特製與修改輔具是目前常使用的輔具提供方式。但醫療團隊修改輔具之黑箱程序僅屬治療專家所有，無法有效推展。因此，本研究目的為開發產品設計師使用之輔具設計方法，輔助產品設計師介入輔具設計領域。引用市場定位分析法(SWOT)與策略配對型態(TOWS)，提出創新輔具設計法–輔具設計條件分析(AD-SWOT)與輔具發展型態(AD-TOWS)。透過前期研究，建立了條列式與推導式輔具設計方法。兩法分別開發了偏癱障礙者之沐浴輔具及洗髮輔具，使用者參與產品操作實驗亦驗證了創新輔具設計方法的可行性。

而後，研究以條列式與推導式輔具設計方法為根基，發展一般產品設計師使用之輔具設計方法 – 圖像式輔具設計方法。圖像式輔具設計方法之特色在於治療師與產品設計師分工，適用無輔具設計經驗之產品設計師。比較三法，條列式輔具設計方法操作程序最為簡易，但設計師需要專業的生理知識，適用於具備豐富輔具設計經驗之設計師；推導式輔具設計方法操作過程系統化，適用於具人體生理知識背景之設計師；圖像式輔具設計方法特色為專業分工，治療師評估使用者條件，設計師按照步驟便可提出具體概念，屬一般產品設計方法。

為了驗證圖像式輔具設計方法的可行性，研究分兩部分進行評估。一方面透過5年以上經驗之產品設計師評估圖像式輔具設計方法與一般產品設計方法之差異，了解圖像式輔具設計方法於原創性、潮流性與影響力上優於形態學圖表法；在操作性與秩序性上則優於腦力激盪法。另一方面，應用圖像式輔具設計方法發展偏癱障礙者洗臉輔具。依據使用性工程觀點進行測試實驗結果證明產品效果，也驗證了圖像式輔具設計方法的可行性。圖像式輔具設計方法之價值在於發揮治療師與設計師之個別專業、提供治療團隊有效的合作模式。未來，運用此模式可建立治療師與設計師溝通平台，將偏癱障礙者之輔具設計資訊紀錄並加以推展。

The black-box process of making devices by medical teams is exclusive. Thus, the purpose of this research is the assistive device design method used by product designers. The new method provides assistive device design model for product designer. Using the SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat) and TOWS (Threat, Opportunity, Weakness and Strength), proposing an innovative assistive device design method – AD-SWOT (Assistive Devices-Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat) and AD-TOWS (Assistive Devices-Threat, Opportunity, Weakness and Strength). Through previous case studies where the innovative assistive design procedure is actually utilized, established Enumerative and Deductive Design Methods for Assistive Devices. The two methods developed the bathing and the hair-washing assistive devices for Hemiplegia, after the product operation experiment; it verified the feasibility of the innovative assistive device design method.

The research uses Enumerative and Deductive Design Methods for Assistive Devices as a foundation, and established an assistive device design method – the Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices used by general product designers. The characteristics of the Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices is the professional division of labor of the therapist and the product designer, it is suitable for product designers with no experience in assistive device design. The most innovative of the three, the procedure for Enumerative Design Methods for Assistive Devices is the most simple, but the designer still needs professional physiological knowledge, it is more suitable for the use of designers with a lot of experience in assistive device design. The procedure for Deductive Design Methods for Assistive Devices is more systematic, it is suitable for the use of designers with human physiological background. The characteristics of the Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices is professional division of labor, the therapist after evaluating the user conditions, the therapist according to the steps proceeds to use graphical product type development to propose a concrete design concept, which is a general product design method.

In order to verify the effectiveness of Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices, there are two evaluated experiments in this study. On the one hand, through the evaluation by product designers with over five years of experience, the differences between the Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices and the general product design method, the Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices in terms of original, trend, and influential are better then the Morphological Charts Method; in terms of being well-made and orderly it is better then the Brainstorming. On the other hand, using the Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices to develop face-washing assistive devices for Hemiplegia, and according to the Usability Engineering performing a product testing experiment; the results of the experiment verify the effects of the product, and it also verifies the feasibility of the Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices. The value of the Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices is that it allows the exertion of the expertise of the therapists and the designers, providing the group a way to have an effective cooperation method. In the future, using Graphical Design Methods for Assistive Devices can establish a communication platform for the therapists and designers, and allow the assistive device designs for Hemiplegia to be recorded and extended.

