Promoting Active Participation in Book Reading for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Preliminary Study
Fleury, Veronica P.; Miramontez, Shane Herriott; Hudson, Roxanne F.; Schwartz, Ilene S. (2014). Child Language Teaching and Therapy, v30 n3 p273-288. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1040236
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Dialogic reading – Fleury et al (2014))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet 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% -
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in a university affiliated comprehensive early childhood program. The three students were enrolled in a half-day integrated preschool five days per week. Three days per week, additional small group instruction took place through an extended day classroom. The authors did not report the geographic location of the preschool.
Study sample
Participants included three male students from one preschool, all of whom were diagnosed with ASD. Two students had IEPs; it is unclear if the third student (Nick) also had an IEP. Nick was also diagnosed with Pervasive Development Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified. The authors did not report on any other demographic characteristics.
Intervention Group
During the dialogic reading intervention sessions, the adult reader read text from a book selected by the child. During this book reading, the adult would prompt the child to speak every 2-3 pages by asking a question about the characters or events in the story. Different types of prompts were used: (1) completion prompts asked the child to finish a phrase; (2) recall prompts asked questions about the characters or previous events in the story; (3) open-ended prompts encouraged the child to talk about what was happening in a picture; (4) "wh-questions" asked what, where, and who about a picture; and (5) distancing prompts asked questions relating the story to the child's personal experiences. The child was given five seconds to respond to a prompt. When a response was provided, the adult would provide praise or correction, and expand on the child's verbalization. If no response was provided by the child, the adult would continue to read the book. The study was completed over a 5-week period. All sessions were conducted one-on-one. The number of intervention sessions varied from 4-6 sessions.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During the baseline phase, an adult reader read text from a book selected by the child. They did not elaborate on the text or pose any questions to the child. If the child made a comment or asked a question, the adult responded and returned to reading the text. If a child became disengaged, the adult did not try to reengage them. All sessions were conducted one-on-one. The number of baseline sessions varied from 3-5 sessions.
Support for implementation
Lesson plans were developed to indicate when the adult could use specific dialogic reading prompts.
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).