Autism Knowledge, Perceptions of Potential Outcomes and Attitudes About Autism Education in Greece

Abstract

The present study examines professionals’ knowledge of autism as well as perceptions of potential outcomes and attitudes about education and the inclusion of autistic children in Greece. One hundred and eighty mainstream school teachers, special needs teachers and health/social care professionals, all working in the education sector, responded to self-reported questionnaires. Results showed between-group differences in the knowledge of autism prognosis and in self-efficacy in supporting autistic children, with health/social care professionals outperforming teachers. Mainstream school teachers, however, achieved higher scores compared to health/social care professionals in their perceptions of life and literacy outcomes and in their attitudes about the use of modified assessment methods for autistic children. The present findings support the need for improving perceptions for autistic children, promoting inclusive practices and a multi-disciplinary shared understanding of autism among professionals within the education sector and beyond.

1. Introduction

Autism is a lifelong condition and affects how a person acts, communicates, learns, and interacts with others (Papoudi et al., 2021). An increase in the public awareness of autism has occurred worldwide (Hahler & Elsabbagh, 2015) but evidence is lacking as to whether practitioners share the same perspectives. Special education involves many disciplines of divergence and convergence in relation to knowledge, attitudes and experience and, thus, the training of various professionals working with autistic children should be better understood (Segall & Campbell, 2012). We use the term “autistic individuals” and “autistic children” in this paper rather than “individuals with autism” and “children with autism”, because this is the preferred terminology by the majority of autistic people (Kenny et al., 2016).

A shared understanding is needed among practitioners working in supporting children and their families so they can promote optimal outcomes. As Stone identified in 1987, the recognition of cross-disciplinary differences is important, and the first step toward transcending these differences remains a significant issue today. Recently, Tsilimingras et al. (2018) suggested that autistic individuals have complex needs which require interprofessional collaboration where professionals from different disciplinary groups could work together to provide the most optimal outcome for this specific group.

Existing research has examined knowledge of autism in teachers (Helps et al., 1999; Mavropoulou & Padeliadu, 2000; Syriopoulou-Delli et al., 2012) and in professionals of different disciplines associated with health and social care (Cascella & Colella, 2004; Preece & Jordan, 2007; Stone, 1987). Recently, Roberts and Simpson (2016) conducted a comprehensive literature search of peer-reviewed journal articles and found that the perceived level of knowledge and understanding of autism varied among school professionals and that principals, special education teachers and school psychologists were more aware of teaching strategies than general education teachers. Although these studies investigated knowledge about autism in specific disciplinary groups, none of them focused on examining differences in autism knowledge between teachers and health/social care professionals.

Stone (1987) first compared autism knowledge among professionals (i.e., clinical and school psychologists, pediatricians, speech/language therapists) and found that all disciplines displayed several misconceptions. Similarly, Helps et al. (1999) compared mainstream school teachers’, special needs teachers’ and support staff’s autism knowledge and found that, although most teachers and support staff lacked a theoretical understanding of autism, special needs teachers were more aware of the appropriate strategies to facilitate and support the needs of autistic children.

Kapp et al. (2013) discussed the risk of framing autism negatively due to its nature and, subsequently, of encouraging low expectations about the outcomes of autistic children. In the study of Johnson (2012), who examined the relationship between diagnostic labelsincluding autism, and teachers’ attitudes, expectations and behavioural intentions, it was found that diagnostic labels are not crucial to teachers’ ratings and that teachers with less experience and higher self-efficacy had more positive attitudes and higher expectations for students’ performance. In addition, previous findings on students with learning disabilities indicate that teachers tend to hold low expectations about what children could achieve (Clark, 1997) and, at the same time, their beliefs affect their instructional methods and, therefore, influence children’s outcomes (Woodcock & Vialle, 2010), which tend to be poor for autistic students compared to students with other developmental disabilities (Roberts & Simpson, 2016). Confident teachers are more likely to improve education outcomes of autistic students and teachers’ self-efficacy could impact their teaching strategies (Bruck et al., 2021).

Inclusive education has been endorsed by the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) and teacher attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities into mainstream schools are critical to creating an inclusive environment where all pupils can benefit. McGregor and Campbell (2001) showed that mainstream teachers with experience with autistic people were more confident in supporting autistic children, whereas special needs teachers were more positive to the inclusion of autistic children in mainstream schools. Additionally, Segall and Campbell (2012) found positive attitudes towards the inclusion of autistic children, although these positive attitudes were not a predictor of autism awareness or intervention use.

