Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rasd

Patterns of math and reading achievement in children and

adolescents with autism spectrum disorder
Jennifer C. Bullen a, *, Matthew C. Zajic b, Nancy McIntyre c, Emily Solari d,
Peter Mundy e, f
a
Department of Human Ecology, Human Development, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, United States
b
Intellectual Disability/Autism Program, Health and Behavior Studies Department, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United
States
c
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, College of Health Professions and Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United
States
d
Curriculum, Instruction and Special Education, Curry School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA,
United States
e
School of Education, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States
f
MIND Institute, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

No. of reviews completed is 2 Background: There has been an increase of autistic students without intellectual disabilities
(autisticWoID) placed in general education settings (Hussar et al., 2020), but there is a lack of
Keywords: understanding of how to best support classroom learning for these children. Previous research has
Autism spectrum disorder pointed to subgroups of autisticWoID children who display difficulty with mathematics and
Academic achievement
reading achievement (Chen et al., 2018; Estes et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2015).
Hierarchical cluster analysis
Research has primarily focused on symptomatology and communication factors related to
Math achievement
Reading fluency learning in subgroups of autistic children. The current study sought to expand upon this research
by assessing the validity of these previous studies and by investigating the specific contribution of
domain-general cognitive abilities to differences in these subgroups.
Method: Seventy-eight autisticWoID individuals (M = 11.34 years, SD = 2.14) completed measures
of mathematics and reading achievement, IQ, working memory, inferential thinking, and Theory
of Mind (ToM). A hierarchical cluster analysis was performed on the math and reading measures.
Results: The analysis revealed two unique achievement groups: one group that performed lower
than expected on math and reading achievement and a second group that performed higher than
expected. Groups differed significantly on IQ and working memory and were distinguished by
performance on reading fluency. Groups did not differ on ToM, inferential thinking, or
symptomatology.
Conclusion: These findings describe a group of autisticWoID individuals that may be more likely to
experience difficulty learning, which should be accounted for in general education settings.

* Corresponding author at: Human Development, One Shields Ave, Davis, 1315 Hart Hall, CA 95616, United States.
E-mail address: jcbullen@ucdavis.edu (J.C. Bullen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2022.101933
Received 7 June 2021; Received in revised form 25 January 2022; Accepted 28 January 2022
Available online 14 February 2022
1750-9467/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

