Using off-the-shelf solutions as assistive technology to support the self-management of academic tasks for autistic university students

Figures & data

Table 1. Outline of study phases. Actual times in minutes for phases 1–4 were tailored to the individual based on their baseline behaviors as well as the study time goal set.

Intervention phase	Time spent studying	Participant 1	Participant 2	Criteria for phase completion
Baseline	Time spent studying pre-intervention was measured.	Mean time studying: 0 mins	Mean time studying: 21.3 mins	Continued until - a stable pattern emerged - at least one week had passed - the participant expressed readiness for change
Phase 1 Occurring after SMART goal setting and reinforcement contingency put in place.	Target study range were tailored for each participant and set slightly above average baseline study times.	Target time per session: 25–60 mins Target number of sessions per week: 3	Target time per session: 30-60mins Target number of sessions per week: 3	Continued until - a stable pattern emerged over at least three consecutive sessions - the participant expressed readiness for change
Phase 2 Commenced following Phase 1	New target study time range was set 12–16% above Phase 1 levels.	Target time per session: 33–60 mins Target number of sessions per week: 4	Target time per session: 30–60 mins Target number of sessions per week: 4	Measured until - a stable pattern emerged over at least three consecutive sessions - the participant expressed readiness for change
Phase 3 Commenced following Phase 2	New target study time range was set 12–16% above Phase 2 levels.	Target time per session: 38–60 mins Target number of sessions per week: 6	Target time per session: 35–60 mins Target number of sessions per week: 4	Measured until - a stable pattern emerged over at least three consecutive sessions - the participant expressed readiness for change
Phase 4 Commenced following Phase 3	New target study time range was set 12–16% above Phase 3 levels.	Target time per session: 45–70 Target number of sessions per week: 5	Target time per session: 45–60 mins Target number of sessions per week: 3	Measured until - a stable pattern emerged over at least three consecutive sessions
Reversal Commenced following Phase 4 to demonstrate experimental control.	New target study time rage approximated baseline.	N/A	Target time per session: 25-40 mins Target number of sessions per week: 3	Measured until - a stable pattern emerged over at least 3 consecutive sessions

Table 2. Interview responses for each participant. Questions 1–7 involved a rating of agreement from 1 to 5 with an option to make a comment. Questions 8 and 9 were open-ended questions.

Question	Participant 1	Participant 2
	Rating = 3	Rating = 4
Q.1 The monetary vouchers I earned for meeting my goals were an important feature of this project. Please rate your agreement with this statement (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =  strongly agree)	The money wasn’t a motivating factor for getting involved in the project; although it was nice. Two factors for getting involved: one was the ability to further research in this areas with a view that maybe my involvement could help others; second, to gain some help with my studies.	There’s probably no better incentive than money in any situation.
	Rating = 5	Rating = 4
Q. 2 How important would you say it was to set SMART goals when attempting to achieve your academic goals? (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely important)	No comment	No comment
	Rating = 4	Rating = 4
Q. 3 How important to your success was it for you to record your performance? (1  = not at all important, 5 =  extremely important)	Recording my performance and “knowing” that I did my work was important - it created accountability. I could have cheated but I didn’t, it was important to do what I said I would do.	Recording was useful as it kept you accountable
	Rating = 4	Rating = 1
Q.4 How important to your success was it to receive feedback graphs? (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely important)	I liked seeing my performance in graphical form	I didn’t look at the graphs. I know when I was meeting my daily minimum regardless of the graphs.
	Rating = 5	Rating = 5
Q.5 How would you rate the importance of having someone independent to monitor your performance and help you to set goals? (1 = not at all important, 5 =  extremely important)	Is there an option of 6? This was really important.	I’m confident I could set the goals myself. Seeing them through would require an independent monitor however.
	Rating = 5	Rating = 4
Q.6 I found the smartwatch to be very discreet when prompting me to do the things I had planned. (1 =  not at all discrete, 5 =  extremely discrete)	No comment	No comment
	Rating = 5	Rating = 4
Q.7 How would you rate the smartwatch? (1 = poor, 5 =  very good)	No comment	It’s a useful watch. Setting up prompts/reminders is easy and convenient.
Q. 8 What would you say was the most important component of this intervention?	The prompts were definitely the most important component!	Setting goals and having someone to report to with progress. Goal setting is easy. Following up on those goals is not. It’s important to have someone to work with and make sure things are being done.
Q. 9 If you were applying this intervention on your own do you believe it would have been as successful?	A sense of accountability was important, so I don’t believe so.	I’d feel less confident about it. I set goals for myself all the time, and put aside time to do achieve those. It’s never been successful prior to this project.

Figure 1. Session by session data for P1 indicating number of minutes of independent study duration. Baseline (BSL) and study phases are indicated by the vertical lines and upper (U) and lower (L) bounds of the range criterion are indicated by the broken horizontal lines. Baseline began in mid-February with the intervention running until its conclusion in mid-April.

Figure 2. Session by session data for P2 indicating number of minutes of independent study duration. Baseline (BSL) and study phases are indicated by the vertical lines and upper (U) and lower (L) bounds of the range criterion are indicated by the broken horizontal lines. Baseline began in mid-February with the intervention running until its conclusion in mid-April.

Figure 3. Generalisation data for P1 shows number of minutes of independent study duration across three differing modules. Upper and lower bounds of the range criterion are indicated by broken horizontal lines. Generalisation coincided and complemented revision time; mid-April to mid-May.

Figure 4. Generalisation data for P2 shows number of minutes of independent study duration across three differing modules. Upper and lower bounds for range criterion are indicated by the broken horizontal lines. Generalisation coincided and complemented revision time; mid-April to mid-May.

Figure 5. Summarised participant agreement ratings to social validity items (x-axis) administered pre- and post- intervention. Ratings (y-axis) were: 1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - neutral, 4 - agree, 5 - strongly agree.