Based on the above evidence, the present study sought to examine autism knowledge in professionals working in the education sector in Greece and also their perceptions about the potential outcomes and attitudes about the education and inclusion of autistic children. In more detail, the research question of the present study is summarized as follows:

Do mainstream school teachers, special needs teachers and health/social care professionals differ (a) in their knowledge of autism, (b) in their perceptions of the potential outcomes of autistic children and (c) in their attitudes about education and inclusion for autistic children?

The Greek Context

Special education in Greece is compulsory and free of charge public education and the Greek Ministry of Education is responsible for the education of all students, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (Law 3699/2008, 2008). According to Law 3699/2008, children with special educational needs and/or disabilities including autistic children have access to special education schools or education in mainstream schools based on interdisciplinary evaluation conducted by the Centres for Assessment, Counselling and Support. These centres operate under the Greek Ministry of Education and employ special needs teachers and health/social care professionals who work closely with the special schools and the mainstream schools for supporting children with special educational needs and/or disabilities. While the Centres for Assessment, Counselling and Support operate under the Greek Ministry of Education, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services operate under the Ministry of Health and also employ health/social care professionals to conduct evaluations of children with special educational needs.

Teachers working with autistic children are placed (a) in special education school units (special schools) or (b) in ordinary mainstream school classrooms, in mainstream school classrooms providing “parallel support” (one-to-one in-class support) or in mainstream ‘inclusion classes’ (a pull-out provision offered part time) in primary and secondary education schools. As specified in Law 3699/2008, the structures of school units in special education include primary education: (a) special pre-school (up to age 7), (b) primary special education schools (6–15) and secondary education (up to 19). Health/social care professionals work in special schools or provide parallel support (e.g., psychologists, speech therapists) in mainstream schools to children with special educational needs and/or disabilities or in the Centres for Assessment, Counselling and Support.

Initial teacher education and the training of health/social care professionals is provided at higher education institutions and teachers obtain a bachelor’s degree graduating after 4 years of study, including a practicum. Graduates holding qualified teacher status and a master’s degree in special education can work as special needs teachers at primary and secondary schools. Curricula vary between universities and training for supporting and teaching autistic children is not compulsory. However, the country has also two education departments for special education at higher education institutions where graduates can work as special needs teachers in primary education and where training on autism is compulsory.

In Greece, Mavropoulou and Padeliadu (2000) compared mainstream and special needs teachers’ knowledge about autism and reported that although teachers were familiar with autism, they tended to give a psychogenic explanation of autism and considered psychotherapy to be beneficial. Furthermore, Syriopoulou-Delli et al. (2012), who also examined Greek teachers’ autism knowledge, found an association between teachers’ training, working experience and their autism understanding because teachers’ training and working experience were critical to improving teachers’ perceptions and their efficient support of autistic children. In a recently published comparative cross-sectional investigation study, it was reported that Greek professionals have higher levels of knowledge about autism compared to Romanian professionals (Folostina et al., 2022).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

One hundred and eighty professionals took part in the study. A total of 63 (35%) (55 female) were mainstream school teachers (mean age = 36.4; SD = 8.8; mean years of working experience = 10.6; SD = 7.8), 54 (30%) (44 female) were special needs teachers (mean age = 39.8; SD = 7.1; mean years of working experience = 11.5; SD = 7.2), 63 (35%) (59 female) were health and social care professionals (speech therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, school nurses) (mean age = 35.9, SD = 8.1, mean years of working experience = 10.1, SD = 7.7).

No significant group differences were obtained on the above demographic measures (age: p = 0.29; years of experience: p = 0.61; gender: p = 0.07). Most of the participants (70.6%) worked in different mainstream school settings, while the remainder (29.4%) worked in special schools or in the Centres for Assessment, Counselling and Support, which were all operated under the Ministry of Education.

The majority of participants reported having met autistic people (93.7% mainstream teachers, 98.4% special needs teachers, 96.8% health and social care professionals; p = 0.15) and being trained in teaching and supporting autistic children in the school and community context (88.9% mainstream school teachers, 92.6% special needs teachers, 95.2% health and social care professionals; p = 0.32). However, 38.1% of mainstream school teachers reported that they had never worked with autistic children as compared to 14.8% special needs teachers and 7.9% health and social care professionals, and this was significant at p = 0.001.

