Promoting Self-Determination in Young Adults with Autism: A Multicenter, Mixed Methods Study.
Clara Andrés-Gárriz, Núria Farriols Hernando, Antonia Maria Gómez Hinojosa and 3 others
PMID 39954217WHAT IT FOUND
The program did not outperform waiting list on self-determination.
Participants reported better goal planning and action, and caregivers reported overall self-determination rose in the intervention group, but between-group differences were absent.
Key findings
01The intervention did not differ from the waiting-list group on self-determination outcomes or dimensions.
02Within the intervention group, participants reported improved agentic action (Z = -2.516, p = .010, r = .60), families reported improved agentic action (Z = -2.451, p = .014, r = .71), and families reported improved overall self-determination (Z = -2.049, p = .040, r = .59).
03All participants would recommend the program, and acceptability ratings ranged from 7.94 to 9.10 on 10-point scales.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The between-group comparison used caregiver proxy reports, and only 9 of 17 waiting-list caregivers completed follow-up measures. Participants came from two convenience-sampled services, and the study was online because of COVID-19 restrictions, so results may not apply to other settings. The self-determination measures were not ideal for this sample: SDI:SR targets ages 13 to 22 and was not studied in autism, while AUTODDIS was developed for people with intellectual disability. Participants and facilitators were not blinded, and fidelity was self-reported by facilitators. Some participants had co-occurring conditions such as PTSD or BPD, and group cohesion problems occurred, which may have affected delivery.
Declared interests
The supplied text names Universitat Ramon Llull as funder and reports that the authors created the program.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read within-group agentic action improvements as proof the program works. The intervention did not differ from waiting list, and only 9 of 17 waiting-list caregivers completed follow-up measures.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →