1

USABILITY OF THE

GOOD&CO APP

BY PEOPLE WITH AUTISM

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes ongoing research efforts carried out by Good&Co as part of the

development and continued validation of the Proprietary Psychometric algorithm (PPA).

Good&Co’s PPA is a bespoke psychometric measurement tool, steeped in decades of

research into career and individual differences literature. It is based on psychobiological

frameworks of personality, rooted in neuroscience and behavioral genetics.

Good&Co’s PPA is grounded in the ‘Big Five’ personality model and three additional

factors that are highly relevant in the workplace: emotional intelligence (Empathy), Drive and

Authority. The traits are measured using a statistically validated psychometric tool, custom-

developed for assessing personality in the context of organizational culture.

The aim of this mixed methods study is to assess the usability of the Good&Co app with

a neurotypically diverse sample, focusing on people formally diagnosed with autism.

Quantitative results showed that both the diagnosed and non-diagnosed users found the

quiz easy to understand (Good&Co Adverse Impact Autism study, 2018).

Qualitative results showed seven key themes emerging for both groups. The theme ‘Ease

of use’ received the largest number of comments for the diagnosed users, and the theme

‘Ease of understanding’ received the largest number of comments for the non-diagnosed

users.

As part of the ongoing empirical validation of Good&Co’s model, we illustrate that

Good&Co’s PPA and accompanying insights operate in a non-biased way and are equally

useful across neuro diverse and neurotypical groups.

3

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 2

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4

2. Usability Study ............................................................................................................. 7

Quantitative approach ............................................................................................... 14

Qualitative approach .................................................................................................. 17

3. Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................. 21

4. References .................................................................................................................. 23

5

1. INTRODUCTION

With companies increasingly using psychometric assessments during the hiring process

to fit the right candidate to the right job, it is important that such assessments are equitable

and non-discriminatory across different groups, not only for age, sex, race or sexual

orientation, but also for neurodiversity. Individuals on the autistic spectrum, more than

anyone, need to be sure there is a good job-fit for them if they are to maintain continued

employment (e.g. Muller et al., 2003).

At Good&Co, we believe that when the job fits well, work feels more like play. Our goal is

to empower people with the information they need to make better, more informed career

decisions, while also helping companies build happier, more productive workplaces.

Good&Co’s user experience is founded on its quirky and hard to game question style, which

provides a fun way to find out your workplace personality. This form of quiz, however, could

be more difficult for adults with autism who generally benefit from a more direct line of

questioning. This report investigates the user experience of individuals with autism to ensure

that the Good&Co app is equally understandable and useful for neurotypical and neuro-

diverse groups alike.

Adults with autism face many specific challenges when it comes to obtaining and

sustaining employment (Hillier, Campbell, Mastriani, Vreeburg Izzo, Kool-Tucker, Cherry,

& Beversdorf, 2007). Apart from getting past the interview stage (which has its own set of

challenges), when compared to the general population, there is a tendency for autistic adults

to be over-represented in casual employment, be overqualified for a role, and under-

represented in senior organizational roles (Baldwin, Costley, & Warren, 2014). This is despite

high functioning adults with autism (i.e., without intellectual disability) showing higher than

average education levels and enhanced performance on certain tasks compared to the

general population (Baldwin et al., 2014).

6

A lack of understanding and awareness regarding autism not only leads to a bias against

employing autistic adults in the first place, but also leads to a lack of support within the

working environment for those who do gain employment. Social competency is one area

where support is needed to retain autistic employees (ASPECT, 2013; Hagner & Cooney,

2005; Hillier et al., 2007). Apart from a tendency to exhibit unusual or repetitive behaviors,

adults with autism are likely to find reciprocal social interactions and interpersonal

communication challenging (5th ed.; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders; American Psychiatric Association; 2013).

