Piloting the College SUCCESS Curriculum on Campus: A Program to Enhance Executive Functioning and Social Cognitive Skills in Autistic College Students

Abstract

Autistic college students report that they experience difficulties in executive functioning (EF) and social interactions, which can impact their academic success and postcollege outcomes. Few programs exist that focus on both cognitive and social strategies, especially those developed with autistic partners. This study presents a community pilot of a curriculum designed to fill this gap: College SUCCESS. Autistic college students (N = 21) enrolled in College SUCCESS at their university/college through disability services. College SUCCESS is a 26-week group-based curriculum that autistic partners codeveloped; the first half focuses on EF, and the second half focuses on social cognition and communication, all within the context of succeeding at college. Thirteen students completed the curriculum. Students filled out questionnaires and completed task-based assessments before and after the program. Parents and group instructors also filled out questionnaires. Several areas of self-reported EF showed significant improvements from pre- to post-SUCCESS. Self-reported social communication and motivation also increased after the program. Students additionally demonstrated significant changes in social interaction in the context of role-play scenarios. Overall, students and their parents rated the program highly and commented that it had a positive impact. College SUCCESS represents one of the first programs for autistic college students that targets both cognitive and social cognitive skills and community partners codeveloped it. The curriculum could lead to better postsecondary and employment outcomes for autistic individuals. Researchers need more studies, particularly with larger samples, to understand how the College SUCCESS curriculum impacts autistic college students’ long-term functioning and life outcomes.

Plain language summary

Community Brief

Why was this program developed?

Many autistic adults are interested in attending college and obtaining a degree. Research shows that obtaining a college degree can lead to more employment opportunities. Unfortunately, many autistic college students experience challenges in college related to executive functioning and social interactions that can make it hard for them to feel successful in college.

What does the program do?

The autistic community and allies (autistic adults, parents/caregivers, educators, providers, and administrators) developed a curriculum, College SUCCESS (stands for Supported, Comprehensive Cognitive Enhancement, and Social Skills), and tested it to see if it works. College SUCCESS teaches autistic students information about how to use their thinking skills and social skills to do well in their college classes and to build social relationships at school.

How did the researchers evaluate the new program?

The researchers collaborated with the autistic/autism community to create the College SUCCESS program and delivered it at four college campuses. The researchers gathered information from autistic students, their parents/caregivers, and the teachers to understand if the new program was helpful. Researchers measured whether the program was helpful to students by collecting information from questionnaires and by rating performed skills. Students and caregivers also gave their opinions about whether they liked the program and named specific things they liked and areas that need improvement.

What were the early findings?

The study showed that the College SUCCESS program helped autistic college students. Students reported improvements in both their thinking and social abilities after participating in College SUCCESS. Students and others also reported liking the program. Students shared examples of how the program helped them in their lives at school and other places. Parents shared examples of changes they saw in their college students.

What do these findings add to what was already known?

The study provided information about this new program, designed specifically for autistic college students, to help them with thinking and social skills and showed that this program can be helpful. It also showed that colleges can offer it to students and provided information that colleges could use if they would like to offer a course similar to College SUCCESS.

What were the weaknesses of this project?

This study gathered information from some autistic students and needs to gather information from many more in the future to know if the program works for most autistic students. Students who did not complete the program shared that they stopped participating in the College SUCCESS because they did not have time since the class did not provide units for graduation. In the future, the College SUCCESS program should be offered as a college class and not just a group at disability services.

What are the next steps?

Future research should test College SUCCESS with more autistic students and compare it with other types of supports to understand if it helps autistic students. Students should be involved in deciding the types of meaningful outcomes so that research is measuring person-centered types of goals.

How will this work help autistic adults now or in the future?

The College SUCCESS program taught executive functioning and social skills that appeared to be relevant and important to autistic students to use while at college. These skills are often considered valuable soft skills to use throughout life. Using input from the autistic community to develop and research the program provides a better fit to autistic students’ needs.

Introduction

Every year, approximately 50,000 autistic individuals transition to adulthood,^1,2 and by 2032, around 800,000 autistic youth will become adults.³ Transition-age youth (TAY) often face unique challenges when transitioning to adulthood, particularly in postsecondary education.⁴ Although nearly 45% of autistic TAY end up in postsecondary education,⁵ researchers report mixed outcomes. While researchers claim that students experience higher dropout rates, lower graduation rates, and increased social isolation compared with their peers,^6,7 a recent UK study reported that most outcomes closely resemble those of non-autistic students.⁸

Concerns regarding postsecondary education outcomes of autistic adults are particularly relevant, as research shows that those with college degrees attain higher employment rates and wages compared with their nongraduate peers.^1,9,10 Consequently, participation in postsecondary education can serve as a critical pathway to employment for autistic TAY, highlighting the necessity for research that enhances their educational experiences and outcomes.

Research to enhance college outcomes often involves one of two approaches: (1) student-oriented programs focused on ensuring autistic students have the skills they need to succeed in higher education and (2) system-level programs intended to educate individuals such as professors and classmates about autism utilizing a neurodiversity-affirming approach. The double empathy problem¹¹ explains the need for both approaches, suggesting that miscommunication between individuals with differing neurotypes often causes difficulties with social interactions frequently associated with autism rather than problems inherent to the autistic person. College professors and the public in general often hold stereotypic views of autism,^12,13 so recent research has started to examine teaching professors about autism and using a universal design for learning.^12,14

In addition, autistic college students identified the need to address social and executive functioning (EF) issues.¹⁵ Notably, some autistic students report that peers exclude, isolate, or ignore them at college, despite their desire to make friends.^15,16 A qualitative study revealed not only positive peer relationships but also barriers to developing relationships as confusion about social expectations, difficulty with time management for social activities, and sensory reactions within social environments.¹⁶ Autistic college students also report stress from social communication requirements within academic relationships (with professors and classmates) due to frequent misinterpretation of instructions, difficulties with communication during social interactions, preferences to not participate in group discussions or assignments, and feeling unsupported socially on campus.^17,18 Another recurring issue involves students reporting challenges with EF skills in college, including difficulties with working memory, planning, flexibility, organization, problem-solving, and behavioral regulation,^19,20 although it should be noted that these challenges could also be attributable to other co-occurring neurodivergence, such as attention deficity hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).²¹ These issues can lead to challenges in following lectures, completing complex assignments, and organization of items and tasks in college.^22,23

While prior research highlights the experiences and needs of autistic college students, few studies have aimed to address their needs to directly improve postsecondary outcomes. Kuder and Accardo²⁴ systematically reviewed supports available for autistic students in postsecondary education and revealed overall small samples (including—one to two students) and minimal outcomes in testing interventions for college students. This review underscores the importance of conducting research on emerging practices for this population, as limited information exists on possible interventions to enhance college students’ outcomes. Building on this, Stark and Lindo²⁷ conducted a systematic review of EF supports for autistic college students. They found that 8 of 10 studies targeted only two EF components—organization and time management—that received positive feedback but were not measured objectively.^{25,26,28–34} No studies addressed EF areas of working memory, cognitive flexibility, or inhibitory control. Interventions focusing on EF should therefore use standardized outcome measures. Last, White et al.³⁵ developed the Stepped Transition in Education Program for Students with ASD using community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles to enhance the transition to adulthood for emerging autistic adults, which focuses on self-determination and self-regulation skills. Preliminary research demonstrated feasibility and initial efficacy while highlighting the need for additional postsecondary support programs that target the broader array of challenges autistic adults face.

