Workplace accommodations for adults with autism spectrum disorder: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To identify workplace accommodations that can contribute to obtaining or maintaining employment for adults with autism spectrum disorder in the peer- reviewed literature.Method: A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles published between January 1987 and March 2018 was performed. Three independent reviewers searched seven databases. Inclusion criteria for selected studies included adult with autism participants (≥18 years), intervention studies that described support for securing or maintaining employment/skills training, and education for employee/employers to support adults with autism. Results were organized based on environmental domains within the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: (1) natural environment; (2) products and technology; (3) support and relationships; (4) attitudes; (5) services, systems, and policies.Results: The initial search identified 829 articles, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the selected studies described accommodations under more than one environmental domain. Most studies categorized in the Support and Relationships domain were also categorized under another domain.Conclusion: The majority of studies (21) were categorized as providing interventions related to employment support and relationships. One of the most common examples of support involved job coaching using different strategies. Technology is another area that is emerging and requires further exploration.Implications for RehabilitationSuccessful workplace strategies for individuals with autism spectrum disorder were: minimizing distractions, reducing noise, and predictable job duties.Environmental considerations related to using technology could play an important role in improving performance and work experience.Employers and co-workers support is an important aspect that contributes to a positive work environment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".