Direct Support Professionals’ Perspectives on Using Technology to Help Support Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Documentation is a critical responsibility for direct support professionals (DSPs) who work with adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); however, it contributes significantly to their workload. Targeted efforts must be made to mitigate the burden of necessary data collection and documentation, which contributes to high DSP turnover rates and poor job satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: This mixed methods study aimed to explore how technology could assist DSPs who work with adults with ASD and prioritize aspects of technology that would be most useful for future development efforts. METHODS: In the first study, 15 DSPs who worked with adults with ASD participated in 1 of the 3 online focus groups. The topics included daily tasks, factors that would influence the adoption of technology, and how DSPs would like to interact with technologies to provide information about their clients. Responses were thematically analyzed across focus groups and ranked by salience. In the second study, 153 DSPs across the United States rated the usefulness of technology features and data entry methods and provided qualitative responses on their concerns regarding the use of technology for data collection and documentation. Quantitative responses were ranked based on their usefulness across participants, and rank-order correlations were calculated between different work settings and age groups. The qualitative responses were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: In study 1, participants described difficulties with paper-and-pencil data collection, noted benefits and concerns about using technology instead, identified benefits and concerns about particular technology features, and specified work-environment factors that impact data collection. In study 2, participants rated multiple features of technology as useful, with the highest usefulness percentages endorsed for task views (ie, by shift, client, and DSP), logging completed tasks, and setting reminders for specific tasks. Participants also rated most data entry methods (eg, typing on a phone or tablet, typing on a keyboard, and choosing from options on a touch screen) as useful. Rank-order correlations indicated that the usefulness of technology features and data entry methods differed across work settings and age groups. Across both studies, DSPs cited some concerns with technology, such as confidentiality, reliability and accuracy, complexity and efficiency, and data loss from technology failure. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the challenges faced by DSPs who work with adults with ASD, and their thoughts about using technology to meet those challenges, represents an essential first step toward developing technology solutions that can increase DSPs' effectiveness and job satisfaction. The survey results indicate that technology innovations should incorporate multiple features to account for different needs across DSPs, settings, and age groups. Future research should explore barriers to adopting data collection and documentation tools and elicit input from agency directors, families, and others interested in reviewing data about adults with ASD.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".