Back

Self and Caregiver Reported Choice Making in Autistic Adults: Development and Validation of the AASPIRE Choices and Decisions Scale

Kim, S. Y.; Gillespie-Lynch, K.; Kapp, S.; Yang, L.-Q.; Wallington, A. F.; Raymaker, D.; Moura, I.; McDonald, K.; Maslak, J.; Kripke-Ludwig, R.; Joyce, A.; Horner-Johnson, W.; Frowner, E.; Baker-Ericzen, M.; Nicolaidis, C.

2026-05-10 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.05.07.26352693 medRxiv
Show abstract

Self-determination has been assessed as an internal psychological construct. External factors may also affect self-determination, but opportunities to make choices and decisions remain understudied. We developed and evaluated the AASPIRE-Choices and Decisions Scale (AASPIRE-CDS), a new measure of autistic adults opportunities to make choices and decisions, using a community-based participatory approach. We created and refined the AASPIRE-CDS through an iterative process. Data, from the AASPIRE Outcomes Project, included 839 autistic adults participating through direct report, supported direct report, and caregiver report (CR). Exploratory and confirmatory analyses supported a unidimensional structure. Measurement invariance analyses supported configural, metric, and partial scalar invariance across report type without CR, and across living status, with and without CR. The AASPIRE-CDS showed high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change over time. Convergent validity analyses showed that higher AASPIRE-CDS scores were associated with greater self-determination and communication fluency, more independent living, and fewer support needs. The AASPIRE-CDS showed weaker (albeit significant) associations with quality of life, overall health, and employment satisfaction than the self-determination measure showed with these variables. This pattern suggests that opportunities for choice-making are related to, but distinct from, commonly used measures of self-determination. Findings support the AASPIRE-CDS as a valid and reliable measure of choice-making opportunities in autistic adults across support needs but suggest caution interpreting CR. They underscore the importance of supporting autistic adults choice-making and evaluating opportunities for choice alongside internal self-determination. Future research should use larger CR samples to examine the validity of caregiver-reported choice-making opportunities.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.1%
2
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
3
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.5%
5
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
9
Autism Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
10
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
Epilepsy & Behavior
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
17
Developmental Science
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
18
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
20
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
21
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
24
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
27
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
30
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%