It is worth remembering however, that adults with autism are as varied as the general

population, and so each individual is unique, presenting a range of characteristics across the

diagnostic spectrum. Many will likely have difficulty ‘reading between the lines’ and so for

these individuals, clear, detailed instructions are necessary to obtain optimum task

performance (ASPECT, 2013; Hagner & Cooney, 2005). Some will prefer not to be involved

in customer facing tasks (Hagner & Cooney, 2005). In addition to social aspects of a

role, some autistic adults will be subject to high sensitivity to sensory input (APA, 2013),

which can make some working environments particularly challenging for those

affected. These characteristics, while presenting challenges to the individual employee and

employer, are not insurmountable and as has been shown, with some adjustment from

employers, autistic adults can be accommodated in the same way as other typically

developed adults with physical disabilities or other individual needs (Hagner & Cooney,

2005).

To help overcome job-related challenges, researchers have initiated intervention

programs to help with procuring and maintaining employment (e.g. Hendricks, 2009; Hillier

et al., 2007). These studies have shown that with enough support, adults with autism can be

successful in finding and keeping a job. The kind of support needed includes pre-placement

coaching, such as help with preparing CVs, job-search and applications, mock interviews,

evaluation of job-site to assess suitability, and travel to work destination. In-placement

coaching is also needed to support autistic adults with onboarding and initial training, as well

as social skills training. Once established in a role, regular catch-ups with the employee and

7

supervisor can be useful to provide additional support as and when required. The literature

has shown that taking account of individual characteristics, such as strengths, weaknesses,

needs and interests can help to support adults with autism to gain successful and ongoing

employment.

One aspect which goes towards providing the right help and support in job placement is

job match (Hendricks, 2010). Matching a job to an individual’s personality, as well as to their

skills, strengths, weaknesses and interests, can add more granularity in finding a suitable

working environment. While job matching is important for all adults in employment, it is

particularly important for adults with autism, who require a more tailored approach to finding

employment.

Our previous research (Good&Co Adverse Impact Autism study, 2018), found differences

in personality between adults with and without autism, in line with the literature (e.g. Austin,

2013; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Schriber, et al., 2014; Wakabayashi, Baron-

Cohen, & Wheelwright, 2006; Warrier et al., 2018). Adults with a diagnosis were shown to

be less ‘Open to Experience’, suggesting they were less likely to try new things, when

compared to non-diagnosed adults. They also scored lower on ‘Empathy’, which suggests

greater difficulty in understanding others’ mental states, rather than having a lack of feeling

for others. In addition to this, they scored higher on ‘Neuroticism’ indicating that this group

was more prone to experiencing anxiety and depression than the non-diagnosed group.

These attributes may hamper the experience of adults with autism in using tools to assess

their workplace personality. Personality may not be the only factor playing a role in the

usability of such assessments, how the content is being processed may also contribute.

Good&Co’s app uses a fun, engaging, and hard to game question style. To achieve this,

the quiz items rely heavily on figurative language whereby the meaning does not translate

literally from the text. A number of studies have shown that individuals with autism find

figurative language difficult to understand or are likely to interpret the meaning too literally

(e.g. Happe, 1993). This may not be the case across the autistic population as a whole,

however, as other studies have shown individuals with autism performing similarly to

8

typically developed individuals on selected measures of figurative language (e.g. Hermann et

al., 2013). Individuals with autism who also experience language impairments, have shown

deficits in figurative language comprehension when compared with neurotypical samples.

Nevertheless, those with typically developed language abilities have shown no such

difference (Gernsbacher & Pripas-Kapit, 2012; Norbury, 2005). Furthermore, in a recent

meta-analysis where samples of individuals with autism and neurotypicals were matched on

language ability, no significant differences in figurative language comprehension were

observed (Kalandadze, Norbury, Nærland, & Næss, 2018). These findings suggest that

deficits in figurative language comprehension are not unique or universal to individuals with

an autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, we might hypothesize that adults with autism

seeking to understand their work personality in pursuit of employment, would not find

Good&Co’s style of quizzes a barrier to job-matching.

2. USABILITY STUDY

To establish the usability of Good&Co’s app and insights within a sample of people

diagnosed with autism, a study was conducted online using the first quiz in Good&Co’s app.

