Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 449-469.©2012 Council for Exceptional Children.

Exceptional Children

Reading ComprehensionProfiles of High-FunctioningStudents on the AutismSpectrum: A Grounded Theory

PAMELA WILLIAMSON

CHRISTINA R. CARNAHAN

JENNIFER A. JACOBSUniversity of Cincinnati

ABSTRACT:r: Using a constructivist grounded tbeory approacb, tbis study sought to understand wbat

influences reading comprebension and how meaning is made from text among bigb-functioning

individuals witb autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Using a think-aloud procedure, 13 individuals

ages 7-13 witb ASD read 16passages at tbeir instructional reading level Passages varied by genre,

lengtb, and picture support Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and tben analyzed

using open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The grounded tbeory resulted in 3 compre-

bension proftles including imaginative, strategic, and text bound. Future researcb and implications

for classroom interventions are discussed.

Autism spectrum disorder(ASD) is characterized by dif-ferences in socialization,restricted interests and behav-iors, and communication

(APA, 2000). With one out of 88 children beingidentified with ASD (Centers for Disease Controland Prevention MMWR, 2012), it is the fastestgrowing developmental disability facing educa-tors in public school settings in the United States.Extant research suggests that although studentson the spectrum may exhibit strengths in wordrecognition, comprehension abilities are not welldeveloped (Asberg, Kopp, Berg-Kelly, o¿ Gillberg,2010; Chiang & Lin, 2007; Nation, Clarke,

Wright, ÔC Williams, 2006; Smith-Myles, Hilgen-feld, Barnhill, Griswold, Hagiwara, & Simpson,2002). Because comprehending what is tead isthe essence of reading, finding ways to help indi-viduals with ASD improve their comprehensionis important to their academic success and qualityof life (Gatnahan & Williamson, 2010).

F A C T O R S T H A T C O N T R I B U T E

T O R E A D I N G C O M P R E H E N S I O N

In the early grades, predictors of comprehensioninclude word-reading skills. However, by thirdgrade the telationship between comprehension

Exceptional Children 4 4 9

and word-reading skills, such as decoding, letterknowledge, and phonological awareness, begins todecline as comprehension of more challengingtexts requires higher oral language and cognitiveskills (Johnston, Barnes, & Desrochers, 2008).Although instruction in word recognition is criti-cal for many students with disabilities, some stu-dents with disabilities have difficulty withcomprehension despite having adequate wordrecognition skills (BClingner & Vaughn, 1996; Na-tion et al., 2006).

During reading comprehension, readers in-teract with text. Both textual factors and readerfactors infiuence the reading comprehension pro-cess, and comprehension is most likely to occurwhen readers and texts are a "good match" (Sny-der & Caccamise, 2010, p. 13). Textual factors,such as the length of words and sentences in apassage, influence the readability of the passage.Other text features that are important to con-structing meaning include the genre of the text(e.g., narrative or expository), as well as the levelof picture support the text provides.

Both textual factors andreader factors infiuence the reading

comprehension process, and comprehensionis most likely to occur when readers

and texts are a "good match. "

R E A D I N G I N T E R V E N T I O N F O R

S T U D E N T S W I T H D I S A B I L I T I E S

Multiple reviews of the literature in the lastdecade have summarized the effectiveness of read-ing comprehension instruction for students withlearning disabilities. The review by Gersten,Fuchs, Williams, and Baker (2001) noted the im-portance of teaching students with learning dis-abilities small packages of strategies aimed atcomprehending particular kinds of texts (e.g.,narrative, expository). Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, andWei, 2004 synthesized studies on the effectivenessof using graphic organizers to facilitate compre-hension of expository text. Mastropieri, Scruggs,and Graetz (2003) synthesized reading compre-hension research done with secondary students.

More recently, Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mas-tropieri (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of read-ing comprehension studies published after theaforementioned investigations. They included 40studies that examined the effectiveness of ques-tion/strategy instruction, text enhancements, fun-damental reading skills, and other interventions,such as schoolwide cooperative learning. Findingsfrom this investigation revealed that reading com-prehension interventions were generally effectivefor improving comprehension outcomes for stu-dents with learning disabilities on both criterion-and norm-referenced tests. Grade-level effectswere not observed, suggesting that reading com-prehension interventions, when appropriate, helpelementary, middle, and high school students. Inaddition, they noted possible dosing effects, sug-gesting that moderate length interventions (i.e.,interventions from 1 week, but less than 1month) were more effective than interventions ofshorter or longer duration. Based on the strengthand long-term nature of the reading comprehen-sion research for students with learning disabili-ties, Berkeley and her colleagues concluded that"systematically employing virtually any or all ofthese techniques is very likely to improve stu-dents' ability to construct meaning from text" (p.433).

Two reviews of reading interventions for stu-dents with ASD reported only two studies thatinvestigated strategies to improve reading compre-hension among these students (Chiang & Lin,2007; Whalon, Al Otaiba, &C Delano, 2009). In-terventions shown to improve reading compre-hension of narrative text among students withautism included the use of an anaphoric cuingstrategy (O'Connor & Klein, 2004) and recipro-cal questioning (Whalon & Hanline, 2008). Inparticular, cueing high-functioning students withautism to resolve anaphora (e.g., tracking refer-ents for pronouns) improved reading comprehen-sion, whereas Whalon and Hanline found thatstudents on the spectrum who were taught to usereciprocal questioning with general education stu-dents increased both the numbers of questionsgenerated and responses to questions when usinga story map.

Summer 2012

C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K

FOR U N D E R S T A N D I N G THE

C O M P L E X I T I E S OF R E A D I N G

C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Some evidence suggests that reading expositorytexts is less challenging for students with ASD(Gately, 2008). In addition, there is limited evi-dence that students with ASD can comprehendnarrative texts when visual supports (i.e., pictures)are included. Saldana and Frith (2007) found thatfor very short passages (i.e., three sentences), stu-dents with ASD were able to detect problemswith the text. Myles and her colleagues (2002)found that after reading grade-level passages con-sisting of a paragraph or more of text, studentswith autism were better able to answer explicitquestions in which answers were in the text andfar less able to answer inferential questions (onethird of questions answered correctly). This sug-gests that as readers on the spectrum workthrough longer passages, the ability to integrateclauses and sentences to form a representation ofthe gist of the text may be impaired (O'Connor& Klein, 2004).

C O G N I T I V E S T Y L E

Characteristics of individuals on the spectrum im-portant to reading comprehension include theability to access relevant background knowledge,knowledge of reading strategies and skills, andcognitive processing style (Carnahan &Williamson, 2010; Carnahan, Williamson, &Christman, 2011). Studies of typically developingchildren confirm the importance of experience inthe comprehension process (Block, Gambrell, &cPressley, 2002). Accessing relevant backgroundknowledge while reading requires both previousexperiences related to the target text and the abil-ity to recall pertinent details of those experiences.However, Broun (2004) noted that the life experi-ences of children with ASD are often limited.Furthermore, many students with ASD have diffi-culty integrating new and existing knowledge andexperiences and accessing stored informationwhen needed. Research suggests that the chal-lenge of accessing relevant background knowledgehinders text comprehension for learners withASD (Wahlberg & Magliano, 2004). If students

have little or no experience with the content of apassage, their ability to answer inferential ques-tions can be negatively influenced (Leslie & Cald-well, 2010).

Conversely, limited evidence suggests thatsome students with ASD are able to access appro-priate background knowledge. In a study thatcompared typically developing adolescents to ado-lescents with ASD, Saldana and Frith (2007) pre-sented participants with pairs of sentencesfollowed by a question that was either related bycontent to the preceding sentence or unrelated tothe content of the previous two sentences. To as-sess processing, researchers determined the lengthof time participants took to read sentence triplets.There was no statistically significant differencebetween the amount of time students with autismand their typically developing controls performedon both tasks. Findings related to the ability toaccess relevant background knowledge suggeststhat some learners with ASD make connectionsbetween texts in ways that support comprehen-sion whereas others do not.