1. Introduction

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; hereafter “autistic children” or "autism") are the fourth largest category of students
served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and many of these individuals spend a significant portion of their
day in inclusive general education classrooms (Hussar et al., 2020). Despite their increasing presence in general education classrooms,
it is not clear if this setting provides sufficient supports for this group of diverse learners. Current research suggests that a significant
subset of autistic children struggle with reading and/or mathematics achievement (Bullen, Swain Lerro, Zajic, McIntyre, & Mundy,
2020; Estes, Rivera, Bryan, Cali, & Dawson, 2011; McIntyre, Solari, Gonzales et al., 2017, McIntyre, Solari, Grimm et al., 2017). Thus,
there is a need to understand the academic achievement profiles of autistic children and the cognitive factors that may be associated
with learning differences among these students.
Research reporting rates of reading and math difficulty have varied widely in autistic children without co-occurring intellectual
disability (autisticWoID). Reading difficulty has been estimated to affect between 33–65% of these students (Jones et al., 2009;
McIntyre, Solari, Gonzales et al., 2017, McIntyre, Solari, Grimm et al., 2017) and math difficulty estimates have ranged from 15 to 40%
(Estes et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2009). Previous studies have attempted to categorize the achievement abilities of autisticWoID children
in terms of subgroup patterns of strengths and weaknesses. Wei, Christiano, Yu, Wagner, and Spiker (2015) identified four possible
achievement subgroups in a sample of 6- to 9-year-olds with ASD including two groups that demonstrated homogenous high or low
achievement in math and reading, and two groups of learners that demonstrated unequal achievement with groups that exceled in
either only reading (hyperlexia) or only calculation (hypercalculia). Similarly, other studies have reported observations of “peaks” and
“dips” in either reading or mathematics achievement in autisticWoID children (Estes et al., 2011) and autistic children with heterog­
enous IQs (Jones et al., 2009). Further, other autisticWoID samples have demonstrated overall high versus lower achievement (Chen
et al., 2018). Differences in the estimates of the numbers of children with autism who display problems with reading or math
achievement across studies may reflect differences in the achievement measures used in these studies. However, it is possible, if not
likely, that these varying observations of learning abilities in autisticWoID individuals may exemplify the cognitive heterogeneity that is
characteristic of autism (Kim, Macari, Koller, & Chawarska, 2016). If so the recognition and definition of these varying patterns may
contribute to a basic understanding of the different needs of autisticWoID children in the classroom (Griswold, Barnhill, Smith Myles,
Hagiwara, & Simpson, 2002).
Studies have suggested that individual differences in social communication, IQ and working memory may be associated with
different patterns of academic achievement in autistic students. With regard to IQ, these observations have been inconsistent. Some
research suggests that IQ differences may account for differences in math and reading achievement (Mayes & Calhoun, 2008). Other
studies have reported data on groups of autistic individuals who have shown discrepancies between their IQs and expected reading and
math achievement (Chen et al., 2018; Estes et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2009). Developing a better understanding of the relations between
differences in IQ and achievement in autisticWoID students is important. Research indicates a higher proportion of these students
compared to their peers have IQs in the average to below average range and display delays in academic achievement (Ashburner,
Ziviani, & Rodger, 2010; Barnhill, Hagiwara, Myles, & Simpson, 2000; Maenner, Shaw, & Baio, 2020). Therefore, it may be important
to identify how these children learn and the type of academic supports they may need to improve their rate of academic achievement,
as these individuals may have an increased likelihood of struggling academically.
Working memory, the ability to hold and manipulate information in one’s short-term memory, has also been linked to both reading
and math ability in autistic children (Bullen et al., 2020; Davidson, Kaushanskaya, & Weismer, 2018), as well as IQ (Conway, Kane, &
Engle, 2003), and may also be related to cognitive differences among achievement groups (Chen et al., 2018). Neurotypical children
with low math achievement also display difficulties with working memory (Toll, van der Ven, Kroesbergen, & van Luit, 2011) and
symbolic working memory has been shown to predict math achievement in autisticWoID children (Bullen et al., 2020). Working
memory has also been shown to impact reading comprehension abilities (Davidson et al., 2018). Indeed, one study of achievement
profiles in autisticWoID children found that working memory ability helped to characterize the math and reading achievement of the
groups (Chen et al., 2018). Thus, working memory appears to have important implications for learning and may help to explain why
some autisticWoID students excel in general education classrooms, while others do not.
There has not been consistent evidence that differences in autism symptomatology or symptoms of anxiety, depression, and
inattention differentiate achievement subgroups (Chen et al., 2018; Estes et al., 2011). Nevertheless, differences in social communi­
cation symptoms are a key feature of autism that may be associated with academic performance and achievement subgroup differences
(Estes et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2009; McIntyre et al., 2018).
Research on a broader range of cognitive variables, though, would improve the understanding of differences in learning among
autisticWoID students. Here we add the examination of inferential thinking and theory of mind (ToM). Inferential thinking refers to the
ability to draw on background knowledge to understand implicit information in communication (Elbro & Buch-Iversen, 2013).
Problems in inferential thinking abilities may contribute to reading difficulty in autistic children. Autistic children appear to struggle
with questions asking them to make inferences about a story, despite being to make inferences under normal circumstances (Tirado &
Saldaña, 2016). However, inferential thinking may not be independent from language skills (Norbury & Nation, 2011). Additionally,
ToM, or the social cognitive ability to make inferences about the thought feelings or intentions of others, is a social cognitive skill that
autistic children often find difficult (Pellicano, 2010). ToM is important for social competence in school, but may also impact children’s
ability to learn from teachers (Lockl, Ebert, & Weinert, 2017). Moreover, at least two studies have reported links between ToM ability
and reading comprehension in autistic children (McIntyre et al., 2018; Ricketts, Jones, Happé, & Charman, 2013). Thus, understanding
the role of social cognitive processes in learning may also be important for providing educational supports to autistic children. More
precise estimates of differences in learning abilities is necessary for creating educational environments with adequate learning

2
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

supports.
The current study seeks to build upon the previous studies of achievement profiles in autisticWoID children by investigating dif­
ferences in a broader range of cognitive abilities. First, this study used hierarchical cluster analysis to investigate achievement profiles
in the current sample. Then, differences in performance on academic and cognitive variables were assessed to understand what dis­
tinguishes learning in the cluster-defined academic subgroups. Understanding these relationships further will provide educators with
information that will allow them to be prepared to support the needs of diverse learners.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants in this study included 78 autisticWoID children (63 male, 15 female) between the ages of 8 and 16 years old (M = 11.33
years, SD = 2.14). Human subjects research protocol review and approval by the university Internal Review Board was obtained prior
to the implementation of this study. A child identified with autism was eligible for the study if they were between the ages of 8 and 16,
were able to answers questions in complete sentences, and did not have any major coexisting medical problems that caused children to
be absent for long periods of the academic year, such as a seizure disorder or other neurological disorder, significant sensory or motor
impairment, or a child clinical/developmental diagnosis other than ASD, ADHD, or anxiety. Co-morbid diagnoses of ADHD and anxiety
were permitted since these are common diagnoses in autistic children (Stevens, Peng, & Barnard-Brak, 2016). For the purposes of this
study, participants with an FIQ below 75 were excluded to eliminate participants who also met the criteria for an intellectual and
developmental disorder (IDD). Participants in this sample were characterized by an IQ in the typical range (M = 100.29, SD = 14.36)
and a majority (n = 69) did not have an identified learning disability according to parent report. Of those identified with a learning
disability, none had an identified math or reading disability. See Tables 1a and 1b for a summary of demographic information.

Table 1a
Demographic information by achievement group.

Note: * p <.05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

3
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

Table 1b
Educational demographic information by achievement group.

Note: † Of the 9 reported learning disabilities, the LA group consisted of one reported writing disability, two reported auditory processing difficulties,
two sensory processing difficulties, and three were unspecified learning disabilities. The HA group had one reported unspecified learning disability. *
p <.05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

2.2. Procedure

Participants in this study were part of a 30-month longitudinal study to assess academic, social, and cognitive development in
children with ASD, ADHD, or neurotypical development. Participants were assessed at three time points separated by 15 months (± 3
weeks). Data was collected by trained members of a research group at a university laboratory during 2.5 h sessions conducted within
two weeks. Data for these analyses are primarily from Time Point 1 of the longitudinal study, except the Theory of Mind tasks, which
are from Time Point 2.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. ASD symptoms

The Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale-2 (ADOS-2; Lord et al., 2012) was used to confirm diagnostic classification of autism.
Children in this study completed Modules 3 or 4 (fluent speech) with a trained and research-reliable member of the research team. The
ADOS-2 yields three scores: social affect, restricted and repetitive behavior (RRB), and a combined total score (Gotham, Risi, Pickles, &
Lord, 2007) and provides algorithm total cut-offs for the classifications of non-spectrum, autism spectrum, and autism. Parents also
filled out the Social Communication Questionnaire-Lifetime Version (SCQ; Rutter, Bailey, & Lord, 2003) the Autism Spectrum
Screening Questionnaire for children (ASSQ; Ehlers, Gillberg, & Wing, 1999), and the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS; Constantino &
Gruber, 2005) to report ASD Symptoms.

2.3.2. ADHD symptoms

Parent report on the Conners-3 (Conners, 2008) was used to assess the level of ADHD symptomology of participants in this study.
The Conners-3 yields standardized T-scores for measures of inattention, hyperactivity-impulsivity, and learning problems based on a
normative sample of 1200 parents of 8–18 year-olds. The Conners-3 is characterized by good estimates of internal consistency of scale
(.91), and test-retest reliability (.85; Kao & Thomas, 2010).

4
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

2.3.3. Reading comprehension and fluency

The Gray Oral Reading Tests Fifth Edition (GORT-5; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012) was administered to provide standardized
measures of passage-level reading comprehension and reading fluency. The individually administered reading comprehension test is
comprised of 16 progressively more difficult reading passages read aloud by the child, each followed by five open-ended compre­
hension questions given orally by the tester with the passage removed from view. The reading fluency task provides a measure of the
speed and accuracy of reading. Using the same 16 passages from the reading comprehension subtest, participants were scored for rate
(in seconds) and accuracy (number of words read correctly) to determine a fluency score for each passage. All internal consistency for
GORT Scores exceeds .90 and test-retest reliabilities ranged from .82 to .90 for 248 students (Wiederholt & Bryant, 2012).

2.3.4. IQ
The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI-2; Wechsler, 2011) was used to provide a measure of IQ for each participant.
The WASI-2 contains four subtests— Vocabulary, Block Design, Similarities, and Matrix Reasoning—which provide an estimate of
verbal, non-verbal, and FIQ. Individuals with FIQs below 74 were excluded from this study to exclude children who also meet criteria
for intellectual and developmental disorders. The FIQ index has established internal consistency of 0.96 and test–retest reliability for
children ages 6–16, r = 0.94 (McCrimmon & Smith, 2012).

2.3.5. Math achievement

Mathematical achievement was assessed using the verbal problem solving and numerical operations subtests of the Wechsler In­
dividual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III; Wechsler, 2009). In the problem solving subtest, participants complete untimed
math problems to gauge abilities in single- and multi-step word problems, fractions, decimals, mathematical patterns, interpreting
graphs, and solving problems using probability and reasoning. The numerical operations subtest assesses the participants’ ability to
complete basic math computations independently of the test administrator. Due to time constraints, all participants only answered
odd-numbered problems at Time Point 1 and scores were doubled to estimate total scores at each time point. Reliability estimates for
WIAT-III subscores range from good to excellent (.83 to. 97; Vaughan-Jensen, Adame, McLean, & Gámez, 2011).

2.3.6. Working memory

The Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition (WRAML2; Sheslow & Adams, 2003) was used to assess
differences in participant working memory abilities. Three subtests from the WRAML2 were used in this study: Verbal Working
Memory, Symbolic Working Memory, and Story Memory. The verbal working memory task requires participants to remember and
manipulate lists of animals and objects. The symbolic working memory task requires participants to remember and manipulate letters
and numbers. The story memory task requires participants to recall information from stories read aloud to them. Internal consistency
for the three subtests fall within the .91–.92 range (Sheslow & Adams, 2003).

2.3.7. Inferential thinking

The Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-5; Leslie & Caldwell, 2011) was used to assess differences in inferential thinking abilities.
Participants silently read passages that are matched to their reading level. Then, participants are asked to answer questions based on
the passage that either probe for text-explicit information or text-implicit information. For the purposes of this study, QRI questions
involving text-implicit reading comprehension were examined as a measure of inferential thinking capabilities. Previous studies from
the authors have reported Cronbach’s alpha for QRI-5 total raw scores is .50 for 2nd through 6th grade reading passages, and .37 for
middle and high school passages (McIntyre, Solari, Gonzales et al., 2017, McIntyre, Solari, Grimm et al., 2017).

2.3.8. Social cognitive abilities

Two measures of Theory of Mind (ToM) were used as a measure of participant’s social cognitive abilities. In the strange stories task
(Happé, 1994), participants are presented with a short story in writing on a computer screen and a pre-recorded voice read the passage
aloud. Participants were asked to answer questions about the mental states of the characters presented in the story. In silent films
(Devine & Hughes, 2013), participants are shown a silent film clip and are asked to answer questions about the mental states and
actions of the actors. Both tasks have a reported Cohen’s kappa value of .82 (Devine & Hughes, 2013; Lecce, Zocchi, Pagnin, Palladino,
& Taumoepeau, 2010).

2.4. Data analysis plan

The first aim of this study sought to use hierarchical cluster analysis to investigate the number of achievement subgroups within the
dataset. To do so, a hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted on the four achievement variables (WIAT-III Problem Solving, WIAT- III
Numerical Operations, GORT5 Reading Comprehension, and GORT5 Reading Fluency) with Euclidean distance and complete linkage
set as the cluster analysis parameters. Then, two methods were used to determine the optimal number of clusters in the dataset. First,
the number of clusters were validated using the “NbClust” package in R which tested the data against 30 different fit indices and
recommend the optimal number of clusters based on the majority recommendation of these 30 indices (Charrad, Ghazzali, Boiteau, &
Maintainer, 2015). For this analysis, the same hierarchical clustering parameters described above will be used with an additional
argument that allows the clusters to vary from 2 to 8. Second, the number of clusters were validated through running hierarchical
cluster analyses on 100 samplings of 80% of the data and examining the number of recommended clusters in each of these analyses.
Similar validation methods have been used in previous studies of academic achievement subgroups (Chen et al., 2018).

5
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

The second aim of this study was to understand differences in demographic and cognitive variables between cluster-identified
achievement groups. Group differences were assessed using chi-squared analyses, Mann-Whitney U tests, t-tests, ANOVAs, and
MANOVAs as appropriate depending upon the number of groups identified in the cluster analysis. Additionally, difference scores
between FIQ and achievement tests were conducted in each group to compare with previous studies that have shown some
achievement groups demonstrate observable differences between their FIQ and academic achievement (Chen et al., 2018; Estes et al.,
2011; Jones et al., 2009).

3. Results

3.1. Cluster analysis validation and results

First, the cluster analysis was conducted in “NbClust” to determine the optimal number of clusters in our sample. Based on the
majority recommendation provided in NbClust, the optimal solution for the dataset was two clusters. Ten of the indices (37%) rec­
ommended two as the best number of clusters. Next, the number of clusters was further validated with the repeated sampling pro­
cedure. This procedure revealed that 78 of the 100 trials recommended a two-cluster solution (Fig. 1). Thus, the data was split into two
academic achievement subgroups based on the recommendations from these validation methods and analyzed for differences in ac­
ademic and cognitive characteristics.

3.2. Achievement group characteristics

Our analysis resulted in two subgroups that differed significantly on each of the four academic achievement variables. The first
subgroup consisted of 55 participants (70% of the sample) and was characterized by an average distribution of calculation abilities (M
= 97.04, SD = 15.55), a low average distribution of problem solving abilities (M = 90.56, SD = 14.26), and below average distribution
of reading comprehension (M = 6.51, SD = 2.28) and reading fluency (M = 7.47, SD = 1.62). Post hoc analyses indicated that this
group’s calculation scores were significantly higher than their problem solving scores, t(54) = 2.96, p < .01; d = 0.40 and reading
fluency scores were significantly higher than reading comprehension scores, t(54) = 3.40, p < .001; d = 0.46. For the purposes of this
paper, this academic subgroup group will be referred to as the “Low Average” (LA) academic achievement group. On a descriptive
level, a substantial number of children in this group scored one standard deviation or more below the norm-referenced mean on these
academic measures: 31% on math calculation, 31% on problem solving, 62% on reading comprehension, and 47% on reading fluency.
No one in this group scored one standard deviation above the mean on fluency and reading comprehension, but 20% did so on
calculation and 5% did so on problem solving.
The second group consisted of 23 participants (30% of the sample) and consisted of above average calculation (M = 115.17, SD =
24.78) and problem solving (M = 109.65, SD = 17.48), and average reading comprehension (M = 9.48, SD = 2.23) and reading fluency
(M = 11.74, SD = 1.54). Post hoc analyses indicated that there was no reliable evidence that this group’s calculation scores differed
from their problem solving scores, t(22) = 1.46, p > .05; d = 0.30 but like the LA group their reading fluency scores were higher than
reading comprehension scores, t(22) = 4.67, p < .001; d = 0.97. This group will be referred to as the “High Average” (HA) academic
achievement subgroup group. A smaller proportion of children in this group scored more than one standard deviation below the mean
on the achievement measures: 14% on calculations, 9% on problem solving, 23% on reading comprehension, and 0% on reading
fluency. Alternatively, several scored one standard deviation above the mean on these measures: 27% on fluency, 9% reading
comprehension, 50% on calculation, and 41% on problem solving. See Table 2 for a summary of the mean math and reading scores for
each subgroup.
Next, logistic regressions were used to examine the contribution of each academic variable to the identification of cluster group
membership. The analyses revealed that classifications based on reading fluency most closely matched the cluster grouping division.
Reading fluency identified 52 individuals in the HA group and 26 in the LA group, overall correctly identifying 93.6% of individuals.

Fig. 1. Cluster validation plots. A. Demonstrates the number of recommendations given by 30 indices in NbClust. Ten of the 30 indices recom­
mended a two cluster solution. B. Demonstrates the recommended number of clusters when running the analysis on subsamples of the data. In 100
trials, 78 of the samples had two clusters as the best number of clusters.

6
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

Table 2
Cluster differences on academic achievement, IQ, and cognitive variables.
Cluster

Lower Average (N = 55) Higher Average (N = 23)

M (SD) M (SD) |t-crit| p value d

Age (years) 11.16 (2.12) 11.74 (2.19) 1.08 0.28 − 0.27

Numerical Operations 97.04 (15.55) 115.17 (24.78) 3.91 <.001*** − 0.88
Problem Solving 90.56 (14.26) 109.65 (17.48) 5.04 <.001*** − 1.20
Reading Fluency 7.47 (1.62) 11.74 (1.54) 10.75 <.001*** − 2.70
Reading Comprehension 6.51 (2.28) 9.48 (2.23) 5.27 <.001*** − 1.31
Full Scale IQ 95.87 (12.46) 110.87 (12.05) 4.76 <.001*** − 1.17
Verbal IQ 92.07 (13.88) 106.17 (13.24) 4.14 <.001*** − 1.04
Nonverbal IQ 101.13 (14.65) 113.91 (16.46) 3.39 <.01** − 0.82
Verbal WM 8.20 (2.37) 10.30 (2.14) 3.68 <.001*** − 0.93
Symbolic WM 8.51 (3.06) 12.13 (3.38) 4.62 <.001*** − 1.12
Story Memory 7.27 (3.49) 9.43 (2.29) 2.73 <.01** − 0.73
Inferential Thinking 26.55 (24.58) 33.64 (24.94) 1.14 0.26 − 0.29
Silent Films 6.02 (3.00) 6.83 (2.53) 2.40 0.31 − 0.29
Strange Stories 5.32 (2.79) 6.72 (2.16) 1.93 0.06 − 0.56

Note: * p <.05, ** p < .01, *** p < .0001.

Reading comprehension was the second most accurate classification correctly identifying 82.1% of individuals, followed by problem
solving (76.9%) and numerical operations (71.8%). As shown in Table 3, these analyses suggest that the reading fluency variable was
most clearly different from the other academic variable with respect to the identification of HA group membership in this sample of
autistic children.

