Community views of neurodiversity, models of disability and autism intervention: Mixed methods reveal shared goals and key tensions.

The sample was predominantly White, well-educated, and mostly from wealthy Anglophone countries, so it may not represent autism communities elsewhere. The autistic sample included few people with higher support needs: only seven autistic people with intellectual disabilities and five nonspeaking autistic people. Recruitment used social media and autism organizations, and neurodiversity proponents appeared more likely to participate, so the results may not reflect the whole autism community. The study did not use participatory research with non-academic community members, even though all primary qualitative coders were autistic. The study describes views and definitions, not treatment outcomes, so it cannot tell therapists which intervention goals improve function.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. Funding was provided by the UC Davis MIND Institute. P.D.'s time was partially supported by an Autism Speaks / Royal Arch Masons CAPD Fellowship. L.H.H.'s time was partially supported by a UC Davis Dean Keith Simonton research award.

Do not read these findings as evidence that neurodiversity-affirming interventions improve outcomes. The study reports community views on goals, not treatment effects, and it did not show that any specific intervention helped participants.