Impact of person-environment fit on job satisfaction for working adults with autism spectrum disorders

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have some of the highest rates of postsecondary unemployment. Predictors of successful employment for individuals with ASD include a combination of personal and external factors. However, the majority of employment supports target personal factors and give minimal consideration to the environment.

OBJECTIVE:

To examine the relationships between the social and sensory aspects of person-environment fit and job satisfaction from the perspective of working adults with ASD.

METHODS:

Participants over the age of 21 diagnosed with ASD who worked at least 10 hours a week completed the Job Satisfaction Survey, the Adult Sensory Profile, and the Work Environment Scale.

RESULTS:

There were significant positive associations between job satisfaction and the work environment in peer cohesion, supervisor support, autonomy, clarity, innovation and physical comfort. Individuals with more symptoms of Low Registration and Sensory Sensitivity had significantly lower scores on physical comfort in their work environments. Those with more symptoms of Sensory Avoiding reported significantly less satisfaction with their job.

CONCLUSION:

It is important to understand the impact of the environment in relation to the unique characteristics of the individual to improve the person-environment fit and overall job satisfaction.

Keywords

Autism spectrum disorders work environment work satisfaction person-environment fit

1 Introduction

The number of individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) transitioning into postsecondary roles, such as employment, has substantially increased in parallel with escalating prevalence rates (1 in 68, CDC, 2014). Individuals with ASD have some of the highest rates of postsecondary unemployment (Shattuck, Narendorf, Cooper, Sterzing, Wagner, & Taylor, 2012). In the United States labor force, participation for adults with ASD is estimated at 34% for work outside the home, which is in contrast to the 54% for individuals with other disabilities and 83% for individuals without disabilities (Scott, Falkmer, Girdler & Falkmer, 2015). Employment is associated with overall quality of life (Barneveld, Swaab, van Engeland & deSonneville, 2014; Kober & Eggleton, 2005), financial independence, (Butterworth & Migliore, 2015; Migliore, Butterworth, & Zalewska, 2014) as well as improved physical and mental health (Hall, Kurth, & Hunt, 2013; McKee, Song, Wanberg & Kinicki, 2005).

Person-environment fit frameworks historically identify that both multiple individual and environmental factors impact employment outcomes (Edwards, 1991). Person-environment fit is conceptualized as the “degree of compatibility or match between individuals and some aspects of their work environment” (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2010, p. 3) and is associated with positive outcomes such as greater work satisfaction and improved performance (Hardin & Donaldson, 2014; Oh, Guay, Kim, Harold, Lee, Heo, & Shin, 2014). Predictors of successful employment for individuals with ASD are a “complex interplay of personal and external factors” (Walsh, Lydon, & Healy, 2014, p. 266). Environmental factors are a common, but often unconsidered, barrier that can have a profound impact on successful employment (Morgan & Schultz, 2012; Scott, et al., 2015). Employment supports for individuals with ASD often target the person factors with little consideration of the impact of the environment.

Environmental factors as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) include the physical, social, attitudinal, and system/policy level environments in which people conduct their lives (World Health Organization, 2009). One of the most significant barriers to successful employment for adults with ASD results from the incongruence of person factors (Hendricks, 2010) in relationship to the social demands of the environment. Indeed, adults with ASD, supervisors, and co-workers all identify social issues as impacting negatively on job performance (Sperry & Mesibov, 2005; Hendricks, 2010). Despite these challenges, research has identified numerous benefits to employers when hiring an individual with ASD. Job qualifications are often less of a concern than the ability to meet the social requirements of the workplace (Hendricks, 2010).

The physical environment of the workplace, including its sensory characteristics, are another barrier to successful employment for adults with ASD. It is well documented that individuals with ASD process stimuli differently (Baranek, 2002; Davidson, 2010; Leekam, Nieto, Libby, Wing, & Gould, 2007) resulting in an impact on participation and performance in a variety of settings. Adults with ASD identified employment as a primary factor impacting quality of life, but also an area with significant challenges related to environmental factors such as the sensory and social environments (Morgan & Schultz, 2012; Pfeiffer, Piller, Giazzoni-Fialko & Chainani, 2016). Davidson (2010) compiled information from 45 autobiographical texts written by adults with ASD to identify the barriers to socio-spatial inclusion. Authors wrote at length about how their perceptions of external sensory stimuli differed greatly from those of neurotypical (NT) individuals, which resulted in a sense of exclusion related to being “out of place in mainstream space” (p. 306).

