An interventional study of Behavioral economics strategies and Electronic platform in Autism Spectrum Disorder, sponsored by University of Pennsylvania. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-03-07.
Sponsored by University of Pennsylvania · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
In partnership with a digital health software company, the University research team created two versions of a mobile application to help behavioral health technicians (BHT's) who work with students with autism collect data. The first version comprises a basic electronic platform for data collection. The second version has the same basic electronic platform for data collection, plus additional features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease the burden of data collection.
1,727 studies on the registry are indexed under Autism Spectrum Disorder; 504 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 27 is below the median of 52 across 1,371 interventional studies indexed under Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Browse Autism Spectrum Disorder studies →University of Pennsylvania is the lead sponsor of 1,635 studies on the registry; 239 are open to participants now.
Of its 154 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 104 (68%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
A basic electronic platform for data collection that contains additional features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease of data collection.
Behavioral: Behavioral economics strategies · Other: Electronic platform
A basic electronic platform for data collection.
Other: Electronic platform
Behavioral economics features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease of data collection on the electronic platform.
Electronic platform to collect data
The Difference in Data Collection Consistency Between Groups Across Three Weeks
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period. These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
Time frame: Three-week trial period
The Difference in Data Collection Completion Between Groups Across Three Weeks
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period. These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
Time frame: Three-week trial period
The Difference in Data Collection Timeliness Between Groups Across Three Weeks
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period. These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
Time frame: Three-week trial period
Intentions for Implementors
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including intentions, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The intentions measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger intentions to take data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
System Usability Scale
We used the System Usability Scale (SUS; Brooke, 1996) to measure aides' reactions to various statements regarding the app's usability with 10 items that use a 5-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The SUS has high internal consistent reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .91) and demonstrated sensitivity to change (Lewis, 2018). We adapted the original questionnaire to replace "system" with "app" across all items. The SUS is calculated as a proportion score out of 100, with higher scores indicating higher usability (≥85 = Excellent; ≥71 = Good; ≥51 = Okay (Bangor et al.).
Time frame: Three-week trial period
Attitudes for Implementors
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including attitudes, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The attitudes measure had one item, which was rated from 1=good to 7=bad (meaning that taking data would be bad). Attitudes had 2 items. These items were averaged to create the scale score which could range from 1 to 7 for each measure. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
Perceived Norms for Implementors
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including perceived norms, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The perceived norms measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger influence of norms on taking data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
Descriptive Norms for Implementors
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including descriptive norms, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The perceived norms measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger influence of norms on taking data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
Self-Efficacy for Implementors
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including self-efficacy, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The self-efficacy measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger self-efficacy about taking data. Self-Efficacy had 2 items. These items were averaged to create the scale score which could range from 1 to 7 for each measure. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame: Assessed at baseline and end of 3-week trial period
| Milestone | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| Started | 14 | 13 |
| Completed | 13 | 11 |
| Not completed | 1 | 2 |
| Withdrew: Lost to follow up | 1 | 2 |
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period. These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
| percentage of intervals | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| The Difference in Data Collection Consistency Between Groups Across Three Weeks | .66 (.51 to .80) | .44 (.19 to .70) |
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period. These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
| percentage of intervals | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| The Difference in Data Collection Completion Between Groups Across Three Weeks | .81 (.67 to .96) | .98 (.96 to 1.00) |
Consistency was the percentage of intervals in which aides entered data per session with children during each school day, across a three week period. These metrics were captured via web analytics in partnership with our digital health company.
| percentage of intervals | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| The Difference in Data Collection Timeliness Between Groups Across Three Weeks | 4.69 (1.76 to 7.62) | 71.87 (-9.32 to 153.05) |
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including intentions, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The intentions measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger intentions to take data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
| score on a scale | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| Intentions for Implementors | 5.31 ± 2.59 | 5.91 ± 2.07 |
We used the System Usability Scale (SUS; Brooke, 1996) to measure aides' reactions to various statements regarding the app's usability with 10 items that use a 5-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The SUS has high internal consistent reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .91) and demonstrated sensitivity to change (Lewis, 2018). We adapted the original questionnaire to replace "system" with "app" across all items. The SUS is calculated as a proportion score out of 100, with higher scores indicating higher usability (≥85 = Excellent; ≥71 = Good; ≥51 = Okay (Bangor et al.).
| score on a scale | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| System Usability Scale | 76.4 ± 15.2 | 67.7 ± 21.5 |
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including attitudes, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The attitudes measure had one item, which was rated from 1=good to 7=bad (meaning that taking data would be bad). Attitudes had 2 items. These items were averaged to create the scale score which could range from 1 to 7 for each measure. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
| score on a scale | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| Attitudes for Implementors | 6.54 ± 1.03 | 6.68 ± 0.73 |
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including perceived norms, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The perceived norms measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger influence of norms on taking data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
| score on a scale | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived Norms for Implementors | 5.62 ± 2.14 | 6.18 ± 1.83 |
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including descriptive norms, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The perceived norms measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger influence of norms on taking data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
| score on a scale | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| Descriptive Norms for Implementors | 6.08 ± 1.60 | 6.27 ± 1.27 |
We adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including self-efficacy, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The self-efficacy measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger self-efficacy about taking data. Self-Efficacy had 2 items. These items were averaged to create the scale score which could range from 1 to 7 for each measure. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
| score on a scale | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced |
|---|---|---|
| Self-Efficacy for Implementors | 5.5 ± 1.72 | 4.91 ± 2.50 |
Collected over Adverse event data was collected over the three week trial period for every participant.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enhanced Electronic Platform | 0/14 (0%) | 0/14 (0%) | 0/14 (0%) |
| Electronic Platform Not Enhanced | 0/13 (0%) | 0/13 (0%) | 0/13 (0%) |
| Age, Continuous(Years) | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 35.5 ± 10.2 | 41.6 ± 14.6 | 38.6 ± 12.4 |
| Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants) | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| Female | 7 | 10 | 17 |
| Non-binary/ third gender | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Prefer not to disclose | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hispanic or Latino | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 13 | 12 | 25 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asian | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Black or African American | 6 | 6 | 12 |
| White | 5 | 7 | 12 |
| More than one race | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Region of Enrollment(participants) | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 13 | 27 |
| Work experience, Years(years) | Enhanced Electronic Platform | Electronic Platform Not Enhanced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 5.4 ± 4.5 | 7.4 ± 4.6 | 6.4 ± 4.55 |
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Pennsylvania