 office
(512) 471-8914 fax
btfay@mail.utexas.edu

Dear Fellow Rehab Engineers:

I have generally remained silent while reading the recent e-mails
regarding the role and place of rehab engineers in RESNA.  The
certification issue merely brought the general dissatisfaction to its
present boiling point.

I concur with Fay that many rehab. engineers have already abandoned RESNA
and that RESNA poorly represents our interests.  Ashamedly, I have not
attended a RESNA conference for over 6 years for these reasons.  Instead,
I have been heavily involved professionally with the IEEE Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Society.

When I served as IEEE/EMBS President in 2000, IEEE/EMBS offered to jointly
sponsor and/or otherwise collaborate with RESNA on its annual
conference.  The negotiations between EMBS and RESNA were never
consumated, being bogged down with convoluted proposals for
splitting possible surpluses or deficits.  We nevertheless pledged a
continuing interest in rehab engineering and a desire to see RESNA
succeed.  For your 2000 Annual conference, Charlie Robinson agreed to
serve as the IEEE/EMBS liaison to RESNA.

Regardless of your future plans for participating (or not) in RESNA,
please know that you can have a technical "home" in IEEE/EMBS should you
desire one.  We publish probably the most scientifically and
technically rigorous journal in the field (IEEE Trans. on Neural Systems
and Rehab. Engineering), and we hold multiple technical sessions on rehab.
engineering topics at our annual conferences.  We are NOT afraid of
equations nor computer simulation results.  In fact we insist on papers
that incorporate quantitative results rather than anecdotal findings or
single subject studies.

David Jaffe and I have often expressed a desire for a greater Rehab.
engineering presence in IEEE/EMBS so your participation in EMBS would be
most welcomed.  While I intend to maintain my
membership in RESNA (since 1976), I've accepted the fact that RESNA is NOT
a technical society while IEEE/EMBS is.  Regardless of its orientation,
RESNA nevertheless serves a very important professional niche.

I welcome your comments (and even criticisms).

Sincerely, Andrew Szeto, IEEE/EMBS Past-President

On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Brian Fay wrote:

> Fellow Engineers,
>
> My email reviews some past history and proposes a possible solution (which
> is open to modification).
>
> My recollection is that when RESNA came out with qualifications to take
> the ATP/ATS exams a degree in engineering with specialization and/or
> clinical experience in rehabilitation was not included.  This was
> extremely disheartening to me as it represented a general disinterest in
> having engineers participate in RESNA.  This was changed at the
> request of the RE-PSG.
>
> Since then engineers in RESNA have experienced other prejudices
> such as having conference papers rejected because they are "too
> technical" or contain mathematical formulas.  For a while, RESNA
> members with no engineering credentials were using the title
> "rehab engineer".
>
> I think the whole situation (along with certification development)
> demonstrates why important people like Drs Levine and Weisman
> would talk about a boycott. Its sad that the attitude of RENSA in
> general has not changed given the amount of time that has passed.
>
> I have not seen a change in this type of attitude.  While chairing the
> NIDRR fellows at Pitt (2000), we hosted Alexandria Enders who was
> serving as RENSA president at the time.  At dinner the discussion got
> into diagnostic coding for reimbursement.  There appeared to me to be
> little interest on the part of RESNA in supporting development
> of codes for RE services.  This was represented as a task for the
> RE-PSG.  There does not appear to be an understanding that while
> therapists have separate professional organizations working
> for them,  Engineers rely on RESNA.
>
> Unfortunately, to me this sounds the same as the response I talked
> about above concerning the ATP and the situation related to RE
> certification.  As a "rehabilitation engineer", I do not feel RESNA
> represents my interests all that well.
>
> Regarding a boycott, I think two points are important:
> (1) Engineers have already been leaving RESNA;
> (2) Even still if engineers fully boycotted the annual conference,
>        RESNA would likely not be able to hold conferences in the
>        future due to the financial situation.
> I doubt a call for a boycott would be all that successful seeing
> as the engineers actively involved in RESNA have far too much
> at stake to risk killing the conference or the organization.  Plus
> on has to ask whether this really solves the problem?
>
> I propose a different course of action.
>
> Over the course of RESNA's history, engineers have slowly left the
> organization.  Reviewing the diversity of the conference proceedings and
> vendor participation makes this point rather obvious.  RESNA has pretty
> much been reduced to an organization focusing on mobility, at least
> from an engineering sense.  People don't go to RESNA anymore to
> display their most recent software, etc.  I would attribute this exodus
> resulting largely from RESNA practicing the mentality which has got us
> to the place we are now where boycotts are being proposed as a response.
>
> So the problem isn't just a lack of resources, but a lack of inter-
disciplinary
> spirit.  An understanding that without any component of the rehab team,
> sub-standard products and services result.
>
> I would request that RESNA officially restate its commitment to being a
> mutli-disciplinary organization via specific/dated commitments.  Each
> commitment would be allocated a percentage of funds/staff for its
> completion.  Oversight that a commitment is progressing would be by
> a committee composed of 3 members of the PSG(s) it affects and one
> member of each PSGs it does not effect.  Deviation from funding
> commitments would need to be approved by greater than 50% of
> members of the PSG(s) it affects.  This solution does not need to
> substantially weaken the Board, the President or the executive of
> RESNA, but it does put the issues on the table and requires an
> unambiguous statement of goals.
>
> I welcome comments/responses to this proposal.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Brian T. Fay
>
> University of Texas
> Bellmont 222
> Austin, TX 78712
>
> (512) 232-2684 office
> (512) 471-8914 fax
> btfay@mail.utexas.edu
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