Despite the aforementioned studies, there remains a lack of comprehensive programs designed specifically for autistic college students that incorporate both cognitive and social needs within a structured curriculum.^1,6,36,37 Autistic adults, parents, and educators express the desire to ensure community engagement in the process of developing and researching interventions for autistic people.³⁸ Therefore, new interventions should address the prevalent challenges encountered in postsecondary education and actively involve autistic individuals in the development process through their input and feedback.

The current investigation responds to the urgent need for EF and social strategies identified by the autistic college community while also encouraging inclusive neurodiverse environments. The curriculum used in this study was based on the CBPR-developed vocational soft skills program—Supported employment, Cognitive Enhancement, and Social Skills (SUCCESS).³⁹ The original SUCCESS uses a neurodiversity-affirming framework, respecting and leveraging the unique strengths and differences of autistic individuals. The CBPR group reviewed and modified the SUCCESS curriculum for use with college students, leading to College SUCCESS. This study presents a community-based evaluation of the College SUCCESS program delivered to autistic students in several university and college settings. This study asks the following questions: (1) How feasible and acceptable is College SUCCESS for autistic college students, as measured by retention, attendance rates, and satisfaction? and (2) What changes in EF and social cognition are apparent after the College SUCCESS program, as measured by student-, parent-, and instructor-report and performance assessments?

Emerging Practice

Intervention

The College SUCCESS curriculum was developed in collaboration with the existing CBPR partnership ACHIEVE (Active Community Hub for autistic Individuals to Enhance Vocation and Education) following a local needs assessment that identified a need to support autistic college student. ACHIEVE included 40 partners (at the time of this study). Members, autistic adults, family members, educators, providers, administrators, and researchers contributed input at every stage of the research program. A work group representing each member type contributed directly to developing the curriculum and provided feedback over time.

The curriculum involves 26 sessions that first address EF skills (cognitive enhancement) and then teaches social skills within the context of social cognitions and social exchanges through strategies called “moves.” The first 13 sessions explain EF concepts of sustaining attention, memory skills (i.e., encoding and retrieval for future tasks), prospective memory, organization, “gistful” thinking, goal-oriented thinking and planning, cognitive flexibility, and problem-solving. The next 12 sessions focus on developing social cognitive skills, including communication skills, self-advocacy, and social networking and specifically include appraisal of social context, perspective-taking, social knowledge and reasoning, reading of nonverbal and verbal social cues, emotion recognition and management, building relationships, using social networking, and participating in social exchanges (i.e., help, compliments, and feedback). See Table 1 for more details about the curriculum content and strategies taught.

Table 1.

College SUCCESS Curriculum

Session(s)	Constructs	Content	Strategies
1	Introduction and Curriculum Overview	Overview of topic, introduction of terminology, setting goals	Explanation of curriculum format and topics to be covered; establish expectations; identify college-related goals.
Cognitive enhancement
2–3	Prospective Memory	Remembering to do future tasks, organization	Using calendars, alarms, reminders, to-do lists, special places for items; memory aids, planning ahead, prioritizing, linking tasks to each other.
4–7	Learning and Memory—Attention	Engaging and maintain attention, encoding information, retrieving memories	Strategies to sustain attention include eliminating distractions, using fidgets or movements, self-talk, taking a “mini” break, tuning in; strategies to encode memories include note taking, categorizing, acronyms, visual imagery, “gistful” thinking, associations, overlearning. Strategies to retrieve memories include relaxation techniques, retracing steps, piecing memories together, checking special places.
8–9	Cognitive Flexibility and Problem Solving	Adapting to changes, shifting cognitions, novel thinking, problem-solving	Seeing, saying/hearing, thinking, and doing things differently. Increasing novel thinking, A-B-C problem-solving, evaluating actions.
10	Goal-Oriented Thinking & Behavior	Setting goals, planning, enacting, and evaluating goal-directed actions	Setting a goal, planning ahead, preparing, trying and persevering, evaluating, and changing plans if needed.
11–12	Context Awareness	Using context clues, making predictions, seeing the big picture	Identifying external context (e.g., setting, situation, verbals, nonverbals) and remembering internal context (e.g., prior experiences, memories, and knowledge of others’ personality). Determining relevance of context clues and using them to see the big picture to make smart guesses and predictions.
13	Self-Insight and Social Adjustment (Repair and Recover)	Noticing, acknowledging, and recovering after a mistake (e.g., correcting, compensating, preventing)	Becoming self-aware of mistakes, fixing mistakes, mending relationships with others, and preventing future mistakes.
Social Skills
14	Introduction to Social Communication	Overview of social cognition and social communications	Being socially aware, self-insight of current social skills, observing and replicating others’ behaviors when unsure how to act (short cut).
15	Social Awareness and Perspective-Taking (Social Action Evaluation)	Being socially aware, making smart guesses, expected versus unexpected actions, social outcomes	Analyze self and others’ behaviors, evaluate actions as intended or not and as expected or unexpected in college settings, understand social impacts.
16	Emotional Awareness and Regulation	Identifying and rating emotions, emotion compression, and coping	Notice, label, and rate emotions; link thoughts, emotions, and actions, focusing on positive thinking; regulate emotions with deep breathing, mental breaks, calming movements; A-B-C problem-solving; cognitive flexibility.
17–19	Social Communication	Verbal and nonverbal communication, types of social interactions, conversations, filtering thoughts	Aspects of “thinking” versus “Doing” in social communication; continuum of social interactions from casual to formal; expected verbals and nonverbals for college settings; joining and maintaining conversations, filtering thoughts.
20–22	Social Knowledge and Social Exchanges	Give, receive, and seek: Help, compliments, feedback	Positive intentions within social exchanges, understanding why giving, receiving, and seeking help, compliments, and feedback are important and applying verbal and nonverbal skills to do so.
23	Social Networking and Social Media Use	Activating social networks, safe social media presence	Creating a social file, collaboration and teamwork, sharing positives about the self; expanding conversations; requesting assistance; safe social media use.
24	Self-Advocacy	Disability disclosure and requesting accommodations	How to formally and informally disclose a disability; how to formally request educational and workplace accommodations.
25	Review Cognitive Enhancement and Social Cognitions	Review of all prior content	Summary and discussion of all strategies learned.
26	Celebrate SUCCESS	Self-achievement, pride, reflection	Reflecting on highlights from program participation; celebrating achievements.