2.2. Research Tools

A questionnaire to identify professionals’ knowledge of autism was developed, entitled the Autism Knowledge Questionnaire, and was based on the relevant literature (Helps et al., 1999; Humphrey & Symes, 2013; Mavropoulou & Padeliadu, 2000; Obeid et al., 2015; McGregor & Campbell, 2001; Stone, 1987; Wing et al., 2002). The questionnaire was developed by the first author who has long professional experience in teaching and supporting autistic individuals and a pilot study was conducted with 20 professionals from all disciplines represented in the sample. It comprised 17 statements pertaining to factors commonly associated with autism diagnosis and assessed participants’ understanding of the main characteristics of autism. Participants were asked to state their opinion along a five-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The factor structure analysis revealed five factors accounting for 33.72% of the variance (

Table 1. Factor loadings for the Autism Knowledge Questionnaire.

	Factor Loadings
	I	II	III	IV	V
Strategies/approaches (α = 0.71) (6 items)
Appropriate interventions:
speech and language therapy	0.72	-	-	-	-
occupational therapy	0.70	-	-	-	-
music therapy	0.57	-	-	-	-
psychotherapy	0.49	-	-	-	-
group work activities	0.46	-	-	-	-
Quality of life can be enhanced with life-long education, family counselling, and provision of resources	0.43	-	-	-	-
Causes (α = 0.65) (4 items)
Parental upbringing methods	-	0.61	-	-	-
Parental psychopathology	-	0.59	-	-	-
Vaccines	-	0.52	-	-	-
Problems during pregnancy	-	0.50	-	-	-
General knowledge (α = 0.61) (2 items)
More common among boys	-	-	0.57	-	-
A developmental disorder	-	-	0.49	-	-
Quality of life/health (α = 0.64) (3 items)
Autism is associated with…
sleep difficulties	-	-	-	0.79	-
eating disorders	-	-	-	0.64	-
physical health problems	-	-	-	0.50	-
Prognosis (α = 0.58) (2 items)
Prognosis is poor	-	-	-	-	0.76
Cannot be cured	-	-	-	-	0.71
Eigenvalues	3.47	2.84	2.47	2.14	1.89

): strategies and approaches, causes, general knowledge, quality of life and health and prognosis. Scores on specific items of the questionnaire referring to misconceptions (i.e., ‘Parental upbringing methods exacerbate autism’, ‘Vaccines can cause autism’, etc.) were reversed to indicate higher perceived knowledge.

Perceptions of the potential outcomes in autism were assessed via a further questionnaire, the Autism Potential Outcomes Questionnaire, which comprised 29 questions answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never to 5 = always). The development of this questionnaire was also based on the relevant literature (Carrington et al., 2014; Sparrow et al., 2005; Wing et al., 2002). The examination of the factorial structure led to four factors, life and literacy skills, behaviour and communication, self-help skills, and self-regulation, accounting for 35.52% of the variance (

Table 2. Factor loadings for Autism Potential Outcomes Questionnaire.

	Factor Loadings
	I	II	III	IV
Life/literacy skills (α = 0.87) (13 items)
Handling money	0.65	-	-	-
Attending secondary education	0.62	-	-	-
Going to University	0.61	-	-	-
Reading skills	0.60	-	-	-
Learning concept of time	0.60	-	-	-
Independent leaving	0.58	-	-	-
Basic number skills	0.58	-	-	-
Coping at mainstream school	0.56	-	-	-
Getting married	0.56	-	-	-
Basic writing skills	0.55	-	-	-
Making friends	0.54	-	-	-
Being able to work	0.54	-	-	-
Functioning independently outside home	0.48	-	-	-
Behaviour/communication (α = 0.70) (7 items)
Stereotypical behaviour	-	0.65	-	-
Stereotypical language	-	0.63	-	-
Repeating words	-	0.54	-	-
Stereotyped behaviours when playing	-	0.52	-	-
Resistance to change	-	0.41	-	-
Repetitive motor mannerisms	-	0.40	-	-
Self-help skills (α = 0.84) (5 items)
Eating independently	-	-	0.63	-
Helping in household chores	-	-	0.55	-
Getting dressed	-	-	0.55	-
Using the toilet independently			0.51	-
Managing personal hygiene	-	-	0.47	-
Self-regulation (α = 0.65) (4 items)
Temper tantrums	-	-	-	0.46
Aggressive behaviours	-	-	-	0.45
Not able to maintain responsive interaction	-	-	-	0.42
Hyperactive	-	-	-	0.41
Eigenvalues	8.55	4.66	3.74	2.94

