Interview skills training for people with neurodevelopmental disorders receiving vocational services: A pilot study

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

People with neurodevelopmental disorders often face significant challenges to finding and keeping employment including engaging in a job interview. Successfully navigating a job interview is a complex and essential stage to finding employment and requires skillful behaviors.

OBJECTIVE:

The study aimed to determine the feasibility of the Presenting Qualifications intervention for people with neurodevelopmental disorders.

METHODS:

Direct skills teaching (DST) is a researched method that can be utilized to help people learn a new skill. The current study implemented a multi-session, group based work-related soft skills intervention (“Presenting Qualifications”) for 76 people with various neurodevelopmental disorders via a DST approach.

RESULTS:

Participants reported increased perceived interview preparedness from pre to post intervention. Participants also reported satisfaction with the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS:

This suggests soft skills interventions delivered in group settings can be successfully implemented among people with neurodevelopmental disabilities. Implications of the findings and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

Neurodevelopmental disorders employment direct skills teaching interview skills

1 Introduction

People with neurodevelopmental disorders have low employment rates (Bowring et al., 2019; Siperstein et al., 2013). Neurodevelopmental disorders include a few distinct subgroups such as specific learning disability (SLD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), intellectual disabilities, communication disorders, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Neurodevelopmental disorders can impact social, personal, occupational, and academic domains (APA, 2013).

Specific learning disabilities (SLD) stem from neurological differences that impact the ability to comprehend, recall, or communicate information (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). According to Horowitz et al. (2017), about 20% of children in the United States experience cognitive difficulties in at least one of these areas: (a) reading, (b) writing, (c) math, (d) organization, (e) focus, (f) listening comprehension, (g) social skills, and (h) motor skills. There are a wide range of challenges and outcomes people with SLD can experience (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014; Gerber, 2012; Timmons et al., 2010), including employment challenges in finding jobs and poorer employment outcomes in addition to social, emotional, or psychological difficulties throughout their lifetimes (Seo et al., 2008). In examining data from the second National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2), Sima et al. (2015) noted that only about 38% of students with learning and cognitive disabilities attained competitive employment within six-years after leaving high school. Additionally, research has shown that among working-age adults, individuals with learning disabilities are more likely to be unemployed than their peers without disabilities (Horowtiz et al., 2017; Joshi & Bouck, 2017; Timmons et al., 2010; Troiano et al., 2010). Researchers have posited that disability stigma, lower rates of post-secondary education (PSE), and lack of workplace accommodation awareness may be contributing factors to poorer employment outcomes for people with SLD. (Gerber, 2012; Horowitz et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2015).

Employment rates for people with neurodevelopmental disabilities are lower than the general population regardless of the type of neurodevelopmental disability. Among working-age adults with intellectual disabilities (ID), only 23% were employed between 2017 and 2018 in New Jersey, compared to 92% of the general population (Bowring et al., 2019). Nationally, about 44% of all adults with ID between the ages of 21 and 64 w are employed, which contrasts to 83% of adults without ID in the same age range. Among adults with SLDs, 46% were employed (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). When compared to peers without ADHD, individuals with ADHD were 11 times more likely to be unemployed and those who were employed were more likely to be in unskilled occupations (Kuriyan et al., 2013). Additionally, one study found that young adults with ADHD earned 25% less monthly compared to individuals without ADHD (Altszuler et al., 2016). Individuals with ASD had the highest employment rate of all groups with neurodevelopmental disorders. A 2017 study found the unemployment rate in the United States was 83% for adults aged 18–65 who have ASD and qualified to work (Mai, 2019). In a review, individuals with ASD who were high functioning or individuals with Asperger’s syndromes had employment rates ranging from 11–55%, while the majority of them were underemployed, employed in unskilled, entry-level jobs working few hours a week, were underpaid, and had less job tenure (Chen et al., 2015).

Helping individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders acquire and master key work skills will significantly increase the opportunities for them to obtain and maintain employment. This study focuses on one of those critical skills –job interview skills. Job interview skills require an assortment of knowledge and behaviors including recognizing social cues that can determine the outcome of a job interview. Walker et al. (2016) discussed the importance interview skills may have in relation to job offers. Individuals with neurocognitive disorders frequently have difficulties with both social and self-advocacy skills.