College SUCCESS was adapted from Baker-Ericzén et al.’s employment-focused SUCCESS curriculum.³⁹

All students received a College SUCCESS workbook, with 26 chapters corresponding to each topic, that provides instructional components (e.g., explanations of concepts, along with visuals) and activities that students completed in groups and/or individually. Each session featured didactic and interactive components. While instructors encouraged students to engage in each activity, they did not enforce compliance. Instructors delivered the curriculum to provide a set of tools that students could use if they found it beneficial; they did not present it as the “right” way of behaving. Instructors consistently applied self-determination principles and emphasized that students have a choice in which “moves” they use for themselves, encouraging them to make their own decisions. The first author provided clinical supervision and ensured that the instructors used neurodiversity-affirming language and approaches while delivering the curriculum.

Evaluation Methods

All students in this study took part in College SUCCESS as students enrolled in their respective colleges that offered the program through campus disability services. Researchers collected data for a programmatic evaluation of the College SUCCESS curriculum. Since the program had previously collected all data for program evaluation and had deidentified it, the San Diego State University Institutional Review Board deemed this research exempt from review.

Setting

Each of the major public colleges in San Diego (University of California, San Diego [UCSD], San Diego State University [SDSU], California State University San Marcos [CSUSM], and the San Diego Community College District [SDCCD]) delivered the College SUCCESS curriculum as part of their disability services programs. Each school conducted the recruitment efforts and logistical decision-making for implementation at their site, including reaching out to students to participate and planning the course schedule.

Although all of these sites were higher education settings in the San Diego area, some key institutional factors differed across sites. Students at UCSD were more likely to live on-campus, while others primarily lived off campus in their family homes and commuted. In addition, UCSD students often reported rigorous academic schedules and a concern that College SUCCESS did not provide credit toward graduation. No college setting offered course credit units toward graduation for College SUCCESS at the time of this study.

Participants

Across all campuses, staff referred a total of 30 students to participate in the program: UCSD = 11, SDSU = 6, CSUSM = 5, SDCCD = 8. Colleges reached out to their own students directly using informational flyers, individualized emails, and in-person conversations. Of these referrals, five declined, two did not respond, and two had a conflict with the group schedule. Twenty-one students began attending the College SUCCESS group. Eight students stopped attending (two moved). Seven of these students were considered non-completers; one participant dropped only after he completed the entire EF portion of the curriculum and was therefore counted as a (partial) completer. A total of 12 students completed the full program and pre- and post-assessments (one participant completed the program but did not complete all post-assessments). All students self-reported having a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. One student indicated they also have ADHD. Most of the students who completed the program were male (78.6%). The majority reported being White (57.1%), although nearly half (42.9%) reported identifying as Hispanic. Refer to Table 2 for further demographics.

Table 2.

Sample Demographics

	Completed program (n = 14)	Dropped out (n = 7)
	Mean (SD; range)/%	Mean (SD; range)/%
Gender
Male	78.6%	71.4%
Female	21.4%	28.6%
Age	21.79 (3.95; 18–34)	22.57 (5.53; 18–33)
Living with Parents
Yes	71.4%	28.6%
No	28.6%	71.4%
Ethnicity
Hispanic	42.9%	14.3%
Non-Hispanic	50%	71.4%
Unknown	7.1%	14.3%
Race
White	57.1%	42.9%
Black or African American	7.1%	28.6%
Asian or Pacific Islander	14.3%	14.3%
American Indian or Alaska Native	7.1%	0%
Unknown/not reported	7.1%	14.3%
Diagnosis
Autism or Asperger syndrome	100%	100%
Household Income
Under $15,000	14.3%	0%
$15,000–$24,999	21.4%	14.3%
$35,000–$49,999	7.1%	14.3%
$50,000–$74,999	7.1%	28.6%
$75,000–$99,000	7.1%	14.3
$100,000 and over	35.7%	0%
Unknown/not reported	7.1%	28.6%

SD, standard deviation.

Procedures

A total of 12 students and most parents (n = 10) completed pre- and post-measures. Assessment measures included two EF measures: Challenge Task (observational measure of EF administered tasks) and Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning–Adult (BRIEF-A) (self-report and parent-report). There were also two social cognitive/communication measures: Social Skill Performance Assessment (SSPA) (an observational measure of social cognition and communication administered through social role plays) and Social Responsiveness Scale-2nd Edition (SRS-2) (self-report and parent-report on social domains only). Parents completed measures based on their observations of their adult child in home and community settings. Parent perspectives acted as a generalization point because parents were not involved in the College SUCCESS program. Data were collected on student cognitive and social skills used by student report and instructor report (from observations of skills demonstrated in groups). Satisfaction data were collected both quantitatively and qualitatively. Students received gift cards for their time spent completing measures.

One group was conducted on each campus: UCSD n = 8, SDSU n = 4, CSUSM n = 4, SDCCD n = 5 for 26 sessions at each campus. At the midpoint through the curriculum, two campuses (UCSD and CSUSM) switched to two group sessions per week to complete SUCCESS at the end of the campus semester. The other two campuses (SDSU and SDCCD) continued the group across two semesters with a break between the semesters.

Trained instructors delivered the content at each campus through disability services and received weekly supervision (from first author) to ensure the quality of the program. Instructors oversaw delivering the curriculum, ensured the meetings were engaging, monitored comprehension, and led discussions on the skill sets learned during that meeting. Each meeting consisted of a review of the agenda for the day, a check-in, assignment review, teaching of strategies, experiential activities, and practice assignments (known as “Try it and Apply it”). Half the College SUCCESS instructors identified as neurodivergent but non-autistic.

Intervention fidelity included the use of an instructor guide and student curriculum manuals and monitoring adherence to the program protocol. Trained research assistants monitored adherence by viewing video-recorded sessions and completing fidelity sheets ensuring that each manualized session ran accordingly and that all students received the same information regardless of campus location.

This project was approved originally by the Rady Children’s Hospital Institutional Review Board and then later by the SDSU Institutional Review Board as exempt. The participants’ information was originally collected as program evaluation information and the deidentified data were used in secondary data analysis for research purposes.

Measures

Attendance/retention and assignment completion

Instructors calculated attendance based on the total sessions students were present and retention by counting the number of students completing the course. They calculated assignment completion (full or partial) from a total of 25 assignments.

Executive functioning

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning–Adult

The BRIEF-A consists of 86 items to evaluate EF behaviors both at home and at work. Students and parents complete it. This measure contains 10 scales as follows: 8 clinical scales (Inhibit, Shift, Emotional Control, Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials, Monitor) and 2 validity scales (Inconsistency and Negativity). The total score used in this measure is the Global Executive Composite, and there are two indexes: Behavioral Regulation (consisting of the Inhibit, Shift, Emotional Control, and Self-Monitor subscales) and Metacognition. This measure has high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity,⁴⁰ with higher scores indicating lower EF.

Executive Function Challenge Task

The Executive Function Challenge Task (EFCT) measures EF skills through a semi-structured interactive activity with an examiner. While the original EFCT^41,42 was designed for use with children and included four challenges, the young adult version (Kenworthy et al. 2018, unpublished data) includes only three activities (drawing, creating clay sculptures, and discussion of planning activities such as a birthday party). Research staff code participant behaviors during each challenge on a 3-point scale (0 = good performance, 1 = intermediate performance, 2 = poor performance), yielding flexibility and planning subscores in addition to a total score.

Cognitive Strategies

Students completed a 20-item study-derived cognitive strategies questionnaire. Each thinking and memory tool included in the questionnaire links to content from the SUCCESS curriculum (e.g., using calendars, setting alarms, A-B-C problem solving). Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale with answer options never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always.

Social cognitive and communication

The Social Responsiveness Scale-2nd Edition

The SRS-2 contains 65 Likert-scale items that measure a variety of social cognitive and communication skills used within social interactions.⁴³ The current study used both self- and parent-report forms of the Adult SRS-2, including T-scores for four subdomains (social awareness, social cognition, social communication, and social motivation) as well as a combined Social Communication Index. Higher scores indicate greater reported social challenges. Note that we did not include the restricted and repetitive behaviors (RRB) subscale (nor the total T-score, as it includes scores from the RRB items), as it was not relevant to the purpose of the study and targeting nondangerous/harmful RRBs can be detrimental to autistic people.^44,45

Social Cognitive Strategies

Students completed an 18-item study-derived social cognitive strategies questionnaire. All social strategy items link to topics covered in the SUCCESS curriculum (e.g., filtering thoughts, emotion regulation strategies, identifying casual versus formal situations). Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale with answer options never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always.

Social Skills Performance Assessment

The SSPA-2.0 is an interactive assessment of social skills during role-plays of neutral and conflictual situations with an examiner.⁴⁶ While the original SSPA⁴⁷ was designed for individuals with schizophrenia, the current study used an adapted version (SSPA 2.0) for use with autistic individuals with input from community members, including autistic adults.⁴⁴ For the current study, a research-community team adapted the role-play situations to make them relevant to college students (i.e., “chat with a classmate” and “request from a professor” role-plays). Each administration began with a 1-minute practice so that participants could become familiar with the role-playing situation. Researchers asked students to initiate and maintain a conversation with the examiner for a total of 3 minutes. Trained, reliable raters scored each videotaped session on social dimensions aimed at maintaining a social conversation (e.g., fluency, clarity, focus, social interest, negotiation, ability, persistence, social appropriateness, overall conversation and eye gaze, body language, speech, facial expression, reading social cues, and perspective-taking). Raters scored each dimension on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater frequency/ease of use of that particular behavior. Note that the intention of using the SSPA 2.0 was to assess individuals’ use of strategies that would likely benefit them when interacting with others in a college setting; the purpose was not to encourage autistic individuals to mask their autism by acting more like a neurotypical person. Students did not know what behaviors were being coded during SSPA 2.0 administration and were not prompted to use any particular behaviors or skills.

Satisfaction and program feedback

At the end of College SUCCESS, participants filled out a 10-item study-derived questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the program and for cognitive and social strategies separately (helpfulness, overall liking, likeliness to recommend to others, positive changes) and completed open-ended questions offering additional comments about the program and/or suggestions for improvements. Items offer space for students to provide examples of positive changes they have noticed since completing the program, any unhelpful aspects of the program, and the most helpful part of the program. Parents also filled out similar satisfaction questionnaires, offering their perspectives and noting any changes they observed in their college students.

Data analysis

Researchers assessed pre–post changes in EF and social cognitive outcomes using paired-sample t-tests, given that there was only one group with pre–post scores. We also report effect size (Cohen’s d), since statistical significance was not expected given our small sample. We calculated effect sizes and considered 0.5 as moderate and those ≥0.8 as large. In addition, given the exploratory nature of our investigation of this emerging practice, we did not correct for multiple comparisons and retained an alpha level of 0.05. Thus, the results are not conclusive evidence of College SUCCESS’s impact but rather are preliminary findings upon which future research can be based.

The research team coded the students’ open-ended responses to “Overall what did you think of the [Cognitive Enhancement and Social Communication] part of the course” using the a priori categories positive, negative, or mixed⁴⁷ (the number of responses in each category is reported in addition to example quotes). The research team also categorized parents’ open-ended responses to “Tell us some examples of positive changes you have noticed in the participant since they began the college SUCCESS program” based on whether or not the parent mentioned a positive change or not.⁴⁸ The second and fourth authors conducted the coding independently. The coders categorized the responses identically for 12/14 cognitive enhancement responses, 11/12 social communication responses, and 7/7 parent responses. They resolved discrepancies via a consensus discussion.

Positionality

All authors support the neurodiversity movement and use neurodiversity-affirming practices, some identify as neurodivergent, and include research professor/clinical psychologist (developer of College SUCCESS curriculum), postdoctoral researcher, and under-/postgraduate research assistants, all with research interests in improving the lives of neurodivergent individuals and enhancing community understanding and supportive services. The first author teaches College SUCCESS at the SDSU as a credit course post this research study.

Results and Lessons Learned

The results are organized according to the following topics: feasibility (attendance/retention and assignment completion), EF, social functioning, and program satisfaction.

Attendance/retention and assignment completion

Eight students dropped out and stopped attending group meetings: two after meetings #1–2, four between meetings #4–8, and two between meetings #13–15. The 13 students who completed the entire curriculum missed an average of 4.54 out of a total of 26 sessions. Two students had perfect attendance.

Students who completed the entire curriculum completed an average of 13.46 (standard deviation [SD] = 3.67; range: 7–21) Try It and Apply It assignments out of a possible 25 and some of the noncompleted assignments were partially completed. They completed an average of 16.31 (SD = 4.73; range: 9–24) “deadline” assignments either fully or partially. Completing both types of assignments increased over the course of the program for all students.

Executive functioning

Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning–Adult

On the self-report version of the BRIEF-A, students showed a significant improvement in the Behavioral Regulation Index (p < 0.05, d = 0.674) and the Global Executive Composite score (p < 0.05, d = 0.709). None of the other subscales showed significant improvement (ps > 0.05), although two other scores showed moderate effect sizes: Shift subscale (d = 0.627) and Metacognitive Index (d = 0.631). None of the parent-report BRIEF-A scores showed significant changes, although the Working Memory subscale showed a moderate effect size (d = 0.690).

