Reading Comprehension Intervention for School-Aged Students with ASD

Background: Children with ASD are increasingly accessing general education curricula; these students frequently exhibit language and reading difficulties (Nation et al., 2006; Whalon et al., 2009), creating an educational imperative for effective instructional practices for learners with ASD. Current research suggests that the reading comprehension disturbances often seen in students in this population may be related to the social cognitive deficits associated with ASD; instructional practices aimed at improving both reading comprehension and social skills simultaneously may be particularly effective for these students.

Objectives: This presentation will discuss a series of initial intervention trials aimed at targeting both reading comprehension and social cognitive skills for elementary students with ASD.

Methods: Three cohorts are included in these analyses. The first cohort (n = 15) received the intervention for in a clinical-based setting for a total of 8 weeks. The second (n = 12) and third (n = 44, in progress) cohorts included 20 weeks of instruction and introduced a treatment-control design. Student outcome data included pre- and posttest measures of expressive vocabulary (EVT-2; Williams, 2007), reading comprehension (GORT-5,;Wiederholt & Bryant, 2001), listening comprehension (CELF-4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003), and social cognition (NEPSY-II; Korkman, Kirk, & Kemp, 2007). Children were also asked to generate narratives, which were analyzed for social and evaluative traits. Videotapes of intervention sessions provided information on fidelity of implementation and student-instructor interactions

Results: Study participants in the first cohort demonstrated significant growth from pretest to posttest in ability to identify and label the cognitive and affective states of characters in their stories (Z = 2.986, p = .003, r = .54). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in the number of intensifiers and attention getting strategies used during narrative generation (Z = 2.414, p = .016, r = .44), suggesting that the participants grew in their understanding of storytelling as a social experience (Henry et al., under review). In the second cohort, treatment and control groups differed significantly in the change in the total proportion of narrative evaluation in their stories, with treatment students demonstrating a significant gain (U= 4.00, z= -2.24, p= .02, r= -.46).

There were no gains in standardized measures of reading and language for students who participated in the intervention. However, the results from the third, larger cohort will likely give more insight into the individual differences in student performance, and it may possible to identify moderators (e.g., autism symptomatology, expressive language) of reading ability in these students.

Conclusions: The results of these unique pilot studies suggest that consistent, explicit instruction in comprehension strategies and vocabulary may have a positive impact on students with ASD. These data will allow us to have a better understand of evidence-based intervention methods to support the social and reading development of these students.