Data were collected via Prolific.ac, a host platform allowing researchers to carry out

demographic screening by age, sex, geographic location and autism diagnosis amongst a

myriad of other characteristics. Prolific survey respondents are reimbursed fairly for their

participation, and generally the platform is highly regarded by academic institutions as for

having a reliable, high quality participant pool.

In the present study people diagnosed with autism were recruited by Prolific especially

for the purpose of this study. This demographic characteristic was not included as a filter in

Prolific previously.

Participants

The sample consisted of 170 participants, 65 participants with a formal autism diagnosis

and 105 without. The sample included 88 males and 77 females, of which 34 and 30 were

9

diagnosed, respectively. With 5 participants preferring not to state their gender, the resulting

total of diagnosed participants was 65. The age of the sample ranged from 18-75 years with

the majority of participants falling within the range of 18-54 years.

Out of the 65 participants with a diagnosis, 40 elaborated on their actual diagnosis: 21

were described as having high functioning autism/Asperger’s syndrome; 7 were described as

having autistic spectrum condition; 10 were described as having autism comorbid with other

syndromes such as attention deficit disorder or sensory processing disorder; 2 were

described as having pervasive developmental disorder (see Table 1).

No significant differences were found between those with and without a formal diagnosis,

for location (urban/residential/non-urban), education level, employment status (see Table 1),

or duration in role. In line with previous findings, occupations of formally diagnosed

participants were not confined to technical fields, and instead were evenly spread across 40

common occupations (ASPECT, 2013; Muller et al., 2003) with no obvious clustering around

specific industries. Fairly stable employment also seemed to be experienced by both groups

in our sample, with 40% of the diagnosed, and 31% of the non-diagnosed groups remaining

in a role between 2 and 10 years. A proportion of the diagnosed group (14%) had remained

in their role for more than 10 years; a similar amount to the non-diagnosed group (12%).

While 15% of the diagnosed group remained in their role for 6 - 12 months, 14% worked for

1 - 2 years in a role, and 9% 6 months or less. The non-diagnosed group were not dissimilar,

14% worked 6 months or less, 10% worked 6 – 12 months, and 20% worked 1 – 2 years in

a role. Some participants in both groups preferred not to report their role longevity (8% of

diagnosed and 11% of non-diagnosed).

Participants were also grouped by their scoring on a measure of autistic traits (AQ; Baron-

Cohen, Wheelwright, Skinner, Martin, & Clubley, 2001) used to verify the extent of such traits

within the sample. The sample consisted of 63 participants scoring above a screening

threshold (≥ 26), and 107 below. The sample showed some, but not complete, overlap with

participants who reported a formal diagnosis, see Figure 1 below. This result

corresponds with previous research which suggests that while self-report scores on the AQ

10

provided high sensitivity, it did not necessarily predict a formal diagnosis (Ashwood et al.,

2016).

Table 1.

Education level, employment status and location for the non-diagnosed and diagnosed groups; with type of diagnosis for the diagnosed group

EDUCATION LEVEL NON-

DIAGNOSED DIAGNOSED

High school 20 7

College / Trade/ technical/ vocational training 5 3

Associate / Bachelor's degree 30 20

Post-graduate degree 8 2 EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Employed 52 38

Self-employed 13 5

Unemployed and looking for work 7 5

Unemployed and not currently looking for work 1 2

Student 17 8

Homemaker 7 4

Unable to work 1 3 LOCATION

Urban – city or town center 37 19

Suburban/exurban – residential area on the outskirts of a town or city 50 37

Rural – less populated area further from the town or city 13 9 DIAGNOSIS

Asperger's / high functioning autism 21

Autism spectrum condition 7

Pervasive developmental disorder 2

Comorbidity with other associated disorders 10

11

Figure 1.

Venn Diagram showing the degree of overlap between the diagnosed, non-diagnosed and the AQ groups

Measures

Demographics: In addition to age and gender, participants were asked about their

employment status, occupation, and type of diagnosis (see Table 1 above).

Diagnosis: Participants were asked to indicate, ‘yes’ or ‘no’, whether they had received a

formal clinical autistic spectrum diagnosis from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other qualified

medical specialist.

