How Can Libraries Design Web Spaces for Neurodiverse Users?

Usability research with neurodiverse students offers key insights

Posted on September 17, 2025 in Blog Posts

Accessibility is a key value of librarianship and crucial for student success, but it can be difficult to implement, particularly in online spaces. What do students need? What can libraries offer, and what constraints do they face? In their chapter, “Designing for Neurodiversity in Web Spaces” in the new edited collection, Supporting Neurodiverse Students in Academic Libraries (ACRL, 2025), librarians Kelly Getz and Kimberly Shotick review the Social Model of Disability before getting into their findings from conducting usability tests with neurodivergent students and their plans for implementing this research.

As Getz and Shotick remind us, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines may take some disabilities into account, such as blindness, but not necessarily the needs of neurodiverse students. Their chapter offers a framework, a starting point, and important findings for all those undertaking accessibility work at their institutions.

This chapter is reprinted under a CC BY-NC SA license. Appendixes containing the research design outline, informed consent form, and interview questions were removed for concision.

📕 Learn more and order a copy of Supporting Neurodiverse Students in Academic Libraries.

---

Introduction

All student bodies are neurodiverse. No matter the institution, there are neurological differences among all students. Traditional methods of web design and usability testing have centered on the “typical” user to efficiently serve most of the population. We believe that institutions of higher education should not follow the usual practice of serving only the “typical” student but should strive to serve the entirety of the student body through inclusive design. However, the online experiences of students who do not fit into the neuro majority have gone understudied and underserved. In this chapter, we give a brief background defining the Social Model of Disability and highlighting the work of Jutta Treviranus to provide a context and justification for our research conducting usability studies with neurodivergent students. We share how we carried out the studies with students from each of our institutions, lessons learned, and design changes resulting from this work. Through usability studies and inclusive web service redesign plans, we center the opinions and expectations of neurodivergent student users in ways neurotypical users have been centered and designed around in the past.

Background

Neurodiversity, a term popularized by Singer (1998) is the concept that neurological differences are a form of diversity. She argued that neurological differences can be found throughout the human population and should be socially recognized as versions of human diversity like other traits such as race, sex, and gender (1999). In its modern-day usage, conditions considered under the neurodivergent umbrella often include the labels of autism spectrum disorder/condition, dyslexia, dyspraxia, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyscalculia, and Tourette’s syndrome. Neurodivergent students may exhibit difficulty in educational settings wherein most instruction and library services do not consider the differences of these students from that of the neuromajority, for whom most of these services have been created. Applying the lens of the Social Model of Disability to neurodivergent learners allows us to reframe how we create our systems, potentially removing the societal barriers and stigma associated with being different from the majority, thus allowing these learners to succeed.

Models of Disability

The Social Model is one of two widely known and applied models of disability, the other being the Medical Model (Shakespeare, 2013). These models are not dichotomous, but they do provide different lenses through which to view the concept of disability. The Social Model, born out of disability advocacy groups from the 1960’s and 1970’s, presumes it is the physical and social conditions of the society that create the barriers disabling the individual, placing the responsibility of rectification upon those who make policy decisions and design choices. The Medical Model presumes that the individual is disabled by their non-typical characteristics or impairment and proposes medical intervention to remediate the differences. Take, for example, a wheelchair user trying to access a door located up several steps. The Medical Model of Disability presumes that the person is disabled by an alternative or loss of function and seeks to medically alter the condition of the person, which may not be possible or desired, to allow them to move up the stairs, but beyond medical intervention, the model does not inherently call for accommodations to improve the quality-of-life of the individual. The Social Model of Disability presumes that when provided with an appropriate ramp, the person can access the door. Thus, the stairs are the obstacle, and ramps should be provided in such situations. In terms of neurodiversity and education, consider a student with dyspraxia, a condition which affects coordination, sequencing, and speech, who may struggle with handwriting due to impaired fine motor control. By allowing students to type notes or use assistive speech-to-text tools, an instructor may reduce a barrier through technology.

