Viewpoints of adults with and without Autism Spectrum Disorders on public transport

Abstract

Background: Public transport is low cost, allows for independence, and facilitates engagement and participation for non-drivers. However, the viewpoints of individuals with cognitive disabilities are rarely considered. In Australia, the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) is approximately 1% and increasing. Many individuals with ASD do not possess a driver's licence, indicating that access to public transport is crucial for their independence. However, at present, there is no research on the opinions of adults with ASD on public transport. Aim: To identify the viewpoints of adults with ASD regarding the barriers and facilitators of public transport usage and their transportation preferences, and to contrast these against the viewpoints of neurotypical adults. Methods: Q methodology was used to identify the viewpoints of both participant groups on public transport. Participants consisted of 55 adults with a diagnosis of ASD and a contrast group of 57 neurotypical adults. Both groups completed a Q sort task which took place in either Perth or Melbourne, Australia. Results: The most prominent viewpoint indicated that both groups preferred to use public transport over driving and believed that it supported their independence. This viewpoint also indicated that both groups preferred to use electronic ticketing when using public transport. Interestingly, the second most prominent viewpoint indicated that both groups preferred to drive themselves by private car rather than use public transport. Discussion: It appears that the viewpoints of adults with and without ASD regarding public transportation were largely similar. However, questions arose about whether the preference for public transport in the ASD group may be more a result of difficulties obtaining a driving licence than a deliberate choice. The only barrier specified by adults with ASD related to crowding on public transport. Safety and convenience in relation to location and timing of services were barriers reported by neurotypical adults.

Factors associated with sustained community employment among adults with autism and co-occurring intellectual disability

“…Yeung and Rauscher, 2014) and better public transportation options. Very few adolescents and adults with ASD and ID have a driver’s license (Falkmer et al, 2015; Liptak et al, 2011), so having a long commute to work could be very challenging to these individuals and their families. In contrast, a more urban area usually has a more comprehensive system of public transportation that allows individuals to travel to the workplace.…”

Viewpoints of pedestrians with and without cognitive impairment on shared zones and zebra crossings

“…The fact that only two viewpoints were revealed and the high levels of similarity between them is an interesting finding in itself. Typically, Q sorts reveal three or more diverse viewpoints [ 30 , 31 ], however in this study there was a homogeneity in the pedestrians’ viewpoints. Specifically, the main similarity between the two viewpoints is that the bulk of the defining statements were around zebra crossings in preference to shared zones.…”

“…Participants were also able to undertake the sort with the support of a carer or guardian enabling the use of terminology familiar to the participant, for example, the term “zebra crossing” may be described as a “marked pedestrian crossing” and linked to a familiar experience to them, e.g., the statement “I know the rules at a zebra crossing” can be described as “you know when we go to the football and we have to cross the road at the marked pedestrian crossing, do you know the rules that we have to follow to cross the road there?” Since the method forces the participant to sort all statements across the grid, a constant comparison approach was used by the researchers together with the carers/guardians in which any lack of understanding was discovered and the meaning of the statements clarified. Indeed Q method has been proven to be an effective tool for exploring the viewpoints of these target groups in previous research [ 27 – 31 ]…”

Functional requirements for inclusive transport

“…Several studies discuss the significance of fear. Fear can arise from insecurity with drivers or other passengers (Falkmer et al 2015;Leiren et al 2014), interaction with other persons or technology (Risser et al 2012) or fear for personal safety or injury (Penfold et al 2008;Rosenkvist et al 2009). Others maintain that fear of travel is not considered a major constraint (Asplund et al 2012).…”

“…Mobility is also viewed as a basic human right (Kellerman 2006;Farrington 2007;Imrie 2000). A number of studies investigate the use and experiences with transport which might underpin exclusion processes (Velho 2018;Bezyak et al 2017;Lucas et al 2016;Falkmer et al 2015;Nordbakke 2011;Delbosc & Currie 2011;Daniels et al 2005;Currie et al 2010;Grut & Kvam 2001;Hammel et al 2015).…”