App for Strengthening Services In Specialized Therapeutic Support (ASSISTS)
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Pennsylvania
-
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 19104
- University of Pennsylvania
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Participants must be working as a paraprofessionals or behavioral health technicians
- Currently providing individual support to children with autism
- Currently providing services in Philadelphia preschools, schools, day cares, or homes.
Exclusion Criteria:
- n/a
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Enhanced Electronic Platform
A basic electronic platform for data collection that contains additional features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease of data collection.
|
Behavioral economics features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease of data collection on the electronic platform.
Electronic platform to collect data
|
|
Active Comparator: Electronic Platform Not Enhanced
A basic electronic platform for data collection.
|
Electronic platform to collect data
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
The Difference in Data Collection Consistency Between Groups Across Three Weeks
Time Frame: Three-week trial period
|
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period.
These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
|
Three-week trial period
|
|
The Difference in Data Collection Completion Between Groups Across Three Weeks
Time Frame: Three-week trial period
|
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period.
These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
|
Three-week trial period
|
|
The Difference in Data Collection Timeliness Between Groups Across Three Weeks
Time Frame: Three-week trial period
|
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period.
These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
|
Three-week trial period
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Intentions for Implementors
Time Frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including intentions, using social psychology methods (Armitage & Connor, 2001).
The intentions measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.
Strongly agree meant stronger intentions to take data.
Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks).
Data reported are changes over time.
|
Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
|
System Usability Scale
Time Frame: Three-week trial period
|
We used the System Usability Scale (SUS; Brooke, 1996) to measure aides' reactions to various statements regarding the app's usability with 10 items that use a 5-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
The SUS has high internal consistent reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .91)
and demonstrated sensitivity to change (Lewis, 2018).
We adapted the original questionnaire to replace "system" with "app" across all items.
The SUS is calculated as a proportion score out of 100, with higher scores indicating higher usability (≥85 = Excellent; ≥71 = Good; ≥51 = Okay (Bangor et al.).
|
Three-week trial period
|
|
Attitudes for Implementors
Time Frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including attitudes, using social psychology methods (Armitage & Connor, 2001).
The attitudes measure had one item, which was rated from 1=good to 7=bad (meaning that taking data would be bad).
Attitudes had 2 items.
These items were averaged to create the scale score which could range from 1 to 7 for each measure.
Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks).
Data reported are changes over time.
|
Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
|
Perceived Norms for Implementors
Time Frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including perceived norms, using social psychology methods (Armitage & Connor, 2001).
The perceived norms measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.
Strongly agree meant stronger influence of norms on taking data.
Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks).
Data reported are changes over time.
|
Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
|
Descriptive Norms for Implementors
Time Frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including descriptive norms, using social psychology methods (Armitage & Connor, 2001).
The perceived norms measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.
Strongly agree meant stronger influence of norms on taking data.
Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks).
Data reported are changes over time.
|
Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
|
Self-Efficacy for Implementors
Time Frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including self-efficacy, using social psychology methods (Armitage & Connor, 2001).
The self-efficacy measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.
Strongly agree meant stronger self-efficacy about taking data.
Self-Efficacy had 2 items.
These items were averaged to create the scale score which could range from 1 to 7 for each measure.
Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks).
Data reported are changes over time.
|
Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 849995
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.