App for Strengthening Services In Specialized Therapeutic Support (ASSISTS)

In partnership with a digital health software company, the University research team created two versions of a mobile application to help behavioral health technicians (BHT's) who work with students with autism collect data. The first version comprises a basic electronic platform for data collection. The second version has the same basic electronic platform for data collection, plus additional features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease the burden of data collection.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Behavioral economics strategies; Other: Electronic platform

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 27
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Pennsylvania
    • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 19104
      • University of Pennsylvania

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

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

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / 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: Behavioral economics strategies; Behavioral economics features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease of data collection on the electronic platform.; Other: Electronic platform; Electronic platform to collect data
Active Comparator: Electronic Platform Not Enhanced; A basic electronic platform for data collection.	Other: Electronic platform; Electronic platform to collect data

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
The Difference in Data Collection Consistency Between Groups Across Three Weeks	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	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	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

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Intentions for Implementors	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	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	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	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	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	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: University of Pennsylvania

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): September 9, 2021
• Primary Completion (Actual): June 21, 2022
• Study Completion (Actual): June 21, 2022

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: November 24, 2021
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: January 11, 2022
• First Posted (Actual): January 26, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): March 25, 2025
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 4, 2025
• Last Verified: March 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: autism; implementation science; implementation; behavioral economics; Data collection; implementation strategy; Behavioral Health Technician (BHT); Therapeutic Support Staff (TSS)
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Mental Disorders; Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Child Development Disorders, Pervasive; Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Other Study ID Numbers: 849995

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No