Background People with disabilities often depend on assistive devices to enable activities of daily living as well as to compete in sport. Technological developments in sport can be controversial. Objectives To review, identify and describe current technological developments in assistive devices used in the summer Paralympic Games; and to prepare for the London 2012 Games, the future challenges and the role of technology are debated. Methods A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature and personal observations of technological developments at the Athens (2004) and Beijing (2008) Paralympic Games was conducted. Results Standard assistive devices can inhibit the Paralympians’ abilities to perform the strenuous activities of their sports. Although many Paralympic sports only require technology similar to their Olympic counterparts, several unique technological modifications have been made in prosthetic and wheelchair devices. Technology is essential for the Paralympic athlete, and the potential technological advantage for a Paralympian, when competing against an Olympian, is unclear. Conclusion Technology must match the individual requirements of the athlete with the sport in order for Paralympians to safely maximise their performance. Within the ‘performance enhancement or essential for performance?’ debate, any potential increase in mechanical performance from an assistive device must be considered holistically with the compensatory consequences the disability creates. To avoid potential technology controversies at the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games, the role of technology in sport must be clarified.

The 30-item Disabilities Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was introduced to facilitate assessment of upper limb functional limitations. To improve practicality and eliminate item redundancy a modified instrument was needed. The 11-item QuickDASH was developed to fulfil these requirements and translated into several languages. However, prospective investigations of psychometric and practical characteristics are limited. No published study investigated readability or used concurrent validation with a standardized upper limb criterion measure. The validity of the QuickDASH has been questioned as the results for factor structure are conflicting, and the English-language version has not yet had factor structure reported. A shortened 9-item version, the QuickDASH-9, that addresses these issues is proposed.

Analysis of variability and progression in performance of top athletes between competitions provides information about performance targets that is useful for athletes, practitioners, and researchers. In this study, 724 official finals times were analysed for 120 male and 122 female Paralympic swimmers in the 100-m freestyle event at 15 national and international competitions between 2004 and 2006. Separate analyses were performed for males and females in each of four Paralympic subgroups: S2–S4, S5–S7, S8–S10 (most through least physically impaired), and S11–S13 (most through least visually impaired). Mixed modelling of log-transformed times, with adjustment for mean competition times, was used to estimate variability and progression. Within-swimmer race-to-race variability, expressed as a coefficient of variation, ranged from 1.2% (male S5–S7) to 3.7% (male S2–S4). Swimming performance progressed by approximately 0.5% per year for males and females. Typical variation in mean performance time between competitions was ∼1% after adjustment for the ability of the athletes in each competition, and the Paralympic Games was the fastest competition. Thus, taking into account variability, progression, and level of competition, Paralympic swimmers who want to increase substantially their medal prospects should aim for an annual improvement of at least 1–2%.

The kinematics of male wheelchair rugby players (n = 8) during the final match of the 2008 Demolition Derby were assessed using two cameras (10 Hz) and a tracking method based on image-processing techniques. The players' on-court trajectory, total and accumulated distances covered, distances covered during working and stopped game clock, and average velocity were calculated. The players covered 2294.7 ± 391.5 m in the first half and 2245.4 ± 431.5 m in the second half. The average velocity was 14.5% greater in the first (1.22 ± 0.21 m · s⁻¹) than in the second half (1.05 ± 0.20 m · s⁻¹). The reduction in velocity was most marked in players with less functional capacity. The working game clock represented 48% of total game time (32 of 66.8 minutes) and the distance covered by all players during working game clock was 60% of the overall distance covered during the whole game (36,323 m). The results provide new information regarding the dynamics of a wheelchair rugby match and should aid coaches in planning effective training and coaching strategies.