An interventional study of Behavioral economics strategies and Electronic platform in Autism, Challenging Behavior and ADHD, sponsored by University of Pennsylvania. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-08.
Sponsored by University of Pennsylvania · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The goal of this clinical trial is to test whether a smartphone-based data collection and feedback application ("Footsteps") improves the quality of behavioral data collected by one-to-one aides and leads to better youth mental health outcomes in school-aged youth (ages 4-17) who receive one-to-one support in schools.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Researchers will compare aides using Footsteps to those using a "data collection only" control app to see if Footsteps leads to higher quality data collection, enhanced supervisory communication, and better youth outcomes.
Participants will:
1,030 studies on the registry are indexed under Autistic Disorder; 266 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 200 is above the median of 49 across 811 interventional studies indexed under Autistic Disorder.
Browse Autistic Disorder studies →University of Pennsylvania is the lead sponsor of 1,668 studies on the registry; 235 are open to participants now.
Of its 158 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 109 (69%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
An electronic platform for data collection ("Footsteps") that contains additional features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease of data collection.
Behavioral: Behavioral economics strategies · Device: Electronic platform
A basic electronic platform for data collection.
Device: 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
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire total score
A behavioral screening tool used to assess psychological attributes in children and adolescents, leading to a total score of 0 to 40. A higher total score indicates greater difficulties in emotional and behavioral functioning, while lower scores suggest fewer difficulties.
Time frame: Assessed monthly (Baseline; Weeks 4, 8, and 12)
Data collection consistency
an aggregate of the numbers of intervals scheduled, and the numbers of those intervals in which data was entered (% real time data)
Time frame: Assessed throughout 12-week trial
Data collection timeliness
for intervals in which data was entered, the time lag between occurrence and data entry
Time frame: Assessed throughout 12-week trial
Data collection completeness
intervals classified as complete or incomplete according to whether the aide collected their planned metrics as required by their agency (% goals targeted)
Time frame: Assessed throughout 12-week trial
Youth Top Problems
Top problems identified during intake meeting. Severity of each problem is rated from 0 (not a problem) to 4 (a very big problem). Severity ratings can be tracked for each problem individually or as an overall mean severity score created by averaging ratings from the same informant at the same measurement occasion
Time frame: Assessed biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trial
Intentions for Implementors
The investigators 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 biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trial
Attitudes for Implementors
The investigators 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 biweekly, at baseline and through 12-week trial
Perceived Norms for Implementors
The investigators 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 biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trial
Descriptive Norms for Implementors
The investigators 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 biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trial
Self-Efficacy for Implementors
The investigators 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 biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trial
System Usability Scale
The investigators 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). The investigators 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: Assessed at post-trial (Week 12)
Supervisor <> Aide Communication
The investigators will compare the groups on combined frequency and content of the communications by using a three-level ordinal response for each period (0=no communication, 1=communication, with discussion of client, 2=communication, discussion of client, and discussion of treatment strategy changes).
Time frame: Assessed biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trial
Plan to share: Undecided
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet 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.