The Social Model of Disability is sometimes criticized for under-recognizing that disability and diversity are also tied to individual identities (Shakespeare, 2004), that a “tragedy view” of disability is maintained by the model (Swain & French, 2000), that it leads to “the politicisation of [disabled person’s] social lives” (Kohli & Atencio, 2023, citing Hughes & Patterson, 1993 p. 330), and that placing the “ownership” of the disability upon the society may undermine the lived experience of the individual.

We would like to acknowledge that our differences are important to who we are as individuals and that by citing the Social Model, the authors are not intending to erase, remove, diminish, or ignore those differences in any way but rather, create services that allow success for the people with differences from the majority. The Social Model, when adopted by those making decisions about structures and services in the library, provides ample justification for why we actively and intentionally seek to reduce students’ barriers to success, thus inspiring the use of inclusive and universal design principles in libraries and other educational settings.

Universal Design for Learning

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) concepts can be applied to the design of online spaces to maximize accessibility. UDL offers guidelines reflecting the science behind how people learn to provide a better learning experience for all (CAST, 2018). UDL is related to the history of universal design, which was described in 1988 as the design of both products and environments centered around usability by all (CAST, 2018). These guidelines can be applied to the design and delivery of education, including in digital spaces. When considering the many differences that learners have, the internet is both a “boon and a burden” to learners and educators (Rose, 2000, p. 45). While digital spaces give educators flexibility to provide content in multiple formats, they can also create new challenges if not designed for all learners. UDL pedagogy approaches digital spaces with an understanding that there is no standard experience online: we must cater our spaces to learners with diverse preferences, abilities, and motivations. Beyond accessibility, UDL “addresses how learners are supported and challenged during learning experiences” (Gronseth, 2018, p. 15). For website design to be inclusive of neurodivergent users, we need to understand the various challenges they encounter in our digital spaces.

Inclusive Design

Treviranus, founder and director of the Inclusive Design Research Centre at the Ontario College of Art and Design University (OCAD), has studied and advocated for the need for research into the user experience of neurodivergent persons. Treviranus discusses how the 80/20 Rule, also known as the Pareto Principle, impacts those on the fringe of being the “normal” user (2021; 2019). The 80/20 Rule refers to 80% as the center of a normal distribution bell curve, with 20% referring to the tails of the curve. The 80/20 rule is often applied in business decisions, suggesting that 80% of the people’s expectations can be met using 20% of the effort, allowing businesses to narrow their focus and conserve their resources by addressing the low hanging fruit (see Figure 1). However, when this model is applied to designing library web services, the outlying 20%, including those with disabilities, neurological differences, or the minority user, go underserved, and their expectations and experiences become secondary to the majority found in the center. Furthermore, those in the outlying 20% have more variation among them, making it necessary to gather information from more individuals and harder to reach a consensus among them. This is especially troubling when applied to education, where outcomes are not profits but the education of all the students served.

The ways that neurodiverse students interact with technology and electronic learning materials may differ from the interactions of students considered neurotypical and from other neurodivergent students. As summed up by Treviranus, “The 80% of the space and effort outside the conventional middle is a vast and shifting terrain that cannot be reached in a straight line. It must be approached without predetermined assumptions and presumptions” (2021, p. 252). While we cannot assume the expectations of neurodivergent students, we can learn about their experiences through intentional and targeted inclusive usability research. Reaching the needs of the outlying 20% of the population may, in fact, require 80% of the effort and resources. This may be more than we usually assign to tasks like usability testing in our libraries, however we aim to serve all our students, not just the statistical average, and by designing for the neurominority, we may construct designs that are universally beneficial. Tying this effort back to the mission and vision of the institution can help justify the resource allocation, as can advocacy for disability justice within the institution. With increased emphasis on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) within higher education, disability is an oft disregarded EDI component that may need special advocacy.

