First validated scales to measure neurodivergent acceptance — developed from lived experience
Until now, no validated instrument existed to measure whether a workplace actually accepts neurodivergent employees. Policies exist. Statements of commitment exist. But no way to measure whether actual acceptance is real — whether neurodivergent people are listened to, respected, and included rather than merely tolerated or “accommodated”.
New research from the University of Canterbury fills this gap, and it’s fascinating for the neurodiversity in the workplace frame. Logan Vickery’s Master’s thesis, completed in 2026, developed and validated two scales: the Individual Neurodivergent Acceptance Scale (7 items), measuring whether an individual is accepting of neurodivergent coworkers, and the Organisational Neurodivergence Acceptance Scale (12 items), measuring whether a workplace is an accepting environment for neurodivergent employees.
The scales were developed from neurodivergent and neurotypical input. Stage one involved interviews with three neurodivergent and three neurotypical workers to identify how acceptance and unacceptance manifest in practice. The themes extracted — respect, inclusion, being listened to, responsiveness, civility, friendliness, advocacy, understanding different perspectives — became the foundation for scale items. Stage two involved a survey of 272 participants (202 valid responses; 52% neurodivergent, 48% neurotypical) to validate the scales through exploratory factor analysis.
Both scales showed strong reliability. The Individual Neurodivergent Acceptance Scale achieved a McDonald’s Omega of .912. The Organisational Neurodivergence Acceptance Scale achieved .948. These are robust instruments — not theoretical constructs, but measures grounded in what neurodivergent workers actually experience as acceptance or its absence.
Awareness and acceptance are positively correlated — but awareness alone doesn't guarantee acceptance
The research found a significant positive correlation between neurodivergent awareness and neurodivergent acceptance. At the individual level, the correlation was moderate (r = .40, p < .01). At the organisational level, it was strong (r = .63, p < .01). People who are more aware of neurodivergent coworkers are more likely to be accepting of them. Organisations where employees are aware of neurodivergence are more likely to be accepting environments.
This refutes the claim that awareness and acceptance are opposite ends of a spectrum. Some researchers have positioned awareness as deficit-focused — framing neurodivergence as something to be treated or cured — while acceptance is positioned as the healthy alternative. Vickery’s data suggests otherwise. Awareness and acceptance are positively related. The more aware, the more accepting — on average.
But correlation is not causation, and awareness is not sufficient.
As one participant noted: “I work in a disability organisation that employs neurodivergent lived experience advocates and they are treated very well. There are ‘regular’ staff who are also neurodivergent and the organisation is not as responsive to their needs.” People can be completely aware of neurodivergence and still be unaccepting. Awareness opens a door. It does not guarantee anyone walks through it.
The practical implication is clear. Awareness training may help, but it is not enough on its own. Organisations need to measure acceptance directly — not assume that awareness campaigns have achieved their goal.
The scales measure something distinct from general diversity or personal values
A key question in scale development: is neurodivergent acceptance actually distinct from general acceptance, diversity orientation, or positive personal values? Or would existing measures work just as well?
Factor analyses confirmed the scales measure something distinct. Individual neurodivergent acceptance correlated with benevolence (r = .28, p < .01) and universalism (r = .35, p < .01) — but loaded onto different factors. People who value caring for others and treating everyone fairly are more likely to accept neurodivergent coworkers, but neurodivergent acceptance is not reducible to those general values.
Organisational neurodivergence acceptance correlated strongly with integration of differences (r = .69, p < .01) — the degree to which an organisation utilises employee differences in work practices.
But, again, the constructs loaded onto different factors. Integration of differences and neurodivergent acceptance are related but not interchangeable.
This matters because it justifies neurodivergent-specific measurement. A general diversity scale does not capture whether neurodivergent employees specifically are being listened to, respected, and included. Neurodivergent experiences — sensory processing, communication differences, executive function variation — are distinct enough to warrant distinct measurement. Vickery’s scales provide that.
What organisations can now measure that policies cannot
The existence of a policy does not mean neurodivergent employees feel accepted. The existence of an accommodation process does not mean employees feel safe disclosing. The Organisational Neurodivergence Acceptance Scale allows organisations to measure what policies cannot — the actual experience of acceptance on the ground.
The practical applications are direct. Organisations can now assess whether their workplace is accepting of neurodivergent employees before launching interventions — and measure whether those interventions actually shift acceptance. Individual-level measurement can identify leaders or teams where acceptance is lower, enabling targeted development rather than blanket training. Neurodivergent employees can see whether an organisation’s stated commitments translate into measurable acceptance.
The findings also carry implications for neurodivergent employees directly. Fear of stigma and discrimination leads many neurodivergent workers not to disclose. They mask instead — hiding behaviours and needs that do not fit neurotypical norms. Masking is exhausting. It reduces wellbeing and job satisfaction. If organisations score highly on neurodivergent acceptance, it signals to neurodivergent employees that they may be accepted — which could reduce the pressure to mask and increase psychological safety.
The scales are not the endpoint. They are infrastructure. Now that acceptance can be measured, the question becomes: what actually increases it? Awareness training? Leadership development? Structural changes to sensory environments or communication norms? The research to answer those questions can now proceed — because acceptance is no longer invisible.
