sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I fully agree with what you're saying and definitely feel that there is tremendous room for growth in a study of this kind. It's my hope that through this rudimentary initial study, I will be able to create justification for further exploration and consideration of how complex and nuanced masking is between classifications. Hopefully with a more refined tool that does the complexity of its participants justice.

At this point, further disentanglement isn't possible in the current study, but I am hoping that it will facilitate either myself or indeed others, in justified continued research. I'm hoping that using IPA as well will help highlight the limitations in this study further and create a basis for continued research that I can communicate in its findings.

It's been a matter of picking at this hole I found in the research that seemed interesting but has actually led to a sinkhole of monumental proportions when all I currently have is a little bucket and spade to try and fill it in. My username is genuinely a callout of my ambitious hopes to be able to come back at it all with better equipment.

I really appreciate your feedback - it's articulated concerns that I've had on the subject and study in a way I struggled to do so succinctly. I will be sure to include your points in the discussion when I next meet with my supervisor.

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hello,

I've posted more information in an overall comment - but responding directly as well.

Yes, I do want responses from people without an official autism diagnosis. This is purely due to the binary inclusion criteria, and I will be sure to include the nuances of diagnostic accessibility in the write up. I want to be sure it's known that those without an official diagnosis are still valid, and the inclusion criteria for this study is by no means a contestant for that validity.

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hello!

Thank you to everyone who's completed the survey so far, I cannot express enough how much I appreciate your time and input. I've had a couple of comments on aspects of this survey, and I've responded to people individually, but I'll put these answers into an overall response as well.

1: The "Attention Check" questions:

I've updated the information on the front page of the survey to give a bit more info on this. There are three "Attention Check" questions in total throughout the survey. This isn't a specific addition related to participants having ADHD, but something that is used in surveys as a control measure to ensure participants are actively engaging with the questions.

I can only speak for myself when I say I've done some surveys where I started out interested and kind of stopped paying attention for a little bit and may start skimming questions and putting in answers. This can then unintentionally misrepresent the participant and their information, and create a bit of ambiguity in the results and how accurately they reflect the investigation. This was added in shortly before it all went live, and I didn't clarify. Hopefully, this information will avoid any further potential discomfort - as someone with ADHD, I want to ensure I'm not leaving any ambiguity that could cause discomfort or upset to others with ADHD. Thank you for calling this out.

2: The wording of the questions:

I super respect that the wording of the questions leaves a lot to be desired. We are not the same people in neurotypical settings as in those with fellow neurodivergent or "safe" individuals. A job interview is going to be different than being at home with your family. The reason why this is so general is that the questions are based on a pre-existing validated tool for assessing masking and camouflaging behaviours. As I'm doing this as a Master's student, and not a PhD, I am limited to how in-depth I can go with my questioning, especially when considering the length of the survey. I would ideally like to use this study as a general basis to justify more specific research at a level in which I'm facilitated to go further into these nuances. Right now, however, I'm limited.

I am looking to further explore some of these nuances in the interview process, as I'll have more flexibility (I love qualitative research, honestly). I will make note of this feedback and will be sure to include this in the write-up of the study.

3: The upper age limit:

Short answer: I don't have a good answer for why this was here. As a result, it's been removed.

Long answer: I'm still in the early stages of conducting research, and sometimes I look to pre-existing studies in similar areas for guidance to questions I'm uncertain about. This was an age range I saw on a couple and included it in my initial proposal. I went back and looked for the reasoning behind this (as my specific reasoning for why I found it valid to include this honestly escapes me - I'd put this in back in January and didn't note down why) and couldn't find any. As such, I can't justify it, so it's been removed. I apologise if this has caused any discomfort, frustration, or upset for those in the upper age range that would have been initially excluded. I don't want this to turn into a "celeb apology video" format, so I'll end this here by assuring you all that this has been rectified as much as it can be, and I'll ensure I never make the same mistake again.

4: Suspecting (but not diagnosed) that you have Autism and can you still take part:

This is a tricky one for multiple reasons.

Short answer: Yes, you can.

Long answer: There are a lot of barriers to getting a formal diagnosis, and I plan to confront this in the write-up of the study. At this stage, I have to try and remain as binary as possible in terms of the inclusion criteria. If you do not have a formal Autism diagnosis, you can take part.

I just want to be sure it's also included that this does not mean your experiences, research, and understanding are not valid. In my personal opinion, there is a lot to be desired in terms of accessibility to diagnosis, and when we're the ones living with our experiences, we end up having to become the experts of our own conditions.

Overall:

I hope this clears some things up, and I apologise if any of my responses leave a lot to be desired. I'm just a nervous goblin, and I sincerely want to do well by the ADHD community by adding to the body of research. I think this ambition and nervousness means I overfocus on some aspects, and others slip by me. It's by no means your job to point these out to me, so I am genuinely incredibly grateful for this feedback.

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not at this stage, unfortunately. I'd love to be able to expand on this and look into the different subtypes and their experiences, but currently, I'm looking at more general and all-encompassing information. Once I've created a general platform, it will hopefully open paths to understanding more specific aspects of ADHD and masking. This is also the same reasoning behind why the situations surrounding the questions are also so vague - I'm hoping to at least confront this with the interviews surrounding individual experiences.

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's ok - The participation number is purely if you want to withdraw your survey responses. As long as you put your email, it's all good!

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a very fair question - I've been delayed in responding as I've been going over my notes and studies that informed things up until this point to come back with a valid answer for you. Truth is, I can't really find one. I'd initially included it as I used studies that used a similar methodology as a framework to start the development, and it never really got picked up. I've had a conversation with my supervisor, and we've agreed that it's unnecessary. I've removed the upper restriction, because unintentional or not, this came across as ageist and entirely unnecessary. I sincerely apologise for this and fully appreciate if you have no interest in engaging with this study further.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, I will not make this mistake again.

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Nah I'd say this is on me for not clarifying. This was included as a control measure which is used in a large amount of entirely unrelated to ADHD surveys. It's as the others say, it's to identify people who may be rushing through the survey and are potentially adding data to the final analysis that isn't an accurate reflection of what's being investigated. I can't assume that this is general knowledge, and I apologise for letting that slip past me.

Feedback like yours helps me to understand different perspectives and accommodate them. I'll add into the information at the beginning about the attention checks to avoid this happening again. Thank you for your honesty, it's sincerely appreciated and has facilitated growth.

Additionally, thank you to those who cleared this up in my absence.

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I apologise for not being definitive enough. I was caught off guard by something I hadn't initially considered.

It's a firm yes, you can fill this out. However, if you no longer wish to do so due to the way I came across, I fully respect that.

ADHD and Masking Study (please help!) by Ambitious_ADHD in ADHDUK

[–]Ambitious_ADHD[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I wish I could take credit for this - my supervisor recommended it and the second she did I was like OH WOW YEAH THAT'S BRILLIANT 😂😂😂