The value of employment support services for adults on the autism spectrum and/or with intellectual disabilities: Employee, employer, and job coach perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Employment rates among individuals on the autism spectrum or with intellectual disabilities (ID) remain extremely low. Although job coaching services have contributed to successful employment for these individuals, few studies have examined the importance of such support, and even fewer have explored which services are valued most by stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: We examined the importance of employment support services through employee, employer, and job coach perspectives, and employee and employer satisfaction of job coach support. METHODS: A multiple-case study was designed with a community organization providing employment support to individuals on the autism spectrum or with ID, and their employers. Nine employee-employer-job coach triads evaluated the importance of specific services and rated their satisfaction with the job coach support. RESULTS: Services were rated as important, however, some discrepancies were observed between the groups in their ratings of services (e.g., soliciting regular feedback about the employee’s performance). Satisfaction was high for employees and employers; both groups indicated that they would recommend these services. CONCLUSIONS: Job coach support was highly valued by all groups, underscoring the need for these services to be widely available, and suggesting that this support may serve as a critical factor in improving employment outcomes among this population.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it