Preliminary research in in populations both with and without disabilities suggests that the work environment impacts on job satisfaction (Chiocchio & Frigon, 2006; Sell & Cleal, 2011). Job satisfaction is subject and conceptualized as, “a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job” (Sell & Cleal, 2011, p. 2). Employee job satisfaction and satisfaction with the work environment are combined predictors of work retention (Chiocchio & Frigon, 2006). Research in the general population has also suggested that the perception of the work environment is related to job satisfaction. Specifically, psychosocial environmental factors such as information from employers and social support have significant impact on level of job satisfaction (Sell & Cleal, 2011). The interplay of these factors has real-world implications. For example, low job satisfaction is a known determinate of resignation, absenteeism, and an overall reduction in job retention rates (Sell & Cleal, 2011; Chiocchio & Frigon, 2006).

Substantial resources are invested in job placement and vocational training services for individuals with ASD (Lawler, Bruisilovskiy, Salzer, & Mandell, 2009), although job retention rates remain low (Chen, Sung, & Pi, 2015). Understanding the impact of the interactions between person characteristics and environmental factors provides essential information to improve the person environment fit. Additionally, a better understanding of the impact of environmental factors on work satisfaction could potentially identify important environmental adaptations to reduce the costly cycle of job placement and training that occurs secondary to poor retention rates. Therefore, this study was designed to explore the social and sensory aspects of the person environment fit and job satisfaction from the perspective of working adults with ASD.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

Participants were individuals over the age of 21 years, diagnosed with ASD, who worked at least 10 hours a week. All potential participants completed a demographic questionnaire and the Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale-Revised (RAADS-R) to confirm diagnosis of ASD. Participants needed to score 65 or higher (Ritvo, Guthrie, Hufnagel, McMahon, Tonge, Mataix-Cols, Jassi, Attwood, & Eloff, 2011) on the RAADS-R for inclusion in the study.

2.2 Procedures

IRB approval was obtained through the authors’ university and informed consent obtained from all participants. Participants were recruited through local adult ASD support groups, ASD organizations, and social media (e.g., Facebook). The support groups and organizations were provided with information about the study including inclusionary criteria and methods to contact researchers through group leaders who initially interacted with the researchers. Similar information was posted on Facebook. Interested participants then contacted the researcher to complete informed consent and determine inclusion. Participants completed a demographic form, the RAADS-R, the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), the Adolescent Adult Sensory Profile (ASP) and the Work Environment Scale (WES). Participants needed to score at least a 65 on the RAADS-R for inclusion in the study as this is the cut score to confirm an ASD diagnosis. The participants were either provided with a paper copy of the questionnaires or completed the questionnaires through the on-line survey software Qualtrics. Completion of all the questionnaires took approximately 45 to 75 minutes based on information provided by the on-line survey software.

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale – Revised (RAADS-R)

The RAADS-R is an 80-item self-report measure that assesses characteristics of Autism including circumscribed interests, sensory motor, language and social aspects of the condition. Items are scored using an 4-point rating scale. In prior research, the RAADS-R was able to highly discriminate between adults with and without an ASD and had high test-retest reliability (Ritvo et al., 2011). Further, it had strong concurrent validity with the Autism Diagnostic Interview, Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale, and Social Responsiveness Scale – Adult A cut score of 65 on the RAADS-R is used to determine a diagnosis of ASD (Ritvo et al., 2011).

2.3.2 Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (ASP)

The Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (Brown & Dunn, 2002) is a self-report measure to assess patterns of responses to sensory stimuli. It is standardized for individuals between 11 and 65 years of age. There are 60 questions based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from almost never (1) to almost always (5). Scores are provided in four quadrants including Low Registration, Sensation Seeking, Sensory Sensitivity, and Sensation Avoiding. This tool was founded on a conceptual model developed by Dunn (2006) in which quadrants represent a person’s neurological thresholds to sensory stimuli, along with behavioral response patterns. Scores high in Low Registration and Sensation Seeking indicate more behaviors associated with a high sensory threshold (i.e. needs more sensory input to register a response). Scores high in Sensory Sensitivity and Sensory Avoiding indicate more behaviors associated with a low sensory threshold (i.e. needs less sensory input to register a response). Scores high on sensory seeking and Sensory Avoiding indicate that the person uses an active behavioral response based on the sensory stimuli in the environment. This means that they will actively engage in behaviors to “right” their sensory system in response to sensory stimuli in the environment. In contrast, a person with a passive behavior response will not engage in these behaviors. Sensory Sensitivity and Low Registration are considered passive response patterns.

For the purposes of the current study, binary scores for each quadrant were created from the normed scores to separate out extreme responses in the different quadrants from the typical responses. Those individuals who scored in the range of “more than most” and “much more than most” in the Low Registration, Sensory Sensitivity, and Sensory Avoiding quadrants were grouped and those who scored in the range of “similar to”, “less than” and “much less than most” were grouped. In the sensory seeking quadrant, one group included people who scored in the range of “similar to”, “more than” and “much more than most” and the other group included people who scored in the range of “less than” and “much less than most”.