Due to these difficulties, navigating a job interview can be particularly challenging for people with neurodevelopmental disorders. Strickland et al. (2013) noted the initial interview process is the first hurdle to becoming part of the workforce and often includes questions that evaluate interviewee’s skills related to working as part of a team and problem solving in social settings. Often, interviewers ask prospective employees indirect, open-ended questions such as “tell me about yourself”, that can be challenging for people with neurodevelopmental disabilities to answer (Levashina et al., 2014; Maras et al., 2021; Norris et al., 2020). Successfully responding to these questions involves understanding the intentions of employers and inferring what information they want to hear, which can be difficult for people with ASD (Maras et al., 2021; Norris et al., 2020) and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Hendricks (2010) also noted that communication obstacles such as successfully understanding directions, reading facial expressions, and tone of voice can impact interview as well as job performance for people with ASD and other neurodevelopmental disabilities. Although there has been some research on job interview preparation for people with neurodevelopmental disabilities, additional studies would be helpful in providing service providers with additional approaches for teaching interview skills.

People with neurodevelopmental disorders generally encounter difficulties applying learned behaviors to new tasks or contexts, which can also make navigating a job interview challenging (Michalski et al., 2021). For example, conversation at interviews often poses difficulties to individuals with ID. The ability to convey a favorable first impression often impacts the outcome of the interview. It is important for people with ID to communicate both individually and in groups about their job qualifications. Other behaviors important to interviews for individuals with ID include proper eye contact, good posture, eliminating distracting verbal habits, understandable vocalization, and appropriate hand gestures (Walker et al., 2016). Hollomotz (2018) identified that those with ID are not always able to provide full context to a story, which results in the interviewer being confused about what is being discussed. All of these areas are typically of concern for people who have ID who are interested in getting a job.

Fabiano et al. (2018) found that building job interview skills for people with ADHD may be important for improving successful employment outcomes. Other studies have also shown success teaching people with neurodevelopmental disabilities job interview skills that can increase their chances of successfully navigating interviews and obtaining employment (Hendricks, 2010; Maras et al., 2021; Michalski et al., 2021; Strickland et al., 2013).

Rast et al. (2019) reported the use of VR services to support employment success for persons with disabilities. Interview skills training may be part of employment counseling preparation for job placement services for persons with disabilities in VR services. The question could be raised about what type of brief, but relatively intensive interview preparation in VR services might be beneficial for people with neurodevelopmental disorders. This study will explore the efficacy, feasibility, and practicality of teaching job interview skills to adults with various neurodevelopmental disabilities in small group settings led by student counselors. using a manualized step-by-step curriculum. The findings of the study will provide information on building critical vocational skills in order to increase employment participation for this group.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

In total, 76 participants with neurodevelopmental disorders [SLD (59.2%), ADHD (14.5%), ASD (13.2%), ID (10.5%), communication disorders (2.6%)], between the ages of 18 and 60, participated in the small group intervention entitled “Presenting Qualifications” (Table 1). The current data set also includes participants that engaged in the intervention from 2013 to 2019. A previous article reported data collected from 2013 to 2016 for 126 participants with various disabilities, and among these participants, 29 (38%) were included in this current study (Oursler et al., 2019).

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample (N = 76)

Total Sample (n = 76)

N %

Gender

Male 52 68.4

Female 24 31.6

Age range

Age 18–24 42 55.3

Age 25–58 34 44.7

Race/Ethnicity

African American 29 38.2

European American 24 31.6

Hispanic 21 27.6

Asian American 1 1.3

Missing 1 1.3

Diagnosis

Specific Learning Disability 45 59.2

Intellectual Disabilities 8 10.5

Autism Spectrum Disorder 10 13.2

Communication Disorders 2 2.6

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 11 14.5

Attended all sessions 85 62.0

Currently working 4 5.3

Ever employed 24 31.6

Mean SD

Age 27.86 11.52

Years of Education 12.63 1.88

Years of Employment 4.47 8.72

	Total Sample (n = 76)
Gender
Male	52	68.4
Female	24	31.6
Age range
Age 18–24	42	55.3
Age 25–58	34	44.7
Race/Ethnicity
African American	29	38.2
European American	24	31.6
Hispanic	21	27.6
Asian American	1	1.3
Missing	1	1.3
Diagnosis
Specific Learning Disability	45	59.2
Intellectual Disabilities	8	10.5
Autism Spectrum Disorder	10	13.2
Communication Disorders	2	2.6
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder	11	14.5
Attended all sessions	85	62.0
Currently working	4	5.3
Ever employed	24	31.6
	Mean	SD
Age	27.86	11.52
Years of Education	12.63	1.88
Years of Employment	4.47	8.72

Note. Demographic information was not available for 6 out of 137 participants.