3.3. Academic achievement group differences

Clusters were examined to determine if they differed on demographic characteristics such as age, grade, time spent in general
education, and whether individuals had an Individualized Education Program (IEP). There was no difference between the HA (M =
11.74 years, SD = 2.12) and LA groups (M = 11.16, SD = 2.19) on reported age, t(76) = -1.08, p > .05; d = -0.27, or grade level, W =
512, p > .05. Similarly, there was no difference in parent reported IEP status between the groups, χ2 (1, N = 78) = 5.52, p > .05.
However, groups differed on time spent in general education, W = 829, p < .01, and classroom placement, χ2 (1, N = 77) = 9.79, p =
.04. Most of the children in the HA group were placed in general education classrooms without an educational aide (n = 17) for 80% or
more their school day (n = 21). See Table 1b for more information on educational placements. Although data were missing for 18
participants (9 per group), analyses indicated that parents reported more children in the LA group (n = 19) were prescribed psychiatric
medication, than the HA group (n = 1), χ2 (1, N = 60) = 4.20, p = .04.
Group comparisons indicated an effect for WASI IQ scores. The HA group demonstrated higher FIQ scores (M = 110.87, SD = 13.22)
than the LA group (M = 95.87, SD = 12.46), t(76) = -4.76, p < .001; d = -1.17. Thirteen (23.6%) of the children in the LA group had IQs
in the borderline range (76–84), as did one student in the HA group. However, IQ differences alone did not account for cluster group
differences in academic achievement. A 2 (LA, HA Groups) X 4 (Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Numerical Operations,
Problem Solving) MANCOVA controlling for FIQ revealed that the main effect for cluster grouping remained significant after con­
trolling for group differences in IQ, Wilk’s Lambda = .44, F (4, 72) = 22.64, p < .001, ηp2 = .56.
To further characterize the factors that influence academic achievement in the LA and HA groups difference scores were calculated
between FIQ and the four academic achievement variables. As depicted in Fig. 2, only the deviance scores for fluency in the HA group
were significantly different from zero, t(22) = 2.13, p < .05; d = 0.44. However, the HA group’s deviance scores for fluency were not
greater than 1 standard deviation above the mean, t(22) = -2.54, p > .05; d = -0.52. This suggests that, for most academic variables,
participants in both groups are performing at academic levels consistent with their IQs.
The LA and HA cluster groups did not differ on parent reported symptoms of ASD, as measured by the SCQ, SRS, or ASSQ, ps > .05,
and did not differ on social communication or RRB measures of the ADOS-2 (ps > .05). Groups also did not differ on measures of
inattention, hyperactivity, or executive functions on the Conners-3 (ps > .05). However, consistent with the achievement data, parents
of children in the LA reported more learning problems (M = 66.41, SD = 12.74) on the Conners-3, than the HA group (M = 56.61, SD =
7.56), t(75) = 3.43, p < .001; d = 0.95. A non-parametric analysis indicated that parent reports resulted in a significantly higher

Table 3
Logistic regression classifications for academic achievement variables.
Lower Average Higher Average Correctly Classified Specificity Sensitivity

Fluency 52 26 93.60% 92.70 % 95.70%

Comprehension 63 15 82.10% 94.50 % 52.20%
Numerical Operations 69 9 71.80% 21.70 % 92.70%
Problem Solving 61 17 76.90% 89.10 % 47.8%

7
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

Fig. 2. IQ and Academic Achievement difference scores depicted as z-scores. Groups differed on IQ discrepancy on Fluency, t(78) = -2.64, p < .001.
Only the Higher Average group Fluency discrepancy significantly differed from zero, t(22) = 2.13, p < .05.

proportion of the LA academic subgroup with learning problem T-scores above 70 and in the clinical range (41%) than the HA group
(4.3%), χ2 (1, N = 78) = 8.53, p < .01. Despite similar Conners 3 scores, subgroups differed on the number of individuals diagnosed
with ADHD, χ2(1, N = 78) = 4.84, p = .03. The LA group had more children with a reported diagnosis of ADHD (n = 20) than the HA
group (n = 2).
Next, cluster group differences in working memory, inferential thinking, and Theory of Mind (ToM) were also examined. Overall,
the HA group showed higher performance on all working memory measures than the lower group. The HA group had higher scores on
symbolic working memory (M = 12.13, SD = 3.38) than the LA group (M = 8.51, SD = 3.06), t(76) = -4.62, p < .001; d = -1.12. The HA
group also demonstrated higher scores on verbal working memory (M = 10.30, SD = 2.14) than the LA group (M = 8.20, SD = 2.37), t
(76) = -3.78, p < .001; d = -.93. Lastly, the HA group also demonstrated higher scores on story memory (M = 9.43, SD = 2.29) than the
LA group (M = 7.27, SD = 3.49), t(76) = -2.73, p < .01; d = -0.73. The groups did not differ on inferential thinking as measured by the
QRI (p > .05) or ToM, as measured by silent films (p > .05). However, the HA group displayed an advantage relative to the LA group on
the strange stories measure of ToM that approached significance, t(66) = -1.93, p = 0.06; d = -0.56.
These analyses indicated that the academic achievement subgroups differed on both measures of IQ and working memory. A lo­
gistic regression model was examined to estimate the contribution of each domain-general cognitive measure, full scale IQ, and
WRAML-working memory index, in differentiating group membership. Both IQ and working memory (p < .05) made comparable and
unique contributions to the model, χ2 (2, N = 77) = 24.26, p < .001. Interesting, like all the achievement variables except fluency, the
combination of IQ and working memory were better at correctly identifying children in the LA subgroup (89%) than in the HA
subgroup (39%).
To understand if a specific type of working memory contributed to identification of group membership additional logistic
regression models were examined. The working memory measure did not contribute in models of FIQ and verbal working memory or
story memory. However, both FIQ, p < .03 and symbolic working memory p < .04 contributed to a significant logistic regression
model, χ2 (2, N = 77) = 24.70, p < .001, that correctly identified 89% of the LA group members and 56.5% of the HA group members.
These findings are consistent with previous studies that observed working memory as an important variable in distinguishing cluster
group memberships (Chen et al., 2018).