2.3.3 Work Environment Scale (WES)

The WES assesses employees’ perception of their work environment. The WES consists of 10 subscales composed of 90 true/false items that cover the dimensions of relationship, personal growth, and system maintenance change (Moos, 2008). Specifically, the relationship dimension includes subscales measuring involvement, peer cohesion, and supervisor’s support. The personal growth dimension includes autonomy and task orientation and the system maintenance change dimension includes work pressure, clarity, control, innovation, and physical comfort subscales. A description of each subscale is provided in Table 1. High scores indicate the perceived presence of more of that dimension or construct while lower scores indicate less of a perceived presence.

Table 1
Work Environment Scale subscales and descriptions

Relationship Dimension

Involvement Concern and commitment to the job

Coworker Cohesion Friendly and supportive coworkers

Supervisor Support Manager/Supervisor support of employees and their encouragement of support of others

Personal Growth Dimension

Autonomy Encouragement to make own decisions and be self-sufficient

Task Orientation Focus on good planning, efficiency, and getting the job done

Work Pressure Expectations of high work demands and time pressure

System Maintenance and Change Dimensions

Clarity Communication of explicit rules and policies and an understanding of expectations in daily routines

Managerial Control Managements use of rules and procedures to control employees

Innovation Encouragement of variety, change and new approach

Physical Comfort The physical environment contributes to a pleasant work environment

Moos, R. (2008). Work Environment Scale manual (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting. Psychologists Press.

2.3.4 Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

The JSS (Spector, 1985) is a self-report instrument that has 9 subscales measuring job satisfaction. The JSS assesses 9 facets including pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of work, and communication. Each facet consists of 4 items that are presented as statements (some positively and some negatively worded) and are rated by participants on a scale from 1–6. Negatively worded items are reversed scored. The overall job satisfaction score is then computed by summing all 36 items. Test-retest reliability ranged between 0.37 to 0.74. The JSS demonstrated good concurrent and discriminative validity when compared to other measures of job satisfaction.

2.4 Data analysis

Pearson correlations were used to examine the associations between the total JSS score and the scores on the different WES subscales. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to see whether individuals who had high levels on each of the four Sensory Processing quadrants (Low Registration, Sensation Seeking, Sensory Sensitivity and Sensation Avoidance) differed from those who had low levels on these quadrants in terms of their job satisfaction (JSS) and work environment (WES).

3 Results

3.1 Demographics

Participants (n = 50) were from 24 different states, with 14 (28%) indicating that they lived in urban areas, 32 (64%) in suburban areas, and 4 (8%) in rural areas. There were 27 (54%) females and 23 male (46%). The vast majority of respondents (n = 41, 82%) were white, 1 (2%) was Asian, 1 (2%) was Native American, 4 (8%) were Latino or Hispanic, and 4 (8%) indicated that they were of another race or ethnicity. The average age of the sample was 32.7 years (sd = 12.4). Only 3 participants (6%) had a high school or less than a high school education; 19 (38%) attended a technical school or took some courses at a college or university; 16 (32%) graduated from a college or university; and 12 (24%) had a graduate degree. Of the 47 participants who responded to the question on employment, 24 (51.1%) were employed full time, 15 (31.9%) worked part time but 20 or more hours a week, and the remaining 8 (17%) worked 10–20 hours a week. Thirty-seven (74%) of the participants had Asperger’s Syndrome and the remainder another identified ASD.

3.1.1 Sensory processing

Forty-one individuals (82%) had high Low Registration levels (Quadrant 1), 19 (38%) had high Sensation Seeking levels (Quadrant 2), 37 (74%) had high Sensory Sensitivity levels (Quadrant 3), and 39 (78%) had high Sensation Avoidance levels (Quadrant 4). Percentages are totaled for each quadrant, as participants can score high in more than one quadrant.

3.2 Relationship between job satisfaction and work environment

Table 2 shows the associations between the total JSS score and the WES subscale scores. While job satisfaction does not seem to be associated with work pressure and control, there are significant positive associations between JSS and involvement, peer cohesion, supervisor support, autonomy, task orientation, clarity, innovation and physical comfort.

Table 2
Pearson correlations between WES subscales and JSS

r p-value

Involvement 0.48 <0.0004

Peer Cohesion 0.51 0.0001

Supervisor Support 0.60 <0.0001

Autonomy 0.46 0.0008

Task Orientation 0.55 <0.0001

Work Pressure –0.04 0.77

Clarity 0.66 <0.0001

Control –0.20 0.16

Innovation 0.51 0.0001

Physical Comfort 0.32 0.02

	r	p-value
Involvement	0.48	<0.0004
Peer Cohesion	0.51	0.0001
Supervisor Support	0.60	<0.0001
Autonomy	0.46	0.0008
Task Orientation	0.55	<0.0001
Work Pressure	–0.04	0.77
Clarity	0.66	<0.0001
Control	–0.20	0.16
Innovation	0.51	0.0001
Physical Comfort	0.32	0.02

Note: N = 50.