Cognitive processing characteristics may ex-plain this discrepancy (Attwood, 2008; Carnahan& Williamson, 2010; Carnahan et al., 2011;Mesibov, Shea, & Schopler, 2005; Randi, New-man, ÔC Grigorenko, 2010). Differences include apropensity toward literal and concrete thinking;limited ability to recognize and understand theperspective of others; and difficulties with organi-zation, memory, and attention (Happe & Frith,2006; Quill, 2000; Reed & Gibson, 2005). Threetheories, including Theory of Mind (ToM), Exec-utive Function (EF), and Weak Central Coher-ence (WCC), have been used to describe thecognitive processing differences frequently seen inindividuals with ASD. Research studies examin-ing these constructs are somewhat contradictory.This may be due, in part, to the static nature ofmany of the activities employed to investigate theconstructs (Aljunied & Frederickson, 2011; Hill,2004; Salter, Seigal, Claxton, Lawrence, & Skuse,2008). For example, Baron-Cohen, Leslie, andFrith (1985) assessed the construct of ToM, or thecapacity to recognize that others have differentmental states from our own, by positioning twodolls in the same area along with a marble. TheSally doll places a marble in a basket and leavesthe scene. Next, the Anne doll moves the marble

Exceptional Children 4 S I

to a box. When individuals on the spectrum wereasked where Sally would look for the marble uponher return to the scene, 80% incorrectly suggestedshe would look in the box. Salter et al. and Hillhave argued that static, clinical tests of these theo-ries may not translate precisely to applied or realworld activities where cues are more varied andnuanced. Thus, the extent to which these cogni-tive constructs can be applied across the spectrumis limited. Despite this ambiguity surrounding theconstructs of ToM, EF, and WCC, we haveargued elsewhere that these theories are usefulinasmuch as they provide a starting point for con-ceptualizing the link between cognition and read-ing comprehension in ASD (Carnahan SiWilliamson, 2010; Carnahan et al., 2011).

Civen the ongoing debate about the develop-ment and use of ToM in individuals without ASD(Samson &C Aperly, 2010), it is not surprising thatthe exact role of ToM in individuals with ASD isunclear (Oberman & Ramachandran, 2007).ToM, or the ability to understand, empathizewith, and make predictions based on the perspec-tive of others, may influence reading comprehen-sion. In the context of reading, ToM may affectan individual's ability to understand characters'perspectives, make inferences about motives andbehavior, or make accurate predictions (Carnahan& Williamson, 2010; Carnahan et al, 2011).

Whereas ToM is related to many of the socialaspects, EF addresses the planning and organiza-tional characteristics of many individuals withASD. EF may bring about differences in an indi-vidual's ability to engage in goal-directed behaviorand self-monitoring (Fisher & Happe, 2005).Specifically in the context of reading, EF mayinfluence one's ability to set a purpose for reading,monitor understanding, and integrate or makeconnections between information across para-graphs, texts, or experiences (Carnahan &Williamson, 2010; Carnahan et al., 2011).

Many individuals with ASD attend to spe-cific details rather than the overall gist of an event(Frith, 2006). This detail-oriented tendency is re-ferred to as WCC. Similar to ToM and EF, theexact role and nature of WCC in ASD is unclear(Happe & Booth, 2008). In the context of read-ing, many individuals with ASD may hyperfocuson minute, and frequently insignificant, detailsrather than on the big picture, challenging their

ability to comprehend and store pertinent infor-mation. As suggested by Randi et al. (2010),although understanding words and sentences iscritical for comprehension, "it is possible to un-derstand the meaning of a word or sentence andstill not understand the message the entire textconveys" (p. 893). Thus, whereas learners withWCC challenges may be able to decode words orunderstand specific vocabulary, understandingconcepts at the paragraph and text level may posea problem (Carnahan & Williamson, 2010; Car-nahan et al., 2011).

Although the unique cognitive processingstyle found in ASD is commonly discussed as astarting point fot understanding the spectrum,variance exists. For example, some individualswith ASD do not experience language delay inthe early years, whereas others do (American Psy-chiatric Association, 2000). Given the autismspectrum, it seems reasonable to presume that in-dividuals across the spectrum will demonstratevarying levels of strengths and needs in terms ofreading comprehension. For example, individualswith more well-developed language or compre-hension skills may struggle with higher level ToMskills necessary for making certain types of infer-ences. Conversely, learners struggling with earlylanguage skills may become overly focused onspecific words or details, struggling to understandbasic organizational structures presented in thetext at the sentence level.

CONSTRUCTION-

INTEGRATION MODEL OF

TEXT C O M P R E H E N S I O N

The most widely accepted theory of reading com-prehension is the construction-integration model(CI) of text comprehension (Snyder & Cac-camise, 2010). CI is conceptualized as an iterativeprocess during which individuals interact withtext and generate mental representations duringreading (W. Kintsch, 1998). Although there is lit-tle agreement about the exact nature of mentalrepresentations (e.g., perceptual, verbal, semantic,visual) among cognitive scientists, mental repre-sentations are broadly described as "some changein the way the mind views the world as a result ofreading" (W. Kintsch, 2004). CI is conceptualized

4 5 2 Summer 2012

as two levels of processing that occur during read-ing including text base processing and situationmodel processing.

The text base level of processing includes in-formation explicitly stated by the author, includ-ing organizational and structural informationincluded in the text. When individuals generatean accurate text base, they can answer explicitquestions, recognize text components, and gener-ate accurate summaries (Snyder & Caccamise,2010). Accurate meanings are constructed fromlinguistic elements found in the text (e.g., con-nectives, anaphora). For example, an author's useof the connective word because alerts readers thatthe text pattern will be cause and effect. To forman accurate text base during reading, readers mustresolve anaphora using linguistic cues. For exam-ple in the following sentence pair, fosepb went tothe candy store. He bought some chocolates there, areader would infer that the he in the second sen-tence refers to Joseph, and the there in the secondsentence refers to the candy store. This shallowlevel of processing is the "minimum effort that amotivated reader must perform to build an accu-rate memory representation of the text base"(Snyder & Caccamise, 2010, p. 17).

To reach a deeper level of processing, thereader develops a situation model that integratestext base mental representations with their priorknowledge. In other words, readers must tap intotheir store of world knowledge to construct an ap-propriate situation model of the text. For exam-ple, in the earlier sentence pair, the reader mustmake concurrent inferences to link words withbroader concepts or categories—that candy storeand chocolate are associated. Thus, accessing rele-vant background knowledge and experiences iswhat is minimally needed to form situation mod-els from texts.

Extant literature suggests that individuals onthe spectrum have a unique cognitive style, whichlikely infiuences the reading comprehension ofthese individuals (Carnahan ôc Williamson, 2010;Carnahan et al., 2011). What is missing from theliterature is a theoretical model for understandinghow students with ASD interact with text. This isparticularly important given that scholars lookingat comprehension instruction for students on thespectrum have used findings from the NationalReading Panel (2000), a group of studies that did

not include students on the spectrum, as the basisfor comprehension intervention study work. In-terventions developed from this research basehave had equivocal success (see Chiang & Lin,2007). Given the unique cognitive profile of indi-viduals on the spectrum, and given that readingcomprehension is a cognitively intensive task,providing researchers with insights into how stu-dents on the spectrum interact with text may leadto more effective reading comprehension inter-ventions. Using grounded theory, a qualitativemethod to produce theoretical knowledge, we ad-dressed the following research questions:

• How do high-functioning individuals withASD make meaning from text?

• What influences comprehension amongthese individuals?

Given the unique cognitive profileof individuals on the spectrum, and

given that reading comprehension is acognitively intensive task, providingresearchers with insights into how

students on the spectrum interact withtext may lead to more effective reading

comprehension interventions.

METHODS

This research employed a constructivist groundedtheory approach (Charmaz, 2000; Strauss &Corbin, 1998). Systematic and rigorous groundedtheory was selected to explain comprehension in-fluences and how individuals on the spectrum in-teract with and make meaning from text.

PARTICIPANTS

Following a research protocol approved by the In-stitutional Review Board, participants for thisstudy were recruited from a private school in amidwestern state that provided services to stu-dents with ASD. The second author had an estab-lished relationship with the school faculty, andthe school had sufficient numbers of studentswith ASD from which participants could be

Exceptional Children 4 5 3

drawn. Recruiting flyers wete sent home with stu-dents, and 27 families expressed interest in partic-ipating. Informed consent and student assentwere obtained. Of 27 students, 15 participantsmet the following ctitetia to participate in thestudy, including (a) verbal communication skillssufficient to communicate with researchers, (b)medical diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorderor Asperger's syndrome, and (c) a reading com-prehension level of preprimer or higher. Duringdata collection, two participants withdrew assent(i.e., resisted compliance with the research proto-col) leaving 13 students in the study. Participantinformation is summarized in Table 1. Partici-pants were diagnosed with ASD between the agesof 3 and 5. Thus, they had received special educa-tion services all of their school careers. At the timeof the study, all participants had been enrolled ina private school for 1 or more years. Program-ming at the school included small class sizes withas few as fout students in a classroom, sensoryprogramming, specials (e.g., music, karate), andacademic instruction. Participants received dailyreading instruction that included one or more ofthe following options: a modified basal readingprogram, Orton-Gillingham (Gillingham & Still-man, 1997), Visualizing and Vetbalizing (Bell,2007), and Talkies (Bell & Bonetti, 2006). Aschool records review revealed standardized lan-guage assessment scotes for all but thtee partici-pants, which are reported in Table 1. Both wordrecognition and comprehension levels are notedin Table 1. Participants were able to tecognizewords at higher levels (1-3 levels) than they couldcomprehend.

PROCEDURES

Parents and teachers completed questionnaires re-garding student preferences (e.g., preferred topics,preferred rewards), as well as diagnostic and read-ing histories (questions ate included in Figure 1).To determine students' reading levels, the Quali-tative Reading Inventory-5 (Leslie & Caldwell,2010) was administered, as informal reading in-ventories were used in previous studies to deter-mine reading levels of students on the spectrum(see Smith-Myles et al., 2002).

Initial data collection occurred over a 3-month period of time. During data collection.

students were presented with a visual schedule oftasks to perform. Using passages at the instruc-tional reading level of participants, a think-aloudprocedure was used to elicit insights into students'thinking processes and strategy used during read-ing (Brown & Lytle, 1988). Described by Leslieand Caldwell (2010), the think-aloud procedurewas modified to show a video model of a middleschool student performing a think aloud prior toeach session (Bellini & Akullian, 2007). Pattici-pants were prompted to tell the teseatchet whatthey were thinking about, using the followingscript:

Here is the passage. As you read, I want youdo to what Cody [the name given to the per-son on the video model] did. Remember,Cody was telling his teacher what he wasthinking about as he was reading. You can dothis by telling me, writing it down, or draw-ing a picture.

Participants then read the passage using thethink-aloud procedure, pausing at either the sen-tence level or the paragraph level specified by theprotocol (see Table 2).

After the video model, a researcher askedconcept questions to assess background knowl-edge. Participant responses to background knowl-edge questions were coded by two team membersto determine whether or not students had back-ground knowledge about concepts desctibed intatget texts. Precise definitions of concepts wereawarded 3 points, examples of concepts wereawatded 2 points, and genetal associations withconcepts wete awatded 1 point (see Leslie &Caldwell, 2010, for additional information onthis rating system). Interrater reliability was100%. This procedure enabled target passages tobe varied based on patticipant backgtoundknowledge of the concepts contained in the targetpassage.

Students participated in four think-aloudsessions lasting approximately 30 min each, read-ing a total of 16 passages. To minimize potentiallearning effects for individual participants, datafor each individual were collected during two30-min sessions on consecutive weeks for a totalof 2 hr per participant. As shown in Table 2, tar-get texts were systematically varied by genre,length, and picture support, all factors known to

4 S 4 Summer 2012

T A B L

Student

Cender

Male

Male

Male

Male

Male

Female

Male

Male

Male

Male

Male

Male

Female

E 1

Characteristics

Age

13

9

11

12

7

13

13

13

12

13

13

11

12

Crade

1

3

6

7

2

6

8

7

6

7

7

6

5

Language

Composite

Scores

OWLSListening Comp.(50)Expression (45)

OWLS ListeningComp. (91)Expression (86)

OWLS

Composite (69)

No LanguageMeasureReported

CELE-4 (59)

PreschoolLanguageScale (71)

CELE-4 (44)

OWLS (60)

No LanguageMeasureReported

CELF-4 (62)

No LanguageMeasure Reported

TOPL (95)

CELF-4 (91)

Reading

Program

Orton-GillinghamVisualizing &

VerbalizingBasal

Visualizing &

Verbalizing

Basal

Basal

Orton-Cillingham

Orton- CillinghamTalkies

Orton-CillinghamVisualizing &

VerbalizingBasal

Orton- CillinghamVisualizing &

VerbalizingBasal

Orton-CillinghamVisualizing &

VerbalizingBasal

Basal

Basal

Orton-Cillingham

Basal

Basal

WordRecognition

Level

Primer

3rd

3rd

5th

Primer

3rd

3rd

3rd

2nd

3rd

4th

HighSchool

UpperMiddle

Reading

Level for

Comprehension

Preprimer

1st

1st

2nd

Preprimer

1st

1st

1st

Primer

1st

2nd

5th

5th

Comprehension

Profile

Textbound

Textbound

Textbound

Textbound

Imaginative

Imaginative

Imaginative

Imaginative

Strategic

Strategic

Strategic

Strategic

Strategic

Note. Scores in parenthesis. Comp = comprehension; OWLS = Oral and Written Language Scales (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1995); CELE-4 = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 4th ed. (Semel, Wiig, & Secord,2003); TOPL = Test of Pragmatic Language (Phelps-Teraski & Phelps-Cunn, 1992).

Exceptional Children

F I G U R E 1

Parent and Teacher Questionnaires

Parent Questionnaire

1. How and when was your child first diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder?

2. To the extent that you can remember, what assessments were given to your child during the diagnosticprocess?

3. Describe your child as a reader.

4. What are some topics that your child might find interesting or enjoy reading about?

5. Are there any topics that we should avoid discussing or reading about because they are distracting toyour child?

6. What have teachers told you about your child's ability to read?

7. What kinds of reading experiences does your child engage in at home?

8. Does your child have any favorite books?

9. Does your child have any favorite characters from books or television?

Teacher Questionnaire1. Describe specific reading behaviors in which the student engages.

2. What topics does the student find interesting or enjoy reading about?

3. List topics the student may find distracting.

4. What kinds of literacy experiences does the child engage in at school?

TABLE 2

Systematic Varying of Presented Text

Knowledge ofCore Concepts

Familiar

Familiar

Familiar

Familiar

Unfamiliar

Unfamiliar

Unfamiliar

Unfamiliar

Familiar

Familiar

Familiar

Familiar

Unfamiliar

Unfamiliar

Unfamiliar

Unfamiliar

Picture

Support

Narrative

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Expository

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Text Unit

Sentence

Paragraph

Sentence

Paragraph

Paragraph

Sentence

Sentence

Paragraph

Sentence

Paragraph

Sentence

Paragraph

Paragraph

Sentence

Sentence

Paragraph

influence reading comprehension among individ-uals on the spectrum. They were asked to repre-sent thoughts verbally, by using written words, orby drawing pictures. Participants' written wordsand pictures were preserved for analysis. Duringthink-aloud sessions, field notes were taken by amember of the research team to capture observa-tional data, such as student behavior during ses-sions. After reading, participants were asked fourcomprehension questions (i.e., two explicit andtwo implicit) to assess passage comptehension. Asample passage and questions are provided in Fig-ure 2.

Analysis Procedures. Think-aloud sessionswere audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim foranalysis. The team used a transcription protocolto check difficult-to-hear sections of recordings toensure that a complete set of data were availablefor analysis (Poland, 2003). In addition, 100% oftranscriptions were checked for validity of tran-scription (i.e., accurate representation of partici-pant talk) by a member of the research team otherthan the person who did the original transcrip-tion.

Transcripts from think-aloud sessions and vi-sually represented thoughts were the primary data

4 5 6 Summer 2012

F I G U R E 2

Sample Reading Passage and Comprehension Questions

Hide and Seek

Many children like to play "hide and seek." Hide and seek did not begin as a game. It started many yearsago in a faraway land.

Hide and seek was something grown-ups did each year when winter was over. People were tired of the coldand long nights. They wanted to know if spring was on the way.

Grown-ups would leave their village and go into the woods. They tried to find or "seek out" birds and flow-ers. It was important to return with a bird or flower. If one did, this was a sign that spring has really started.

1. Where did hide and seek begin?

2. Who played hide and seek at first?

3. In what kind of weather did people play hide and seek?

4. In the olden days, why was it important to know when spring really started?

source for this investigation. Gtounded theorycalls for systematically following analytical proce-dures including open coding, axial coding, andselective coding against the use of extant literatureavailable in the topical area (i.e., theoretical con-structs and cognitive processing styles of individu-als on the spectrum; Charmaz, 2000; Strauss &Corbin, 1998). During open coding, transcriptswere read line by line and coded for concepts con-tained in each piece of data. As new data wereread, those data were compared to previous datato determine which code to assign or whether anew code was needed. Two members of the re-search team open coded all data. During the opencoding process, researchers met to discuss andagree on codes. This resulted in 100% interraterreliability of codes. A third member of the re-search team inspected the code book (see an ex-cerpt in Figure 3). This resulted in minor changesto codes. For example, instead of a code labeledlanguage play, the code was changed to uniqueword usage. Visual representations (i.e., studentdrawings and writings) were inspected andmemos were recorded as to whether or not theyaccurately depicted passages. Memos were thenopen coded following the same procedure de-scribed previously. All levels of coding are repre-sented in Table 3.

The next level of analysis was axial coding(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Axial coding is an in-ductive and deductive process whereby codes andtheir associated properties (i.e., when and where

codes occurred) are linked through an emphasison relationships among codes as unifying con-cepts are searched for and developed. To facilitatethis process, coded think-aloud data wete sepa-rated according to text variations presented inTable 2 and referenced against student perfor-mance on comprehension question answering(i.e., data where participants answered 75% ormore questions correctly or less than 50% cor-rectly). This enabled the research team to linkconditions (e.g., background knowledge, text pat-tern, participant use of comprehension skills andstrategies) with occurrences that lead to the phe-nomenon (e.g., correct answers as a proxy forcomprehension). Next, observations and parentand teacher surveys were examined for interven-ing conditions that may have mitigated readingperformance (e.g., special interest topics, priorreading history, session mood). This processresulted in the emergence of three reading com-prehension profiles (i.e., imaginative, strategic,and text bound) at the axial coding level. As iscustomary in grounded theory analysis, theoreti-cal sampling occurred with six participants whoparticipated in one think-aloud session to ensurethat developed axial codes captured the complex-ity of relationship among texts and participants'comprehension. Transcripts were handled as pre-viously described. Finally, as is customary ingrounded theory, a substantive theoretical modelwas drawn that represented data-established tela-tionships (see Figure 4).

Exceptional Children 457

F I G U R E 3

Excerpt of the Code Book: Actions Category

Anaphoric inference: Serves to resolve antecedents of pronouns (Tennant, Stainthorp, R., & Stuart, 2008)

Explicit inference: Restatement of one sentence (McCrudden, Schraw, & Lehman, 2009)

Text-based inference: Low level, almost a restatement (Ozuru et al., 2007)

Local inference: Integration of text across five clauses within an adjacent sentence (Ozuru et al., 2007)

Global inference: Integration of text across longer distances than two sentences (Ozuru et al., 2007)

Concurrent inference: Associations with the text (McKoon & Ratcliff, 1998)

Elaborative inference: Enhances the mental representation of the text (E. Kintsch, 1990); expressionshave a relationship to the text

Evaluation: Opinion about the effectiveness of the text for its purpose (Tennant et al., 2008)Recall final words of text without inference: Last words read recalled; no evidence of attempt atinference

Over attention to detail: Focus on text details to the exclusion of the gist of the text (Happe & Frith,2006)

Unrelated to text: Products are disconnected from the text

Difficulty interpreting character motives: Although there is an understanding that characters havefeelings, motivations and feelings are misunderstood (Carnahan & Williamson, 2010; Carnahan et al.,

2011)

Scripting: Memorized lines from books or movies are recited verbatim

Logical connections to favorite topic: Logical moves made to discuss favorite topic

Trustworthiness. In addition to the systematicdata handling procedures (e.g., validity of tran-scription, interrater reliability during coding) de-scribed earlier, teachers and families werepresented with preliminary study findings, in-cluding reading profiles and the theoretical model(Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, &Richardson, 2005). Both groups found prelimi-nary results to be in agreement with their ownobservations about the nature of participants'reading comprehension and resulted in nochanges to researcher analyses.

F I N D I N G S

Findings are organized in two sections. In the firstsection, we address how high-functioning individ-uals make meaning from text. Our analysesrevealed three reading comprehension profiles—text bound, strategic, and imaginative. Profileswere distinct around the kinds of inferences madewithin particular textual contexts. In the next sec-tion, we address what influenced comprehensionacross reading comprehension profiles.

MAKING MEANING EROM TEXT

Text Bound Comprehenders. Text bound com-prehenders (TBCs) were focused on bringingmeaning to the text without interpretations. Ex-plicit comprehension questions were answeredcorrectly by TBCs more than twice as often (75%of the time) as implicit questions (34% of thetime). Familiar, sentence-by-sentence passages,both informational and narrative, produced read-ing comprehension scores of 75% or higher (highcomprehension) among this group of individuals.Unfamiliar texts produced reading comprehen-sion scores of less than 50% (low comprehen-sion). Picture support and genre did not seem tobe factors related to comprehension among theseindividuals. Responses to comprehension ques-tions tended to be brief (i.e., mean length of ut-terance was three words). Language differenceswere noted, including errors in syntax (i.e., tense,insertions), as well as errors in semantics (e.g.,pronouns, prepositions, and confusion withantonyms). Knowledge differences were alsonoted, including underdeveloped use of expressivevocabulary and imprecise conceptual knowledge.

4 S 8 Summer 2012

I

í

m

13

3 «

11CT" SO

S

I

-XS

s«

Text

B

0

ntax

en

Ten

se

ror

g Ö Ü Ü g _íá ov> o 'ñ ^

c -v -O o O ^

t/5O

3 ü

5

1 IO..

c Ö8 g

OH

S •-d

S ë

ÜO

gaj CJ

UH O

C rt ~—' ^

'So X £•-.-.t:§ - 8 °

§ Ö Ü

II j-Í w a

rt

tex

CJ

rt

ici(5w

S

mpt

ai

ort

ltU

bjec

t

3

CO

rt3

rt

tem

pt

rt

odel

S

E

cortM)

ÇCo

ehen

si

a.Eo

i W3 "-̂ ^w H

U flj S

3̂ " " § Io s œ -s b

11^(5

P . rt•2 -Î ^ 3 3 o 3

ir! "O

y .J E

-il•3

yuy u

13 y

i J -a §rt -s ..-V c ,- , u

ou

OJ

3 (U

.H Ca. a ^

p l i

•^..S X

•^>5 SC

tu P

3u

Jt; « .22 ë I3 o .a

C

O

u £

e

Exceptional Children 4 5 9

F I G U R E 4

Grounded Theory of High-Functioning Individuals on the Spectrum Comprehension of Text

Individual

Differences

• Language• Knowledge

Text

• Genre• Familiarity• Picture Support• Length

Action Strategies

• Productive• Unproductive

Text bound

• Text baseformed with nosituation modei

/

Construction

Integration

Strategic

• Accurate text base• iVlost relevant

situation model

\

Imaginative

• Subjectivesituation modelthat lacks text base

Note. ToM = Theory of Mind; EF = Executive Funcdoning; WCC = Weak Central Coherence.