1.Anjali, W. Credentialing in assistive technology. Technology and Disability, 9, 59-63. 1998.
2.Arboreliu, U.P., Wretenberg, P., & Lindberg, F. The effects of arm rests and eight seats on lower-limb joint load and muscular activity during sitting and rising. Ergonomics, 35, 1377-1391. 1992.
3.Bailey, R. W. Human performance engineering: using human factors/ergonomics to achieve computer system usability, Englewood Cliffs. 1989.
4.Bain, B. K., & Leger, D. Assistive technology: an interdisciplinary approach. New York: Churchill Livingstone. 1997.
5.Barnes, R. M. Motion and time study：design and measurement of work. John Wiley, New Work. 1980.
6.Boucher, T. O., & Gogus, O. A consistency test for rational weights in multi-criteria decision analysis with pairwise comparison. Fuzzy Sets and Sys, 129-138. 1997.
7.Brown, A. R., & Mulley, G. P. Do it yourself: home-made aids for disabled elderly people. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19(1), 35-37. 1997.
8.Brunnstrom, S. Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia. JAPTA 46, 357-375. 1960.
9.Butters, L. M., & Dixon, R. T. Ergonomics in consumer product evaluation: an evolving process. Applied Ergonomics 29 (1), 55-58. 1998.
10.Buurman, R. D. User-centered design of smart products. Ergonomics, 40, 1159–1169. 1997.
11.Carr, J. H. & Shepherd, R. B. Neurological rehabilitation: optimizing motor performance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman. 1998.
12.Chen, X. Human-Machine-Environment System. Beijing: People's Military Medical Press. 1988.
13.Cooke, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. Assistive technology: principles and practice, 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. 2002.
14.Cooke, P., Laczny, A., Brown, D. J., & Francik, J. The virtual courtroom: a view of justice. Project to prepare witnesses or victims with learning disabilities to give evidence. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 634-642. 2002.
15.Crosbie, J., Shepherd, R. B., & Squire, T. J. Postural and voluntary movement during reaching in sitting: the role of the lower limbs. J Hum Move Stud, 28, 103-126. 1995.
16.Daniels, L., & Worthingham, C. Muscle testing: techniques of manual examination. 4th ed. 1985.
17.Darses, F., & Wolff, M. How do designers represent to themselves the users’ needs? Applied Ergonomics, 37 (1), 757-764. 2006.
18.Davies, P. Gower’s principle of modern company law, 6th ed. 1997.
19.Department of Statistics, Ministry of the interior (2003). The analysis of life demand investigation for disabled person in Taiwan. Retrieved September 24, 2004, from http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/index.asp
20.Department of Statistics, Ministry of the interior (2006). The analysis of life demand investigation for disabled person. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/index.asp
21.Feng, J. H., Chang, J. Z., & Liu, Y. B. Human-Machine-Environment System method base on rehabilitation engineering. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation, 14(3). 1999.
22.Feyen, R., Liu, Y., Chaffin, D., Jimmerson, G., & Joseph, B. Computer-aided ergonomics: a case study of incorporating ergonomics analyses into workplace design. Applied Ergonomics, 31 (3-1), 291-300. 2000.
23.Franzen, H., Hunter, H., Landreth, C., Beling, J., Greeberg, M., Canfiekd, J., et al. Comparison of functional reach in fallers and nonfallers in an independent retirement community. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr, 15, 33-40. 1998.
24.Fulton Suri, J., & Marsh, M. Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer product design. Applied Ergonomics, 31 (2-3), 151–157. 2000.
25.Gibis, B., Artiles, J., Corabian, P., Meiesaar, K., Koppel, A., Jacobs, P., Serrano, P., Menon, D., et al. Application of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis in the development of a health technology assessment program. Health Policy, 58, 27-35. 2001.
26.Hsu, S. S., Shie, G. J., & Yang, W. Y. A research of hand movement classification. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 13 (5), 145-155. 1996.
27.Hu, M. Y., Cheng, Y. H., Shie, H. Y., & Suen, M. C. Human anatomy. Taipei: Yi Hsien Publishing co., Ltd. 1998.
28.Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. Exploring strategic management. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice Hall. 1989.
29.Jones, J. C. Design methods. WILEY Publisher. 1992.
30.Kelley, T., & Littman, J. The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from IDEO. America’s Leading Design Firm. 2001.
31.Keshner, E. A. Controlling stability of a complex movement system. Phys Ther, 70, 844-854. 1990.
