Reading Comprehension Instruction for Young Students with Autism: Forming Contextual Connections
Engel, Karen S.; Ehri, Linnea C. (2021). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, v51 n4 p1266-1280. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1289518
-
examining20Students, grades1-2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Coherence processing: Story sequencing |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.60 |
11.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System: Comprehension and fluency |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.08 |
2.12 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised (WRMT-R) Passage Comprehension subtest |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.90 |
26.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System: Retelling the story |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.30 |
2.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Using look-back reading comprehension strategies |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.60 |
2.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Use of context to answer comprehension questions |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.90 |
6.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-5): Understanding spoken paragraphs subtest |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.60 |
6.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Coherence processing: Anaphor resolution |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.90 |
10.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Coherence processing: Identifying mismatched homographs and pictures |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.20 |
4.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Coherence processing: Identifying multiple meanings of homographs |
Coherence processing instruction – Engel & Ehri (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.10 |
3.20 |
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.
-
Female: 10%
Male: 90% -
Urban
-
- 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
New York
-
Race Asian 15% Black 20% Other or unknown 30% White 35% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two public schools in New York City.
Study sample
The study included 20 students with autism in grades 1 and 2. Students were eligible for the study if they had grade-level word identification skills, were fluent in English, had vocabulary knowledge within the average range, and had limited retelling or comprehension skills based on their teachers’ report. The researchers randomly assigned 10 students to the intervention group and 10 students to the comparison group.
Intervention Group
The intervention was a reading comprehension practice designed to help young students with autism use context clues to understand narrative texts. The practice aimed to help students stop and think while reading, connect ideas in stories, understand words that are spelled the same but have different meanings, identify what pronouns referred to, put story events in order, retell stories, and make inferences. Students received the intervention in pairs with another student in the same grade and with similar word reading skills. The first author delivered the intervention in six sessions that each lasted 20–30 minutes. During the sessions, students used visual prompts and thinking questions, such as where the story was happening, what the character was doing, and what meaning made sense.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received non-literacy activities in small groups of two to four students. The first author led three sessions during the same period as the intervention sessions. During these sessions, students played games like Trouble, Uno, or Simon, or worked on origami activities.
Support for implementation
The first author delivered both the intervention and comparison conditions. The study did not report any training or support given to this individual.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Engel, Karen S. (2018). Reading Comprehension Instruction for Young Students with High Functioning Autism: Forming Contextual Connections. ProQuest LLC.
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).