3.3 Relationship between sensory processing and job satisfaction and work environment

The results of the independent samples t-tests are presented in Table 3. Only a handful of statistically significant differences on the JSS and WES were found among individuals with low and high levels on the four quadrants. Specifically, the mean WES Physical Comfort scores were significantly lower among individuals who had more symptoms of Low Registration on the ASP than those who had less symptoms. Individuals with low and high levels of Sensation Seeking did not differ on the JSS or any of the WES subscales. Those with more symptoms of Sensory Sensitivity had significantly lower scores on the WES Autonomy, Task Orientation and Physical Comfort subscales, and individuals with more symptoms of Sensation Avoidance had less job satisfaction and lower scores on the WES Task Orientation and Clarity subscales.

Table 3
Average JSS and WES scores for individuals with low and high scores on the 4 Sensory Processing quadrants

Low Sensory Processing Levels High Sensory Processing Levels T-Test

Mean SD Mean SD DF t Pr > |t|

Quadrant 1: Low Registration¹

JSS – Total Score 146.40 32.28 129.60 39.59 13.85 1.36 0.20

WES – Involvement 50.56 8.53 48.15 12.39 16.42 0.70 0.49

WES – Peer Cohesion 45.11 12.37 49.66 11.35 11.15 –1.01 0.33

WES – Supervisor Support 52.78 11.46 49.88 11.93 12.12 0.68 0.51

WES – Autonomy 56.78 8.36 51.15 11.94 16.11 1.68 0.11

WES – Task Orientation 53.33 7.50 47.22 12.13 18.60 1.95 0.07

WES – Work Pressure 47.67 12.00 52.02 11.71 11.60 –0.99 0.34

WES – Clarity 49.00 12.80 45.61 11.77 11.17 0.73 0.48

WES – Control 45.67 10.07 51.24 13.99 15.64 –1.39 0.18

WES – Innovation 52.22 13.32 46.88 12.19 11.14 1.11 0.29

WES – Physical Comfort 59.56 7.75 52.37 11.69 17.14 2.27 0.04

Quadrant 2: Sensation Seeking²

JSS – Total Score 127.60 39.86 140.80 36.06 41.20 –1.21 0.23

WES – Involvement 48.00 11.27 49.53 12.76 34.57 –0.43 0.67

WES – Peer Cohesion 49.52 11.88 47.74 11.19 40.00 0.53 0.60

WES – Supervisor Support 50.42 12.04 50.37 11.68 39.13 0.01 0.99

WES – Autonomy 51.90 12.18 52.58 10.64 42.19 –0.21 0.84

WES – Task Orientation 47.61 12.10 49.47 11.00 41.06 –0.56 0.58

WES – Work Pressure 50.55 12.47 52.37 10.75 42.55 –0.55 0.59

WES – Clarity 45.58 12.47 47.26 11.15 41.51 –0.49 0.62

WES – Control 50.03 13.81 50.58 13.22 39.51 –0.14 0.89

WES – Innovation 46.13 12.34 50.63 12.40 38.07 –1.25 0.22

WES – Physical Comfort 55.71 10.01 50.32 12.86 31.26 1.56 0.13

Quadrant 3: Sensory Sensitivity¹

JSS – Total Score 143.60 33.97 128.80 39.85 24.50 1.29 0.21

WES – Involvement 50.23 10.83 48.00 12.15 23.42 0.62 0.54

WES – Peer Cohesion 47.23 11.75 49.41 11.58 20.78 –0.58 0.57

WES – Supervisor Support 52.46 8.72 49.68 12.71 30.87 0.87 0.39

WES – Autonomy 57.54 7.78 50.27 12.09 33.04 2.48 0.02

WES – Task Orientation 53.62 10.07 46.46 11.67 24.20 2.11 0.05

WES – Work Pressure 46.15 11.33 53.03 11.53 21.39 –1.87 0.07

WES – Clarity 50.46 12.45 44.73 11.50 19.67 1.46 0.16

WES – Control 50.23 12.15 50.24 14.04 24.13 0.00 1.00

WES – Innovation 52.54 13.57 46.19 11.75 18.72 1.50 0.15

WES – Physical Comfort 61.38 10.00 50.95 10.64 22.27 3.18 0.00

Quadrant 4: Sensation Avoidance¹

JSS – Total Score 156.40 29.32 125.90 38.59 20.85 2.82 0.01

WES – Involvement 50.55 9.62 48.03 12.34 20.30 0.72 0.48

WES – Peer Cohesion 52.36 12.35 47.85 11.27 15.04 1.09 0.29

WES – Supervisor Support 55.27 7.94 49.03 12.40 25.34 2.01 0.06