). Higher mean scores on the life/literacy and self-help skills subscales reflect the more positive perceptions of the potential outcomes of autistic children in these domains, whereas higher mean scores on the behaviour/communication and self-regulation subscales reflect more negative perceptions.

Additionally, participants responded to a 10-item Autism Education and Inclusion Questionnaire which considered the prevailing education practices in Greece and was based on the relevant literature (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). In more detail, the questionnaire examined attitudes about autistic children’s school performance assessment (1 item), appropriate teaching methods (2 items), self-efficacy in supporting autistic children (1 item) and conditions for successful inclusion (6 items). Each item of the questionnaire assessed different aspects of inclusion and thus was not factor-analyzed. Responses were evaluated on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = absolutely disagree to 5 = absolutely agree) (α = 0.71). Higher mean scores indicated more positive perceptions towards the inclusion of autistic children.

2.3. Procedure

Participants were recruited from continuous professional development courses and were informed about the purpose of the study. Participants were selected in the study if they had school-based working experience and education or health/social care professional status. Questionnaire completion was voluntary and anonymous.

3. Results

Table 3. Differences in autism knowledge, perceptions of potential outcomes and attitudes about education and inclusion.

	Mainstream School Teachers (n = 63)		Special Needs Teachers (n = 54)		Health/Social Care Professionals (n = 63)		Differences
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F(2, 179)	p
Autism Knowledge
Strategies and approaches	4.3	0.54	4.4	0.49	4.4	0.45	0.58	0.55
Causes	3.9	0.66	3.9	0.62	3.9	0.66	0.03	0.96
General knowledge	3.9	0.77	3.9	0.82	4.1	0.69	1.17	0.31
Quality of life/health	3.3	0.57	3.1	0.72	3.3	0.71	1.59	0.21
Prognosis	3.4	0.92	3.4	1.07	3.9	0.91	4.24	0.02 *
Autism Potential Outcomes
Life/literacy skills	2.7	0.54	2.6	0.47	2.4	0.53	4.16	0.02 *
Behaviour/communication	3.9	0.45	4.0	0.51	4.0	0.36	0.91	0.40
Self-help skills	3.1	0.70	3.3	0.54	3.2	0.63	1.45	0.24
Self-regulation	3.4	0.47	3.3	0.50	3.4	0.49	1.74	0.18
Autism Education and Inclusion
Self-efficacy in supporting autistic children	3.0	1.03	3.1	1.01	3.6	0.96	6.19	0.003 **
Modified assessment methods	4.2	0.89	3.9	0.96	3.7	0.98	4.03	0.02 *
Comprehensive/structured learning environment	4.6	0.63	4.7	0.73	4.8	0.53	0.44	0.64
Visual support	4.1	1.07	4.5	0.87	4.4	0.80	3.42	0.03 *
Successful inclusion depends upon:
Autistic child’s ability to learn	3.8	0.95	3.7	0.92	3.9	0.83	0.35	0.71
Severity of autism symptoms	4.3	0.76	4.4	0.69	4.5	0.59	0.77	0.47
Autistic child’s personality	3.7	1.09	3.6	0.93	3.6	0.90	0.11	0.89
Teacher attitudes	4.3	0.92	4.1	0.90	4.0	0.80	1.54	0.22
Teacher support	4.5	0.76	4.4	0.71	4.4	0.66	0.43	0.65
Child support	4.6	0.55	4.6	0.65	4.5	0.56	1.04	0.36

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

presents mean scores and differences in autism knowledge, perceptions of the potential outcomes in autism and attitudes about the education and inclusion of autistic children.