Cognitive strategies

Students’ self-reported overall scores on the cognitive strategies questionnaire did not differ significantly from baseline to post-College SUCCESS (p = 0.504, d = 0.184). None of the specific strategies showed significant improvement when analyzed at the item level (ps > 0.05, d = 0–0.497). The largest effect sizes were found for using a special place to store and remember important items (d = 0.497) and using categorizing as a memory tool (d = 0.408).

Instructor-reported cognitive strategy use did show significant improvement (p < 0.001, d = 1.99) and a large effect size for the overall total score.

Executive Function Challenge Task

Students’ overall planning and flexibility scores on the EFCT did not change significantly from pre- to post-College SUCCESS (ps > 0.05), although the planning score had a moderate effect size (d = 0.61).

Social functioning

Social Responsiveness Scale-2nd Edition

Two SRS-2 subscale T-scores revealed significant improvement based on student report: Social Communication (p < 0.05, d = 0.710) and Social Motivation (p < 0.001, d = 1.302). None of the subscales showed statistically significant improvement based on the parent report, although the Social Communication subscale showed a moderate effect size (p = 0.08, d = 0.630).

Social cognitive strategies

Students reported significant differences in their overall score on the social cognitive strategies questionnaire from baseline to post-College SUCCESS (p < 0.01, d = 1.026). Four specific strategies improved at the item level: paying attention to context and social cues to guess what someone is thinking or feeling [t(11) = 3.458, p = 0.005, d = 0.998]; using knowledge of someone’s personality to guess what they are thinking [t(11) = 2.345, p = 0.039, d = 0.677]; actively participating in a class or meeting by commenting or asking a question [t(11) = 2.727, p = 0.020, d = 0.787]; and adjusting behavior based on people around them (e.g., acting more formal with a supervisor, more casual with a peer) [t(11) = 2.345, p = 0.039, d = 0.677]. Instructors also reported improvements in social cognitive strategy use (p < 0.001, d = 2.13).

Social Skill Performance Assessment 2.0

Several ratings on both SSPA 2.0 scenes increased from baseline to post-College SUCCESS. In the classmate chat scene, students significantly increased in intonation and speech pattern, facial expression, and eye gaze from pre-to-post College SUCCESS (ps < 0.05; ds = 0.87–0.96). Students did not significantly increase in their ratings of clarity but showed a moderate effect size (d = 0.). In the professor request scene, students significantly increased in their ratings of clarity, intonation and speech pattern, facial expression, eye gaze, reading social cues, connection, and perspective-taking (p < 0.001–0.04, ds = 0.72–1.20). Effect sizes for increases in fluency and body language were moderate yet nonsignificant (ds = 0.57–0.65).

A summary of all cognitive and social outcomes can be found in Table 3.

Table 3.

Student- and Other Informant-Reported Cognitive and Social Functioning Outcomes

	Student					Other informanta
	Pre-mean (SD)	Post-mean (SD)	t	p	d	Pre-mean (SD)	Post-mean (SD)	t	p	d
Executive functioning
BRIEF-A	n = 12					n = 10 parents
Inhibition	53.83 (11.78)	50.75 (10.07)	−1.56	0.15	0.45	56.80 (10.44)	50.40 (9.78)	−1.80	0.11	0.57
Shift	65.00 (14.49)	59.08 (11.56)	−2.17	0.05	0.63	63.60 (11.51)	62.30 (14.47)	−0.31	0.77	0.10
Emotional control	51.67 (15.07)	48.08 (11.28)	−1.58	0.14	0.45	52.30 (11.24)	48.90 (9.75)	−1.01	0.34	0.32
Self-monitoring	53.67 (12.98)	49.33 (11.43)	−1.65	0.13	0.48	49.60 (11.74)	46.60 (7.25)	−0.823	0.43	0.26
Behavioral regulation index	56.25 (14.82)	51.33 (11.91)	−2.34	0.04*	0.67	55.00 (11.00)	50.90 (9.78)	−1.17	0.27	0.37
Initiate	60.64 (12.64)	58.64 (12.93)	−0.63	0.54	0.19	60.90 (13.35)	62.20 (16.40)	0.30	0.77	0.09
Working memory	63.17 (17.72)	58.92 (14.70)	−1.66	0.13	0.48	64.90 (14.34)	56.80 (12.89)	−2.18	0.06	0.69
Planning and organizing	62.25 (12.55)	58.58 (10.52)	−1.72	0.11	0.50	61.10 (14.13)	59.90 (15.46)	−0.34	0.74	0.11
Task monitoring	58.17 (13.89)	56.00 (12.45)	−1.10	0.29	0.32	62.30 (16.71)	59.40 (14.14)	−0.63	0.55	0.20
Organization of materials	57.5 (12.44)	54.67 (12.49)	−2.00	0.07	0.58	57.70 (11.03)	57.40 (11.36)	−0.08	0.94	0.02
Metacognition index	62.58 (13.35)	59.25 (12.76)	−2.19	0.05	0.63	62.30 (14.27)	60.20 (14.64)	−0.51	0.62	0.16
Global executive composite	60.83 (14.84)	56.33 (13.14)	−2.46	0.03*	0.71	59.70 (13.13)	56.30 (12.53)	−0.84	0.42	0.27
Cognitive strategies	n = 14					n = 15 instructor
	3.24 (0.54)	3.38 (0.50)	0.69	0.50	0.18	2.32 (0.39)	3.27 (0.25)	7.70	<0.001*	1.99
EFCT	n = 12
Flexibility	3.25 (1.81)	3.08 (1.98)	−0.21	0.84	0.06	n/a
Planning	2.75 (1.54)	1.75 (1.29)	−2.10	0.06	0.61	n/a
Social functioning
SRS-2	n = 12					n = 10 parents
Awareness	58.42 (10.03)	56.25 (7.89)	−1.31	0.22	0.38	57.60 (14.29)	59.9 (14.36)	0.43	0.67	0.14
Cognition	59.75 (7.01)	57.67 (7.06)	−1.20	0.26	0.35	63.70 (11.08)	58.60 (11.98)	−1.18	0.27	0.37
Communication	63.08 (9.72)	59.75 (11.27)	−2.46	0.03*	0.71	67.00 (9.79)	61.20 (7.45)	−1.99	0.08	0.63
Motivation	65.33 (11.11)	60.5 (10.78)	−4.51	<0.001*	1.30	66.20 (8.61)	61.60 (11.31)	−1.36	0.21	0.43
Repetitive and restricted behavior	65.75 (11.73)	63.08 (10.80)	−1.64	0.13	0.47	66.60 (14.46)	62.90 (10.67)	−0.95	0.37	0.30
Social communication index	63.5 (9.16)	59.83 (9.54)	−3.48	0.01*	1.00	66.00 (9.51)	61.20 (9.40)	−1.44	0.18	0.46
Total	64.08 (9.58)	60.58 (9.35)	−3.11	0.01*	0.90	66.60 (10.69)	62.00 (9.63)	−1.26	0.24	0.40
						n = 15 instructor
Social strategies	3.38 (0.41)	3.76 (0.39)	3.56	<0.001*	1.03	2.58 (0.37)	3.38 (0.31)	7.67	<0.001*	2.13
SSPA 2.0 n = 12	Scene 1: Chat with Classmate				Scene 2: Professor Request
Interest	3.73 (0.79)	3.82 (0.87)	0.32	0.76	0.10	3.91 (1.38)	4.55 (0.69)	1.64	0.13	0.49
Fluency	4.18 (0.87)	4.45 (0.69)	1.15	0.28	0.35	3.36 (1.03)	4.00 (0.78)	1.88	0.09	0.57
Clarity	4.27 (0.79)	4.55 (0.52)	1.94	0.08	0.58	3.64 (1.12)	4.55 (0.82)	2.89	0.02*	0.87
Focus	3.91 (1.04)	4.36 (0.92)	1.46	0.18	0.44	4.00 (1.10)	4.45 (0.82)	1.34	0.21	0.40
Intonation and speech pattern	3.45 (0.82)	4.27 (0.79)	3.11	0.01*	0.94	3.55 (0.69)	4.27 (0.65)	3.07	0.01*	0.92
Body language	3.45 (0.82)	3.82 (0.87)	1.49	0.17	0.45	3.18 (0.87)	4.00 (0.78)	2.17	0.06	0.65
Facial expression	2.64 (1.03)	3.55 (0.93)	3.19	0.01*	0.96	2.73 (1.01)	3.73 (0.91)	3.03	0.01*	0.91
Eye contact	3.82 (1.08)	4.73 (0.64)	2.89	0.02*	0.87	3.64 (1.03)	4.82 (0.41)	3.63	<0.001*	1.10
Social appropriateness	4.09 (0.94)	4.55 (0.52)	1.61	0.14	0.49	4.36 (1.03)	4.64 (0.51)	0.90	0.39	0.27
Reading social cues	4.18 (0.75)	4.09 (0.70)	−0.32	0.76	0.10	3.64 (0.81)	4.36 (0.67)	2.39	0.04*	0.72
Connection	3.36 (0.67)	3.73 (0.79)	1.49	0.17	0.45	2.73 (0.91)	3.91 (0.70)	3.99	<0.001*	1.20
Perspective-Taking	3.91 (1.22)	4.18 (0.87)	0.90	0.39	0.27	3.09 (0.83)	3.82 (0.75)	3.07	0.01*	0.92
Conversation	3.18 (0.87)	3.64 (0.81)	1.46	0.18	0.44	n/a
Grooming	4.64 (0.67)	4.36 (0.81)	−1.15	0.28	0.35	n/a
Argument	n/a					3.36 (1.12)	3.82 (1.17)	1.46	0.18	0.44
Negotiation ability	n/a					3.36 (1.21)	3.82 (1.17)	1.10	0.30	0.33
Submissive-persistent	n/a					3.91 (1.45)	3.82 (1.33)	−0.27	0.80	0.08