Participants were drawn from 25 groups consisting of people with different disabilities. All participants were recruited from state vocational rehabilitation agencies and non-profit agencies that provide services for individuals with disabilities in four states in the Northeastern United States. Eligible participants were 18 or older, fluent in English, and interested in gaining employment. This study received IRB approval (Pro20140000332; Approval Date: 9/10/2014) and all participants provided informed consent. Participation was voluntary and master’s level counseling students completing their internships facilitated the groups while under supervision. Additionally, participants were reassured that they would be able to leave the study at any point without any impact on services they were receiving through the agency. The participants ranged from ages 18–24 (N = 42; 55.3%) and 25–71 (N = 34; 44.7%), with an average age of 27.86. Among the participants, 32% were female and 68% were male. Among the participants, 4 (5.3%) individuals were currently working, and 24 (31.6%) had a job at some point in their lives.

2.2 Measures

Participants’ demographic and disability information was collected from agency records. The participants were given the Perceived Interview Preparedness Questionnaire (Oursler, 2019), which measured the participants’ self-reported perceived interview preparedness. The 10-item questionnaire utilized a 5- point Likert scale (i.e. Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). The questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the first session and at the end of the last session to measure changes in participants’ perceived interview preparedness. The survey included questions such as, “I have a good idea about what kind of introductory questions are asked by employers” and “I have a good idea about how I should dress when going to an interview” (see Table 2).

Table 2
Wilcoxon signed-ranked test for perceived interview preparedness questionnaire for “presenting qualifications” module (N = 76)

Questions Pre-Group Post-Group

N M SD N M SD Z P Effect Size^**

1) I have a good idea about how to prepare for my job interview. 75 3.64 0.94 65 4.42 0.66 –5.05 0.00 –0.58

2) I have a good idea about what kind of introductory questions are asked by employers. 75 3.57 0.84 65 4.30 0.71 –4.54 0.00 –0.52

3) I have a good idea about the top skills employers are looking for when hiring someone. 75 3.64 0.91 65 4.18 0.77 –4.27 0.00 –0.49

4) I have a good idea about what skills I have that match the skills employers are looking for. 75 3.53 0.88 65 4.18 0.70 –5.24 0.00 –0.60

5) I feel confident that I can communicate my skills to an employer in a positive way. 75 3.60 1.01 65 4.29 0.72 –4.73 0.00 –0.54

6) I have a good idea about questions employers might ask that can be difficult to answer. 75 3.37 0.97 65 4.05 0.67 –4.64 0.00 –0.53

7) I feel confident that I can answer difficult questions that an employer may ask on an interview. 75 3.09 1.04 65 3.94 0.95 –5.11 0.00 –0.59

8) I take a list of important information such as names of references to the interview. 75 3.89 0.80 65 4.29 0.68 –3.23 0.00 –0.37

9) I can explain the reasons I left my last job to the interviewer. 75 3.59 1.00 64 4.00 0.96 –3.22 0.00 –0.37

10) I have a good idea about how I should dress when going on an interview. 75 4.41 0.64 65 4.58 0.56 –2.05 0.41 –0.24

Questions	Pre-Group	Post-Group
1) I have a good idea about how to prepare for my job interview.	75	3.64	0.94	65	4.42	0.66	–5.05	0.00	–0.58
2) I have a good idea about what kind of introductory questions are asked by employers.	75	3.57	0.84	65	4.30	0.71	–4.54	0.00	–0.52
3) I have a good idea about the top skills employers are looking for when hiring someone.	75	3.64	0.91	65	4.18	0.77	–4.27	0.00	–0.49
4) I have a good idea about what skills I have that match the skills employers are looking for.	75	3.53	0.88	65	4.18	0.70	–5.24	0.00	–0.60
5) I feel confident that I can communicate my skills to an employer in a positive way.	75	3.60	1.01	65	4.29	0.72	–4.73	0.00	–0.54
6) I have a good idea about questions employers might ask that can be difficult to answer.	75	3.37	0.97	65	4.05	0.67	–4.64	0.00	–0.53
7) I feel confident that I can answer difficult questions that an employer may ask on an interview.	75	3.09	1.04	65	3.94	0.95	–5.11	0.00	–0.59
8) I take a list of important information such as names of references to the interview.	75	3.89	0.80	65	4.29	0.68	–3.23	0.00	–0.37
9) I can explain the reasons I left my last job to the interviewer.	75	3.59	1.00	64	4.00	0.96	–3.22	0.00	–0.37
10) I have a good idea about how I should dress when going on an interview.	75	4.41	0.64	65	4.58	0.56	–2.05	0.41	–0.24

Note. ^*p < = 0.05; 1 = “strongly disagree”; 2 = “disagree”; 3 = “neutral”; 4 = “agree”; 5 = “strongly agree”. ^** Average effect size: –0.48.