WES – Autonomy 53.45 9.07 51.79 12.19 21.33 0.49 0.63

WES – Task Orientation 56.18 9.73 46.10 11.23 18.24 2.93 0.01

WES – Work Pressure 49.91 10.42 51.62 12.22 18.53 –0.46 0.65

WES – Clarity 53.00 10.90 44.31 11.58 16.93 2.30 0.03

WES – Control 54.55 9.15 49.03 14.30 25.37 1.54 0.14

WES – Innovation 54.36 12.32 46.00 11.98 15.75 2.00 0.06

WES – Physical Comfort 58.36 10.11 52.33 11.46 17.94 1.69 0.11

	Low Sensory Processing Levels	High Sensory Processing Levels	T-Test
Quadrant 1: Low Registration¹
JSS – Total Score	146.40	32.28	129.60	39.59	13.85	1.36	0.20
WES – Involvement	50.56	8.53	48.15	12.39	16.42	0.70	0.49
WES – Peer Cohesion	45.11	12.37	49.66	11.35	11.15	–1.01	0.33
WES – Supervisor Support	52.78	11.46	49.88	11.93	12.12	0.68	0.51
WES – Autonomy	56.78	8.36	51.15	11.94	16.11	1.68	0.11
WES – Task Orientation	53.33	7.50	47.22	12.13	18.60	1.95	0.07
WES – Work Pressure	47.67	12.00	52.02	11.71	11.60	–0.99	0.34
WES – Clarity	49.00	12.80	45.61	11.77	11.17	0.73	0.48
WES – Control	45.67	10.07	51.24	13.99	15.64	–1.39	0.18
WES – Innovation	52.22	13.32	46.88	12.19	11.14	1.11	0.29
WES – Physical Comfort	59.56	7.75	52.37	11.69	17.14	2.27	0.04
Quadrant 2: Sensation Seeking²
JSS – Total Score	127.60	39.86	140.80	36.06	41.20	–1.21	0.23
WES – Involvement	48.00	11.27	49.53	12.76	34.57	–0.43	0.67
WES – Peer Cohesion	49.52	11.88	47.74	11.19	40.00	0.53	0.60
WES – Supervisor Support	50.42	12.04	50.37	11.68	39.13	0.01	0.99
WES – Autonomy	51.90	12.18	52.58	10.64	42.19	–0.21	0.84
WES – Task Orientation	47.61	12.10	49.47	11.00	41.06	–0.56	0.58
WES – Work Pressure	50.55	12.47	52.37	10.75	42.55	–0.55	0.59
WES – Clarity	45.58	12.47	47.26	11.15	41.51	–0.49	0.62
WES – Control	50.03	13.81	50.58	13.22	39.51	–0.14	0.89
WES – Innovation	46.13	12.34	50.63	12.40	38.07	–1.25	0.22
WES – Physical Comfort	55.71	10.01	50.32	12.86	31.26	1.56	0.13
Quadrant 3: Sensory Sensitivity¹
JSS – Total Score	143.60	33.97	128.80	39.85	24.50	1.29	0.21
WES – Involvement	50.23	10.83	48.00	12.15	23.42	0.62	0.54
WES – Peer Cohesion	47.23	11.75	49.41	11.58	20.78	–0.58	0.57
WES – Supervisor Support	52.46	8.72	49.68	12.71	30.87	0.87	0.39
WES – Autonomy	57.54	7.78	50.27	12.09	33.04	2.48	0.02
WES – Task Orientation	53.62	10.07	46.46	11.67	24.20	2.11	0.05
WES – Work Pressure	46.15	11.33	53.03	11.53	21.39	–1.87	0.07
WES – Clarity	50.46	12.45	44.73	11.50	19.67	1.46	0.16
WES – Control	50.23	12.15	50.24	14.04	24.13	0.00	1.00
WES – Innovation	52.54	13.57	46.19	11.75	18.72	1.50	0.15
WES – Physical Comfort	61.38	10.00	50.95	10.64	22.27	3.18	0.00
Quadrant 4: Sensation Avoidance¹
JSS – Total Score	156.40	29.32	125.90	38.59	20.85	2.82	0.01
WES – Involvement	50.55	9.62	48.03	12.34	20.30	0.72	0.48
WES – Peer Cohesion	52.36	12.35	47.85	11.27	15.04	1.09	0.29
WES – Supervisor Support	55.27	7.94	49.03	12.40	25.34	2.01	0.06
WES – Autonomy	53.45	9.07	51.79	12.19	21.33	0.49	0.63
WES – Task Orientation	56.18	9.73	46.10	11.23	18.24	2.93	0.01
WES – Work Pressure	49.91	10.42	51.62	12.22	18.53	–0.46	0.65
WES – Clarity	53.00	10.90	44.31	11.58	16.93	2.30	0.03
WES – Control	54.55	9.15	49.03	14.30	25.37	1.54	0.14
WES – Innovation	54.36	12.32	46.00	11.98	15.75	2.00	0.06
WES – Physical Comfort	58.36	10.11	52.33	11.46	17.94	1.69	0.11

Notes: 1. Low sensory levels: similar to, lower than or much lower than most. High sensory levels: higher or much higher than most. 2. Low sensory levels: lower than or much lower than most. High sensory levels: similar to, higher or much higher than most.

