The Impact of Reading to Engage Children with Autism in Language and Learning (RECALL)
Whalon, Kelly; Martinez, Jose R.; Shannon, Darbianne; Butcher, Colleen; Hanline, Mary Frances (2015). Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, v35 n2 p102-115. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1066969
-
examining4Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading to Engage Children with Autism in Language and Literacy (RECALL))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
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.
-
Male: 100% -
Suburban
-
- 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
South
-
Race Asian 25% White 75% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in two self-contained special education preschool classrooms in a suburban school district in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
Participants included three preschool children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and one preschool child who was in the process of being diagnosed with ASD. All four students were males and were four or five years old. Three of the students were White and one was Asian American. Alex received speech, language, and vision services as well as occupational therapy and was undergoing a functional behavior assessment at the time of the study. Ben, Cam, and Dan received services under the diagnosis of developmental delay and also received language services.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of RECALL (Reading to Engage Children With Autism in Language and Learning), which is an adapted shared reading intervention based on dialogic reading (DR) that embeds systematic instructional procedures known to facilitate the learning of children with ASD, such as a prompting hierarchy and visual supports. RECALL was implemented three days a week for approximately 2.5 months in the classroom or workroom adjacent to the classroom with the interventionist, target child, and peer. During the intervention phase, the interventionist read aloud from a book to the target child and peer. After each page, the interventionist asked a scripted question. Questions were rotated between the target child and peer and covered recall, vocabulary, comprehension of what was happening in the story, and asking the child to relate the book's events to their own lives and feelings or predict what would happen next. If the child responded correctly, the next page was read followed by the next scripted question. If the child responded incorrectly, a four-level prompting hierarchy was initiated, which followed the PEEP (prompt, evaluate, expand, praise) interaction sequence. More specifically, three visual response options were first presented. If the child did not respond or responded incorrectly, one visual option was covered up to provide a binary choice. If the child still responded incorrectly or did not respond, a direct model was provided, and the child was asked to repeat it. If the child failed to imitate the direct model or point to the appropriate visual, the interventionist placed the child’s hand on the correct visual option. Following a correct response after any level of prompting, the interventionist elaborated on the child’s response and provided praise. To encourage active participation during intervention implementation, interventionists also used secure attention prompts, intentional pauses, and question cards. The secure attention prompt was delivered at least three times per reading and entailed the interventionist exclaiming, "Wow!," while pointing to a picture. Intentional pauses involved the interventionist pausing and looking expectantly at the children for 3 to 5 seconds at three different points in a reading session, just before or after turning a page. Initiation question cards were used to cue children to ask their partner a question about the story; if a participant had not spontaneously asked a question or used a provided question card by page 5 of the book, the interventionist reminded the child to use the initiation question cards. Yellow sticker notes were placed at appropriate points throughout the book to remind the interventionist to use these active participation strategies. Accommodation and modifications were provided as needed. For example, one of the teachers created a behavior system to encourage consistent behavior across phases. A reinforcement schedule was added for one student to mitigate his aggressive behavior and frustration during the intervention sessions. Two students rarely initiated during early sessions, so the initiating question cards were introduced as they became more familiar with the intervention routine. All books used were of similar length (approximately 15 pages) and were read for three days.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case design studies. During baseline sessions, the interventionist read aloud from a book to the target child and peer. Sessions took place in the classroom or workroom adjacent to the classroom with the interventionist, target child, and peer. After reading each page, the interventionist asked a scripted question using one of the RECALL question prompts. The RECALL question prompts covered recall, vocabulary, comprehension of what was happening in the story, and asking the child to relate the book's events to their own lives and feelings or predict what would happen next. While the interventionist made some scripted comments, however, they did not implement any RECALL instructional procedures related to prompting after incorrect responses. For example, if the child did not answer correctly, the interventionist simply provided the correct answer and then moved on to the next page in the book. Questions were rotated between the target child and peer. All books used were of similar length (approximately 15 pages) and were read for three days.
Support for implementation
Two doctoral students, both of whom had prior experience working with students with ASD, served as the interventionists. Interventionist training involved direct instruction and role-play practice in which the interventionists practiced delivering RECALL until they achieved 80 percent or higher on a treatment integrity checklist.
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).