Upon completion of the final group session, participants were also asked to complete an overall satisfaction questionnaire (see Table 2). This satisfaction questionnaire included seven scaled questions as well as five open-ended questions addressing participants’ personal experience in the group. The satisfaction questionnaire included the following items: (1) “The overall quality of the group was”; (2) “The instructor’s knowledge of the subjects was” both with four answer choices of “excellent,” “good,” “satisfactory,” and “poor”; (3) “I think the information I received will be helpful to me on a job”; (4) “The group held my interest” with choices of “strongly agree,” “agree,” “not sure,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”; (5) “The number of group sessions was” answered by “too many,” “about right,” and “not enough”; (6) “I feel confident I can use the skill I learned in the group” followed by answer choices of “strongly agree,” “agree,” “not sure,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”; and (7) “I would recommend this group to a friend” answered with “yes,” “not sure,” or “no.” The five open-ended questions, designed to gain a better understanding of the participants’ experiences, are as follows: (1) What did you like about the group? (2) What would you change or improve about the group? (3) What will you do differently as a result of attending the group? (4) What other information would it be helpful to include in the group? and (5) Any other comments?

Group facilitators filled out a standardized group fidelity form, entitled “Your Review of the Group Session,” following the conclusion of each session to measure curriculum fidelity. This measure was designed to gather the following data regarding each session: (a) The module reviewed in the session and the length of the session; (b) Changes made from the procedures outlined in the manual; (c) Impressions regarding participant reactions and the overall group process; and (d) Any challenges encountered throughout the process and recommendations for changes in the future.

2.3 Intervention

The Presenting Qualifications curriculum is grounded in Boston University’s Direct Skills Teaching (DST) approach, which defines a skill as a behavior with the addition of a knowledge base (Cohen et al., 1985; Farkas & Anthony, 2010). The aim is for participants to retain knowledge and behavior to utilize the skill in a target environment (e.g. a job interview). Teaching a skill through DST involves a skill content outline, a structured curriculum, and involving the participants in practice exercises (Farkas & Anthony, 2010). Sometimes, skills training programs require participants to assume a passive role. However, DST allows active participation since the approach draws upon cognitive and behavioral techniques (Cohen et al., 1985; Shern et al., 2000). The intervention focuses on one critical skill with the intent of behavioral change. DST is distinct from social skills training because it: (a) requires an overall rehabilitation goal (ORG) for participants, (b) focuses on the assessed critical skill(s) for the ORG, and (c) modifies lesson to help facilitation collaboration between teacher and learner.

Master’s level students in Rehabilitation Counseling each facilitated a group consisting of four sessions based on the structured “Presenting Qualifications” curriculum manual. The curriculum manual included step-by-step instructions designed to ease the independent facilitation of groups without the need for training.

The “Presenting Qualifications” curriculum focused on instructing individuals how to effectively communicate their skills to a job interviewer, navigate interview questions, and successfully prepare to be interviewed (see Appendix). The skill was divided into four behaviors with each behavior taught in one session: (a) describing major accomplishments; (b) identifying Key Transferable and Self-management Skills; (c) preparing for the interview; and (d) describing your qualifications. The sessions were scheduled biweekly or weekly and lasted a total of 60–75 minutes. Each session was structured upon the Review, Overview, Presentation, Exercises, and Summary (ROPES) approach (Cohen et al., 1985). The group activities for sessions consisted of: (1) reviewing the group purpose and content outline i.e., duration and length of sessions and expected outcomes; (2) an overview of the content to be presented in that session; (3) presentation of the target behavior and relevant body of knowledge; (4) group practice exercises, and (5) summary of the session with discussion of between session practice. The pre/post group questionnaire were administered during the first and last session, respectively.

2.4 Analysis

Before conducting statistical analyses, descriptive statistics were used to examine outliers and data integrity. A nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the pre- and post-intervention differences on the Perceived Interview Preparedness Questionnaire because of the small sample size in the study.

