Children waiting for an autism or ADHD assessment may still need help understanding their experiences and communicating what supports them. A qualitative study explored whether strengths-based psychoeducational resources could offer that support before a formal diagnosis.
The issue is significant because some children may wait years for an assessment, according to the article, which cites NHS England. During that time, they may experience differences in attention, activity levels, social communication, sensory processing, interests or behaviours without having a clear framework for discussing them.
The article also notes that the Equality Act 2010 says reasonable adjustments should be provided regardless of whether a child has a formal diagnosis. However, it says this entitlement is not implemented consistently.
What the study explored
Shore and Powell’s qualitative study involved 24 families recruited through schools and community networks, alongside seven professional stakeholders recruited by convenience sampling. The children were aged 7 to 11, attended mainstream schools and included children on diagnostic waitlists or with suspected autistic or ADHD traits.
Families used one of two interactive booklets, adapted from existing autism- and ADHD-focused resources, for at least two weeks before taking part in semi-structured interviews. Teachers, educational psychologists, clinicians and advocacy representatives reviewed prototype booklets and provided written feedback.
The booklets used non-clinical, strengths-based language. They included visual elements, open-ended prompts, interactive activities and practical strategies that could be personalised for each child.
What families and professionals valued
The researchers identified an overarching theme of “Empowering individualised engagement,” supported by six themes. Participants particularly valued the colourful design, child-led activities, flexible tasks and language that did not frame differences as problems.
Terms such as “traits” and “superpowers” were viewed positively by participants. The resources were perceived as helping children reflect on their cognitive profiles without requiring a formal diagnosis.
Families and stakeholders also described possible benefits for self-understanding, communication of needs, planning, emotional regulation, coping, self-esteem, confidence and self-acceptance. Stakeholders considered the individualised approach especially relevant to inclusion while children awaited assessment.
The study’s conclusion was that children should not have to wait for a diagnosis to recognise their strengths, communicate their needs or develop practical coping strategies. The article also states that psychoeducation has been associated with improved understanding, coping and quality of life among diagnosed neurodivergent children.
What remains unknown
The findings describe participants’ views of the resources, rather than establishing that the booklets cause improvements. Further research is needed to assess their effectiveness, whether perceived benefits last over time and whether they lead to meaningful changes in wellbeing.
The sample was mostly White British and concentrated in a few regions of England. Recruitment may have attracted families already interested in neurodiversity-affirming approaches. All participating children attended mainstream schools, and the evaluation lasted for a relatively short period.
The resources may also depend on active involvement from parents or school staff, particularly for younger children or those with greater support needs. It is not yet established how effectively the approach can be implemented in schools or at scale, and the resources are not a substitute for comprehensive assessment.
Why this matters
The study highlights a practical gap between recognising that a child may need support and receiving a formal diagnostic assessment. Its findings suggest that accessible, personalised explanations and strategies may help children and the adults around them talk about needs during that gap.
At the same time, the evidence currently supports perceived usefulness rather than proven effectiveness. The value of these resources, and how they should be used across different settings and support needs, remains an area for further study.
AI tools were used to assist with the preparation of this article under our editorial standards.
Leave a Reply