In high-comprehension passages, TBCs made

inferences related to understanding what the au-

thor wrote in the passages. Explicit inferences (13

occurrences) were made most frequently and in-

cluded recalling characters and explicitly stated

emotional states of the characters. TBCs fre-

quently (i.e., eight times per passage) made text-

based inferences to accurately comprehend the

text. A text-based inference is an inference rhat

can be made from information contained in the

text, which results in an almost explicit restate-

ment of the author's text (Ozuru, Best, Bell,

Witherspoon, & McNamara, 2007). For example,

from the following sentence, Chester [a dog] does

not catch the cat, a participant was able to cor-

rectly infer that the dog was chasing the cat. Local

inferences were also made by TBCs. Local infer-

ences are the integration of the text across five

clauses, or two sentences (Ozuru et al., 2007). For

example, afiier reading: Kevin had a stuffed pig that

he loved very much. The stuffed pig was named

Piglet. One day Kevin lost Piglet in his house, one

TBC reported thinking that, "Well, he really loves

his pig, but he lost it." In addition to inferences

46O Summer 2012

aimed at comprehending what authors includedin texts, when pictures were present, TBCs usedthem to make inferences. TBCs also made low-level or concurrent knowledge-based inferences. Aconcurrent inference is an inference that generallyassociates two pieces of information (McKoon &Ratcliff, 1998). For example, in a passage aboutbirds, a TBC inferred that pigeons and duckswere kinds of birds. Thus, in high-comprehensionpassages, TBCs used inferences, both text-relatedinferences and low-level knowledge inferences, tosupport their comprehension of narrative, familiartexts presented sentence by sentence.

In low-comprehension passages (comprehen-sion scores of 50% or lower), TBCs made inaccu-rate text-related inferences. TBCs reportedthinking about or produced artifacts (i.e., draw-ings, writing) that closely resembled whatever wasread last without an explicit inference. For exam-ple after reading: Adults lefi their village. Theyknew spring had started when they found a bird orfiower, a participant reported thinking about"birds, flowers, that's all." In addition, unlikehigh-comprehension passages, TBCs made nolow-level knowledge or concurrent inferences. Inlow-comprehension passages, TBCs also over-at-tended to details, a phenomenon not observed inhigh-comprehension passages. Thus, in low-com-prehension passages, text-related inferences wereattempted, but inaccurate. In addition, no low-level knowledge inferences were attempted.

Strategic Compreh enders. Strategic compre-henders (SC) were successful at answering com-prehension questions (correct explicit 93%;correct implicit 73%) regardless of text features(e.g., length, picture support, genre) and back-ground knowledge. SCs had academic interests(e.g., history, science), as well as an interest inreading. They displayed knowledge about a widerange of topics from global warming to airport se-curity. Responses were long, reflecting individuals'knowledge on various topics (i.e., mean length ofutterance 18 words from a random sample of16% of comprehension question responses).

Individuals within this profile frequently in-vented words or used words in novel ways. For ex-ample, one individual described a trickster aspranker and a sneaker pants. Snow was describedas fieezing raindrops and money sent by relativesas allowances. Although unexpected, each of these

novel word choices was comprehensible, in addi-tion to showing some understanding of how mor-phemes change the meaning of words (e.g., -erchanges a verb to a noun; -s makes a single objectplural).

In addition to making inferences at all levels(i.e., sentence, paragraph, passage) productivereading behaviors associated with this profile in-cluded (a) connecting what was already known bythe reader with the text, (b) asking questions dur-ing reading, and (c) constructing visual images.During reading, SCs exhibited what has beencharacterized as good reader behaviors amongdemonstrably skilled readers (Caldwell, 2010;Pressley & Afñerbach, 1995). SCs made personalconnections to characters, situations, and worldknowledge. For example, an SC connected infor-mation he learned about the Environmental Pro-tection Agency to the story he was reading aboutEarth Day.

Individuals within this profile asked a varietyof questions during reading, a behavior associatedwith good readers (Caldwell, 2010; Pressley & Af-flerbach, 1995). Questions came in two forms—questions suggesting comprehension andthoughts of elaboration and questions used as afix-up strategy when comprehension was breakingdown, another good reader behavior (Caldwell,2010; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). For example,an SC was reading about the origin of the game,hide and seek. The text noted hide and seek origi-nated "long ago in a far away land," whichprompted him to wonder the year and placewhere hide and seek began. SCs also asked clarify-ing questions about stories when they were con-fused. Participants also reported visualizing whatthey were reading. One SC reported seeing adultsdressed as pilgrims searching the woods whenreading about the origins of the childhood game,hide and seek.

However, as productive as these individualswere at comprehending a variety of different texts,notable cognitive and language differences, typicalfor individuals with ASD, were identified. Unlikegood readers, SCs had difficulty responding toprediction questions. Individuals in this profilewere able to identify common emotional states,such as being sad at the loss of a toy and happywhen the toy was found; however, determiningthe emotional states of others in less common

Exceptional Children 4 6 1

situations was more challenging. For example,when an SC discussed how a character felt whenshe received a pony as a gift, he focused on the lit-eral implications of the gift, such as the need tohave a barn, rather than the emotional aspects ofreceiving such a gift. Another example was the in-ability to interpret the feelings of characters dur-ing a story about a boy whose classmates laughwith him rather than at him. Thus, attributingmotive to characters was problematic. A notablephenomenon was the propensity of these individ-uals to logically bring their thoughts back to theirfavorite topic. For example, the favorite topic ofone participant was the Titanic. While reading astory that was about mail, he explained that theTitanic had a mail room aboard.

Imaginative Comprebenders. The most visu-ally oriented of the profiles, imaginative compre-henders (ICs) were most successful in text thatwas supported by pictures, organized and pre-sented as individual sentences, on familiar topics(i.e., comprehension at 75% or higher). Genredid not seem to influence comprehension. Per-haps the least vocal of the three profiles, individu-als preferred to relate what they comprehendedwith pictures and written words, rather than ut-terances. Notable language differences includedproviding syntactically correct, incorrect informa-tion. For example, red was substituted for black.In addition, sometimes language included ortho-graphically correct but semantically incorrect in-formation. For example, the setting of a storyincluded that it took place on a "sunny day," andan individual read it aloud correctly. During thethink aloud, however, he reported the setting as a"Sunday." Semantic issues included the omissionof "s" from plural words. Finally, another note-worthy difference in language was the propensityof ICs to respond to what questions with when re-sponses. For example, one participant respondedto the question. In what season do fiowers grow,with "day and night." Notable differences inknowledge included underdeveloped conceptualknowledge. For example, a sister was simply a girl,and a lake was a pond. Students had difficultywith prepositions.

In familiar texts supported by pictures andpresented in sentences, ICs made elaborative in-ferences. Elaborative inferences bear some rela-tionship to the text; however, background

knowledge is tapped to enhance the mental repre-sentation (E. Kintsch, 1990). For example, whena stor)' included an owl looking for his sister, anIC drew a picture of a bird flying over trees, anidea that was not explicitly represented in the textor pictures. Individuals were able to resolveanaphoric cues, a word level inference, substitut-ing proper names for appropriate pronouns.

During the reading of unfamiliar text with-out picture support, presented in paragraphs, ICsreverted to scripting, or they began to generate adifferent story, a story that might use a detail ortwo from the target passage. For example Joe, therugby player, became Joe, the waiter. Thus,thoughts about story meaning were unrelated tothe text. In another, more subtle form of textelaboration, a story about a lake that mentionedturtles became a story with a turtle as the maincharacter. An important feature of these inventedstories was the connection to students' favoritetopics. Thus, students within this profile mostfrequently generated highly subjective situationmodels; outputs were only vaguely associated withoriginal, target texts.

IN ELU EN CES ON COMPREHENSION:CORE AND COMPONENT CONCEPTS

In the following section, we discuss the factorsthat infiuenced comprehension (i.e., mediatorsand moderators) for the learners in this study.Specific factors include CI processing, text fac-tors, action strategies, knowledge differences, andlanguage differences. The factors are also pre-sented in Table 3.

CI Processing. As these high-functioning indi-viduals with autism interacted with text, theirlevel of meaning construction integration helpedto define their reading profile. In high-compre-hension passages, TBCs were able to generate ac-curate text bases, reflected in their ability togenerate text-related inferences at the word andsentence levels. Furthermore, in familiar passages,these individuals were able to make low-levelknowledge inferences that enabled them to con-struct a weak situation base, illustrated by theirability to answer far fewer inferential comprehen-sion questions compared to explicit comprehen-sion questions. In low-comprehension passages,whereas attempts were made to make text-related

4 6 2 Summer 2012

inferences, no attempts at knowledge level infer-ences were made. Furthermore, WCC in the formof overattention to detail, as well as inaccurateattempts at text-based and knowledge-based infer-ences, played a dominant role in foiling compre-hension.

On the other hand, although ICs were ableto make the lowest levels of text-related inferences(i.e., anaphoric, explicit), they tapped their back-ground knowledge to effectively produce elabora-tive inferences in high-comprehension passages.However, EF differences were noted in the formof scripting and excessive elaboration in low-com-prehension passages. In addition, WCC played arole as these individuals attempted but failed toaccurately recall text. Thus, in high-comprehen-sion and low-comprehension passages, subjectiveconstructions during situation model processingproduced comprehension outcomes, often, withlittle resemblance to the target text.

Constructing both accurate text bases and ef-fective situation models, SCs were able to answerboth implicit and explicit comprehension ques-tions with a high degree of accuracy. These indi-viduals used comprehension strategies known tobe used by highly effective readers. Proficient atmost levels of both text- and knowledge-relatedinferences in high-comprehension passages, evi-dence of EF differences, and importantly, ToMdifferences, prevented these individuals from scor-ing at the highest level on all passages. Absent,however, was evidence of prediction skills, even inhigh-comprehension passages. This lack of use ofprediction may be related to underlying ToM dif-ferences.

Eacilitative Text Eactors. Across the profiles,patterns in facilitative text factors were evident.For TBCs and ICs, familiar texts presented insentences afforded the best performance on read-ing comprehension. Although pictures showed nofacilitative benefits to TBCs, pictures were helpfulto ICs. Furthermore, findings suggested that fa-miliarity with content rather than genre played animportant role. On the other hand, SCs per-formed well, regardless of text factors.

Action Strategies. All participants used actionstrategies as they interacted with text. Whereassome moves were productive and resulted in com-prehension, others were not. Evidence of infer-ence construction was found across all profiles.

although at differing levels. TBCs were facile withlow-level word and sentence inferences in high-comprehension passages, as well as low-levelknowledge inferences. ICs leaned heavily on elab-orative inferences as they interacted with texts.Although on some occasions this facilitatedmeaningful construction, on other occasions thiselaboration resulted in a representation that borelittle resemblance to the target text. In addition,when presented with target texts that did not in-clude facilitative text features, these individualsengaged in scripting behaviors, which resulted inpoor passage comprehension. Thus, TBCs dis-played evidence of differences associated withWCC, whereas ICs showed evidence of EF differ-ences.

SCs used many skills found among highly ef-fective readers including the use of questioning,visualizing, making text connections, and em-ploying fix-up strategies when text comprehen-sion was in jeopardy. However, actions inlow-comprehension passages, and even parts ofhigh-comprehension passages, refiected differ-ences associated with ToM and EF. Thus, individ-uals across all profiles demonstrated the effectiveuse of productive actions in high-comprehensionpassages. In low-comprehension passages, unpro-ductive actions associated with the cognitive pro-files of individuals with ASD foiled attempts atcomprehension.

Knowledge Differences. Knowledge differenceswere noted across the profiles. In particular, TBCsand ICs were dependent on their backgroundknowledge in order to comprehend text. Relatedto this were notable differences in expressive vo-cabulary, including differences in conceptualknowledge. SCs, on the other hand, demon-strated precise conceptual knowledge, as well aswide general knowledge, which undoubtedly in-fluenced comprehension.

Language Differences. All participants demon-strated notable differences in language as theyinteracted with and comprehended text. TBCsand ICs responded with short utterances, whereasSCs responded with long, involved utterances,which refiected their wide background knowl-edge. TBCs were prone to errors in syntax andsemantics; miscues of ICs showed dependence onorthography. SCs demonstrated unique, althoughcomprehensible word usage. Undoubtedly,

Exceptional Children

language influenced comprehension performanceacross all participants.

THE CROUNDED THEORY

Figure 4 illustrates the grounded theory, whichconsists of (a) the three theories associated withdifferences in individuals with ASDs and howthose differences influenced comprehension as in-dividuals interacted with text, and (b) interactionsbetween the core concept and component con-cepts that produced thtee comprehension profiles.The three profiles are represented as a continuum,inasmuch as ASD is a spectrum disorder. Thecontinuum is depicted with TBCs on one sideand ICs on the other. This represents their dis-tinct proclivities related to comprehension inte-gration. TBCs ptoduced an accurate text basewithin high-comprehension passages, whereas ICsptoduced subjective representations of the text,even in high-comprehension passages. In the mid-dle of the continuum representing accurate pro-duction of the text base as well as a mostlyrelevant situation model are the SCs.

D I S C U S S I O N

This study was undertaken to undetstand howhigh-functioning individuals with ASD compre-hend written text and what influences compre-hension among these individuals. Out analysisreveals three reading comprehension profiles—text bound comprehenders, strategic comprehen-ders, and imaginative comprehenders—that offeran emerging view of how high-functioning indi-viduals with ASD make meaning from text. Fac-tors that influenced comprehension across allthree profiles included language and knowledgedifferences, action strategies (e.g., comprehensionstrategy use, ability to make particular kinds ofinferences), and text factors. Our emerging theo-retical model suggested that factors manifested asparticular strengths and challenges during CI pro-cessing. CI theory provides a basis for under-standing the reading process and provides insightinto the reading profiles found in the individualswith ASD in this study (W. Kintsch, 1998). TheCI theory suggests that both an accurate text baseand situation model is critical for teading com-

ptehension. To develop an accurate text base, in-dividuals must make low-level inferences based onthe information presented in the text. These low-level inferences ate then integrated with existingknowledge to develop a situation model thataligns with the text. Thus, to truly comprehend awritten passage, an individual must develop anaccurate text base while integrating his ot her ownexperience or knowledge.

Previous studies have suggested that individ-uals with ASD do make inferences while reading(Saldana &L Frith, 2007). The current study con-firmed such findings. However, the level of infer-ence constructed was not the same across theprofiles, with some students making consistendyshallow inferences (i.e., text base) and others con-sistently making more sophisticated inferences.Only the students who fell in the strategic com-prehender profile made inferences at both the textbase and situation model levels, and demon-strated high levels of comprehension across bothnarrative and expository text regardless of features(i.e., familiar versus unfamiliar, sentence versusparagraph, and picture versus no picture support).In all cases, as suggested by Block and her col-leagues (2002), famiharity or some level of priorknowledge related to the passage supported infer-ence making.

Challenges to comprehension noted in low-comprehension passages implicate all thtee of thecognitive psychological underpinnings of ASD(i.e., ToM, EF, WCC) found in the htetature. De-pending on the profile, different models seemedto play a more predominant role. Thtis, evidencefrom this study suggests that each of these theo-ries may explain reading comprehension difficul-ties, making it difficult to develop one unifiedtheory to explain ASD cognition. For example,the students in the text bound comprehenderprofile demonstrated greater challenges in the areaof WCC than ToM or EF. This is not to say thatthe other models did not influence comprehen-sion, but that one or two models were morepronounced during comprehension tasks. Under-standing the tole of a specific model within thecognitive profile may be critical to developingappropriate interventions.