For open-ended questions, an adapted version of conventional content analysis was used to examine responses (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Specifically, two independent master’s level researchers who did not collect the data conducted content analyses, coded responses, and independently developed common responses among coded responses. They then compared common responses they had independently coded. The master’s level researchers had previously completed coursework in statistical methods and had prior experience evaluating open ended responses for content and themes. Their work was also supervised by a doctoral level qualitative researcher. Discrepancies were resolved by clarifying discussions that led to final agreement.

3 Results

The 76 participants were mostly males (n = 52; 68.4%) between the ages of 18–24 (n = 42; 55.3%) and 25–71 (n = 34; 44.7%) with a mean age of 27.86 (SD = 11.52). The average years of education and employment were 12.63 (SD = 1.88) and 4.47 (SD = 8.72), respectively. Participants represented a wide range of neurodevelopmental disabilities including: (a) Specific learning disability (59.2%); (b) Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (14.2 %); (c) Autism Spectrum Disorder (13.2%); (d) Intellectual disability (10.5%); and (e) Communication Disorders (2.6%). Also, participants reported their racial/ethnic backgrounds as follows: (a) African American (n = 29; 38.2%); (b) Caucasian/European American (n = 24; 31.6%); (c) Hispanic American (n = 21; 27.6%); and (d) Asian American (n = 1; 1.3%). One (1.3%) participant’s racial/ethnic background was not reported.

Graduate level rehabilitation counseling students during their internship year led the groups. Some common accommodations/modifications provided were extra time for group activities, utilizing triads instead of dyads for exercises due to group size, simplifying language/instructions, and providing individualized assistance/clarification with completing the questionnaires.

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed the intervention elicited statistically significant changes in participants’ felt preparedness for interviews. Out of 10 questions, nine achieved p values of less than.001 on Wilcoxon signed-rank test, while Question 10 yielded a p value of 0.41. Overall, the results were significant and showed an average effect size for the items of –0.48, which indicated a medium effect size overall (Table 2).

The results indicated high levels of satisfaction from the participants (Table 3). More than 90% of the participants reported “agree” or “strongly agree” to the following: “The overall quality of the group and the instructor’s knowledge was good/excellent”; “I think the information I received will be helpful to me on the job”; and “The group held my interest”. More than 85% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with feeling confident to using the skill they learned. More than 65% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that the number of sessions was “about right” and more than 30% of participants wanted more sessions. Over 75% of group members agreed that they would recommend the group to a friend (Table 3).

Table 3
Satisfaction survey for “presenting qualifications” module (N = 76)

N Valid %

The overall quality of the group was good/excellent 60 95.2

The instructor’s knowledge was good/excellent 59 93.6

I think the information I received will be helpful to me on the job (agree/strongly agree) 63 100.0

The group held my interest (agree/strongly agree) 59 93.6

The number of sessions was about right 42 67.7

I feel confident that I can use the skill I learned in the group (agree/strongly agree) 55 87.3

I would recommend this group to a friend 49 77.8

	N	Valid %
The overall quality of the group was good/excellent	60	95.2
The instructor’s knowledge was good/excellent	59	93.6
I think the information I received will be helpful to me on the job (agree/strongly agree)	63	100.0
The group held my interest (agree/strongly agree)	59	93.6
The number of sessions was about right	42	67.7
I feel confident that I can use the skill I learned in the group (agree/strongly agree)	55	87.3
I would recommend this group to a friend	49	77.8

Note. 20 (32.3 %) participants thought the number of sessions was not enough. They recommended more sessions.

Participants also completed four open ended questions. When asked, “What did you like about the group?”, results were: (a) 46.8% (n = 33) of participants reported positive group experiences including group facilitator and (b) 24.7% (n = 21) reported they learned new and useful information. 29% (n = 22) did not response to this item.

Participants were also asked, “What would you change or improve about the group?”, and results were: (a) 22.1% (n = 17) of participants suggested more session numbers and time spent on skills practice. 74.9% (n = 58) of participants did not respond to this item. One participant (1.3%) provided a response that was unrelated to the question.

Common responses to the question, “What will you do differently as a result of attending the group?” included: (a) 20.8% (n = 16) of participants stated they would prepare for or go on an interview and (b) 18.2% (n = 14) of participants reported they would utilize/practice the skills learned in group. 42 participants (55.1%) did not respond, while four participants (5.2%) provided comments unrelated to the question.

