ADI-R Research Project

User Research / Low Fidelity Mocks

The ADI-R is a printed assessment used for diagnosing autism. It is the gold standard tool used by practitioners and has been used for research for decades. The ADI-2 Digital Project was launched to offer an online version to customers as well as provide additional revisions. My initial task was to collaborate with the original authors of the ADI-R and find solutions to upload their existing prototypes onto the WPS website. However, discoveries that were made throughout the research process ultimately changed the trajectory of the designs.

Current ADI-R

The ADI-R is a printed form used by practitioners to assess their patients. It is a semi-structured interview process with parents or loved ones and takes about 3-4 hours to complete. Each question in the assessment contains probes and the practitioner would give a number score based on the answers.

The Problem

I was shown the author’s prototypes and had immediate concerns with the design. The proposed design consisted of a decision tree layout where it asked a series or “yes” or “no” prompts. The decision tree would exist for all each of the 93 questions in the assessment. I was afraid this would create cognitive overload to practitioners and interrupt their natural flow of questioning and building rapport with the interviewers. I was faced with additional challenges as well which included the following:

• The ADI-R was the company’s top selling product and there was no flexibility from authors on changes in design

• The stakeholders involved have never worked with a UX Designer before and were unfamiliar with the process

Getting Started

Instead of informing the authors of my concern right away, I decided to keep an open mind and tried to understand their point of view. My goal was to create a collaborative environment and fostering a relationship with them was my first priority. I wanted to gain their trust and convince the authors of alternative solutions by leveraging customer feedback. I started by:

• Scheduling weekly check-ins to include them in my process from the beginning

• Remaining unbiased and understand the authors’ vision of the ADI-2

• Align on known issues with the current ADI-R

• Gauge how flexible authors are on the designs apart from the decision tree

• Get info about current authors beliefs about the users

Stakeholders and Duration

The stakeholders involved consisted of myself, the Product Manager, 4 ADI-R authors, Director of Research, and the Lead Engineer.

The total duration of the research lasted approximately 3 months which included preparation, scheduling, and moderated user interviews.

Project Plan

I created a tentative UX Project Plan in Confluence to walk all stakeholders through my process and give them an idea of the status of each stage. It also gave them the opportunity to access any related resources, ask questions and give feedback.

User Interviews

Working with the Product Manager, we conducted user interviews both remotely and by attending the NASP (National Association of School Psychologists) Conference to gain a deeper understanding of the following research objectives:

• Identify key users and experiences for School Psychologists, Private Practitioners, and Researchers

• Gain a general understanding of ADI-R and how it is conducted

• Discover the practitioner’s end-to-end journey when administering the ADI-R

• Evaluate what is working and not working in the current ADI-R product

• Get their feedback on low fidelity designs including the authors’ prototype

Access to the full User Interview Script

Low Fidelity Mocks

I created 3 low fidelity mocks of what the content would look like online. I wanted to gauge the user’s understanding and see if they resonated better with the familiarity of an existing layout, decision tree, or the ability to focus on a question one at a time. The goal was to get quick feedback on what the users impression were and I did not spend too much time on perfecting the designs.

Key Research Findings

After the concluding the user interviews, I synthesized my notes and shared my findings with the authors. The key findings included:

• 100% of users were overwhelmed by the decision tree layout and said they would not use the online version if it was implemented

• 100% of users mentioned the decision tree layout will take longer than the existing 3 hour assessment

• Majority of the users were concerned with analyzing the decision tree and giving interviewers less attention

• Majority of the users saw benefits of conducting the ADI-R online to give quick access to different sections, auto-filling forms, and auto-scoring

End Results

Seeing feedback based on actual quantitative data and hearing user feedback via video recordings impacted the authors in a positive way and highlighted the importance of overall user experience. As a result:

1. I was able to persuade the authors to pivot from the decision tree layout to other alternative solutions.

2. Stakeholders who had no previous knowledge of UX became comfortable with processes and understood UX research is critical to the success of their products.

3. I was able to built trust and create a collaborative working environment by providing data driven information, being transparent in my processes, remaining unbiased, and being open to all sources of ideas.