A framework of evidence-based practice for digital support, co-developed with and for the autism community.
Use the 3×4 grid to vet any autism app in five minutes before you let kids tap download.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Zervogianni et al. (2020) asked autistic people, parents, teachers, and clinicians what makes an autism app trustworthy.
They ran focus groups and interviews until ideas repeated.
The team then built a simple 3×4 grid anyone can use to score digital supports.
What they found
Everyone wanted the same three things: the app works, keeps kids engaged, and is backed by solid proof.
Four quick sources give that proof: try it yourself, read a study, ask an expert, or check user reviews.
The grid gives a clear yes, maybe, or no in under five minutes.
How this fits with other research
Bassett-Gunter et al. (2017) first warned the field to set clear evidence rules before calling any tool “proven.” Vanessa’s grid turns that warning into a ready-to-use checklist.
Whiteside et al. (2022) showed that autistic adults want real roles in research, not token seats. Vanessa kept that promise by letting autistic people co-write every part of the framework.
Mantzoros et al. (2022) found huge effect sizes for apps that cut vocal stereotypy. Vanessa’s tool would rate those same apps for reliability, engagement, and effect before you download.
Why it matters
You no longer have to guess if an autism app is worth the iPad space. Run the 3×4 grid: score reliability, engagement, and effectiveness against the four quick sources. If the app fails any column, skip it and save your session hours for tools that pass.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick the next autism app on your list, score it on the 3×4 grid, and delete it if any row is red.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Digital supports are any type of technologies that have been intentionally developed to improve daily living in some way. A wide array of digital supports (such as apps) have been developed for the autism community specifically, but there is little or no evidence of whether they work or not. This study sought to identify what types of evidence the autistic community valued and wanted to see provided to enable an informed choice to be made regarding digital supports. A consensus was developed between autistic people and their families, practitioners (such as therapists and teachers) as well as researchers, to identify the core aspects of evidence that everyone agreed were useful. In all, 27 people reached agreement on three categories for which evidence is required: reliability, engagement and the effectiveness of the technology. Consensus was also reached on four key sources of evidence for these three categories: hands-on experience, academic sources, expert views and online reviews. The resulting framework allows for any technology to be evaluated for the level of evidence identifying how effective it is. The framework can be used by autistic people, their families, practitioners and researchers to ensure that decisions concerning the provision of support for autistic people is informed by evidence, that is, 'evidence-based practice'.
Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2020 · doi:10.1177/016264341503000102