The final question was “What other information would it be helpful to include in the group?”. Common responses included: (a) 20.8% (n = 16) of participants reported to provide more job-related assistance such as job postings or individualized support. 58 participants (76.2%) did not respond to this item. Two participants (2.6%) provided comments related to their personal takeaways from group (i.e. “the information that made me helpful is doing the interview and going to make me stop being nervous” and “when I am in an interview, change up my wording”).

4 Discussion

The study participants reported increased level of perceived skill competence of all 10 survey items of the post training evaluation, from how to prepare for a job interview, how to answer tough questions such as the reason for leaving the last job, to how to take employment related information to an interview or how to dress for a job interview. Additionally, participants expressed satisfaction with the skills training curriculum in the answers to the open-ended questions. These preliminary findings suggested the training curriculum was effective in improving job interview skills among individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders.

The study also provided encouraging findings of the feasibility and practicality of the skill training curriculum for future use. First, the curriculum appeared suitable for participants with various neurodevelopmental disorders. This is important because these individuals often receive services from the same community provider who may not have the resources to provide separate skill training groups for each disorder. Second, the cost of the training curriculum is minimum. There is no special equipment or materials needed other than a pencil and paper which are affordable for most service providers. Third, the training curriculum is developed with step-by-step instructions with the intent that any counselor can follow easily to teach a skill by reviewing and following the manual. Thus, it has the advantage of mitigating the disruption when staff turnover occurs, which is a common challenge among community providers. Finally, although this pilot study used the curriculum in a group setting, it can also be used individually.

More than half of the participants in this sample had a SLD. Findings suggest that interview skills training is well received by persons with SLDs. Given the employment difficulties people with SLD encounter, it is important to develop strategies to address their needs and to improve their employment outcomes. Whittenburg et al. (2020) found that persons with SLD who received vocational rehabilitation (VR) services and engaged in Post Secondary Education (PSE) experienced better employment outcomes. Whittenburg et al. (2020) noted that studies are needed on how employment outcomes and cost-effectiveness are impacted by specific VR services.

Similarly, Rast et al. (2019) advocated for the use of VR services to support employment success. Our study provides evidence that interview skills training, when provided as part of VR services, is well received by persons with SLDs and enhanced their perceived interview preparedness. Interview skills training may be part of preparation for job placement services in VR services. The question could be raised about what type of brief, but relatively intensive interview preparation in VR services might be beneficial for people with neurodevelopmental disorders. Our study provides a feasible approach to this.

4.1 Limitations and future directions

Due to the nature of pilot studies, several limitations are noted in this study. The group leaders were non-licensed masters-level counseling students who facilitated the groups to fulfill internship requirements. As such, they may not have the same clinical skills as licensed and graduate counselors. Also, the study did not use fidelity measures, which limits intervention curriculum adherence information. Pre and post survey measures on perceived interview readiness also had limited reliability and validity information.

In this study, interview skills and knowledge of presenting one’s qualifications were not observed or assessed objectively. This study only assessed perceived readiness with presenting qualifications during an interview. The self-report data used for this study is insufficient for measuring actual interview skill development. It is important to examine effectiveness over time as well as measuring whether job skills training leads to job acquisition among the participants in the real world. Among the largest employment barriers for individuals with disabilities was the employer’s perception of a lack of skills necessary to perform the job (Kocman et al., 2018). Meltzer et al. (2020) highlights that barriers can be due to employer attitudes which can be narrow, discouraging, or dismissive.

Additionally, the study design was not randomized and controlled and did not include a control group. Findings could have been confounded by history, maturation, selection, attrition, repeated testing, regression, and thus not as a result of the training (Harris et al., 2006; Shadish et al., 2002; Skelly et al., 2012). Future studies should examine other designs that include a control group and long term follow up to understand skills retention and/or employment outcomes.

Furthermore, there were only 76 participants in the study. A larger sample size in future studies would facilitate further exploration of the efficacy of this approach to job skills training for this population. Future studies also would benefit from a pre/post assessment of behavior in an interview since the current study measured perceived interview readiness.

5 Conclusion

Despite the identified limitations, the findings support the feasibility of Presenting Qualifications delivered by masters-level rehabilitation counseling student interns to assist individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities who are seeking employment. Future studies may examine the cost effectiveness of this intervention to help facilitate positive employment outcomes for people with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

None to report.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Ethical approval

This study received ethical approval from the Rutgers University, Newark Health Sciences institutional review board (Pro20140000332; Approval Date: 9/10/2014).

