Introduction
Autism is a neurodiverse condition that affects how people communicate and interact with others. Many autistic children receive various forms of educational interventions to help them develop social skills and other abilities. However, do these interventions reflect the perspectives and preferences of autistic people themselves? A recent study aimed to answer this question by surveying autistic adults, caregivers, and practitioners on the social acceptability of different goals, learning contexts, and procedures for young autistic children.
What Did They Do?
The researchers conducted an online survey that included questions about:
- The acceptability of 12 common goals for autistic children, such as making eye contact, expressing emotions, and following routines.
- The acceptability of 10 different learning contexts for autistic children, such as home, school, or community settings.
- The acceptability of 18 different procedures for autistic children, such as prompting, reinforcement, or extinction.
- The importance of various shareholders in educational decision-making, such as the child, the family, or the teacher.
The survey was completed by 660 participants, of whom 226 identified as autistic, 235 as caregivers, and 199 as practitioners. The participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranked their top three choices for each category, and provided open-ended comments.
What Did They Find?
The main findings of the study were:
- Autistic adults rated goals that promoted self-determination, such as choosing activities or expressing preferences, as highly acceptable, while goals that promoted masking, such as suppressing stimming or fitting in with peers, as lowly acceptable. Caregivers and practitioners generally agreed with these ratings, but some discrepancies were found. For example, caregivers rated following routines as more important than autistic adults did, while practitioners rated making eye contact as more important than autistic adults did.
- Autistic adults rated learning contexts that were individualized, flexible, and supportive as highly acceptable, while learning contexts that were rigid, restrictive, or stressful as lowly acceptable. Caregivers and practitioners also agreed with these ratings, but some differences were found. For example, caregivers rated home-based settings as more acceptable than autistic adults did, while practitioners rated school-based settings as more acceptable than autistic adults did.
- Autistic adults rated procedures that were antecedent-based, such as providing choices or visual supports, as highly acceptable, while procedures that were consequence-based, such as using punishment or extinction, as lowly acceptable. Caregivers and practitioners also agreed with these ratings, but some variations were found. For example, caregivers rated reinforcement as more acceptable than autistic adults did, while practitioners rated prompting as more acceptable than autistic adults did.
- Autistic adults rated the child as the most important shareholder in educational decision-making, followed by the family and the teacher. Caregivers and practitioners also rated the child as the most important shareholder, but they rated the teacher higher than the family.
What Does It Mean?
The study suggests that autistic adults have clear and consistent preferences for the types of goals, learning contexts, and procedures that are used with young autistic children. These preferences are largely aligned with the principles of neurodiversity, self-determination, and human rights. The study also suggests that there are some gaps and mismatches between the perspectives of autistic adults and those of caregivers and practitioners, which may affect the quality and outcomes of educational interventions. The study recommends that practitioners respect autistic culture and characteristics in selecting goals, consider social, emotional, and psychological needs in selecting procedures, and individualize goals, learning contexts, and procedures based on the child’s perspectives and unique needs.
The study is one of the first to directly assess autistic perspectives on the social acceptability of early childhood practices for autistic children. It provides valuable insights and guidance for improving the relevance and effectiveness of educational interventions for autistic children. It also highlights the need for more research and collaboration with autistic people in the field of autism education.
Faq
What is social acceptability and why is it important for autism education?
Social acceptability is the degree to which an intervention is perceived as appropriate, reasonable, and acceptable by the people who are involved in or affected by it. Social acceptability is important for autism education because it can influence the implementation, effectiveness, and outcomes of interventions. For example, if an intervention is not acceptable to the child, the family, or the teacher, they may resist, reject, or discontinue it, which can reduce its benefits and cause negative consequences.
What are some examples of goals that promote self-determination and goals that promote masking?
Goals that promote self-determination are those that aim to enhance the autonomy, agency, and choice of the child, such as choosing activities, expressing preferences, or making decisions. Goals that promote masking are those that aim to suppress or modify the natural behaviors, expressions, or interests of the child, such as reducing stimming, making eye contact, or fitting in with peers.
What are some examples of antecedent-based and consequence-based procedures?
Antecedent-based procedures are those that modify the environment or the situation before the behavior occurs, such as providing choices, visual supports, or cues. Consequence-based procedures are those that modify the outcome or the feedback after the behavior occurs, such as using reinforcement, punishment, or extinction.
What are some of the benefits and challenges of involving the child in educational decision-making?
Some of the benefits of involving the child in educational decision-making are:
- It respects the rights and dignity of the child as a person and a stakeholder.
- It increases the motivation, engagement, and satisfaction of the child with the intervention.
- It improves the fit, relevance, and effectiveness of the intervention for the child.
- It fosters the development of self-advocacy, self-awareness, and self-regulation skills for the child.
Some of the challenges of involving the child in educational decision-making are:
- It may require additional time, effort, and resources to elicit and incorporate the child’s input.
- It may require additional training, skills, and tools to communicate and collaborate with the child.
- It may require additional support, guidance, and mediation from other shareholders, such as the family or the teacher.
- It may require additional flexibility, openness, and compromise from other shareholders, such as the family or the teacher.
How can practitioners respect autistic culture and characteristics in selecting goals?
Practitioners can respect autistic culture and characteristics in selecting goals by:
- Recognizing and valuing the diversity and uniqueness of autistic people.
- Consulting and collaborating with autistic people and their representatives, such as self-advocacy groups or organizations.
- Avoiding or minimizing goals that are based on normative or neurotypical standards or expectations, such as social conformity or compliance.
- Prioritizing or emphasizing goals that are based on the child’s interests, strengths, or aspirations, such as personal growth or well-being.
How can practitioners consider social, emotional, and psychological needs in selecting procedures?
Practitioners can consider social, emotional, and psychological needs in selecting procedures by:
- Assessing and monitoring the impact of the procedures on the child’s mental health and quality of life.
- Avoiding or minimizing procedures that are coercive, aversive, or harmful, such as punishment or extinction.
- Prioritizing or emphasizing procedures that are supportive, positive, or respectful, such as reinforcement or antecedents.
- Adapting or modifying the procedures according to the child’s preferences, feedback, or consent.
How can practitioners individualize goals, learning contexts, and procedures based on the child’s perspectives and unique needs?
Practitioners can individualize goals, learning contexts, and procedures based on the child’s perspectives and unique needs by:
- Using multiple sources and methods of data collection, such as observation, interview, or questionnaire, to understand the child’s characteristics, abilities, and challenges.
- Using multiple modes and strategies of communication, such as verbal, nonverbal, or visual, to elicit and incorporate the child’s input, opinions, and choices.
- Using multiple formats and modalities of intervention, such as direct, indirect, or technology-based, to deliver and evaluate the intervention.
- Using multiple criteria and indicators of success, such as functional, academic, or social, to measure and celebrate the progress and outcomes of the intervention.
Source:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-024-06242-4