If I may, let me clarify that no one was really calling for a boycott.  Rather,
the expression of a threat of a boycott was suggested.  This was considered  to
ensure that if any further barrirers arose they would be handled in such a way
as to be resolved in time for the examination to be given during the RESNA 2002
conference (at the very latest).  It was really intended as a way to get the
BOD's FULL attention in regards to responding to the needs of RESNA
rehabilitation engineers.

Simon


Simon P. Levine, Ph.D.
Professor
Director, Rehabilitation Engineering Program
Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehab.
and Biomedical Engineering
phone:  734 936-7170
fax:   734 936-7515

>>> btfay@mail.utexas.edu 11/06/01 03:17PM >>>
Fellow Engineers,

My email reviews some past history and proposes a possible solution (which
is open to modification).

My recollection is that when RESNA came out with qualifications to take
the ATP/ATS exams a degree in engineering with specialization and/or
clinical experience in rehabilitation was not included.  This was
extremely disheartening to me as it represented a general disinterest in
having engineers participate in RESNA.  This was changed at the
request of the RE-PSG.

Since then engineers in RESNA have experienced other prejudices
such as having conference papers rejected because they are "too
technical" or contain mathematical formulas.  For a while, RESNA
members with no engineering credentials were using the title
"rehab engineer".

I think the whole situation (along with certification development)
demonstrates why important people like Drs Levine and Weisman
would talk about a boycott. Its sad that the attitude of RENSA in
general has not changed given the amount of time that has passed.

I have not seen a change in this type of attitude.  While chairing the
NIDRR fellows at Pitt (2000), we hosted Alexandria Enders who was
serving as RENSA president at the time.  At dinner the discussion got
into diagnostic coding for reimbursement.  There appeared to me to be
little interest on the part of RESNA in supporting development
of codes for RE services.  This was represented as a task for the
RE-PSG.  There does not appear to be an understanding that while
therapists have separate professional organizations working
for them,  Engineers rely on RESNA.

Unfortunately, to me this sounds the same as the response I talked
about above concerning the ATP and the situation related to RE
certification.  As a "rehabilitation engineer", I do not feel RESNA
represents my interests all that well.

Regarding a boycott, I think two points are important:
(1) Engineers have already been leaving RESNA;
(2) Even still if engineers fully boycotted the annual conference,
        RESNA would likely not be able to hold conferences in the
        future due to the financial situation.
I doubt a call for a boycott would be all that successful seeing
as the engineers actively involved in RESNA have far too much
at stake to risk killing the conference or the organization.  Plus
on has to ask whether this really solves the problem?

I propose a different course of action.

Over the course of RESNA's history, engineers have slowly left the
organization.  Reviewing the diversity of the conference proceedings and
vendor participation makes this point rather obvious.  RESNA has pretty
much been reduced to an organization focusing on mobility, at least
from an engineering sense.  People don't go to RESNA anymore to
display their most recent software, etc.  I would attribute this exodus
resulting largely from RESNA practicing the mentality which has got us
to the place we are now where boycotts are being proposed as a response.

So the problem isn't just a lack of resources, but a lack of inter-disciplinary
spirit.  An understanding that without any component of the rehab team,
sub-standard products and services result.

I would request that RESNA officially restate its commitment to being a
mutli-disciplinary organization via specific/dated commitments.  Each
commitment would be allocated a percentage of funds/staff for its
completion.  Oversight that a commitment is progressing would be by
a committee composed of 3 members of the PSG(s) it affects and one
member of each PSGs it does not effect.  Deviation from funding
commitments would need to be approved by greater than 50% of
members of the PSG(s) it affects.  This solution does not need to
substantially weaken the Board, the President or the executive of
RESNA, but it does put the issues on the table and requires an
unambiguous statement of goals.

I welcome comments/responses to this proposal.

Thank you,

Brian T. Fay

University of Texas
Bellmont 222
Austin, TX 78712

(512) 232-2684 office
(512) 471-8914 fax
btfay@mail.utexas.edu


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Andy,
Well said!
I couldn't say it, but you said it well.

RESNA started as a hard-core engr organization dedicated to research and
development in Rehabilitation. It changed when the clinical techies realized
that they could make money by getting a name and forum for themselves - hence a
very major change in the focus of RESNA away from the hard sciences to the soft
pseudo-sciences. Some of that change was indeed needed, but the pendulum has
swung far, far to one side. And long-standing control by a group of insiders has
been dedicated to this mission. Then came the real potential money maker - the
ATP exam. "So if you have the ATP credential, why do you need any rehab.
engineers?"  one could well ask if you are a third-party payer. Hence you can
well see why the RE certification process might well appear to been held hostage
and has been allowed to languish. I do know that a group of very dedicated
volunteers HAS tried very hard to bring the RE certification (credentialing or
whatever) to fruition.

But, I doubt very much whether IEEE EMBS any longer has the mindset for
practicing engineers like those in  RESNA. Certainly EMBS has focused almost all
of its doings on academic matters for the last 8 years. I, Joe Dyro and others,
have  tried to bring this issue up many times in the EMBS ADCOM over the past 8
years but were rebuffed. Thus I cannot in conscience recommend that the
disillusioned RESNA Engineers join EMBS, unless there is an extremely unexpected
sea change in EMBS that begins to value clinical and practical engineers,
especially in the US and Canada. And I just don't see that happening. EMBS had
its chance to work with RESNA this year as a demonstration that it could enhance
the engineering side. The idea was not killed by "convoluted finances," but
rather by EMBS' total unwillingness to take a good gamble on a break-even
conference as an investment for the future, in spite of EMBS' good reserves. A
friend (RESNA) asked for help from another friend (EMBS) and was simply turned
down. Period! As both a RESNA and EMBS member, and as the liaison between the
two groups, I was caught in the middle. EMBS' backing out did not engender
itself to a kind view within RESNA, and may well have poisoned future
relationships.

As for a home, the Clinical Engineering group (American College of Clinical
Engineers??) or maybe even BMES would be a much better fit. And the ACCE can
easily credential.

I think that it is far better for the engineers to try to reclaim RESNA, which
is just the opposite of boycotting it. Let's propose a slate of engineering
candidates for leadership, and vote them all in by simply having every engineer
actually cast a ballot. You, Enderle, Jaffe, Levine, Fay, Winters,  myself and
others from EMBS, BMES and ACCE could help in restoring a sense of balance to
the leadership of RESNA.

I think Resna does have a place. My first RESNA meeting was in San Diego in
1982, and you helped run it. I have enjoyed the balance that Resna had before
the ATP issue raised its head. It was well the place where good engineering
research and clinical practice could come together in harmony. Oh, for the good
old days!

-Charlie R.
Founding and Past Editor, IEEE Trans Rehabilitation Engineering
RESNA 2001 EMBS/ RESNA liaison




>X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
>X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-1824415-161-1005081864-robinson=coes.latech.edu@returns.groups.yahoo.com
>X-Sender: szeto@engineering.sdsu.edu
>X-Apparently-To: RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com
>X-Authentication-Warning: kahuna.engineering.sdsu.edu: web set sender to
szeto@engineering.sdsu.edu using -f
>To: <RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com>
>Cc: btfay@mail.utexas.edu
>X-OriginatingIP: 206.117.185.4 (szeto)
>X-eGroups-From: "Andrew Szeto" <szeto@engineering.sdsu.edu>
>From: "Andrew Szeto" <andrew.szeto@sdsu.edu>
>Mailing-List: list RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com; contact
RESNAre-psg-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:24:23 -0800 (PST)
>Reply-To: RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [RESNAre-psg]
>
>Dear Fellow Rehab Engineers:
>
>I have generally remained silent while reading the recent e-mails
>regarding the role and place of rehab engineers in RESNA.  The
>certification issue merely brought the general dissatisfaction to its
>present boiling point.
>
>I concur with Fay that many rehab. engineers have already abandoned RESNA
>and that RESNA poorly represents our interests.  Ashamedly, I have not
>attended a RESNA conference for over 6 years for these reasons.  Instead,
>I have been heavily involved professionally with the IEEE Engineering in
>Medicine and Biology Society.
>
>When I served as IEEE/EMBS President in 2000, IEEE/EMBS offered to jointly
>sponsor and/or otherwise collaborate with RESNA on its annual
>conference.  The negotiations between EMBS and RESNA were never
>consumated, being bogged down with convoluted proposals for
>splitting possible surpluses or deficits.  We nevertheless pledged a
>continuing interest in rehab engineering and a desire to see RESNA
>succeed.  For your 2000 Annual conference, Charlie Robinson agreed to
>serve as the IEEE/EMBS liaison to RESNA.
>
>Regardless of your future plans for participating (or not) in RESNA,
>please know that you can have a technical "home" in IEEE/EMBS should you
>desire one.  We publish probably the most scientifically and
>technically rigorous journal in the field (IEEE Trans. on Neural Systems
>and Rehab. Engineering), and we hold multiple technical sessions on rehab.
>engineering topics at our annual conferences.  We are NOT afraid of
>equations nor computer simulation results.  In fact we insist on papers
>that incorporate quantitative results rather than anecdotal findings or
>single subject studies.
>
>David Jaffe and I have often expressed a desire for a greater Rehab.
>engineering presence in IEEE/EMBS so your participation in EMBS would be
>most welcomed.  While I intend to maintain my
>membership in RESNA (since 1976), I've accepted the fact that RESNA is NOT
>a technical society while IEEE/EMBS is.  Regardless of its orientation,
>RESNA nevertheless serves a very important professional niche.
>
>I welcome your comments (and even criticisms).
>
>Sincerely, Andrew Szeto, IEEE/EMBS Past-President
>
--
*************************************************
Charles J. Robinson, D.Sc., P.E.,    Fellow IEEE, Fellow AIMBE
Max and Robbie L. Watson Eminent Scholar Chair in
     Biomedical Engineering and Micromanufacturing, and
Director, Univ. Center for Biomedical Engineering and Rehab. Science (CyBERS)
Louisiana Tech Univ; 711 S. Vienna; Ruston, LA 71270-5845
Phone 318-257-4562    Fax 318-255-4175
Email <c.robinson@ieee.org> (PREFERRED) or <robinson@coes.latech.edu> (LOCAL)
Web: <http://www.cybers.latech.edu/cjr.html>    [NEW!!!]