Funding

This work was supported by Rutgers School of Health Professions Dean’s Intramural Grant within the Department of Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Counseling Professions (no fund number assigned).

Informed consent

All participants provided informed consent prior to enrollment.

Appendix

Content Outline for Presenting Qualifications Module

Skill: Presenting Qualifications

Definition: Presenting qualifications means explaining to an interviewer the reasons the organization should hire you.

Benefit: Presenting qualifications on an interview provides you with a better opportunity to be chosen for the position.

Behaviors:

1. Describing major accomplishments

2. Identifying Key Transferable and Self-management Skills

3. Preparing for the Interview

4. Describing your qualifications

Performance Condition: When you are called to go for a job interview

References

Altszuler,

A. R.

, Page,

T. F.

, Gnagy,

E. M.

, Coxe,

, Arrieta,

, Molina,

B. S. G.

, Pelham

Jr.

, W.

(2016) Financial dependence of young adults with childhood ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(6), 1217–1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0093-9

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.

Bowring,

D. L.

, Hatton,

, McMahon,

, (2019) Not such an ordinary life: A comparison of employment, marital status and housing profiles of adults with and without intellectual disabilities. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 24(4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLDR-03-2019-0014

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). The employment situation-January 2021 [Press release]. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.

Chen,

J. L.

, Leader,

, Sung,

, Leahy,

(2015) Trends in employment for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A review of the research literature. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-014-0041-6

Cohen,

, Danley,

, Nemec,

(1985). Direct skills teaching reference handbook. Boston: Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation.

Cortiella,

, Horowitz,

S. H.

(2014). The State of Learning Disabilities: Facts, Trends and Emerging Issues. National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Fabiano,

G. A.

, Hulme,

K. F.

, Sodano,

S. M.

, Caserta,

, Hulme,

, Stephan,

, Smyth,

A. C.

(2018) An evaluation of occupational behavior in individuals with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Human Performance, 31(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2018.1489809

Farkas,

, Anthony,

W. A.

(2010) Psychiatric rehabilitation interventions: A review. International Review of Psychiatry, 22(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261003730372

10.

Gerber,

P. J.

(2012) The impact of learning disabilities on adulthood: A review of the evidenced-based literature for research and practice in adult education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411426858

11.

Harris,

A. D.

, McGregor,

J. C.

, Perencevich,

E. N.

, Furuno,

J. P.

, Zhu,

, Peterson,

D. E.

, Finkelstein,

(2006) The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 13(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1749

12.

Harvey,

, Szoc,

, (n.d.). Customized Employment Competency Model. United States Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/odep/pdf/2011cecm.pdf

13.

Hendricks,

(2010) Employment and adults with autism spectrum disorders: Challenges and strategies for success. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 32(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2010-0502.

14.

Hollomotz,

(2018) Successful interviews with people with intellectual disability. Qualitative Research: QR, 18(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117713810

15.

Horowitz,

S. H.

, Rawe,

, Whittaker,

M. C.

(2017). The State of Learning Disabilities: Understanding the 1 in 5. New York:National Center for Learning Disabilities.

16.

Hsieh,

H. F.

, Shannon,

S. E.

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

17.

Joshi,

G. S.

, Bouck,

E. C.

(2017) Examining postsecondary education predictors and participation for students with learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 50(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415572894

18.

Kaya,

, Hsu,

, Rumrill,

P. D.

, Hanley-Maxwell,

, Chan,

(2021) Differential vocational rehabilitation service patterns and outcomes for transition-age youth with specific learning disabilities: Implications in the COVID- era. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 54(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-201118

19.

Kocman,

, Fischer,

, Weber,

(2018) The Employers’ perspective on barriers and facilitators to employment of people with intellectual disability: A differential mixed-method approach. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities: JARID, 31(1), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12375

20.

Kuriyan,

A. B.

, Pelham,

W. E., W.

Jr , Molina,

B. S. G.

, Waschbusch,

D. A.

, Gnagy,

E. M.

, Sibley,

M. H.

, Babinski,

D. E.

, Walther,

, Cheong,

, Yu,

, Kent,

K. M.

(2013) Young adult educational and vocational outcomes of children diagnosed with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9658-z

21.

Lee,

I. H.

, Rojewski,

J. W.

, Gregg,

, Jeong,

S. -O.

(2015) Postsecondary education persistence of adolescents with specific learning disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 49(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466914524826

22.

