Adolescents with ASD Perform Better in Listening Comprehension Than in Word Reading

Background:Skilled reading requires the ability to integrate phonological and semantic information to decode written text (Lam et al., 2017). The Simple View of Reading (SVR) framework (Hoover & Gough, 1990) suggests that skilled reading depends on two interrelated conditions that contribute to reading comprehension: word reading and linguistic comprehension (i.e., listening comprehension). A weakness in word reading or listening comprehension results in poor reading comprehension (Norbury & Nation, 2005). Thus, the SVR framework has been widely used to understand and identify reading difficulty (Catts et al., 2003). Using this framework, Nation et al. (2006) showed that adolescents with autism have better word reading skills relative to listening comprehension. Solari et al. (2017) also used the SVR framework to understand reading comprehension difficulties in higher-functioning individuals with autism, and found that word reading predicted reading comprehension more than other factors (i.e. listening comprehension). Research has yet to apply this framework with lower functioning individuals with autism.

Objectives:The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of word reading and listening comprehension to predict reading comprehension in predominantly lower functioning adolescents with ASD, as defined by Weschler FSIQ. Based on previous studies, we expect that both listening comprehension and word -reading will predict reading comprehension.

Methods: We tested 22 adolescents with ASD aged 13-17 years [M_FSIQ =58.7 (25.5); n_male = 19, n_female =3]. Participants completed three subtests of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - Third Edition (WIAT-III): reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and word reading. For reading comprehension, participants responded to literal and inferential questions. Listening comprehension has two subtests: receptive vocabulary, where participants point to pictures that best illustrate the meaning of a word and oral discourse comprehension, where participants listen to passages and respond to examiner’s questions. For word reading, participants read a list of words aloud without time limitation.

Results: A linear regression model with word reading and listening comprehension predicted reading comprehension: R² = .561, p < .001. Specifically, results showed that performance on listening comprehension significantly predicted reading comprehension, b = .703, p < .001; however, word reading did not predict reading comprehension, b = .210, p > .05.

Conclusions: Contrary to expected results, word reading did not predict reading comprehension for low-functioning adolescents with autism. Hence, our results support previous research demonstrating a discrepant relationship between word reading and reading comprehension in participants with autism (Nation, 2006; William, 2005). Our results, in conjunction with previous research, highlight the heterogenous nature of reading skills in adolescents with low-functioning ASD (Jones et al. 2009). Additionally, our findings contribute to the understanding of individual differences in ASD profiles in terms of oral language competence. Future research should address whether word reading in ASD is possibly tempered by other language deficits (Nation, 1999). Overall, our data suggest that listening comprehension may play a bigger role than previously assumed. Educational practices may benefit from these findings, in particular in the implementation of reading interventions for listening comprehension.