Web usability and user experience research for neurodivergent users has gained momentum in recent years (Valencia, 2021), yet much of this research uses children as study participants or tests behavior modification applications and games (Valencia, 2021; Çorlu et al., 2017; Kim, et al., 2023). Few studies have explored how neurodivergent college students interact with research tools and websites (Tornblad et al., 2019; Everhart & Escobar; 2018; Everhart, 2021; Jones, 2021). To learn about the expectations and experiences of our neurodivergent students using our web services, we conducted usability studies combining techniques common in usability research (Kuniavsky, 2003) along with recommended considerations for working with neurodivergent research participants. The recommended practices from our experience are outlined below followed by some of our findings.

Constructing Usability Studies with Neurodivergent Users

The stages of conducting our usability studies included planning the study, piloting the study with neurodivergent individuals, recruiting participants, conducting the studies virtually via Zoom, analyzing the data, and developing recommendations for our web teams. See Appendix A for our research design outline. We referred to methods from Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner’s Guide by Goodman and Kuniavsky as a general guideline. Though around 20 individuals initially responded to our recruitment survey, ultimately, we interviewed ten individuals, five participants per school. This number allowed us to appropriately compensate participants for their time, efficiently analyze the responses, and make changes without being overwhelmed by data.

The process took roughly one year, with most of time spent coding and analyzing the video data. The study took place over the summer of 2022 at Northern Illinois University (NIU) and Eastern Michigan University (EMU) due to the parameters of the internal funding that supported the research at our institutions. NIU and EMU are both medium-sized public universities that serve a diverse population of students. At NIU, 12% of students are registered with the Disability Resource Center, at EMU over 500 students are registered, though many postsecondary students do not report their disability, so these numbers vastly underrepresent the population of students with disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Accessibility of library websites follow Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards, and although the standards account for disabilities such as blindness, the needs of neurodivergent students are not inherently addressed by following these standards, highlighting the need for further study.

Before conducting the studies, we carefully considered how to work with neurodivergent students without causing undue anxiety or harm. We began the Internal Review process months in advance. The Internal Review Board (IRB) raised some concerns about the intellectual or decision-making capabilities of some test participants and their ability to give informed consent. Research indicates that intellectual disability often co-occurs with autism, though the prevalence rate varies across the research (Matson & Shoemaker, 2009; Zeidan et al., 2022), thus autistic individuals may be considered a vulnerable population. However, our study population consisted of adults in college, so we had to consider the IRB’s request while respecting the autonomy and intellect of our participants. To move forward with our research and ensure that the participants’ best interests were fully protected, we adapted our consent process. In addition to sending the consent form by email prior to the study, we summarized the information out loud and asked the participants to answer questions demonstrating their knowledge of the process, risks, and benefits back to us (see Appendix C). This method, known as the “teach back protocol,” is often used in clinical research (O’Sullivan et al., 2021). We also chose to conduct the interviews over Zoom, as there is some research that shows neurodivergent individuals might be at an increased risk for Covid-19 infection (Lima et al., 2020; Merzon et al., 2021). This also granted us the ability to record audio and visual of the participants’ screens as well as computer-generated transcripts. Depending on the study purpose and scope of sharing research findings, screen recordings can demonstrate to web teams the difficulties encountered.

We planned the study with sensitivity to challenges our participants might encounter, such as the request to follow a “think out loud” protocol while performing study tasks. Further, we wanted to ensure that neurodivergent users less familiar with library tools than library professionals could contribute to the design of the study to maximize the experience for the participants. Oswal (2019) argues for an accessible user experience model (AUX) that creates an experience for users in UX studies that is satisfying to them. This means that users should be participants in the study design itself to both honor the value of the experiences of diverse users and uncover meaningful research findings. We conducted pilot usability testing with two neurodivergent individuals and used the feedback to redesign some parts of the research plan. For example, in our pilot study, users mentioned that the original consent form was too long and taxing and that the tasks were unclear. In response, we condensed the consent form and clarified research tasks, followed with an amendment to our IRB to update the research protocol.

The five following practices incorporate those found throughout the literature and from our experiences doing research with neurodivergent populations (Çorlu et al., 2017; Valencia et al., 2021). While not exhaustive, they serve as prompts for consideration in the research design. When possible, include users in the design process and modify these recommendations to best fit your institution and populations.

First, be intentional about recruitment, including target populations and recruitment language. Inclusion of neurodiverse voices in usability studies begins with knowing your users. At the academic library, this can look like participation in advocacy groups and trainings on campus, ongoing communication with student groups related to students with disabilities, and an established record of initiatives, policies, and spaces that are inclusive of students with disabilities. Not only will this inform your study design and better serve all students, but it will build the trust between your library and students with disabilities that is needed for AUX. While usability testing should be done with students of all backgrounds and abilities, we are advocating for intentionally targeting neurodivergent students who may have been left out of previous iterations of testing.

The conditions included in definitions of neurodivergence vary, and the experiences and preferences of the individuals with conditions vary by person. The objective when recruiting neurodivergent individuals should be to recruit a wide range of individuals with a wide range of experience. While having a participant with autism and one with ADHD, for example, is better than none, it is best to recruit multiple students with a variety of neurodiverse experiences. In recruitment, researchers should use thoughtful language that communicates the value of neurodivergent users’ perspectives and preferences. In our research, participants repeatedly expressed the importance of being recognized and included in research.

Second, pilot your research, including consent protocols, with neurodivergent users. Engaging in participatory design draws upon the expertise of those involved in the research. While research teams may include researchers with neurodivergent conditions, additional perspectives, especially those further removed from the design of library tools and websites, will improve the experience of the study for the participants and the usefulness of the results.

Third, when considering your UX research design, consider the varied communication preferences of the users involved in your research. User experience best practices recommend the “thinking aloud” protocol (Nielsen, 2012), which may not be a preference or possibility for all users. When recruiting, you may include a question where the participant can indicate their communication preference. For instance, the user may want to type their experiences into the chat rather than speak or wait until the end of a task to report their experience, rather than respond while engaging in a task. This is an area that can be co-designed with individual participants before and at the start of the research session. We found that when offered, our research participants readily indicated their preference. See Appendix B for an example of collecting participant preferences and Appendix C for the script reinforcing participants’ options for communication during the study.

Fourth, respect the time, energy, and input of your participants. Provide incentives such as money or gift cards. One research participant indicated that participating in the research was important to them because it is difficult for them to obtain work due to their condition. Use the input provided to bring actual changes to the tools that they use. Several participants indicated that they would like us to follow up about changes made because of our study. While we are still undergoing many redesign components, we have emailed the students, when possible, to let them know the effects of their feedback.

Finally, communicate your research with the understanding that individual preferences do not represent whole group preferences. For instance, one autistic participant’s preference for navigating the catalog might conflict with another’s. Considering the principles of UDL, we can better appreciate that environments should be designed for a multitude of preferences. This can provide challenges for designers who are looking for one “right” design.

Findings, Lessons, and Implementations

We would like to emphasize, again, that our findings are not universal. Each individual and each website is unique, and we encourage our readers to conduct this research for their own resources with their own users. However, we understand that some of our findings might be useful to other libraries investigating potentially problematic design issues within their own sites. Table 1 summarizes consistent obstacles, features which students found difficult to work with, or designs toward which they expressed a strong negative reaction.