4 Discussion

Results of this study identified environmental factors that impact on job satisfaction and the person-environment fit for adult workers with ASD. This study supports previous findings that the predictors of successful employment for individuals with ASD are a “complex interplay of personal and external factors” (Walsh et al., 2014, p. 266). The current study provides a unique perspective from working adults with ASD, one that has often been neglected in prior research. Specifically, participants in the study identified a number of significant associations between job satisfaction and the social and physical aspects of the work environment. Participants reported higher levels of job satisfaction when the social and relational aspects of their work environment were perceived as more positive with both their peers and co-workers. Research has identified similar findings in studies examining job satisfaction across both non-disabled and disabled populations (Chiocchio & Frigon, 2006; Sell & Cleal, 2011). Inherent in the condition, individuals with ASD often lack the necessary social awareness and skills that are essential requirements in the work place. Adults with ASD, supervisors, and co-workers all identify social issues as impacting negatively on relationships, job performance (Sperry & Mesibov, 2005; Hendricks, 2010) and at times leading to termination (Bolman, 2008). The social environment requires the person to understand non-verbal communication, tone of voice, and the social rules of the particular setting. The ability to communicate in an appropriate manner is pivotal for many jobs. Navigating everyday social interactions are challenging for many individuals with ASD, especially when the demands of the social environment are inconsistent and/or unfamiliar. Supports and interventions targeting an improved fit between the person’s social skills and the social expectations necessary to perform the job and interact with co-workers and supervisors is an important consideration during job placement and training.

Results also identified that personal growth dimensions in the work environment such as autonomy and task orientation were reported as important environmental factors for job satisfaction, as well as having clear expectations, opportunities for innovation, and a physical environment perceived as comfortable. Specific to the physical environment, there was a strong relationship between work satisfaction and whether the participants perceived the physical environment as comfortable and pleasant. One aspect of the physical environment that is not often considered during job placement and training are the sensory characteristics of the workplace and sensory demands of the actual job. It is well documented that individuals with ASD have significantly more sensory processing issues than their neurotypical peers (Crane, Goddard & Pring, 2009; Davidson, 2010; Leekam et al., 2007; Perry, Minassian, Lopez, Maron, & Lincoln, 2007). Sensory processing differences are so pervasive in individuals with ASD that “hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interests in sensory aspects of the environment” are included as part of the diagnostic criteria in the recently updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5; APA, 2013). Consistent with findings of the current study, prior literature has identified sensory factors as major stressors to individuals with ASD in the work environment (Gillott & Standen, 2007).

When examining sensory processing patterns in relationship to the work environment, the results of the current study suggest that individuals with behavioral responses consistent with higher levels of Low Registration and Sensory Sensitivity patterns of sensory processing reported less satisfaction with the physical comfort of their work environment. Low registration is response pattern that indicates the person has a high sensory threshold (Dunn, 2006). Sensory Sensitivity is a response pattern that indicates a person has a low sensory threshold. A person who has a high sensory threshold such as Low Registration may not respond to key elements of their environment that are important in completing basic job functions as quickly as needed due to the increase in stimuli intensity needed to register a response (i.e. answering the phone or responding to a co-worker). In contrast, a person with a low sensory threshold such as Sensory Sensitivity may be easily distracted and experience discomfort with even low levels of sensory stimuli in the environment. For example, if the work environment is busy and noisy, a person with high levels of Sensory Sensitivity may be more easily distracted or perceive the environment as uncomfortable or distressing. Workplace environments can pose sensory demands that are incongruent with the sensory reactivity of the person.

Although Low Registration and Sensory Sensitivity differ in their neurological thresholds, both of these are considered passive response patterns according to Dunn’s model (2006). A person with a passive response pattern will not actively pursue methods to help align their responses with the stimuli in the environment. In contrast, a person with an active response pattern, such as that of a sensory seeker or sensory avoider, will actively try to align their responses with the current environment. Therefore, a person with a passive response pattern is likely to be more impacted by stimuli in the physical environment, as they are not engaging in coping strategies to improve the person (sensory response pattern) and environment (sensory stimuli) fit. Depending on the nature of a job, work environments can be taxed with extraneous and demanding sensory stimuli that may contribute to a lack of person environment fit. Person environment fit is an important factor for job satisfaction, work performance, and job retention. When working with individuals with ASD, it is important to consider the unique characteristics of the sensory environment in relationship to the person’s sensory thresholds and behavioral response patterns in order to support success in the workplace.

Results of the study suggest that it is important to assess both the unique person characteristics in relationship to environmental factors to ensure a successful job match. Job matching is “the collaborative, data-based decision making process to determine the best fit between an individual’s abilities and preferences and the job’s environmental and occupational demands” (Persch, Cleary, Rutkowski, Malone, Darragh, & Case-Smith, 2015). Much of the current job matching research focuses on the worker’s abilities and demands of the job (Daston, Riehle & Rutkowski, 2012) with limited consideration of the environment. An assessment such as the Work Environment Scale provides an option to consider a variety of environmental factors from the perspective of the individual. Although there is a substantial amount of literature identifying sensory processing differences in individuals with ASD (Baranek, 2002; Davidson, 2010; Leekam et al., 2007), measures to assess the sensory environment and sensory characteristics of the person are infrequently used to support job matching practices. Additionally, individuals with ASD who are already employed could benefit from assessments and subsequent supports within work environments to align unique person characteristics with environmental demands.

4.1 Limitations and future research

There are a number of limitations in the current study. This study was exploratory with a fairly small sample size. Causality cannot be assumed and results only provide descriptive and relational information about job satisfaction and environmental factors in the workplace. There were more women in the study sample proportionally than in the typical population of individuals with ASD. ASD is a condition that has a prevalence of 4 men to 1 woman. Women represented 54% of the participants in the current study. In order to better identify the impact of the gender ratio of the sample, post hoc analyses were used to compare the correlations in the male and female samples. Fisher’s z-transformations identified no differences between the males and female samples in any of the correlations. Additionally, a regression analysis was completed with the JSS total score as the dependent variable and gender and work environment subscales as predictors. Gender was not identified as a significant predictor in any of the regressions. Although post-hoc analyses identified no differences between gender, future research needs to consider gender ratios when implementing sampling methods in this population. One question that requires consideration is whether there are more women with ASD working 10 or more hours than men, and if presentation of the condition in the different genders has implications on work outcomes. Results of the study also suggest that we need further research to identify assessment and intervention methods that can improve person-environment fit to determine the impact on job retention, satisfaction, and performance.

5 Conclusion

Employment is strongly associated with economic self-sufficiency, health, and overall quality of life (Daston, Riehle & Rutkowski, 2012). It is identified as the most socially desirable achievement for an adult (Hendricks, 2010) and a services priority across multiple agencies for adults with disabilities (Migliore, et al., 2014). Research has identified that employee satisfaction and satisfaction with the work environment are predictors of work retention (Chiocchio & Frigon, 2006). There are often substantial resources invested in job placement and vocational training for individuals with ASD (Lawler, Brusilovskiy, Salzer, & Mandell, 2009), although job retention rates are low (Chen, Sung, & Pi, 2015). In order to provide efficacious supports for individuals with ASD in the workplace, it is important to understand the impact of the environment in relationship to the unique characteristics of the individual to improve the person-environment fit and overall job satisfaction.

Conflict of interest

All of the authors declare that they have no financial conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was funded through a grant from the American Occupational Therapy Foundation (AOTFIRG13PFEIFFER).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013), Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Baranek

G. T.

(2002). Efficacy of sensory and motor interventions for children with autism, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 397–422.

Barneveld

P. S.

, Swaab

, Fagel

, van Engeland

, & deSonneville

L. M. J.

(2014). Quality of life: A case controlled long-term follow-up study, comparing young high-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder with adults with other psychiatric disorders diagnosed in childhood, Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55, 302–310.

Bolman

W. M.

(2008). Brief report: 25 year follow up of a high-functioning autistic child, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 38, 181–183.

Brown

, & Dunn

(2002), Adolescent/adult sensory profile user’s manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Butterworth

, & Migliore

(2015). Trends in employment outcomes of young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities 2006-2013. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion.

Chen

J. L.

, Sung

, & Sukyeong

(2015). Vocational rehabilitation service patterns and outcomes for individuals with Autism of different ages, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 3015–3029.

Chiocchio

, & Frigon

(2006). Tenure, satisfaction, and work environment flexibility of people with mental retardation, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 175–187.

Crane

, Goddard

, & Pring

(2009). Sensory processing in adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Autism, 13, 215–228.

10.

Daston

, Riehle

J. E.

, & Rutkowski

(2012),High school transition that works! Lessons learned from Project SEARCH. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

11.

Davidson

(2010). It cuts both ways’: A relational approach to access andaccommodation for autism, Social Science & Medicine, 70, 305–312.

12.

Dunn

(2006). Theoretical concepts. In Sensory Profile Supplement User’s Manual (pp. 7–9). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson, Inc.

13.

Edwards

J. R.

(1991) Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In

C. L.

Cooper ,

I. T.

Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial Psychology Volume 6 (pp. 283–357). Chichester: Wiley.

