An Examination of Community Participation in Adults Diagnosed with ASD

Background:  Research suggests participation in the community greatly decrease as an individual with ASD transitions into adulthood. This may be, in part, due the many barriers adults with ASD face. These barriers include lack of resources, limited opportunity, and limited self-determination or self-efficacy skills. Self-determination, in particular, is important when considering an individual’s community integration as it can inform treatment planning and can provide more meaningful opportunities for community participation. Providing the individual with opportunities to determine for themselves important activities may increase self-efficacy and meaningful community participation for adults with ASD.

Objectives:  The current study examined differences in community participation in adults diagnosed with an ASD and neurotypical (NT) individuals. The study also obtained a subjective measure of the importance of the activities within the community (i.e., grocery shopping, attending a social gathering). Implications of independent community engagement will be explored. Additionally, the paper presentation will discuss the role and importance of self-determination in community participation for treatment planning.

Methods: Sixty-one adults, recruited from larger research projects, completed the Temple University Community Participation (TUCP) measure. Of the sixty-one individuals, 33 adults were diagnosed with an ASD. Symptoms of an ASD were confirmed by an informant report using the Social Responsiveness Scale- Second Edition (SRS-2; M = 66.50, SD = 10.32). Individuals in the study completed the TUCP measure, a measure of community engagement across various domains, to assess frequency of community participation as well as a subjective measure of importance of these activities to the individual.

Results:  An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare self-reported measures of community participation. Individuals with ASD reported significantly fewer community participation days (M = 36.73, SD = 31.73) than NT individuals (M = 89.18, SD = 29.43) t(59) = -.6.65, p = 0.000. Significant differences were also observed in the number of activities that individuals with ASD (M = 6.48, SD = 4.09) engaged in compared to NT individuals (M = 12.50, SD = 3.04), t(59) = -.6.42, p = 0.000. When asked to rate the importance of activities, significant differences were also observed with individuals with ASD reporting fewer important activities (M = 11.97, SD = 5.81) than NT individuals (M = 15.32, SD = 3.50) t(59) = -.2.67, p = 0.01.

Conclusions: Results of the analyses supported the hypotheses that individuals with ASD report less independent engagement in the community and identified fewer important activities when compared to individuals without ASD. The results suggest a continued need to support adults in independent community engagement for a successful transition as well as integration of the individual’s self-identified important and meaningful activities when encouraging community inclusion. Results of the current study raise important questions regarding implicit biases that caregivers and treatment providers may have regarding the amount and type of participation that is sufficient for individuals with ASD. In addition, the data suggests that there may also be other factors impeding the individual’s ability to participate in the community, including low self-efficacy, social avoidance, or limited opportunities or access to the community.