Measures differed in sample size.

^a Other informant was a parent for the BRIEF-A and SRS-2 and a SUCCESS instructor for the cognitive and social strategies.

^* p < 0.05. Bolded text indicates a moderate to large effect size.

BRIEF-A, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Adult; EFCT, Executive Function Challenge Task; SRS-2, Social Responsiveness Scale, 2nd Edition; SSPA 2.0, Social Skills Performance Assessment.

Satisfaction and program feedback

Students indicated that they thought highly of the program overall when rating it from 1 to 10 (mean: 8.42 [SD = 1.44], range: 5–10). Students rated the cognitive and social components of College SUCCESS highly: social components received a mean score of 8.83 (SD: 1.115, range: 6–10), and cognitive components received a mean score of 7.43 (SD: 2.311, range: 3–10). Parents (n = 7) also rated College SUCCESS highly (overall: M: 8.29, SD: 1.80, range: 5–10; cognitive components: M: 8.86, SD: 1.57, range: 6–10; social components: M: 8.71, SD: 1.70, range: 6–10).

Positives

Most students (12/14) offered positive qualitative comments about the cognitive portion of College SUCCESS. Students named specific examples of the moves that they appreciated learning and using relatedly. Examples include: “I loved how it helped me out to focus and find ways or ‘moves’ to [use as] notes/calendars.” “It has supported on my areas of organization between work and homework.”

Students (11/12) also offered positive comments regarding the social content of College SUCCESS and named specific appreciation for the content of networking information. A student stated, “This was extremely enlightening for me and especially the ‘networking’ proved fruitful.” Other specifically appreciated content was related to social conversation strategies. For example, “It helped learning how to form conversations with other people.” One student reported a mixed response and stated “more helpful than the [cognitive] part but still only so helpful.”

Improvement

Some students (5/14) provided useful program improvement feedback, including how some information taught was already known. According to a student, “It was rather helpful, even if I did think some topics were common sense.” Other feedback was about content that students wanted to be included. For example, “I wanted more social skills tips.” The last type of feedback was about the volume and pacing of the material presented. A student shared, “Overwhelming. Many concepts, not too much time to do it/master it. Personally, I like to achieve mastery.”

Most and least helpful components

Many themes specific to the social content were mentioned when students reported on the most helpful and the least helpful (or unhelpful) components of the curriculum. Students often stated that the most helpful parts were related to social content. Some specific social content areas mentioned included the following: (1) “perspective taking and the lessons in regard to that,” (2) “nonverbal communication,” (3) “social communication—it gradually helped me to become more open,” and (4) “the social networking part.” They also valued the supportive learning environment of the smaller group. Comments were made related to feeling safe to communicate and learn within the group such as “being able to put some of my problems into words,” “taking suggestions and other ideas,” and “the sociable friendly environment inside the meeting.”

In regard to what components were unhelpful, seven students reported no part was unhelpful and only three students named any content as unhelpful, all were social content topics, including networking (e.g., “networking [as its] self-taught”), social media use (e.g., “social media use in college, pretty expected, to be honest still not outright terrible to cover”), and communication (e.g., “verbals and nonverbals”). A few students also named program delivery issues unhelpful specific to pacing. It was mentioned to be too slow (e.g., “how slow it moves, it felt redundant at times”) and too fast (e.g., “not time in internalizing subject material which is vast”). Other concerns were about the activities. Examples included: “difficulty of a few activities which can be tedious at times” and “the social test at the beginning and end was uncomfortable.” One student named the lack of consistent location as unhelpful—“changing rooms all the time.” Only three students named aspects of the cognitive components as unhelpful and each noted that may be their personal opinions. For example, “some of the methods of memorization were maybe not as helpful as I thought they would be but that is based on personal preference,” “rhymes and songs were personally not helpful for me,” and “the fact that it merely gave names to a lot of things I already knew [learning and memory] so not much changed.”

