"Simultaneously Vague and Oddly Specific": Understanding Autistic People's Experiences of Decision Making and Research Questionnaires.

Rachael Stacey, Eilidh Cage
{"title":"\"Simultaneously Vague and Oddly Specific\": Understanding Autistic People's Experiences of Decision Making and Research Questionnaires.","authors":"Rachael Stacey, Eilidh Cage","doi":"10.1089/aut.2022.0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Autism researchers often use questionnaires to gather the views and experiences of autistic people. However, questionnaires may not always be designed in accessible ways. In addition, answering questions within a questionnaire involves decision making, which some autistic people have reported finding difficult. Therefore, this exploratory study aimed to enhance our understanding of autistic people's experiences of decision making, and to analyze their feedback on questionnaire measures to further understand decision making within the research context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred seventeen participants completed an online questionnaire. In the questionnaire, they answered an open question about what affected their ability to make decisions. They then completed four questionnaire measures and after each one provided feedback. We used content analysis to categorize participants' qualitative answers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants discussed how their internal state, other people, the quality and quantity of information, pressure on choosing a response, external distractions, and lack of time all affected their decision making. Feedback on the questionnaires highlighted how questions needed context, often questions themselves were unclear and difficult to understand, that there were issues with Likert scales, and how measures could have questionable validity for autistic people.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Autism researchers need to consider how they can make their research as accessible as possible for autistic people. Our study highlights how decision making is not a straight-forward process, and researchers have a role in ensuring they give their participants clear and contextualized information. Involving autistic people in the design of research is a potential way of improving the quality of research.</p>","PeriodicalId":72338,"journal":{"name":"Autism in adulthood : challenges and management","volume":"5 3","pages":"263-274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10468547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Autism in adulthood : challenges and management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2022.0039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Autism researchers often use questionnaires to gather the views and experiences of autistic people. However, questionnaires may not always be designed in accessible ways. In addition, answering questions within a questionnaire involves decision making, which some autistic people have reported finding difficult. Therefore, this exploratory study aimed to enhance our understanding of autistic people's experiences of decision making, and to analyze their feedback on questionnaire measures to further understand decision making within the research context.

Methods: One hundred seventeen participants completed an online questionnaire. In the questionnaire, they answered an open question about what affected their ability to make decisions. They then completed four questionnaire measures and after each one provided feedback. We used content analysis to categorize participants' qualitative answers.

Results: Participants discussed how their internal state, other people, the quality and quantity of information, pressure on choosing a response, external distractions, and lack of time all affected their decision making. Feedback on the questionnaires highlighted how questions needed context, often questions themselves were unclear and difficult to understand, that there were issues with Likert scales, and how measures could have questionable validity for autistic people.

Conclusions: Autism researchers need to consider how they can make their research as accessible as possible for autistic people. Our study highlights how decision making is not a straight-forward process, and researchers have a role in ensuring they give their participants clear and contextualized information. Involving autistic people in the design of research is a potential way of improving the quality of research.

"既含糊不清又奇特具体":了解自闭症患者对决策和研究问卷的体验。
背景:自闭症研究人员经常使用调查问卷来收集自闭症患者的观点和经历。然而,问卷的设计并不总是无障碍的。此外,回答问卷中的问题涉及到决策制定,而一些自闭症患者认为这很困难。因此,这项探索性研究旨在加强我们对自闭症患者决策经验的了解,并分析他们对问卷调查的反馈,从而进一步了解研究背景下的决策制定:177 名参与者填写了一份在线问卷。在问卷中,他们回答了一个开放性问题,即是什么影响了他们的决策能力。然后,他们完成了四项问卷调查,并在每项调查后提供了反馈意见。我们使用内容分析法对参与者的定性答案进行了分类:结果:参与者讨论了他们的内心状态、其他人、信息的质量和数量、选择答案的压力、外部干扰和时间不足都是如何影响他们做出决定的。对问卷的反馈意见强调了问题如何需要上下文,问题本身往往不清楚且难以理解,李克特量表存在问题,以及测量方法对自闭症患者的有效性如何:自闭症研究人员需要考虑如何让自闭症患者尽可能容易接受他们的研究。我们的研究强调了决策过程并非一蹴而就,研究人员有责任确保向参与者提供清晰且符合实际情况的信息。让自闭症患者参与研究设计是提高研究质量的潜在途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信