Targeting Oral Language and Listening Comprehension Development for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A School-Based Pilot Study
Henry, Alyssa R.; Solari, Emily J. (2020). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED605682
-
examining43Students, gradesK-3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Integrated oral language and listening comprehension intervention – Henry & Solari (2020))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Developmental NEuroPSYchological Assessment, Second Edition (NEPSY-II)--Narrative Memory Subtest |
Integrated oral language and listening comprehension intervention – Henry & Solari (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.27 |
4.33 |
Yes |
|
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 4th Edition (CELF-4)--Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest |
Integrated oral language and listening comprehension intervention – Henry & Solari (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.00 |
5.81 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive Vocabulary Test - Second Edition |
Integrated oral language and listening comprehension intervention – Henry & Solari (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
94.14 |
89.85 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
5% English language learners -
Female: 19%
Male: 81% -
Rural
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Race Asian 16% Black 2% Other or unknown 37% Pacific Islander 2% Two or more races 12% White 30% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 37% Not Hispanic or Latino 63% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted across 4 schools in a large, rural district in Northern California.
Study sample
The analytic sample included 43 students, 22 in the intervention group and 21 in the comparison group. All students in the study were enrolled in special day classes for at least 50% time, received their education in English, and received special education services under the classification “Autism.” The sample was 81% male and 19% female. The sample was predominantly Hispanic/Latino (37%) and White (30%). Two students spoke a language other than English at home, but all received their primary reading instruction in English. The average age of students in the sample was 6.8 years old.
Intervention Group
Within classrooms, students in the intervention group received the intervention in a small group setting from their special education classroom teacher. The intervention itself was supplemental to the existing English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum and was delivered for approximately a half an hour, 4 days a week, for 20 weeks. Students received an average of 65 sessions. The authors note the intervention was adapted from an intervention focused on vocabulary and listening comprehension developed by Solari & Ciancio (2014). Each session consisted of a read aloud, direct instruction in vocabulary from the story, and writing from the text. Students received direct instruction on and opportunities to practice four comprehension strategies: direct recall, retelling, making connections to prior knowledge, and making inferences. In each session, the students and teacher read aloud a story (15 minutes), the teacher provided instruction on 2 or 3 novel vocabularies from the story (5 minutes), and the students completed a writing or drawing activity related to the story to promote comprehension (10 minutes). During the read aloud, the teachers began by introducing a guiding question for the story and then stopped at predetermined points in the story to model think-aloud comprehensive strategies. The intervention included a hand motion for each of the four comprehension strategies. These sessions were grouped into units, with the first lesson of each unit covering explicit instruction on the comprehension strategy and activity to build the skill. The full story was read in sessions 1 and 5 of each unit, while portions of the book were read aloud during the second, third, and fourth days of the unit.
Comparison Group
The students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction, which included the district's standard ELA instruction.
Support for implementation
Special education teachers delivered the intervention; they were trained on the intervention during a six-hour professional development session. This was followed by in-person coaching that occurred 1-2 times a month. Coaching included modeling, observation, and feedback. Coaches also supported adaptation of the intervention to the teachers' local context and needs while ensuring that implementation fidelity and the level of adherence to the specific procedures of the intervention remained intact.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).