Autistic traits were measured using the Autism Quotient screening tool (AQ; Baron-

Cohen, Wheelwright, Skinner, Martin, & Clubley, 2001) to verify the extent of autistic traits

within the sample and capture any undiagnosed participants who may also score highly on

autistic traits. The measure consisted of 50 items, scored on a four-point scale ranging from

0 = ‘Definitely agree’ to 3 = ‘Definitely disagree’. The range of scores were collapsed to

provide a dichotomous ‘agree/disagree’ 1/0 score and produce a total score out of 50.

Example items included, ‘I prefer to do things the same way over and over again’, and ‘I enjoy

social chitchat’. The AQ recommends a scoring threshold (Ashwood et al., 2016), for

screening of scores ≥ 26.

38

Diagnosed

AQ screening

27

25

Non-diagnosed

80

12

Personality and workstyle were measured using Good&Co’s quiz. For a full model

description and the results of the personality analyses, please refer to (Good&Co Adverse

Impact Autism study, 2018).

A central feature of Good&Co’s quizzes is the fun, quirky and engaging question style

achieved by using figurative language which should not be interpreted literally. Another

feature is that participants are given up to five variants of each quiz question, so they can

choose which option is most appropriate (or understandable) to them. The more direct

question variants rely less heavily on figurative language than the indirect variants. For

example, when measuring one aspect of Extraversion, a direct question would be: ‘You have

a strong personality’: with the response on the slider scale ranging from ‘Not me’, to ‘Definitely

me’. Whereas an indirect question would be: ‘Going with the flow’: with the response on the

slider scale ranging from ‘Is the best way to go’, to ‘Only if I’m rowing’. The variants are

presented so that the most direct version appears further down the list to reduce users’ ability

to ‘game’ their responses.

On the basis of scores on the personality quiz, participants received a brief report

describing their Workstyle. Using a combination of insights and graphs comparing the

participant’s scores with those of the general population average, the Workstyle report

provided information regarding the participant’s styles of interaction, thinking, organization,

leadership, motivation and adjustment.

The perceived effectiveness, or usability, of Good&Co’s quiz and Workstyle report was

assessed with a two-pronged approach- the first quantitative and the second qualitative, see

descriptions below:

1). Quantitative approach

• To establish whether people diagnosed with autism had a propensity for choosing

more direct and concrete questions we collected, for each quiz item, data on which

13

question variant was chosen by participants (variant 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5). This enabled

analyses to be conducted comparing question selection across groups.

• A brief survey of five items scored from 0 = ‘No, not at all’ to 100 = ‘Yes, completely’,

assessed the usability of the personality quiz and the report. This survey was

conducted once the respondents completed the personality quiz and received their

workstyle report. An example item is: ‘Were the questions in the personality survey

easy to understand?’, and ‘Think about a workplace environment you would like. Is

this quiz and workstyle description helpful in finding a job in that environment?’. The

full set of questions is included in Table 2. See Good&Co Adverse Impact Autism Study

(2018) in which the quantitative methods included in this study are reported.

2). Qualitative approach

Respondents were asked to provide a maximum of six comments regarding what they

liked and disliked about the personality quiz (three each). These comments were analyzed

qualitatively using thematic analysis to obtain a more fine-grained assessment of the

participant’s experience of the quizzes and accompanying insights. Thematic analysis is a

qualitative method used widely across the social sciences, to take account of more in-depth

data. Text, usually in the form of results from open-ended questions, is analyzed to identify

patterns and key themes from participants’ responses. The process is rigorous, consisting of

data familiarization, data coding, theme development and revision. It is a recursive exercise

of reviewing and revising until key themes are defined and named that provide a consistent

story for the data (Braun, & Clarke, 2006).

Analytic strategy

To assess a potential association between having autism and the variant of question

selected in the 18-item quiz, chi-square analyses were conducted for each item and for each

group: diagnosed vs. non-diagnosed; AQ screening threshold: above vs. below. A Bonferroni

correction of p £ .003 (p = .05/18) was set to correct for multiple testing within each group.