Recommendations

Students offered specific topics that they would like to see added to the program such as how others might have stereotypes about autism, confidence/self-esteem, additional relaxation techniques, procrastination, dating/intimate relationships, and how to deal with social anxiety.

Parent observations

In addition, most parents (5/7) made qualitative comments about positive changes in their adult child after College SUCCESS. Some noted specific differences in socializing. For example, “She became more eager to socialize and she goes out to student events more.” Other parents reported a change in appearing comfortable in social situations. A parent reported, “Seems more comfortable in social situations, has become more aware of what others are feeling, and offers comfort to others when they are sad. Seems less dependent on others meeting what he needs.” One parent also specifically commented about the increased use of EF strategies and stated, “She is writing things down, keeping a calendar, talking in turn, organizing her room, decluttering her items.” Although no parents were involved in College SUCCESS, only two parents reported not knowing if their student was using any of the taught skills. One parent reported, “Our son did not share his thoughts and when we asked, he just said it was fine or good, or ok” and the other one stated, “I appreciate that he had the opportunity to experience this program, but I honestly don’t know if he internalized any strategies for success.”

See Table 4 for the full list of quotes from students and parents regarding the College SUCCESS curriculum and the positive changes they saw after participating.

Table 4.

Quotes About College SUCCESS Content and Impact from Student and Parent Satisfaction Questionnaires

Students			Parents
Cognitive positive (n = 9)	Cognitive mixed (n = 3)	Cognitive negative (n = 2)	Positive changesa (n = 12)	No changesa (n = 8)
I thought that the cognitive enhancement sort of pushed me to improve my contextual awareness skills and provided means to shatter my linear thinking	It was rather helpful, even if I did think some topics were common sense	It didn’t feel terribly beneficial personally	Although Do still struggles with the mentioned behavior on intervention forms I see Do more responsible, aware, willing in all he does	I appreciate that _ had the opportunity to experience this program but I honestly don’t know if he internalized any strategies for success
I think this part of the course is helpful to a certain number of students at other places other than college	Information was useful. The meetings were not as helpful as the documentation provided	Overwhelming. Many concepts, not too much time to do it/master it. Personally I like to achieve mastery.	She is writing things down, keeping a calendar, talking in turn, organizing her room, decluttering her items	None to not much at all regarding changes. Our son did not share his thoughts and when we asked, he just said it was fine or good, or ok
Overall, I enjoyed the cognitive enhancement section of this course	I wanted more social skills tips		She became more eager to socialize. She became more organized because of the digital day manager	I never looked in his binder to see what was being discussed or written. Sorry we can’t answer these questions. I feel as if it was just a drive to __ college with no knowledge of what was going on and we did not, or do not see any changes. I sometimes wonder if it was a waste of our time since we as parents were never told anything or updated with any emails. Sorry, I am not quite sure what to say. It was a very unusual experience and somewhat of a sad experience not knowing or told anything as time had passed. I truly hope our son got something out of it because it was many days and months
I loved how it helped me out focus and find ways or “moves” to notes/calendars			He seems more comfortable in social situations, has become more aware of what others are feeling, and offers comfort to others when they are sad. Seems less dependent on others meeting what he needs	No change [social changes], she still keeps to herself
It helps. I feel it also helps with my communications class			Seems more aware of give and take of social interactions. More aware of how people respond. Understands concepts of organization	This was the area [social changes] that I really hoped he would make some progress in but I am not seeing much change or growth
I liked it and wished that I would implement these techniques as soon as learned			He seems to be more patient and thinks before he acts	___is feeling overwhelmed with coursework right now
It has supported on my areas of organized between work and homework, while also support my memory area			She speaks up if she does not agree or like something. Is more assertive	I’m worried because most of the time he is sad or negative
It was very helpful			He seems more self-confident interacting with others and that has helped him do more things by himself	Still pretty challenged with mood
I think it has been for the most part helpful in adapting skills and habits that would my life overall			More aware of what is socially appropriate with peers
Social positive (n = 11)	Social mixed (n = 1)	Social negative (n = 0)	A little bit [of social changes]; she goes out to student events more
The social communication part of the course was insightful	More helpful than the [cognitive] part but still only so helpful		Big changes! He began a relationship. He has a girlfriend.
This was extremely enlightening for me and especially the “networking” proved fruitful			Her mood has been constant, no extremes, she is more confident
The social communication part of this course is very useful in improving social skills
It helped learning how to form conversations with other people
Good well explained, any problems with it were on me
Role-playing is tough but otherwise lots of useful information
This part of the course has opened up the social strategies that I never knew before and I had a few realizations about my own behavior
It supported communication between students in my [class] and work in teams
It was very helpful
I think it was very helpful and it contains the concepts that I can go back to study through so that I can apply it in real life
It was helpful at helping me learn about things I need to improve on

^aParents were asked about changes in their college students overall and regarding specific topics: behavior changes, social changes, and mood changes. All of the comments were combined across the categories as positive or no changes and presented in the table. n = number of comments made. Parents’ comments combined topics so some parents had multiple comments included. Participants typically made one comment per person.

Discussion

This study examined the feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of the College SUCCESS program with a sample of autistic college students. The College SUCCESS program aims to address the EF and social cognitive skills necessary to thrive in postsecondary education. Results indicate that students exhibited gains in both EF and social skills. In addition to increases in students’ Global Executive Composite score on the BRIEF-A, the Behavioral Regulation Index also showed significant improvements, suggesting that the College SUCCESS program had an impact on emotion and behavior regulation skills. This is to be expected given that an entire College SUCCESS chapter is dedicated to emotion regulation, and the whole curriculum emphasizes perspective-taking and self-awareness. Although no significant parent-reported changes were found on the BRIEF-A, the parent sample size was very small, and some changes—such as being able to better regulate one’s emotions and behaviors—may not be as readily apparent to outsiders. However, most parents reported several changes they observed in their college students on the open-ended qualitative questions of the satisfaction questionnaire at the end of the program. Parents noted meaningful changes in several behaviors related to EF, describing their students as more organized and completing tasks independently.