Levashina,

, Hartwell,

C. J.

, Morgeson,

F. P.

, Campion,

M. A.

(2014) The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052

23.

Ma,

, Pender,

, Welch,

(2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. College Board.

24.

Mai,

(2019) Hiring Agents’ Beliefs: A Barrier to Employment of Autistics. SAGE Open, 9(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019862725

25.

Maras,

, Norris,

J. E.

, Nicholson,

, Heasman,

, Remington,

, Crane,

(2021) Ameliorating the disadvantage for autistic job seekers: An initial evaluation of adapted employment interview questions. Autism, 25(4), 1060–1075. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320981319

26.

Meltzer,

, Robinson,

, Fisher,

K. R.

(2020) Barriers to finding and maintaining open employment for people with intellectual disability in Australia. Social Policy & Administration, 54(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12523

27.

Michalski,

S. C.

, Ellison,

, Szpak,

, Loetscher,

(2021) Vocational training in virtual environments for people with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 627301.

28.

Murray,

, Doren,

(2012) The effects of working at gaining employment skills on the social and vocational skills of adolescents with disabilities: A school-based intervention. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 56(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355212452614

29.

Norris,

J. E.

, Crane,

, Maras,

(2020) Interviewing autistic adults: Adaptations to support recall in police, employment, and healthcare interviews. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 24(6), 1506–1520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320909174

30.

Oursler,

, Lu,

, Herrick,

, Harris,

(2019) Using Direct Skills Teaching to improve job skills for persons with disabilities. Journal of Employment Counseling, 56(2), 69–84. DOI: 10.1002/joec.12113.

31.

Rast,

J. E.

, Roux,

A. M.

, Shattuck,

P. T.

(2019) Use of vocational rehabilitation supports for postsecondary education among transition-age youth on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(6), 2164–2173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03972-8

32.

Seo,

, Abbott,

R. D.

, Hawkins,

J. D.

(2008) Outcome status of students with learning disabilities at ages and. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407311308

33.

Shadish,

W. R.

, Cook,

T. D.

, Campbell,

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.

34.

Shern,

, Tsemberis,

, Anthony,

, Lovell,

, Richmond,

, Felton,

, Winarski,

, Cohen,

(2000) Serving street-dwelling individuals with psychiatric disabilities: Outcomes of a psychiatric rehabilitation clinical trial. American Journal of Public Health, 90(12), 1873–1878. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.90.12.1873

35.

Sima,

A. P.

, Wehman,

P. H.

, Chan,

, West,

M. D.

, Leucking,

R. G.

(2015) An evaluation of risk factors related to employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143414534887

36.

Siperstein,

G. N.

, Parker,

R. C.

, Drascher,

(2013) National snapshot of adults with intellectual disabilities in the labor force. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39(3), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-130658

37.

Skelly,

A. C.

, Dettori,

J. R.

, Brodt,

E. D.

(2012) Assessing bias: The importance of considering confounding. Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal, 3(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1298595

38.

Strickland,

D. C.

, Coles,

C. D.

, Southern,

L. B.

(2013) JobTIPS: A transition to employment program for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(10), 2472–2483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1800-4

39.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA]. (2021). Telehealth for the treatment of serious mental illness and substance use disorders (SAMHSA Publi- cation No. PEP21-06-02-001) Rockville,MD:National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy Laboratory. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

40.

Timmons,

, Wills,

, Kemp,

, Basha,

R. Mooney, M.

(2010). Charting the course: Supporting the career development of youth with learning disabilities.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, National Collaborative onWorkforce and Disability for Youth.

41.

Troiano,

P. F.

, Liefeld,

J. A.

, Trachtenberg,

J. V.

(2010) Academic support and college success for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2010.10850329

42.

Walker,

, Vasquez,

, Wienke,

(2016) The impact of simulated interviews for individuals with intellectual disability. Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 76–88.

43.

Wehman,

, Taylor,

, Brooke,

, Avellone,

, Whittenburg,

, Ham,

, Brooke,

, Carr,

(2018) Toward competitive employment for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What progress have we made and where do we need to go. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 43(3), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796918777730

44.

Weinberg,

(2020) Online group psychotherapy: Challenges and possibilities during COVID-—A practice review. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,, 24(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000140

45.

Whittenburg,

H. N.

, Cimera,

R. E.

, Willis,

, Taylor,

J. P.

, Thoma,

C. A.

(2020) Comparing employment outcomes for youth with learning disabilities and postsecondary educational experience. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 52(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-201079