Student Feedback	Takeaway	Implementations
“I’m a little confused because there’s ‘core,’ ‘related,’ and ‘general,’ and I have no idea what the difference between those three are.”	Terminology, such as the name of a catalog or other research tool, should be clear and tested with a variety of users. Users should be able to refer to descriptions of tools and terminology to more easily navigate web interfaces.	1.1 Implementation: NIU Library redesigned and simplified the language and navigation of LibGuides, including reducing the number of databases listed and renaming the database content box “Recommended Databases.”
“I was trying to get to where you can actually search the database.”	Website navigation should be consistent to meet user expectations. For instance, if banners on the main library site are clickable, they should also be clickable on related sites, such as LibGuides.	2.1 Implementation: The banner on LibGuides now follows the same redirect as the rest of the library’s website.
“I was expecting to find articles on it, especially since I clicked on the article databases [tab].”	Navigational search options, such as searching across LibGuides, should be used sparingly, given the nature of library resources. User expectations are that “searching” relates to sources, such as individual articles and books, not resources such as LibGuides or databases.	On the Research Guides list page, EMU changed the wording from “Search Guides” to “Find a Guide” and kept the search box over on the righthand side of the page so that it does not appear as a main search tool. As for the Databases A-Z list, EMU underwent a full redesign with a smaller search field and more faceted search options. The usability of this new design has not yet been tested.
“I just didn’t scroll down enough.” “It was a little bit frustrating that it was all the way down at like 10 or 11.”	Test and adjust relevance ranking of catalog search results and reduce duplicate records. Students were unlikely to scroll much past the first page of results. Students also found multiple catalog results for titles to be confusing.	EMU is changing the catalog’s discovery layer to one with more fine-tuned relevancy ranking controls.
“I think it’s just very overwhelming, when you get hit with a paragraph of information that you’re not seeking.”	Areas with dense information should be redesigned to reduce the visual load. For example, a page that shows library hours for a variety of locations and dates could include toggles to display or hide information. Another example would be a page with extensive policy text. Following UDL, users should have multiple options, such as toggles and hyperlinks to limit the visual load. Expansive policy texts should be redesigned with reduced text and increased highlighting for important information.	Visually complicated pages from NIU were simplified by toggles (see Figures 3 and 4).
“It seems like the colors that are more comforting and happier to your brain are not primary colors. RED! BLARG! GRRR!”	Icons and colors should highlight relevant information. However, user preferences regarding color choice should be considered, as some colors may be anxiety-inducing for some individuals.	The color theming of the library websites is mandated by the institutions. However, where possible to be customized, soothing or neutral colors are considered.

Some pages, while ultimately usable, provoked an overwhelmingly negative response. Figure 3 is a screenshot of the library’s Business Hours displayed as a calendar with six different color bars on each day displaying different hours for different services and locations. A student responded to this page with the comment “I absolutely despise this page.”

Figure 4 shows the same page from Figure 3, with improved functionality and reduced visual load.

Navigating Conflicting Design Recommendations

One of the most difficult tasks in designing universal solutions is navigating the reality that no design will ever truly be universal. Individual preferences will likely always eventually conflict in one scenario or another. For example, some individuals may find it easier to navigate a site with all the options listed so that they do not have to browse dropdown menus, while others will find an abundance of text overwhelming. What we can do, and what we have tried to do here, is start with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) requirements, then create designs that, at minimum, provide a balance that make the primary functions easily usable for all. Future options for managing conflicting design recommendations may involve adaptable settings that individual users can elect and control; however, we are not yet working on such customizable designs.

Concluding Remarks

Institutions of higher education should not follow typical business practices; it is integral to our missions as institutions to serve all our students, not just 80% of them. With the goal of creating inclusive online services, we set out to evaluate how our library websites served neurodivergent users. More specifically, we wished to determine the expectations of some of our neurodivergent users to ensure that the interface designs of our systems met with those expectations to create a low-stress and streamlined academic research experience. We believe that by centering neurodivergent students in our usability studies, we can identify barriers in our own library systems limiting student success of some individuals in the non-majority 20%. “Value is not assessed based on statistical significance which reverts to the mean, but instead on whether the design works for individuals whose needs are at the extreme edges of the normal distribution” (Treviranus, 2021 pp. 252–253). Neurodivergent students are owed the platform often given to the neurotypical user in usability studies. By listening to and observing neurodiverse students as the subjects of usability research, we acknowledge, respect, and serve their perspectives in a way that the neurotypical user experience has been respected for many years.

References

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Çorlu, D., Taşel, Ş., Turan, S. G., Gatos, A., & Yantaç, A. E. (2017). Involving Autistics in user experience studies: A critical review. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064771

Everhart, N. (2021, September). Capturing the information-seeking of students employing a wearable camera: Discussions of application in school libraries. In IASL Annual Conference Proceedings.