Summer 2012

I M P L I C A T I O N S

Although limited by our small sample of students,the resultant grounded theory provides a nascentunderstanding of reading comprehension in ASD.The profiles are only useful in leading to increas-ingly effective instruction for students with ASD.The utility of reading profiles to facilitate instruc-tion has been suggested by others who developedreading profiles for different groups of learners.For example. Strucker and Davidson (2003) re-ported particular reading profiles among adultEnglish and Spanish speaking adults. Unlike theprofiles described here, their profiles clusteredlearners across all components of reading (e.g.,fluency, word recognition). Furthermore, the pro-files may offer insight into the equivocal nature ofcomprehension intervention work (see Chiang &Lin, 2007) exclusively testing interventions foundin the National Reading Panel Report (2000), agroup of studies that included students on thespectrum in one study on reading fluency. Ourfindings suggest that for comprehension interven-tions to be truly effective, interventions may needto be personalized, recognizing the unique cogni-tive profile of individuals on the spectrum giventhat reading comprehension is a cognitively inten-sive task. Thus, whereas some interventions maybe appropriate across profiles, specific interven-tions that align to each profile may also beneeded.

For example, the evidence is mixed on theability of individuals to access prior knowledge(Saldana ÔC Frith, 2007; Wahlberg & Magliano,2004), even when they have had related experi-ences. However, this study clearly demonstratedthat individuals who fit the TBG profile struggleto access relevant background knowledge to sup-port comprehension. In addition, these studentsfrequently demonstrated limited conceptualknowledge and vocabulary related to the text. ForTBGs, interventions that highlight relevant back-ground knowledge are needed. However, giventhe role of WCC in lower level comprehensionpassages, accessing prior knowledge alone is notenough. Interventions that support students' abil-ities to make connections between prior knowl-edge and the text, continually draw attentionback to these connections, and explicitly teachconcepts and vocabulary are necessary.

Despite the effectiveness of many strategiesstudents in the SC profile demonstrated, severalchallenges existed. Although these students ap-peared to comprehend the overall gist of the pas-sa^'cs they read, at times they struggled tounderstand emotional states and character mo-tive, both related to ToM. In addition, students inthe SC profile were occasionally distracted fromthe purpose and details in the reading by a fa-vorite topic or special interest. These learners maybenefit from interventions that support focusedreading, integrating relevant back5.>,round knowl-edge, and accurately identifying and predictingcharacters' emotional states and behaviors. Thus,research should seek to idem fy interventions thatsupport students' abilities to continually self-monitor reading and predictions, recognize theperspective of characters, and make inferencesbased on an integration of the predictions andperspectives.

Research is needed to identifyinterventions that build conceptual and

vocabulary knowledge, support connectionsbetween relevant background knowledge

and the text, and increase attention

to the actual text.

Just as there is evidence that individuals withASD do not access background knowledge whilereading, other evidence suggests that many indi-viduals do access background knowledge, but theknowledge is frequently unrelated (Wahlberg &Magliano, 2004). The readers in the IC profilesupported the latter assertion, as they frequentlyincorporated irrelevant background knowledge orexperiences while reading. Even when they wereable to construct an accurate text base, priorknowledge overshadowed the information pre-sented in the text. That is, these learners struggledto both access the relevant background knowledgeand integrate it with the information presented inthe text. In addition, small details from the textfrequently distracted these learners to a special in-terest topic, especially when they lacked concep-tual knowledge. Where students in the TBCprofile need interventions to support the activa-tion of background knowledge, students in the IC

Exceptional Children 4 6 5

profile need interventions to support their abilityto access relevant background knowledge, andmake connections between this knowledge andthe information actually presented in the text.Thus, research is needed to identify interventionsthat build conceptual and vocabulary knowledge,support connections between relevant back-ground knowledge and the text, and increase at-tention to the actual text.

C O N C L U S I O N S

With one out of 88 children being identified withASD (Centers for Disease Control and PreventionMMWR, 2012), it is the fastest growing develop-mental disability in the United States. Given thedistinct challenges students on the spectrum facewith reading comprehension, as well as the equiv-ocal nature of the effectiveness of known readingcomprehension interventions for these individu-als, we suggest that better understanding of theirunique cognitive and reading comprehension pro-files may lead to improved academic and life out-comes for these individuals.

REFERENCES

Aljunied, M., & Frederickson, N. (2011). Does central

coherence relate to the cognitive performance of chil-

dren with autism in dynamic assessments? Autism. Ad-

vance online publication. doi:10.11774/1362361

311409960

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic

and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revision

(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Asberg, J., Kopp, S., Berg-Kelly, K., & CiUberg, C.

(2010). Reading comprehension, word decoding and

spelling in girls with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)

or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD):

Performance and predictors. International Journal of

Language and Communication Disorders, 45(\), 61-71.

doi: 10.3109/13682820902745438

Attwood, T. (2008). An overview of autism spectrum

disorders. In K. D. Buron & P Wolfberg (Eds.), Learn-

ers on the autism spectrum: Preparing highly qualified

teachers (pp. 18-43). Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism

Asperger.

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A., & Frith, U. (1985). Doesthe autistic child have "theory of mind"? Cognition, 21,

37-46. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8

Bell, N. (2007). Visualizing and verbalizing for languagecomprehension and thinking (2nd ed). San Luis Obispo,CA: Gander Educational.

Bell, N., & Bonetti, C. (2006). Talkies visualizing and

verbalizing for language comprehension and thinking. SanLuis Obispo, CA: Cander Educational.

Bellini, S., & Akullian, ]. (2007). A meta-analysis ofvideo modeling and video self-modeling interventionsfor children and adolescents with autism spectrum dis-orders. Exceptional Children, 73, 264-287.

Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A.(2010). Reading comprehension instruction for stu-dents with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6),

423-436. doi:10.1177/0741932509355988.

Block, C. C , Gambrell, L. B., & Pres.sley, M. (2002).Improving comprehension instruction. New York, NY:John Wiley & Sons.

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M.,& Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in specialeducation. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137-148. Re-trieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/Navigat ionMenu/Publ icat ions2/Except ionalChildren/default.htm

Broun, L. T. (2004). Teaching students with autisticspectrum disorders to read. TEACHING Exceptional

Children, 36(4), 36-40. Retrieved from http:/ /www.cec.sped.org/content/navigationmenu/publications2/teachingexceptionalchildren/

Brown, C. S., & Lyde, S. L. (1988). Merging assess-ment and instruction: Protocols in the classroom. In S.M. Glazer, L. W. Searfoss, & L. M. Gentile (Eds.),Reexamining reading diagnoses: New trends and practices

(pp. 94-102). Newark, NJ: International ReadingAssociation.

Caldwell, J. S. (2010). What is reading, and what dogood readers do? In C. Carnahan & P. Williamson(Eds.), Quality literacy instruction for students with

autism spectrum disorders (pp. 87-124). Shawnee Mis-sion, KS: Autism Asperger.

Carnahan, C , &L Williamson, P (2010). Autism, cog-nition, and reading. In C. Carnahan & P. Williamson(Eds.), Quality Literacy Instruction for Students with

Autism Spectrum Disorders (pp. 21-44). Shawnee Mis-sion, KS: Autism Asperger.

Carnahan, C , Williamson, P, & Christman, J. (2011).Linking cognition and literacy for students with ASD.TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(6), 54-62.

