Design: Descriptive, exploratory study by using survey design.

Methods: Sixty neurological rehabilitation centres were selected from the total number (n = 259) of centres, identified through a search of official databases from national bodies and associations, with 10 in each country. Each centre was approached to identify a professional to be contacted. Custom-designed questionnaires with multiple-choice and open-ended questions were sent out by e-mail and regular mail to each of these professionals.

Results: Thirty questionnaires were returned, of which 29 could be analysed. Ten participants reported using a theoretical framework to select AT. Four models, three frames of reference, and one international classification were mentioned. Fifteen professionals replied to the question on which instruments they use by mentioning one or more methods; 14 participants stated that they used no specific instruments or left the question open. The instruments mentioned show a broad variety, the majority of the published ones not being AT-specific. Professionals often use self-made tools to fill this gap.

Conclusion: There is a lack of evidence-based AT-specific methods for the selection process. The development of comprehensive, easy to use tools for the selection of AT is recommended.