In relation to teachers and health/social care professionals’ knowledge, health/social care professionals tended to demonstrate better knowledge about prognosis in autism as compared to both mainstream school teachers and special needs teachers (p < 0.05). Moreover, all groups of participants achieved significantly higher scores in the knowledge of strategies and approaches subscale [F_{(4, 248)} = 21.37, p < 0.001, F_{(4, 248)} = 24.51, p < 0.001, F_{(4, 212)} = 24.61, p < 0.001, respectively] than in the other autism knowledge subscales. This means that all professionals were significantly more aware about possible appropriate strategies used in the autism field, such as speech and language therapy, occupational therapy etc., than about causes, general characteristics, prognosis or issues relating to quality of life and health.

Furthermore, mainstream school teachers tended to demonstrate more positive perceptions of life and literacy outcomes in autistic children than the health/social care professionals (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, all three groups of participants scored significantly higher in the behaviour and communication outcome subscale [F_{(3, 186)} = 113.56, p < 0.001; F_{(3, 186)} = 68.45, p < 0.001; F_{(3, 159)} = 82.98, p < 0.001, respectively], indicating a shared negative perception of potential improvement in the behaviour and communication of autistic children.

Interestingly, as regards to attitudes about education and the inclusion of autistic children, mainstream school teachers were found to be more positive about the use of modified learning assessment methods for autistic children compared to the other two groups (p < 0.05). Special needs teachers and health/social care professionals, on the other hand, held a more positive view, compared to the mainstream school teachers, about the benefits of using visual supports in teaching autistic children. Additionally, health/social care professionals perceived themselves as more capable in supporting autistic children than both the special needs (p < 0.05) and the mainstream school teachers did (p < 0.01). Furthermore, within groups, significant differences in attitudes about education and inclusion were also identified [F_{(9, 558)} = 19.97, p < 0.001 health/social care professionals; F_{(9, 558)} = 22.73, p < 0.001 mainstream school teachers; and F_{(9, 477)} = 20.35, p < 0.001, special needs teachers]. As regards autism education and inclusion, all groups of professionals appeared to agree that autistic children’s inclusive education is above all supported using structured learning environments. As regards the professionals’ perceptions on the factors which successful inclusion depends upon, again there was an agreement among groups for severity of autism, teacher support and child support affecting inclusion quality.

4. Discussion

The current study focused on the examination of autism knowledge, perceptions of potential outcomes in autistic children and attitudes about education and inclusion of autistic children among different disciplinary groups, all working within the education sector. Overall, all groups achieved similar scores on the autism knowledge tools used in the present study, a finding not consistent with previous research (Cascella & Colella, 2004; Helps et al., 1999; Mavropoulou & Padeliadu, 2000; Preece & Jordan, 2007; Stone, 1987; Syriopoulou-Delli et al., 2012). This finding could be potentially attributed to similarities in working experience with autistic individuals and basic previous training on autism. Interestingly, health/social care professionals demonstrated better knowledge of autism prognosis compared to mainstream school and special needs teachers, which could be attributed to the fact that these professionals are often involved in the diagnostic assessment process of children with special educational needs and, therefore, have extensive experience in the wider area of epidemiology and prognosis. On the contrary, teachers in mainstream or special schools may not have the opportunity to gain knowledge on these issues because these are not primarily related to educational provision. Nevertheless, among the five areas of autism knowledge, strategies and approaches used to support autistic children, it was comparably more likely to receive higher scores by all groups of professionals compared to those referring to autism causes, general features, and quality of life or prognosis. Interestingly, all professionals scored poorly in the quality of life and health subscale of autism knowledge. A possible explanation is that quality of life and health is an issue not primarily dealt within the school but by out-of-school support services, rehabilitation centres or therapeutic centres. An alternative explanation would be that school-based teachers and professionals may not think that autistic children and their families enjoy a good quality of life and face numerous challenges with no constant support.

Additionally, mainstream school teachers demonstrated more positive perceptions of life and literacy outcomes in autism when compared to the other two groups of professionals, possibly because life and literacy skills are core areas of education in mainstream schools and therefore are valued as such for all children, including autistic children. It should be noted, however, that despite the above significant difference, all professionals scored quite poorly in the life and literacy outcome subscale. The highest score achieved by all groups of professionals was that of the behaviour–communication outcome, maybe because autistic children experience great difficulties in communication and any improvement in this domain is highly valued by everyone who works with autistic children. This finding might also suggest that professionals are acquainted with the view of the more severely affected autistic child and the deficit model of disability rather than with the view of the more able child who has higher adaptive skills. This view might also reflect pessimism among professionals or a misconception and misunderstanding about autism, which may be driven by the double empathy problem observed in the social interaction between neurotypical and autistic individuals as they experience the world from a different perspective, and this creates an obstacle in understanding the unique needs of the autistic child (Milton et al., 2022; Mitchell et al., 2021). Furthermore, Van Herwegen et al. (2019) reported that professionals tend to recognize the most prototypical difficulties of autism and this might hinder a broader understanding of the child’s needs, suggesting that professional development should include training about the subtle difficulties experienced by autistic children.

