‘It's Really Who They Are and What They Want’: Staff Perspectives on Supporting Autonomy for Autistic Adults With Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autonomy is a crucial component of self-determination, yet it is limited for Autistic individuals, especially those with co-occurring intellectual disabilities. We explored how professionals supported Autistic people with intellectual disabilities' autonomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative study used a community-based participatory approach. Nine staff who worked within a post-secondary transition programme to support Autistic young adults with intellectual disabilities were interviewed. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The quality and depth of relationships between staff and Autistic adults with intellectual disabilities, and a safe, supportive environment, were critical to supporting autonomy. Staff also identified several skill areas that would benefit program participants to exert their autonomy, including self-advocacy, interoceptive awareness, working with others, and understanding choices. CONCLUSIONS: This crucial information for supporting autonomy for Autistic adults with intellectual disabilities provides a basis for enacting programme change to promote self-determination. Recommendations for staff and programme development are provided.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".