Senior Rehabilitation Research Career Scientist
Overton Brooks VA Medical Center, Research Service Bldg 33 (151)
510 E. Stoner Av., Shreveport, LA 71101-4295
Phone 318-424-6080 Fax 318-429-5733
(Generally there 7 AM - 5:30 PM CST on Tuesdays and Thursdays, plus one other
day every two weeks)

Adjunct Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery Department, LSU Health Science Center,
Shreveport, LA
*************************************************

Dear Colleagues,

I have been following the dialogue regarding the place of Rehabilitation
Engineers and RESNA. Rehabilitation Engineers have always been and continue
to play an essential role in RESNA. You may recall that RESNA has always
been a multidisciplinary organization involving all members of the AT team,
be it service delivery, design/manufacture, research, advocacy or public
policy. While many rehabilitation engineers consider RESNA their primary
professional organization, it has also been RESNA's goal to be inclusive of
other groups as well. The support of inclusion distinguishes RESNA in many
ways from the other professional organizations.

It is difficult to say whether RESNA moved away for rehabilitation engineers
of visa-versa. In either case, it is clear that some aspects of
rehabilitation engineering are not as prominent in RESNA as some of us would
like it. However, I would urge you to volunteer to become more involved in
the organization and to make a committment to make RESNA more responsive to
the needs of rehabilitation engineers. I have been active in RESNA,
IEEE-EMBS, and BMES for a number of years. While I support the missions of
all of these organizations, I decided to focus my attention on RESNA because
I believe that it provides an important venue to AT and rehabilitation
engineeering. Rehabilitation engineers must become actively involved in the
organization, and work to make sure that their voice is heard.

There has been continuous representation of rehabilitation engineers on the
board and exectutive committee of RESNA since its inception. Rehabilitation
engineers have faired well in every board election. RESNA was also receptive
to the "Research Symposium", "Student Scientific Paper Competition",
"Student Design Competition", and "RET Credentialing". These activities have
a prominent place in RESNA. RESNA also endorses the IEEE Transaction on
Neural and Rehabilitation Engineering. I agree that credentialing for
rehabilitation engineers has taken too long, and we are not going to get
what we had hoped for in the immediate future. However, the RET
credentialing exam will be offered next Spring at CSUN, and regularly
thereafter. RESNA has a respected ATP/ATS credentialing program, and it has
the rehabilitation engineering expertise to provide a useful certification
for RET. With some real investment by rehabilitation engineers, we may be
able to have an RE certification within RESNA. It will take resources and
committment that can only come from the engineers within RESNA.

I like to consider myself a scientist, and I have seen some of the problems
with the review process of papers submitted to the RESNA conference. Their
is disparity in the reviews, as there is with every organization that I am
aware of including EMBS and BMES. The RESNA BoD and meetings committee are
aware of the problems and they are working to correct them. You should note
that Steve Sprigle and Rich Simpson (both engineers) have organized the
review process in recent years. If we want good engieering papers at the
RESNA conference, we must volunteer to organize sessions, submit good
papers, and volunteer to review them. Unfortunately, this happens too
infrequently, and by too few people. However, it can be done and it has been
done every year.

I urge you to become actively involved in RESNA. Run for office, volunteer
to chair a committee, volunteer to organize an activity or event. In many
ways, RESNA is no different from any other volunteer organization. RESNA
needs a cadre of dedicated volunteers to function properly, and we need to
become involved! To this end, I have decided to throw my hat in the ring for
election to President of RESNA. I want to make sure that you have a voice
within RESNA, and that RE's working in all areas view RESNA as an
organization in support of their needs.

Cordially,

Rory Cooper

FYI

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shannon Marullo" <smarullo@resna.org>
To: "'Rory Cooper'" <rcooper@pitt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:06 AM
Subject: RET Exam


> Dear Rory,
>
> Below, is an announcement about the RET.  Let me know if you have any
> questions-
>
> The Rehabilitation Engineering Technologist (RET) credentialing exam will
be
> administered for the first time on Monday March 18, 2002 at the Los
Angeles
> Airport Mariott, at the CSUN conference.
>
> After its first administration on March 18th, the RET exam will be given
on
> the same day as the ATP and ATS exams on all future RESNA exam
> administrations.
>
> RET candidate eligibility requirements, application materials, and other
> critical information contained in the 'Candidate's Information Bulletin -
> RET Supplement' will be available on the RESNA website after December 1st.
> Please see the enclosed Preliminary 2002 Exam Schedule for upcoming dates
&
> locations.
>
>  <<2002 Schedule for the RESNA Credentialing Exams.doc>>
>
> Shannon Marullo, CCC-SLP
> Director, Professional Services
> RESNA
> 1700 N. Moore St., Suite 1540
> Arlington, VA 22209-1903
> Tel.   703/524-6686  ext. 310
> FAX: 703/524-6630
> TTY: 703/524-6639
> smarullo@resna.org
>
> 25th International Conference on
> Technology & Disability: Research, Design, and Practice
> June 27 - July 1, 2002 at the Hyatt Regency in Minneapolis, MN
> Research Symposium on Universal Design
> Clinical Practicum on Seating & Positioning
>
>
>
>
>

