Ready2Work: The Development and Evaluation of a User-Informed Online Employment Website for Autistic Job Seekers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Securing meaningful employment is a priority for many autistic people. In this innovative knowledge translation study, we developed and piloted an online employment platform about the needs of autistic job seekers using feedback from autistic job seekers, caregivers, and employment professionals throughout the process. Development of the online platform unfolded iteratively and based on the feedback provided. In Phase I, we conducted focus groups with 29 participants (7 autistic job seekers, 6 parents, and 16 employment professionals) about employment-related barriers (e.g., concerns with traditional hiring practices). They suggested how the content and design of an online platform could ultimately support employment success for autistic job seekers. The preliminary user-informed website functioned as a resource repository and an active community-maintained section for website members to post and answer employment-related questions, job postings, and related events. In Phase II, we surveyed nine participants (eight autistic job seekers and one caregiver of an autistic job seeker) about their website experiences. We incorporated their feedback into the redesigned website. In Phase III, we asked 14 participants (7 autistic job seekers and 7 supporters of autistic job seekers) to test the redeveloped website. We articulate how the feedback from autistic job seekers, caregivers, and employment professionals was used to develop an online platform. We describe their input and how it was embedded throughout the study, an approach future researchers should prioritize when initiating projects to serve a particular community’s needs. Community Brief Why was this program developed? We developed an online employment platform because many autistic people are looking for work and may go online to find information and resources. It is important that they find resources and tools that meet their needs and the needs of those supporting them. What does this program do? This online platform curates employment information and provides the opportunity for autistic people and other community members to share information about employment. How did the researchers evaluate the new program? We ran focus groups with autistic self-advocates, mothers, and employment professionals about autistic job seekers’ employment needs. We used their recommendations to build an online platform. In Phase II, eight autistic self-advocates and one caregiver of an autistic job seeker, and in Phase III, seven autistic self-advocates and seven supporters of autistic job seekers tested the website and provided feedback about their experiences. We used their input to redesign the website. Given the role employer attitudes and caregiver support play in helping autistic people find work, we included different people’s opinions when developing and piloting the platform. What were the early findings? Participants recommended how to tailor a website to meet autistic people’s needs and the types of content they wanted to see. Participants provided suggestions for how to design a website that was accessible (e.g., including a mix of images, text, and video), interactive (e.g., a community-driven section with community-generated content; opportunities to interact with others), and organized according to different member priorities (e.g., employers and those supporting autistic people to find work). We used this information to develop an employment website. We showed the website twice to different groups of autistic people and their allies and received feedback. We kept the things people liked and tried to revise the website for identified areas of improvement. What were the potential weaknesses in this project? We collected less information about our focus group research participants (e.g., age, work experience) than we would have liked. Another potential area for improvement in our study was the small number of research participants who provided feedback on the website. If more people had participated, additional feedback could have helped us make different decisions about the website. We did not ask employers what they thought of our website, which may be something other researchers do in the future. Some autistic people may not like that other voices (e.g., caregivers) were included in developing this resource. What are the next steps? We are working toward partnering with a community agency to oversee the online platform’s management and help it grow by adding more content. There will be continued data collection about how the platform is used to help understand who uses it and what they need for job-seeking. Participants actively seeking employment described employment-related barriers and provided recommendations for future avenues of development. How will this work help autistic adults now or in the future? Overall, this project adds to the research emphasizing the importance of including autistic people and different supporters and advocates (e.g., family, friends, and professionals) in developing products and resources for autistic people. These results may help autistic adults in other locations and future studies by adding to our understanding of user-informed resources to support autistic people interested in employment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".