4 6 6 Summer 2012

Retrieved from; http://www.cec.sped.org/content/navigationmenu/publicationsl/teachingexceptionalchildren/

Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1995). Oral and written languagescales. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessment.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention MMWR.2012, March 30. Prevalence of autism spectrum disor-ders-autism and developmental disabilities monitoringnetwork, 14 sites. United States, 2008. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6103.pdf

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory objectivist andconstructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lin-coln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chiang, H. M., & Lin, Y. H. (2007). Reading compre-hension instruction for students with autism spectrumdisorders. Pocus on Autism and Other DevelopmentalDisabilities, 22(4), 259-267. doi:10.1177/1088357607220040801

Fisher, N., & Happe, F. (2005). A training study oftheory of mind and executive function in children withautism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism & Devel-opmental Disorders, 35(6), 757-771. doi:10.1007/sl0803-005-0022-9

Frith, U. (2006). Common behaviors. Scientific Ameri-can Mind, 17(5), 72-75. Retrieved from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/

Gately, S. (2008). Facilitating reading comprehensionfor students on the autism spectrum. TEACHINGExceptional Children, 40(3), 40-45. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cec.sped.org/content/navigationmenu/publications2/teachingexceptionalchildren/

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P, & Baker, S.(2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies tostudents with learning disabilities: A review of the re-search. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-321.doi:10.3102/00346543071002279Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1997). The Gilling-ham manual: Remedial training for children with specificdisability in reading, spelling, and penmanship (8th ed.).Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Happe, F., & Booth, R. (2008). The power of the posi-tive: Revisiting weak coherence in autism spectrumdisorders. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psy-chology, 6l(\), 50-63. doi:10.1080/17470210701508731

Happe, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The weak coherence ac-count: Detail-focused cognitive style in autism spec-trum disorders. Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders, 36(\), 5-25. doi:10.1007/sl0803-005-0039-0

Hill, E. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism.TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8(\), 26-32.

Johnston, A., Barnes, M., & Desrochers, A. (2008).Reading comprehension: Developmental processes, in-dividual differences, and interventions. Canadian Psy-chology, 48(2), 125-132. doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.125

Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004).Graphic organizers and their effects on the readingcomprehension of students with LD: A syntheses of xt-se3.Tài. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105-118.doi: 10.1177/00222194040370020201

Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and mircropro-cesses in the development of summarization skill. Cog-nition and Instruction, 7(3), 161-195. doi: 10.1207/sl532690xci0703_l

Kintsch, W (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cog-nition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integrationmodel of text comprehension and its implications forinstruction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.; pp.1270-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Asso-ciation.

Klingner, J. K, & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for studentswith learning disabilities who use English as a secondlanguage. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293.doi: 10.1086/461828

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2010). Qualitative readinginventory: 5. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. (2003).Reading comprehension instruction for secondary stu-dents: Challenges for struggling readers and teachers.Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26(2), 103-116.doi:10.2307/1593593

McCrudden, M. T, Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009).The use of adjunct displays to facilitate comprehensionof causal relationships in expository text. InstructionalScience, 37, 65-86. doi:10.1007/sl 1251-007-9036-3

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory basedlanguage processing: Psycholinguistic research in the1990s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25-42. doi:10.1 l46/annurev.psych.49.1.25

Mesibov, G., Shea, V, & Schopler, E. (2005). TheTEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. NewYork, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Myles, B., Hilgenfeld, T, Barnhill, G., Griswold, D.,Hagiwara, T, & Simpson, R. (2002). Analysis of read-ing skills in individuals with Asperger Syndrome. Focus

Exceptional Children 4 6 7

on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(\),

44-41. Retrieved from: http://foa.sagepuh.com/

Nation, K., Clarke, P, Wright, B., & Williams, C.

(2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with

autism spectrum àisoràeTs. Journal of Autism and Devel-

opmental Disorders, 36(7), 911-919. doi:10.1007

/si 0803-006-0130-1

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to

read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific re-

search literature on reading and its implications for read-

ing instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4754).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. Retrieved from: htrp://www.national

readingpanel.org/puhlications/publications.htm

Oherman, L., & Ramachandran, V. (2007). The simu-lating social mind: The role of the mirror neuron sys-tem and simulation in the social and communicativedeficits of autism spectrum disorders. Psychological Bul-

letin, 133(2), 310-327. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.310

O'Connor, 1., & Klein, P (2004). Exploration of

strategies for facilitating the reading comprehension of

high-functioning students with autism spectrum disor-

ders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,

34(2), 115-127. doi:10.1023/B:JADD.0000022603

.44077.6h

Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C , Witherspoon, A., & Mc-

Namara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format

and text availability on the assessment of expository

text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4),

399-438. doi:10.1080/07370000701632371

Phelps-Teraski, D., & Phelps-Gunn, T. (1992). Test of

pragmatic language. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Poland, B. D. (2003). Transcription quality: In J. Hol-stein & J. Guhrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New

lenses, new concerns (pp. 267-287). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Pressley, M., & Afflerhach, P (1995). Verbal protocols in

reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erihaum.

Quill, K. A. (2000). Do-watch-listen-say: Social and

communication intervention for children with autism.

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Randi, J., Newman, T., & Grigorenko, E. (2010).

Teaching children with autism to read for meaning:

Challenges and possibilities. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 40(7), 890-902. doi:10.1007

/sl0803-010-0938-6

Reed, P, & Gibson, E. (2005). The effect of concur-

rent task load on stimulus over-selectivity. Journal of

Autism & Developmental Disorders, 35(5), 601-614.doi: 10.1007/s 10803-005-0004-y

Saldana, D., & Frith, U. (2007). Do readers with

autism make hridging inferences from world knowl-

edge? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(4),

310-319. doi:10.10l6/j.jecp.2006.11.002

Salter, G., Seigal, A., Claxton, M., Lawrence, K., &

Skuse, D. (2008). Can autistic children read the mind

of an animated triangle? ̂ «tora, 12(4), 349-371.

Samson, D., & Aperly, I. (2010). There is more to

mind reading than having Theory of Mind concepts:

New directions in Theory of Mind research. Infant and

Child Development, 19, 443-454. doi:10.1002/icd.678

Semel, E. M., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003).

Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals, 4th ed.

(CELF-4). San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp/Harcourt

Assessment.

Smith-Myles, B., Hilgenfeld, T. D., BarnhiU, G., Gris-

wold, D., Hagiwara, T, & Simpson, R. (2002). Analy-

sis of reading skills in individuals with Asperger

syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental

Disabilities, 77(1), 4 4 ^ 7 . doi: 10.1177/10883576020

1700104

Snyder, L., & Caccamise, D. (2010). Comprehension

processes for expository text: Building meaning and mak-

ing sense. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Strauss, A., 6i Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative re-

search: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded

theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strucker, J., &¿ Davidson, R. (2003, November). Adult

reading components study (ARCS). A NCSALL Research

Brief. Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study

of Adult Learning and Literacy. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research

/hrief_strucker2.pdf

Tennant, W, Stainthorp, R., & Stuart, M. (2008). As-

sessing reading at key stage 2: SATs as measures of chil-

dren's inferential ahilities. British Educational Research

Journal, 34(4), 431-436. doi:10.1080/014ll92070

1532231

Wahlberg, T., & Magliano, J. (2004). The ability of

high fiinction individuals with autism to comprehend

written discourse. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 119-144.

Retrieved from: http://www.societyfortextanddiscourse

.org/dp/index.html

Whalon, K. J., Al Otaiha, S., & Delano, M. E. (2009).

Evidence-hased reading instruction for individuals with

autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other

Developmental Disabilities, 24(1), 3-16. doi:10.1177

/1088357608328515

4 6 8 Summer 2012

Whalon, K. J., & Hanline, M. E (2008). Effects of re-ciprocal questioning on the question generation and re-sponding of children with autism spectrum disorders.Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,43, 367-387.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

PAMELA WILLIAMSON (Ohio CEC), Assistant

Professor; CHRISTINA R. CARNAHAN (Ohio

CEC), Assistant Ptofessor; and JENNIFER A.JACOBS (Ohio CEC), Doctoral Student, Schoolof Education, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribu-tions of the participants, their families, and teach-ets to this study on reading and autism. We alsowish to thank Xioahe Li, Jennifer Wolfe, and LisaFroehlich for theit assistance with data collection.

Address correspondence concerning this articleto Pamela Williamson, University of Cincinnati,2610 McMicken Citcle, Teachers College, Suite610D, Cincinnati OH 45221 (e-mail:Pamela.Williamson@uc.edu).

Manuscript received January 2011; accepted:September 2011.

Exceptional Children 4 6 9

Copyright of Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.