We aimed to test whether people with autism were more likely to choose questions that are

more direct / concrete in nature.

14

To assess potential differences in usability between groups, mean comparisons were

conducted on the five usability items for each group: diagnosed vs. non-diagnosed; and AQ

screening threshold: above vs. below. A Bonferroni correction of p £ .01 (p = .05/5) was set

to correct for multiple testing within each group.

Thematic analysis was used to explore the comments left by participants regarding their

likes and dislikes. Analyses were conducted separately for each group, diagnosed and non-

diagnosed participants to identify key themes.

Results

Question variant

Analyses were conducted to assess whether participants with an autistic spectrum

diagnosis (n=65) or who scored highly on autistic traits (n=63) selected different variants of

the quiz items compared to undiagnosed (n=105) or lower scoring participants (n=107). The

assumption was that people diagnosed with autism or those who scored above the screening

threshold would choose questions that are more direct.

Across all groups (diagnosed vs. non-diagnosed; above vs. below the AQ screening

threshold), the results showed no significant association between choice of question variant

and whether participants had a formal autism spectrum diagnosis or scored above the AQ

threshold, following multiple testing correction of p £ .003 (p = .05/18). The majority of

participants across groups selected the first option in the quiz - the least direct question

variant, averaging at 89 percent for the non-diagnosed, 86 percent for the diagnosed, 91

percent for participants below the AQ screening threshold, and 84 percent for participants

above the AQ threshold (see Table 2).

15

Table 2.

Percentage of participants across the non-diagnosed, diagnosed and AQ screening groups who

selected the first variant of question across the 18 quiz items

NON-DIAGNOSED DIAGNOSED AQ BELOW AQ ABOVE

Average percentage 89 86 91 84

Item 1 65 46 66 43

Item 2 84 77 85 75

Item 3 96 91 96 90

Item 4 89 88 89 87

Item 5 85 85 89 78

Item 6 90 88 89 89

Item 7 73 77 75 75

Item 8 91 98 92 98

Item 9 91 89 94 84

Item 10 93 98 93 100

Item 11 94 86 94 86

Item 12 97 92 97 92

Item 13 96 97 98 94

Item 14 93 89 94 87

Item 15 94 95 96 92

Item 16 90 83 93 79

Item 17 90 83 93 79

Item 18 97 92 98 92 Average percentage = average percentage frequency of selecting the first option across items.

Quantitative approach

Analyses were conducted to compare usability between the diagnosed (n=65) and

undiagnosed (n=105) participants; and between those scoring above (n=63) and below

(n=107) the AQ screening threshold. The results showed a positive reception from the sample

across all aspects of user experience, as mean scores for all items fell well above the 0-100

slider’s midpoint (see Table 3).

For the majority of items, no significant differences were found within the two comparison

groups, following multiple testing correction of p £ .01 (p = .05/5). The diagnosed group was,

however, significantly more likely than the undiagnosed group, to find the workstyle

description helpful in finding a job they would like. On average, participants above and below

16

the AQ screening threshold found the questions easy to understand, with both groups’ mean

scores sitting above 70. However, those below the AQ threshold found the questions

significantly easier, compared to those scoring above the AQ threshold. Interestingly,

however, this difference did not occur when we compared the formally diagnosed

participants to those without an autism diagnosis, both groups found the questions equally

easy to understand.

17

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations (SD), and range of scores of the diagnosed, non-diagnosed, AQ threshold: Above and Below groups for the usability

items

DIAGNOSED NON-DIAGNOSED AQ ABOVE AQ BELOW

MEAN (SD) RANGE

MEAN (SD) RANGE

MEAN (SD) RANGE

MEAN (SD) RANGE

Were the questions in the personality survey easy to understand?

75.29 (22.19) 22 -100

82.44 (18.72) 14-100

74.02 (23.33) 21-100

83.06 (17.65) 14-100

Is the description of your workstyles representative of your attitude towards work?

74.23 (21.09) 1-100

71.28 (20.26) 14-100

75.03 (21.20) 1-100

70.86 (20.13) 14-100

Would this quiz and workstyle description be helpful in finding a job you would like?

72.94 (21.28) 1-100

64.57 (21.70) 5-100

70.86 (21.08) 1-100

65.95 (22.20) 5-100

Think about a workplace environment you would like. Is this quiz and workstyle description helpful in finding a job in that environment?

69.32 (23.57) 1-100

63.68 (20.64) 5-100

65.54 (23.74) 5-100

66.01 (20.87) 1-100

Would this quiz and workstyle description be helpful for employers to have a better understanding of your work style?

75.58 (22.74) 2-100

68.77 (22.60) 1-100

74.51 (20.31) 11-100

69.53 (24.09) 1-100

Scale = 0-100. N: Diagnosed: n=65; Non-diagnosed: n=105; AQ Above: n=63; AQ Below n=107.

18

Qualitative approach

Diagnosed participants

Out of the 65 participants who reported having an autism diagnosis, fifty-five participants

(85%) left at least one positive comment. Whereas only 39 respondents (60%) left at least

one negative comment. Overall, 102 positive comments were received versus 65 negative

comments – almost double the number of positive comments as negative ones. Several

comments (23) were excluded as they were either uninterpretable or it was evident that they

referred either to the Autism Quotient measure or to the platform used to run the survey. The

comments were qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. They were pooled for each

category (likes and dislikes), and seven key themes emerged:

1. Ease of use – respondents liked the brevity, simplicity and slider scale response

2. Interest and enjoyment – respondents found the quiz fun and engaging

3. Alternate questions and format – respondents liked the format and having the option

to rephrase questions

4. Ease of understanding - respondents found the quiz easy to understand

5. Work-style report – respondents thought that the report was useful for them

6. Accuracy – respondents thought that the quiz results accurately described them

7. Thought-provoking and personal – respondents found the experience insightful

Diagnosed participants were most positive about ease of use with 24% of positive comments

relating to brevity, simplicity and ease of using the slider response.

• Example comment: “It was quick”

A further 16% of comments were regarding how much participants enjoyed the quiz.

• Example comment: “Fun exercise felt like game”

An additional 14% of positive comments related to the alternative question option.

• Example comment: “Was able to change the question to one I understood”

19

Non-diagnosed participants

Of the 105 people who reported not having an autism diagnosis, 93 provided at least one

positive comment about their experience - that’s 89% of respondents. Only 30 people

provided at least one negative comment – that’s 29% of respondents. Overall, there were 148

positive comments vs 50 negative comments - this is almost three times as many positive

comments as negative ones.

It is noteworthy that the reason for a larger proportion of negative comments in the

diagnosed sample, is likely due to the way the questions were presented. Participants were

asked to provide up to three ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ comments. We followed the advice of Dr.

Lisa Harkry, an expert in the field, who suggested that we should avoid using open-ended

questions, such as asking participants to ‘leave any comments’, as this could induce anxiety

in adults with autism. It is possible therefore, that adults on the autistic spectrum were more

inclined to follow the instructions more prescriptively than the neurotypical sample, providing

a larger proportion of negative comments compared to the non-diagnosed sample.

The same themes emerged for the non-diagnosed participants, as for the diagnosed

group. However, the order of importance was slightly different across both groups. Below is

the order of importance for the non-diagnosed sample:

1. Ease of understanding – respondents found the quiz easy to understand

2. Ease of use – respondents liked the quiz’s brevity and ease of use

3. Interest and enjoyment – respondents found the quiz fun and engaging

4. Thought-provoking and personal – respondents found the experience insightful

5. Accuracy – respondents thought that the quiz results accurately described them

6. Work-style report – respondents thought that the report was useful for them

7. Alternate questions – respondents liked having the option to rephrase questions

Unlike the diagnosed group, non-diagnosed participants were most positive about clarity

of information, with over 25% of the positive comments relating to ease of understanding the

questions.