32.Kontogiannis, T., & Embrey, D. A user-centred design approach for introducing computer-based process information systems. Applied Ergonomics, 28(2), 109-119. 1997.
33.Lannen, T., Brown, D., & Powell, H. Control of virtual environments for young people with learning difficulties. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(11-12), 578-586. 2002.
34.Liepert, J., Miltner, W.H., Bauder, H., Sommer, M., Dettmers, C., Taub, E., Weiller, C., et al. Motor cortex plasticity during constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients. Neuroscience Letters, 250(1), 5-8. 1998.
35.Long, S. Z. A research and develop of Human-Machine-Environment System. Beijing: Beijing Science & Technology Press. 1993.
36.McCormick, E. J., & Sanders, M. S. Human factors in engineering and design. Mcgraw -Hill, New York. 1982.
37.Mulley, G. P. The use of aids. In seymour SA & summerfield JA(eds) Horizon in rehabilitation medicine. No.3 London: Royal College of Physicians. 1991.
38.Munari, B., Tzeng,Y., & Hung, J. D. Da cosa nasce cosa. Taipei: Yuan Bo Publishing co., Ltd. 1989.
39.Myhy, U., Lennart, D., Wendt, L., Norrlin, S., & Radell, U. Five-year follow up of functional sitting position in children with cerebral palsy. Devel Med Child Neurol, 37, 587-596. 1995.
40.Nielsen, J. Usability engineering, Academic Press Inc., Las, Cruces, NM. 1993.
41.Poluson, D., & Richardson, S. USERfit－a framework for user centred design in assistive technology. Technology and Disability, 9, 163-171. 1998.
42.Rothstein, R., & Everson, J. M. Assistive technology for individuals with sensory impairment. In flippo, K.F., Inge, K.J. and Barchs, J.M. (Eds.), assistive technology: a resource for school, work and community. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brooks. 1995.
43.Russell, S. G. A Comparison of approaches to problem solving with elementary school students. Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 2505-2506. 1991.
44.Saaty, T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1980.
45.Saaty, T. L., & Forman, E. H. The Hierarchon a dictionary of hierarchies, Pittsburgh. 1996.
46.Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. Human factors in engineering and design, 6th ed., NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1987.
47.Smith, B. L. Interpersonal behaviors that damage the productivity of creative problem solving groups. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 171-187. 1993.
48.Smith-Jackson, T. L., Nussbaum, M. A., & Mooney, A. M. Accessible cell phone design: develop and application of a needs analysis framework. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25 (10), 549-560. 2003.
49.Sprigle, S., & Abdelhamied, A. The relationship between ability measures and assistive technology section, design and use. In Gray, D.B. and Quatrano, L.A. and Lieberman, M. L.(Eds.), Designing and using assistive technology: The human Perspective. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brooks. 1995.
50.Taub, E., Crago, J. E., Burgio, L. D., Groomes, T. E., Cook, E. W., DeLuca, S. C., et al. An operant approach to rehabilitation medicine: Overcoming learned nonuse by shaping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 281-293. 1994.
51.Mainstreamiing disability in the development agenda (207, November 23). The report of United Nations / Division for Social Policy and Development Retrieved November 30, 2007, http://www.un.org/esa/disability
52.Toivanen, T., Lahi, S., & Leino-Kilpi, H. Applicability of SWOT analysis for measuring quality of public oral health services as perceived by adult patients in Finland. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 27(5), 386-91. 1999.
53.Umphred, D. A. Neurological Rehabilitation. St. Louis (MO): Mosby. 2001.
54.Victor, H. F. & Margereta, N. Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system. USA: Incldes Lea & Febiger. 1980.
55.Weihrich, H. The TOWS Matrix – A tool for situational analysis, Long Range Planning, 15(2), 60. 1982.
56.Woo, J., Ho, S. C., Yuen, Y. K., Yu, L. M., & Lau, J. An estimation of the functional disability burden in elderly Chinese age 70 years and over. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18(12), 609-612. 1996.
57.Wu, F. G., Chang, E., Chen, R., & Chen, C. H. Assistive drawing device design for Cerebral Palsy children. Technology and Disability, 15: 239-246. 2003.
58.Zavbi, R., & Duhovnik, J. The analytic hierarchy process and functional appropriateness of components of technical systems. Journal of Engineering Design, 7, 313-329. 1996.
59.Zwicky, F. The morphological approach to discovery, invention, research and construction, new method of though and procedure: symposium on methodologies. Pasadena, May. Berlin: Springer. 1967.