14.

Gillott

, & Standen

P. J.

(2007). Levels of anxiety and sources of stress in adults with autism, Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 11(4), 359–370.

15.

Hall

J. P.

, Kurth

N. K.

, & Hunt

S. L.

(2013). Employment as a health determinant for working-age, dually-eligible people with disabilities, Disability and Health Journal, 6, 100–106.

16.

Hardin

E. E.

, & Donaldson

J. R.

(2014). Predicting job satisfaction: A new perspective on person-environment fit, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 634–640.

17.

Hendricks

(2010). Employment and adults with autism spectrum disorders: Challenges and strategies for success, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 32, 125–134.

18.

Kober

, & Eggleton

I. R.

(2005). The effect of different types of employment on quality of life, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 756–760.

19.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

, & Guay

R. P.

(2010) Person-environment fit. In Zedeck

(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 3–50). Washington, DC: APA.

20.

Lawler

, Brusilovskiy

, Salzer

M. S.

, & Mandell

D. S.

(2009). Use of vocational rehabilitation services among adults with autism, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 487–494.

21.

Leekam

S. R.

, Nieto

, Libby

S. J.

, Wing

, & Gould

(2007). Describing the sensory abnormalities of children and adults with Autism, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 894–910.

22.

McKee-Ryan

, Song

, Wanberg

C. R.

, & Kinicki

A. J.

(2005). Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 53–76.

23.

Migliore

, Butterworth

, & Zalewska

(2014). Trends in vocational rehabilitation services and outcomes for youth with autism: 2006-2010, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57, 80–89.

24.

Moos

(2008), Work Environment Scale manual (4th ed.). Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

25.

Morgan

R. L.

, & Schultz

J. C.

(2012). Towards an ecological, multi-modal approach to increase employment for young adults with autism spectrum disorder, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 43, 27–35.

26.

, Guay

R. P.

, Kim

, Harold

C. M.

, Lee

, Heo

, & Shin

(2014). Fit happens globally: A meta-analytic comparison of the relationships of person-environment fit dimensions with work attitudes and performance across east Asia, Europe, and North America, Personnel Psychology, 67, 99–152.

27.

Persch

A. C.

, Cleary

D. S.

, Rutkowski

, Malone

H. C.

, Darragh

A. R.

, & Case-Smith

J. D.

(2015). Current practices in job matching for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 43(3), 259–273.

28.

Perry

, Minassian

, Lopez

, Maron

, & Lincoln

(2007). Sensorimotor gating deficits in adults with Autism, Biological Psychiatry, 61, 482–486.

29.

Pfeiffer

, Piller

, Giazzoni-Fialko

, & Chainani

(2016). Meaningful outcomes for enhancing quality of life and social participation for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Advance online publication.

30.

Ritvo

R. A.

, Ritvo

E. R.

, Guthrie

, Ritvo

M. J.

, Hufnagel

D. H.

, McMahon

, Tonge

, Mataix-Cols

, Jassi

, Attwood

, & Eloff

(2011). The Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale-Revised (RAADS-R). A scale to assist the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder in adults: An international validation study, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 41, 1076–1089.

31.

Scott

, Falkmer

, Girdler

, & Falkmer

(2015). Viewpoints on factors for successful employment for adults with Autism Disorder,PLoS One, 10(10):e0139281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139281

32.

Sell

, & Cleal

(2011). Job satisfaction, work environment, and rewards: Motivational theory revisited, Labour, 25(1), 1–23.

33.

Shattuck

P. T.

, Narendorf

S. C.

, Cooper

, Sterzing

P. R.

, Wagner

, & Taylor

J. L.

(2012). Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder, Pediatrics, 129, 1042–1049.

34.

Spector

P. E.

(1985). Measurement of human services staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey, American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693–713.

35.

Sperry

L. A.

, & Mesibov

G. B.

(2005). Perceptions of social challenges of adults with autism spectrum disorders, Autism, 9, 362–376.

36.

Walsh

, Lydon

, & Healy

(2014). Employment and vocational skills among individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Predictors, impact, and interventions, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 1, 266–275.

37.

World Health Organization. (2009). International classification of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Relationship Dimension
Involvement	Concern and commitment to the job
Coworker Cohesion	Friendly and supportive coworkers
Supervisor Support	Manager/Supervisor support of employees and their encouragement of support of others
Personal Growth Dimension
Autonomy	Encouragement to make own decisions and be self-sufficient
Task Orientation	Focus on good planning, efficiency, and getting the job done
Work Pressure	Expectations of high work demands and time pressure
System Maintenance and Change Dimensions
Clarity	Communication of explicit rules and policies and an understanding of expectations in daily routines
Managerial Control	Managements use of rules and procedures to control employees
Innovation	Encouragement of variety, change and new approach
Physical Comfort	The physical environment contributes to a pleasant work environment