• Example comment: “Everything was easy to understand and simple to answer”

20

This was followed by 20% of the comments relating to ease of use, the quiz being short

and easy to navigate. The comment below suggesting that the respondent did not get bored

during the quiz is testament to the care taken by Good&Co to ensure that our questions are

brief and fun.

• Example comment: “Long enough to feel in depth, but not too long that I got bored”

A further 14% of comments were indeed regarding interest and enjoyment, respondents

described how they found the quiz fun and engaging and the report interesting.

• Example comment: “Interesting questions with interesting results”

The theme, Interest and Enjoyment was among the three top themes across the

diagnosed and non-diagnosed groups (16% and 14%, respectively). While ease of

understanding received the highest number of comments for the non-diagnosed sample

(25%), ease of use and simplicity was dominant for the diagnosed sample (24%). Not that

the diagnosed sample felt the quiz was difficult to understand, with 12% of positive

comments, ease of understanding was just rated less highly by them. Ease of use might be

more important for adults with autism, who are possibly already subject to a high cognitive

load when responding to questions regarding social situations. Therefore, having to exert

additional mental effort to navigate the quiz itself could be frustrating. If they happen to be

subject to high sensitivity to sensory input, simplicity may also be key (APA, 2013).

Being able to select an alternative question was important for the diagnosed sample (14%

of comments), despite the majority of participants across groups selecting the first option

available. One respondent from the diagnosed sample commented on how they were able to

select a more easily interpretable question, it may also be, however, that the different

personality profile of adults with autism requires a more nuanced fit to scenario that this

feature offers. While the alternative question option remained a theme for the non-diagnosed

sample, it had the least number of comments (4%).

The workstyle report presented at the end of the quiz, was also liked, and found useful,

by both groups. Respondents from the diagnosed group left 12% of comments, and

respondents from the non-diagnosed groups left 10% of comments discussing the utility of

21

the report. The number of comments reiterate results from the quantitative analysis above

where the diagnosed sample rated the workstyle report more helpful than the non-diagnosed

group.

• Example comment (diagnosed): “The synopsis of my style at the end, which is very

helpful”

• Example comment (non-diagnosed): “It sums up my workstyle, I wasn’t aware of some

things”

Both groups commented that the results were accurately describing their personality,

with 8% of comments from the diagnosed, and 10% of comments from the non-diagnosed

samples discussing the feedback in a positive way.

• Example comment (diagnosed): “It was amazingly correct”

• Example comment (non-diagnosed): “It felt accurate to how I see myself and the

feedback I’ve had in the past”

Participants across groups also found the experience insightful with 7% of comments

from the diagnosed group relating to the experience being thought-provoking, and 13% of

comments from the non-diagnosed group relating to how thought-provoking and personal

they found it.

• Example comment (diagnosed): “Made me think about my life and social situations”

• Example comment (non-diagnosed): “Made me actually think for a second about

myself and my daily (professional) environment”

These findings suggest that, on average, the quiz and workstyle report have no adverse

impact on adults with autism. The findings from the quantitative analysis showed no

difference across groups regarding selection of question variant in the quiz, therefore, autistic

adults were not more likely to select the most direct (final) option – in fact, the majority of all

participants selected the first option of the question. There was also very little difference

between groups in perceived usability. Everyone found the questions easy to understand,

although those scoring below the threshold on the AQ found it slightly easier. All groups

found the workstyle report helpful, while the diagnosed sample found it more so.

22

Findings from the qualitative analyses showed further support for the impartiality of

Good&Co’s model and insights. The diagnosed sample found the quiz easy to use, suggesting

that it did not impact negatively on participants’ cognitive load. Both groups found the

experience fun and engaging, which demonstrates the care taken by the Good&Co team in

developing the assessment. Overall, these results suggest that the Good&Co app could be of

equal benefit to both neuro-diverse and neurotypical users.

3. CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this report, we have discussed the usability of Good&Co’s app for adults with autism.

The results of the validation study show that Good&Co’s model operates in a similar way with

a neuro-diverse sample of participants.

