Scoping review maps interventions enhancing job readiness and self-advocacy in adolescents and adults, indicating promising outcomes.
Background: Adolescents and adults with developmental disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions often face significant barriers when transitioning to employment. Job readiness and self-advocacy skills are increasingly recognized as key competencies supporting vocational participation and workplace inclusion. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this scoping review mapped empirical studies on interventions to promote job readiness and self-advocacy. A systematic search of ProQuest databases identified studies published between 2019 and 2024. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including nine addressing job readiness and seven focusing on self-advocacy. Results: Job-readiness interventions ranged from multicomponent vocational programs to technology-enhanced interventions, such as virtual interview simulations, remote audio coaching, and augmented-reality environments. Quantitative findings indicated improvements in interview performance, task-analysis mastery, and employment readiness, while qualitative data highlighted increased confidence and reduced anxiety. Self-advocacy interventions, including structured curricula, multiliteracy approaches, behavioral coaching, and drama-based methods, reported gains in autonomy, communication, self-determination, and generalization across contexts. Adult stakeholders, including educators and caregivers, frequently supported implementation. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that job readiness and self-advocacy function as complementary skill domains. Interventions that combine explicit instruction, structured practice, and the involvement of adult stakeholders show promising outcomes. However, the current evidence base is unevenly distributed across diagnostic groups, with a greater number of studies focusing on individuals with ASD compared to other neurodevelopmental conditions, and methodological variability and limited longitudinal evidence constrain generalizability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iacomini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: