GARC / RESEARCH INTELLIGENCE Institutional Research Readiness An indicative, browser-only planning assessment—not accreditation or a validated clinical scale.
Editorial/source review: 2026-10-14 · GARC Global Autism Research Intelligence Platform
Read the resources below. JavaScript is required for local tools; inputs are disabled until the tools load.
28 questions, seven dimensions Choose 0 (not in place), 1 (planned), 2 (partly implemented), or 3 (implemented with review). Blank means not answered, not zero. Each dimension averages four equally weighted items; the overall score averages all 28 only when complete. Answers are not transmitted or stored on a server.
Governance & accountability A named accountable lead and documented responsibilities guide autism-related research or service development.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed An approved plan identifies priorities, resources, milestones and a review date.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Research ethics, safeguarding and conflict-of-interest responsibilities are documented and reviewed.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Decision records and a clear concerns or complaints pathway support accountability.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Data & evidence systems Key indicators have documented definitions, populations, collection methods and data years.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Data access, privacy, retention and sharing rules are proportionate to sensitivity and risk.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Source quality, missingness and uncertainty are checked before data inform decisions.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed A maintainable evidence register records sources, versions, review dates and corrections.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Workforce capability Staff roles and required research, communication and implementation competencies are mapped.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Training includes autism knowledge, respectful communication, accessibility and relevant ethics.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Staff can access supervision, specialist advice and clear escalation routes.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Capacity, workload and continuity arrangements are reviewed against planned activities.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Participation & inclusion Autistic people have meaningful, accessible opportunities to influence priorities and design.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Participation arrangements address communication preferences, sensory needs and reasonable adjustments.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Recruitment and engagement consider groups often excluded from research or services.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Contributor roles, consent, reimbursement or compensation and feedback are explained in advance.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Research collaboration Collaboration needs and potential partners are identified using documented criteria.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Written arrangements define contributions, responsibilities, data use and publication decisions.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Teams use shared protocols and proportionate quality checks across participating sites.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Public descriptions distinguish verified collaboration from directory inclusion or preliminary discussions.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Service pathways & implementation Existing pathways and access barriers are mapped with the people who use them.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Service design considers transitions across life stages and coordination between sectors.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Proposed changes have an implementation plan with owners, resources and practical milestones.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Information explains service scope, referral routes and limits without promising unsupported outcomes.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Evaluation & learning Evaluation questions and feasible outcome indicators are agreed before implementation.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed A baseline and review schedule allow progress to be examined over time.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Evaluation includes lived-experience feedback, equity and unintended effects.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Findings, limitations and improvement actions are recorded and communicated to relevant audiences.Not answered 0 — Not in place 1 — Planned 2 — Partly implemented 3 — Implemented and reviewed Calculate indicative results Clear answers
Print results Export results (.txt) A browser self-report planning aid, not a validated scale, clinical assessment, regulatory finding, ranking, certification or accreditation. Scores describe your supplied answers, not an independent GARC audit.
Request a separate professional review
