Evaluation of employment-support services for adults with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The employment rate among persons with autism spectrum disorder has been noted as unacceptably low. Employment-support services are increasingly linked to the potential for favorable job outcomes, yet little is known about employment-support practices and the outcome of these interventions. This mixed-methods study examined employment-support resources for persons with autism spectrum disorder. An online survey was completed by 137 senior clinicians or administrators in employment-support programs in Canada. Additionally, 122 follow-up interviews were conducted with individuals with autism spectrum disorder (n = 71) and their parents/caregivers (n = 51). Findings indicate that the quality and beneficial impact of employment-support services for adults with autism spectrum disorder may be more favorably perceived by employment-support personnel than by individuals with autism spectrum disorder and their families. Furthermore, employment-support personnel were more disparaging about autism spectrum disorder vocational support capacity within their community, compared to their own programs. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder and their families seek services that support both accessing and retaining employment. Capacity-building in employment support for youth and adults with autism spectrum disorder is recommended, based on a reported insufficiency of, and a lack of evidence guiding, existing services. Program recommendations and an emerging model for integrated vocational support in autism spectrum disorder are offered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".