In relation to differences in professionals’ attitudes about the education and inclusion of autistic children, an interesting pattern of results was found. Health/social care professionals scored higher in the item about self-efficacy in supporting autistic children than the other two groups did, whereas mainstream school teachers demonstrated a more positive attitude towards the use of modified tests and assessment methods for autistic children in the mainstream school when compared to the other participants. Furthermore, health/social care professionals and special needs teachers were more positive, compared to mainstream school teachers, towards the importance of using visual supports. These differences may stem from differences in professional experiences and in the demands of work settings and may indicate a need for adaptations in awareness raising and training courses. Health/social care professionals appeared to be more confident in supporting autistic children, and this might be related to the training they often receive on the specific interventions widely used in the autism field and to their experience in working individually with children. Consequently, these professionals may not be fully aware of the demands of teaching larger groups of children, since they experience teaching autistic children in one-to-one sessions, compared to teachers who place more emphasis on inclusive settings. Teachers’ lack of self-efficacy in teaching autistic children might be indicative of their need for more support, resources, and school-based training (Anglim et al., 2017). Teachers’ needs can vary among professionals, and a recent study showed that teachers have expressed a need for: (a) collaboration within school, (b) valued practical suggestions to guide their teaching, (c) gaining more confidence to teach autistic students, and (d) enhancing students’ social and communication skills (Van Der Steen et al., 2020).

Professionals participating in this study may not represent all professionals in Greece or in other countries and, thus, should be treated as a carefully targeted group for investigation. A distinctive characteristic of the participants is that they were school-based and/or had working experience in the education sector that operates under the Ministry of Education. The findings have implications beyond the boundaries of Greece because they provide evidence that more emphasis should be given to changing perceptions about potential outcomes in autistic people and the role of building confidence in practitioners working with this population. It is now well documented that autistic children present different potential outcomes (Szatmari et al., 2015) and, therefore, this needs to be incorporated into raising public awareness and training professionals working with children and their families. Government policies should dynamically follow the changes in the field of autism and reform their policies to meet the needs of professionals. Professional training should include strength-based approaches to autism which would help reduce negative school experiences and lower the educational attainment of autistic children (White et al., 2025) as well as training on the neurodiversity paradigm which emphasizes the strengths of autistic individuals and could reduce stigma and increase their social inclusion (Cherewick & Matergia, 2024). Furthermore, these findings reinforce the importance of examining perceptions from a multidisciplinary perspective, a view supported by an international review of autism knowledge which reported that most measures of autism knowledge examine broader rather than particular elements of autism and that there is a need for a tool that has cross-cultural utility (Harrison et al., 2017).

The present study provides evidence that autism knowledge is important but not adequate on its own without a collaborative and shared understanding among professionals in order to achieve optimal outcomes for autistic children and highlights the need for designing training courses that would strengthen professionals’ collaborative approaches and a shared culture of best practices (Strunk et al., 2017). Last but not least, the complexity of autism and the number of different professions involved in autism require improved inter-professional collaboration (Strunk et al., 2017). For this to become effective, disciplines involved in the assessment and education of autistic children should share a common understanding and a common language of the educational needs of autistic children. Further research is needed to identify the barriers and good practices of successful interprofessional collaboration to improve the outcomes of autistic students and to examine the moderator role of gender. Additionally, future studies on autism knowledge among professionals should adopt a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches to reduce the risk of receiving responses which do not reflect actual views and perceptions but views deriving from social desirability. Future research would benefit from gathering data to examine the extent to which autism knowledge is shared among individuals, not only in school-based settings but also in clinical settings using diverse methods to achieve a representative multidisciplinary perspective. Furthermore, research on autism knowledge must actively involve the autistic community.