Ok, if you wait long enough, the points you wish to make will be made by others
(much more eloquently).
my points were:
*RESNA has a role for all rehab engineers
*shift back to better mesh of engineering research and clinical practice is
needed
*shift takes leadership and more importantly, member involvment
*RESNA may not meet all the professional needs of each rehab engineer

I see Rory has beat me to the punch on the RET:

The Rehabilitation Engineering Technologist (RET) credentialing exam will be
administered for the first time on Monday March 18, 2002 at the Los Angeles
Airport Mariott, at the CSUN conference.

After its first administration on March 18th, the RET exam will be given on
the same day as the ATP and ATS exams on all future RESNA exam
administrations.

RET candidate eligibility requirements, application materials, and other
critical information contained in the 'Candidate's Information Bulletin -
RET Supplement' will be available on the RESNA website after December 1st.
Please see the enclosed Preliminary 2002 Exam Schedule for upcoming dates &
locations.

  <<2002 Schedule for the RESNA Credentialing Exams.doc>>

Shannon Marullo, CCC-SLP
Director, Professional Services
RESNA
1700 N. Moore St., Suite 1540
Arlington, VA 22209-1903
Tel.   703/524-6686  ext. 310
FAX: 703/524-6630
TTY: 703/524-6639
smarullo@resna.org

25th International Conference on
Technology & Disability: Research, Design, and Practice
June 27 - July 1, 2002 at the Hyatt Regency in Minneapolis, MN
Research Symposium on Universal Design
Clinical Practicum on Seating & Positioning


Gregory W. McGrew
Center for Rehabilitation Technology
Helen Hayes Hospital
845-786-4587

Rory,

Nice Job.  I am in agreement with your comments.  I think that by becoming a
candidate for president you are doing by example what I have been really
advocating for - getting "politically" involved in our organization as well
being active in the scientific, clinical, educational, and other activities. 
While I'm not particularly fond of "politics"  I strongly believe that as rehab.
engineers we must actively work within RESNA to have our needs met.  We can not
just state our needs and expect the "organization" to fulfill them.  I offer my
support to you in your efforts to become RESNA's president.

Regards, Simon

cc:  RE PSG


Simon P. Levine, Ph.D.
Professor
Director, Rehabilitation Engineering Program
Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehab.
and Biomedical Engineering
phone:  734 936-7170
fax:   734 936-7515

>>> rcooper@pitt.edu 11/07/01 10:25AM >>>
Dear Colleagues,

I have been following the dialogue regarding the place of Rehabilitation
Engineers and RESNA. Rehabilitation Engineers have always been and continue
to play an essential role in RESNA. You may recall that RESNA has always
been a multidisciplinary organization involving all members of the AT team,
be it service delivery, design/manufacture, research, advocacy or public
policy. While many rehabilitation engineers consider RESNA their primary
professional organization, it has also been RESNA's goal to be inclusive of
other groups as well. The support of inclusion distinguishes RESNA in many
ways from the other professional organizations.

It is difficult to say whether RESNA moved away for rehabilitation engineers
of visa-versa. In either case, it is clear that some aspects of
rehabilitation engineering are not as prominent in RESNA as some of us would
like it. However, I would urge you to volunteer to become more involved in
the organization and to make a committment to make RESNA more responsive to
the needs of rehabilitation engineers. I have been active in RESNA,
IEEE-EMBS, and BMES for a number of years. While I support the missions of
all of these organizations, I decided to focus my attention on RESNA because
I believe that it provides an important venue to AT and rehabilitation
engineeering. Rehabilitation engineers must become actively involved in the
organization, and work to make sure that their voice is heard.

There has been continuous representation of rehabilitation engineers on the
board and exectutive committee of RESNA since its inception. Rehabilitation
engineers have faired well in every board election. RESNA was also receptive
to the "Research Symposium", "Student Scientific Paper Competition",
"Student Design Competition", and "RET Credentialing". These activities have
a prominent place in RESNA. RESNA also endorses the IEEE Transaction on
Neural and Rehabilitation Engineering. I agree that credentialing for
rehabilitation engineers has taken too long, and we are not going to get
what we had hoped for in the immediate future. However, the RET
credentialing exam will be offered next Spring at CSUN, and regularly
thereafter. RESNA has a respected ATP/ATS credentialing program, and it has
the rehabilitation engineering expertise to provide a useful certification
for RET. With some real investment by rehabilitation engineers, we may be
able to have an RE certification within RESNA. It will take resources and
committment that can only come from the engineers within RESNA.

I like to consider myself a scientist, and I have seen some of the problems
with the review process of papers submitted to the RESNA conference. Their
is disparity in the reviews, as there is with every organization that I am
aware of including EMBS and BMES. The RESNA BoD and meetings committee are
aware of the problems and they are working to correct them. You should note
that Steve Sprigle and Rich Simpson (both engineers) have organized the
review process in recent years. If we want good engieering papers at the
RESNA conference, we must volunteer to organize sessions, submit good
papers, and volunteer to review them. Unfortunately, this happens too
infrequently, and by too few people. However, it can be done and it has been
done every year.

I urge you to become actively involved in RESNA. Run for office, volunteer
to chair a committee, volunteer to organize an activity or event. In many
ways, RESNA is no different from any other volunteer organization. RESNA
needs a cadre of dedicated volunteers to function properly, and we need to
become involved! To this end, I have decided to throw my hat in the ring for
election to President of RESNA. I want to make sure that you have a voice
within RESNA, and that RE's working in all areas view RESNA as an
organization in support of their needs.

Cordially,

Rory Cooper



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Dear Simon,

Thank you very much, I appreciate your support and counsel.

Rory
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Levine" <silevine@med.umich.edu>
To: <RESNAre-psg@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [RESNAre-psg] RESNA and Rehabilitation Engineering


> Rory,
>
> Nice Job.  I am in agreement with your comments.  I think that by becoming
a candidate for president you are doing by example what I have been really
advocating for - getting "politically" involved in our organization as well
being active in the scientific, clinical, educational, and other activities.
While I'm not particularly fond of "politics"  I strongly believe that as
rehab. engineers we must actively work within RESNA to have our needs met.
We can not just state our needs and expect the "organization" to fulfill
them.  I offer my support to you in your efforts to become RESNA's
president.
>
> Regards, Simon
>
> cc:  RE PSG
>
>
> Simon P. Levine, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Director, Rehabilitation Engineering Program
> Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehab.
> and Biomedical Engineering
> phone:  734 936-7170
> fax:   734 936-7515
>
> >>> rcooper@pitt.edu 11/07/01 10:25AM >>>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I have been following the dialogue regarding the place of Rehabilitation
> Engineers and RESNA. Rehabilitation Engineers have always been and
continue
> to play an essential role in RESNA. You may recall that RESNA has always
> been a multidisciplinary organization involving all members of the AT
team,
> be it service delivery, design/manufacture, research, advocacy or public
> policy. While many rehabilitation engineers consider RESNA their primary
> professional organization, it has also been RESNA's goal to be inclusive
of
> other groups as well. The support of inclusion distinguishes RESNA in many
> ways from the other professional organizations.
>
> It is difficult to say whether RESNA moved away for rehabilitation
engineers
> of visa-versa. In either case, it is clear that some aspects of
> rehabilitation engineering are not as prominent in RESNA as some of us
would
> like it. However, I would urge you to volunteer to become more involved in
> the organization and to make a committment to make RESNA more responsive
to
> the needs of rehabilitation engineers. I have been active in RESNA,
> IEEE-EMBS, and BMES for a number of years. While I support the missions of
> all of these organizations, I decided to focus my attention on RESNA
because
> I believe that it provides an important venue to AT and rehabilitation
> engineeering. Rehabilitation engineers must become actively involved in
the
> organization, and work to make sure that their voice is heard.
>
> There has been continuous representation of rehabilitation engineers on
the
> board and exectutive committee of RESNA since its inception.
Rehabilitation
> engineers have faired well in every board election. RESNA was also
receptive
> to the "Research Symposium", "Student Scientific Paper Competition",
> "Student Design Competition", and "RET Credentialing". These activities
have
> a prominent place in RESNA. RESNA also endorses the IEEE Transaction on
> Neural and Rehabilitation Engineering. I agree that credentialing for
> rehabilitation engineers has taken too long, and we are not going to get
> what we had hoped for in the immediate future. However, the RET
> credentialing exam will be offered next Spring at CSUN, and regularly
> thereafter. RESNA has a respected ATP/ATS credentialing program, and it
has
> the rehabilitation engineering expertise to provide a useful certification
> for RET. With some real investment by rehabilitation engineers, we may be
> able to have an RE certification within RESNA. It will take resources and
> committment that can only come from the engineers within RESNA.
>
> I like to consider myself a scientist, and I have seen some of the
problems
> with the review process of papers submitted to the RESNA conference. Their
> is disparity in the reviews, as there is with every organization that I am
> aware of including EMBS and BMES. The RESNA BoD and meetings committee are
> aware of the problems and they are working to correct them. You should
note
> that Steve Sprigle and Rich Simpson (both engineers) have organized the
> review process in recent years. If we want good engieering papers at the
> RESNA conference, we must volunteer to organize sessions, submit good
> papers, and volunteer to review them. Unfortunately, this happens too
> infrequently, and by too few people. However, it can be done and it has
been
> done every year.
>
> I urge you to become actively involved in RESNA. Run for office, volunteer
> to chair a committee, volunteer to organize an activity or event. In many
> ways, RESNA is no different from any other volunteer organization. RESNA
> needs a cadre of dedicated volunteers to function properly, and we need to
> become involved! To this end, I have decided to throw my hat in the ring
for
> election to President of RESNA. I want to make sure that you have a voice
> within RESNA, and that RE's working in all areas view RESNA as an
> organization in support of their needs.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Rory Cooper
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RESNAre-psg-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Jim asked me to post this to the list...