Everhart, N., & Escobar, K. L. (2018). Conceptualizing the information seeking of college students on the autism spectrum through participant viewpoint ethnography. Library & Information Science Research, 40(3-4), 269–276.

Goodman, E., & Kuniavsky, M. (2012). Observing the user experience: A practitioner’s guide to user research: Vol. 2 (2^nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.

Gronseth, S. (2018). Inclusive design for online and blended courses. Educational Renaissance, 7(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.33499/edren.v7i1.114

Jones, R. (2021). A phenomenological study of undergraduates with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and academic library use for research. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 165–183.

Kim, B., Kim, Y. C., Son, J. J., Song, D.-Y., Lee, I. J., Han, J. H., Kim, D., Yoo, H. J., & Kim, J.-I. (2023). Game-driven practices for social skills: Exploring usability for children with autism spectrum disorder. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good, 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582515.3609574

Kohli, J., & Atencio, M. (2023). ‘The person with a disability gets to define their disability’: Exploring identity formation through the voices of university students. Disability & Society, 38(5), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1965545

Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience: A practitioner’s guide to user research (1st ed.). Elsevier Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-55860-923-5.X5026-8

Lima, M. E. de S., Barros, L. C. M., & Aragão, G. F. (2020). Could autism spectrum disorders be a risk factor for COVID-19? Medical Hypotheses, 144, 109899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109899

Matson, J. L., & Shoemaker, M. (2009). Intellectual disability and its relationship to autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(6), 1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.06.003

Merzon, E., Manor, I., Rotem, A., Schneider, T., Vinker, S., Golan Cohen, A., Lauden, A., Weizman, A., & Green, I. (2021). ADHD as a risk factor for infection with Covid-19. Journal of Attention Disorders, 25(13), 1783–1790. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054720943271

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022, April 26). A majority of college students with disabilities do not inform school, new NCES data show. Press Release. https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/4_26_2022.asp

Nielsen, J. (2012, January 15). Thinking aloud: The #1 usability tool. User Testing. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/thinking-aloud-the-1-usability-tool/

O’ Sullivan, L., Feeney, L., Crowley, R.K. et al. (2021). An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff. Trials 22(544). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1

Oswal, S. K. (2019, October). Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access: Steps toward making UX inclusive of users with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication (pp. 1-8). https://doi.org/10.1145/3328020.3353957

Rose, D. (2000). Walking the walk: Universal Design on the web. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3), 45.

Shakespeare, T. (2004). Social models of disability and other life strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410409512636

Shakespeare, T. (2013). The Social Model of Disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (pp. 214–221). Taylor & Francis Group.

Singer, J. (1998). Odd people in: The birth of community amongst people on the autism spectrum: A personal exploration of a new social movement based on neurological diversity. Honours dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney.

Singer, J. (1999). Why can’t you be normal for once in your life? From a problem with no name to the emergence of a new category of difference. Disability discourse, 59–67.

Swain, J., & French, S. (2000). Towards an Affirmation Model of Disability. Disability & Society, 15(4), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590050058189

Tornblad, M. K., Jones, K. S., & Inan, F. A. (2019). Individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A review of human factors considerations and usability testing guidelines. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 1575–1579. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631423

Treviranus, Jutta. (2021). Technologies and differences: Insights from education breakdown and exclusion. In L. K. Fung (Ed.), Neurodiversity: From phenomenology to neurobiology and enhancing technologies (pp. 235–257). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

Valencia, K., Rusu, C., & Botella, F. (2021). User experience factors for people with autism spectrum disorder. Applied Sciences, 11(21), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112110469

Zeidan, J., Fombonne, E., Scorah, J., Ibrahim, A., Durkin, M. S., Saxena, S., Yusuf, A., Shih, A., & Elsabbagh, M. (2022). Global prevalence of autism: A systematic review update. Autism Research, 15(5), 778–790. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2696

📕 Learn more and order a copy of Supporting Neurodiverse Students in Academic Libraries.

Related Posts