Students’ scores on the Social Communication and Social Motivation subscales on the SRS-2 significantly improved as well. Importantly, we do not interpret this as a “reduction in autism traits” and instead focus on the SRS-2 items’ relevance for social interactions in college settings. For example, many of the items in the Social Motivation subscale address internal states related to interacting, such as self-confidence and comfort in social situations, which can be crucial when needing to interact with classmates and professors. Similarly, some of the Social Communication items tap into the ease of communicating with others, which can also be beneficial in college where such interactions are commonplace. Nevertheless, some of the items in these subscales can be interpreted as ableist (e.g., an item focusing on being “socially awkward” and another about “unusual” eye contact; see Ne’eman et al.⁴⁹ for more detail). Again, according to parent report, there were no significant changes on the SRS-2 but they did report meaningful social changes on the qualitative section of the satisfaction questionnaire indicating their college students as being more socially connected and involved. We also found that SSPA 2.0 scores significantly increased from pre- to postintervention in the intonation and speech pattern, facial expression, eye gaze, reading social cues, connection, and perspective-taking domains. These observable changes suggest that College SUCCESS can lead to actual behavioral changes, not just changes in knowledge. While some of these outcomes (e.g., eye gaze) have been identified by autistic adults as nonessential or inappropriate targets for intervention,^50,51 it is important to note that the College SUCCESS curriculum did not emphasize needing to make eye contact or enacting neurotypical facial expressions. Instead, it presented what would likely be expected versus unexpected in certain social situations and why. Such education on neurotypical norms—without demanding compliance with them—has been suggested by autistic adults as a valid way to teach autistic individuals about what will be expected of them in neurotypical society,⁵² including the autistic adults who helped design the SUCCESS curriculum. Indeed, the measures that showed improvement are not trait-based, and participants in the current study rated the social portion of the curriculum highly (an average of 8.83 of 10), implying that they were happy with the way the material was presented. Social skills have implications for college students beyond interpersonal relationships. Research suggests that students’ social integration can significantly impact their acquisition of knowledge, skill development, and overall satisfaction in higher education.⁵³ In addition, autistic college students report feeling that, while their academic needs are often being addressed in higher education settings, their social needs are not.¹⁷ Therefore, programs such as the College SUCCESS curriculum that support social skill development within a college setting could create wide-ranging positive outcomes for students.

Students rated both the EF and the social portions of the curriculum highly, suggesting that the curriculum is acceptable. In addition, beyond the results of the standardized measures, qualitative feedback from both students and parents suggests that they experienced or observed gains across the cognitive and social functioning domains. Furthermore, at the end of College SUCCESS, students reflected on goals that they had set for themselves at the beginning of the program. All students reported successfully reaching at least one goal, including the following: joining the campus newspaper as a journalist, participating in school events and attending a job fair, starting a romantic relationship, seeking out and receiving disability services, writing an article about autism for Autism Awareness month, and providing a speech about autism to campus during a diversity awareness event. These case stories reveal meaningful gains that are unlikely to show up on standardized measures. Future studies should consider systematically gathering information about goals as an outcome.

Limitations and future research

The current study was limited by a small sample size and lack of a control group. Given the nature of the intervention tailored to a specific population at college campuses within a single city, researchers found it difficult to obtain a larger sample size. In addition, the sample included a high proportion of male students, which does not reflect the gender diversity that exists within the autism community⁵⁴ nor the higher rates of college attendance for women.⁵⁵ However, males are significantly overrepresented among autistic adults receiving disability services.⁵⁶ Thus, autistic males were potentially overrepresented in the sample of students that each university contacted in their recruitment efforts. Future studies should make additional outreach efforts when needed to obtain a gender-representative sample.

The sample included a relatively high attrition rate from one campus. The primary reason students gave for dropping out of the College SUCCESS program was feeling overwhelmed by their course load. Most of the students who dropped out of the study were from the highly academically focused university, and each student who dropped out complained about not having time in their schedule to participate in a class that did not count toward graduation requirements. Another factor leading to attrition on this campus was the differing schedule based on the quarter system and students no longer experiencing a schedule fit for the next quarter. Furthermore, a higher proportion of students from the group that dropped out of the study were living on campus, while those who lived off campus were more likely to complete the intervention. Future research should factor in whether students living on- versus off-campus receive significantly different levels of support, which may increase the feasibility of this program for students. These challenges highlight the importance for postsecondary institutions to incentivize participation in courses and programs that advance students’ success outside of traditional academic courses. Importantly, one university campus now offers the College SUCCESS program for credit toward graduation requirements and is open to all students using an inclusive learning environment.

There is also a paucity of standardized measures tailored to this population to measure meaningful outcomes to the community such as peer connectedness and particularly measures developed in collaboration with the autistic community. Therefore, despite showing improvements in social domains on the SRS-2 and the SSPA 2.0, it is possible that these gains are not aligned with what most autistic adults would consider important outcomes. In addition, the current study did not investigate whether gains on these instruments correlated with changes in real-life outcomes, such as greater social integration, which has been shown to positively influence autistic college students’ academic experiences.⁵³ Future research in this area could utilize social networks as a measure of social integration, and analyze whether networks change as a function of self-reported post-SUCCESS changes in social cognitive skills.⁵⁷ In addition, an increased focus on developing relevant, meaningful measures for and with autistic adults is also needed.

Lastly, researchers will need to assess the degree to which students feel the intervention is neurodiversity-affirming in future investigations of College SUCCESS and other similar programs. While College SUCCESS was developed with community input and intended to respect and uplift autistic individuals, future research should consider using a masking/camouflaging instrument (e.g., the Camouflaging Autism Traits Questionnaire⁵⁸) pre- and postintervention. Assessment of satisfaction/acceptability—including questions about masking and affirming autistic identity—should also occur at multiple time points throughout the program to immediately identify and ameliorate any negative consequences.⁵⁹

Conclusions

For many emerging adults, college acts as a transition phase into adulthood and greater independence. Obtaining a college degree can provide opportunities for greater career advancement and higher earning potential throughout a person’s life. Despite the significant role that higher education plays in personal and professional development, autistic adults are less likely than their non-autistic peers to complete postsecondary education successfully.²³ The current study addresses a gap in available literature regarding interventions aimed at addressing the specific challenges that autistic college students face and shows preliminary positive outcomes of the College SUCCESS program for autistic adults. These findings support the need for further research on College SUCCESS, including a larger scale randomized controlled trial, in the hopes of adequately supporting autistic college students and improving their educational soft skills that may lead to improved academic outcomes.

Authorship Confirmation Statement

M.J.B.-E.: Conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, investigation, project administration, supervision, and writing—original draft; R.S.: Formal analysis and writing—original draft; J.H., I.G.M., and R.M.-C.: Writing—original draft. The article has been submitted solely to Autism in Adulthood.

Author Disclosure Statement

M.J.B.-E. is the developer of College SUCCESS (as well as the program it was adapted from, Employment SUCCESS) and holds the copyright to the curriculum. She teaches the College SUCCESS curriculum as a class in her role as a Professor at SDSU. R.S., J.H., I.G.M., and R.M. have nothing to disclose.

Funding Information

This project received funding from the Foundation of Developmental Disabilities in San Diego, California.