Hi everyone -- my two cents...

* The vast majority RESNA's activities are a result of the hard work of
volunteer members, not permanent staff.  The office staff is thinly
funded, and staff energies have been further diluted because of some
huge financial obstacles that we have been fighting over the past couple
of years.  The good news is that Larry Pencak is a sharp, energetic, and
very capable Executive Director, so there appears to be a sea-change
happening that bodes well for RESNA's future.  As Charlie suggested, if
you want to re-cast RESNA in your own image, now is the time to get
involved.

* Folks should listen to Rory's point about the heavy participation of
engineers throughout the volunteer and elected ranks:

6 out of 9 current Board members are engineers (Peggy Barker, Kim Adams,
Glen Ashlock, Dave Brienza, Carol Sargent and myself) -- it's a
dedicated, bright honest group whose backgrounds cross practice areas
and research interests.  Prior to this cohort there were folks like
Hedman, Caves, Levine, Cooper, and Trachtman during the previous cycle.
So, the assertion that there is a Board-level conspiracy against
engineers is pretty laughable.  If anyone has specific suggestions for
action, I would be happy to raise them at a future Board meeting -- I
can't speak for the others, but I'm guessing that Peggy, Kim, Glen,
Dave, or Carol would do the same.

* re: acceptance/rejection of papers
There is a process in place for appealing rejection of a paper (it's
described in the paper submission kit).  This has been in place at least
since the Sprigle era, which was in the mid-90's, so I'm not buying the
statement that there is a systematic rejection of papers that include
scientific content (i.e. graphs, formulas, whatever).  No doubt there
are poor reviews that do occur -- as Rory pointed out, the reviewers are
volunteers and every year the Scientific Chair sweats bullets over
obtaining a sufficient number of reviewers, so the process is far from
perfect -- but that is exactly the reason for having an appeals process
-- i.e. to correct for a poor review. Bottom line: if you feel you got a
raw deal, then appeal -- just be sure to do it based on the substance
and presentation of your paper -- it is not uncommon for papers of
technical merit to be written poorly, or well-written papers to lack
technical merit.  Of course, this is an artifact of every paper
submission process in every field, not simply RESNA.

The past 3 Scientific Chairs (i.e. those who oversee review of the
papers) have been engineers -- Rich Simpson, Jack Winters and Sprigle,
all of whom are bright, dedicated honest guys * this refutes the
assertion that there is systematic bias against engineers and
engineering content in the paper submissions * unless, of course, you
want to challenge the professional integrity of those 3.

* The conference can only be as good as the submissions it receives --
so if you want to see different paper content, submit it yourself!
Rory's group at Pitt practically runs entire paper sessions because
every year they bust their butts and get papers submitted.  While I'm at
it, each of you should never underestimate your own ability to inspire
someone else to present the following year * enthusiasm and professional
passion are contagious.

* RE: overall content of the annual meetings -- there has been strong
participation of engineers on the Meetings committee, at least for the
past 6-7 years that I am aware --  Caves and Sprigle did the
instructional courses and papers for several years, Brenda Sposato did
the concurrent sessions for the past 3 years, I did the instructional
courses for the past 3 years, Sprigle, Winters, and Simpson have done
the scientific papers, etc.  Collectively, this group has done a pretty
fine job.  Has it met every individual attendee's needs?  Of course
not.  RESNA's diversity is its greatest weakness as well as its greatest
strength.  Member composition is too diverse (in terms of professional
disciplines, practice interests, etc.) for everyone to be happy all the
time. It ain't gonna happen, no matter who is running the show -- so
people need to learn to accept an inherent level of imperfection and not
take it as a personal slight or an indication that "RESNA" is out to
'get' a particular group. Orchestrating the content of a RESNA
conference is a complicated balancing act that boils down to compromises
that inevitably get many people upset.  I invite anyone who feels it is
an easy or biased process to volunteer for the meetings committee and
prove me wrong.  BTW, it will take about 100-120 hours of your time per
year, and usually people make a 3-year commitment in order to make it
worthwhile.  Can I see a show of hands for the '02-'05 cycle?

* re: Brian's comments about RESNA members using the title Rehab
Engineer without being engineers....
RESNA never endorsed or supported the practice of "professional title by
self-proclamation".  Fortunately, there weren't many who did this or who
continue to do so.

* re: RESNA's (lack of) support of engineers becoming a coded, billable
service provider....

Folks who want to see this happen should talk to someone like Sprigle,
who has begrudgingly dedicated his recent professional life to becoming
an authority on CPT codes and advocacy for new codes.  He can tell you
what it would take in terms of people-power, advocacy, documentation of
outcomes and effectiveness of services, etc.  Expect an uphill battle
that is much larger than a small organization like RESNA can fight
successfully, but don't take my word for it. If people can put together
a winning plan, then the RESNA Board would undoubtedly support it.  BTW,
that effort will need to be initiated at a grass roots level -- most of
the Board members and all of the RESNA office staff are simply not
qualified to put together the technical content, so I disagree with
Brian's assertion that RESNA has been shirking a responsibility on this
issue -- this is an activity that requires content experts to take the
lead.  If you want it done successfully, then it needs to be an activity
of the RE-PSG, or some working group thereof.  If you want the Board to
initiate the process, fine -- I'll be happy to make the suggestion.  But
the first substantive action would be to appoint a working group
comprised of content experts who would gather the relevant background
information and formulate a plan of action, including budget.