These findings suggest that the Good&Co app could be used by adults with autism

without bias and could be useful in giving further insights pertaining to their workplace

personalities. In previous research, the model was found to have no adverse impact on neuro-

diverse users, which means that the model is not biased in favor of neurotypical app users

(Good&Co Adverse Impact Study December 2018). This research provides further, more

qualitative, support for Good&Co app being used by people across a diverse spectrum.

The brief, easy to use style of the quiz, not only makes it difficult to game, it also makes

the quiz a simple and enjoyable way to assess workplace personality for both neurotypical

and neuro-diverse users. This is especially important when autistic adults generally find it

difficult to obtain fulfilling employment in an environment that fits well with them, and so

talent is being lost. Good&Co app can help companies find this talent.

Good&Co commits substantial resources to ongoing validation studies, especially when it

comes to testing the practical, predictive abilities of our model in a workplace setting. For the

psychometrics team, scientific integrity is our highest priority. We believe in an iterative

process, in which we continuously refine and improve our model as more data become

available. Feedback, questions and suggestions are always welcomed and encouraged.

23

This information would not only help the individual, but it would also be helpful for

potential employers and so aid with fit to job, company and team. With the push to increase

diversity of thought within teams, businesses are becoming more aware of neurodiversity

and the benefits this can bring. Companies who can adapt and accommodate employees who

are not neurotypical will reap the rewards. The Good&Co app can help companies to cast

their net wider in recruiting employees from a more diverse pool of candidates.

For psychometrics-related inquiries, please contact:

Dr Kerry Schofield – kerry@good.co

Dr Roni Mermelshtine - roni@good.co

For sales-related inquiries, please contact:

Sid Kapoor - sid@good.co (UK)

Andy Lee - andy@good.co (US)

24

1. REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.

Ashwood, K. L., Gillan, N., Horder, J., Hayward, H., Woodhouse, E., McEwen, F. S., ... &

Cadman, T. (2016). Predicting the diagnosis of autism in adults using the Autism-Spectrum

Quotient (AQ) questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 46(12), 2595-2604.

ASPECT (2013). We Belong: The experiences, aspirations and needs of adults with

Asperger’s disorder and high functioning autism. Sydney: Autism Spectrum Australia.

Baldwin, S., Costley, D., & Warren, A. (2014). Employment activities and experiences of

adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s disorder. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 44(10), 2440-2449.

Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of

adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex

differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-175.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The

autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism,

males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental

Disorders, 31(1), 5-17.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative

research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

25

Gernsbacher, M. A., & Pripas-Kapit, S. R. (2012). Who's missing the point? A commentary

on claims that autistic persons have a specific deficit in figurative language

comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(1), 93-105.

Hagner, D., & Cooney, B. F. (2005). “I do that for everybody”: Supervising employees with

autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(2), 91-97. 

Happé, F. G. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101-119.

Hendricks, D. (2010). Employment and adults with autism spectrum disorders:

Challenges and strategies for success. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 32(2), 125-134.

Hermann, I., Haser, V., van Elst, L. T., Ebert, D., Müller-Feldmeth, D., Riedel, A., &

Konieczny, L. (2013). Automatic metaphor processing in adults with Asperger syndrome: a

metaphor interference effect task. European archives of psychiatry and clinical

neuroscience, 263(2), 177-187.

Hillier, A., Campbell, H., Mastriani, K., Vreeburg Izzo, M., Kool-Tucker, A. K., Cherry, L.,

& Beversdorf, D. Q. (2007). Two-year evaluation of a vocational support program for adults

on the autism spectrum. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30(1), 35-47.

Kalandadze, T., Norbury, C., Nærland, T., & Næss, K. A. B. (2018). Figurative language

comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analytic

review. Autism, 22(2), 99-117.

Kim, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh, Y. J., Fombonne, E., Laska, E., Lim, E. C., ... & Song, D. H.

(2011). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in a total population sample. American

Journal of Psychiatry, 168(9), 904-912. 

26

Norbury, C. F. (2005). The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence

from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 383-399.

Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2006). Are autistic traits an

independent personality dimension? A study of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and the

NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 873-883.