* The most constructive way to change RESNA is to get involved -- much
applause and gratitude to Charlie and Rory for bringing this up first.

Cordially,

Jim Lenker

You ought to check out the senior design program at the University of Toledo
working with the Department of Rehabilitation at the Medical College of Ohio.
The MCO/UT collation  has produced adaptive equipment and assist devices for
spinal cord individuals for the last seven years and completely funded by  the
NIH.

Greg Nemunaitis

>>> progress@jdweb.com 01/24/02 09:45PM >>>
Dear Colleague,

Progressive Engineer, the online magazine covering engineering in the
mid-Atlantic and northeast regions of the U.S., has posted a profile of
David Law, a rehabilitation engineer at the Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation
Center in Staunton, Virginia and a RESNA member.  Operated by the Virginia
Department of Rehabilitative Services, WWRC created the position of adaptive
equipment specialist and hired him in 1977.  He set up a rehabilitation
engineering program for the state, and he continues helping disabled people
live better lives and return to work.

You can see this at http://www.ProgressiveEngineer.com.  Thank you.

Regards,

Tom Gibson, P.E.
Publisher

In case you guys haven't already seen it...

http://www.resna.org/certify/RETtext.html

Jerry

**********************************************************
  Gerald (Jerry) Weisman                     Tel: 802-863-3222
  Rehabilitation Technology Services     Fax: 802-863-4991
  35 Western Ave                                Email:
jweisman@vtc.vsc.edu
  Burlington, VT 05401                        URL: www.atsolutions.org
**********************************************************

A little trivia for today....

As the clock ticks over from 8:01PM on Wednesday, February 20th, 2002,
time
will (for sixty seconds only) read in perfect symmetry. To be more
precise:
20:02, 20/02, 2002. It is an event which has only ever happened once
before,
and is something which will never be repeated. The last occasion that
time
read in such a symmetrical pattern was long before the days of the
digital
watch (or the 24-hour clock): 10:01AM, on January 10, 1001. And because
the
clock only goes up to 23.59, it is something that will never happen
again.
  --

[In case you were wondering....20/02 is the european way of denoting the
date...They put the day first then the month.]

Dear RE-PSG list members:

As a tele-marketer recently said when I answered the phone "Now, I'm not
trying to sell you anything..."  But I am looking for a little input.

I'm working with Stephen Sprigle on a grant funded project on AT outcomes.
This is one of several AT outcomes projects currently in the works, some to
which we have collaborative ties.

Among other things, these projects are engaged in developing instruments for
assessing the cost-effectiveness of AT service programs, and the
interventions they provide - rehab engineering included.  THIS IS VERY
DIFFICULT!  It's also very important.  The development and use of such
measures is crucial to the future vitality of our discipline, because it's
key to establishing funding mechanisms for what we do (guess I AM trying to
sell you something).

Part of this effort involves looking at the different ways in which rehab
engineering services are translated into billable activities.  To that end,
we're seeking your responses to the following questions:

1.  Is most of your rehab engineering billing project-based or time-based?
How is your time/project documented or tracked?

2.  Would you describe most of your work as designing and building custom
devices, or designing and building individualized solutions using available
commercial devices?

3.  When designing a particular device please estimate a range of hours
(i.e., between ½ hours and 2 hours) spent in performing the following
activities: (I know, this seems broad to the extent of being ludicrous, but
please give it an honest shot)

	 a.  Looking for and ruling out commercial solutions
		 b.  Engineering design (including thinking, researching,
designing, and building a model or prototype
		 c.  Considering different designs or solutions to a problem.

4.  What kind of, if any, follow-up activities are conducted after a device
is delivered to the client?

Your input will be of great help to this effort.  Write, call, fax, whatever
suits.  And I hope to see you all in Minneapolis.



Greg McGrew, ATP
Clinical Director
Center for Rehabilitation Technology
Helen Hayes Hospital
845-786-4587
FAX  845-786-4951

I will be out of the office beginning Wednesday 5/1 and returning
Tuesday 5/7.

Thanks
Scott

Attn.: Greg McGrew:

Responses to your AT Outcomes Survey:

1. Time based.  If in office, based on appointment time.  If to a site or
project, portal -- portal.

2. Designing and building solutions based on available commercial products.

3. a. @2 HR..
     b. @2 HR..

4. Follow-up to determine any problems, if being used, any further training
needed.

William R. Irvin, M. Ed., NCC, CRC, CPC, LMHC, ATP
ASSOCIATED REHABILITATION CONSULTANTS
7321 New La Grange Rd., Suite 203
Louisville KY 40222-6873
(502) 426-5106
(801) 650-6382 Fax
web: www.associatedrehab.com
mail to:  BillIrvin4@cs.com