Table 4
Correlations of Cognitive Variables, IQ, and Academic Achievement in the Lower Average and Higher Average Groups.
Lower Average Group

FIQ Numerical Operations Problem Solving Fluency Reading Comprehension

Symbolic WM .55** .32* .40** .19 .21

Verbal WM .50** .25 .35** .29* .45**
Story Memory .44** .23 .45** .26 .54**
Silent Films .27 .16 .25 .23 .43**
Strange Stories .52** .04 .26 .39** .61**
Inferential Thinking .34* − .03 .20 .36* .52**

Higher Average Group

FIQ Numerical Operations Problem Solving Fluency Reading Comprehension

Symbolic WM .40 .46* .51* .14 − .07

Verbal WM .50* .01 .08 .30 .18
Story Memory .10 .08 .13 .05 .29
Silent Films .46 .19 .16 .27 .65**
Strange Stories .71** .13 .02 .39 .58*
Inferential Thinking .27 − .02 .03 − .23 .48*

Note. * p <.05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

8
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

3.4. Cognitive factors associated with achievement in LA and HA subgroups

The final step in the analyses was to assess the relations of cognitive variables and academic achievement within each of the ac­
ademic cluster subgroups. Pearson correlations were conducted between the three working memory measures, two theory of mind
measures, implicit thinking measure, full-scale IQ, and the four academic achievement variables separately for each cluster group
(Table 4). Since there was considerable covariance among the cognitive variables, regression analyses were conducted for the com­
bination of variables that had significant zero order correlations to determine which variables accounted for unique variance in the
academic achievement variables in each subgroup in this study.

3.4.1. Lower average group

None of the cognitive variables contribute significantly to Numerical Operations above and beyond variance accounted for by FIQ,
R2 = .24, adjusted R2 = .23, F (2, 52) = 8.78, p < .001. However, regression analyses indicated that both story memory and IQ
contributed to the explanation of variance in problem solving within the LA subgroup, R2 = .51, adjusted R2 = .45, F (6, 48) = 8.46, p <
.001. Full-scale IQ and story memory contributed unique variance to the model.
The verbal working memory and the strange stories ToM measure were correlated with reading fluency in the LA subgroup but on
the latter contributed unique variance in the regression model for reading fluency, R2 = .16, adjusted R2 = .13, F (1, 52) = 5.04, p < .01.
Alternatively, strange stories, verbal WM, and inferential thinking each contributed unique variance in the regression model for
reading comprehension, R2 = .57, adjusted R2 = .53, F (5, 49) = 13.17, p < .001.

3.4.2. Higher average group

In the HA group, only symbolic working memory was associated with numerical operations (see Table 4), so a regression was not
computed. Alternatively, both IQ and symbolic working memory contributed to the variance in problem solving in HA subgroup, R2 =
.37, adjusted R2 = .31, F (2, 20) = 5.85, p < .01.
There were no significant correlations for fluency in the HA group, so a regression was not computed. However, regression analyses
indicated that IQ and the silent films ToM measures combined to explain a significant portion of the variance in reading compre­
hension, R2 = .44, adjusted R2 = .38, F (2, 20) = 7.90, p < .01.

4. Discussion

AutisticWoID children spend significant amounts of time in general education classrooms (Hussar et al., 2020). Much of the literature
on inclusion for these children focuses on evidence of the utility of behavioral and social supports (Lauderdale-Littin, Howell, &
Blacher, 2013). However, in order to provide an appropriate education that best promotes academic achievement in autisticWoID
children, more information on the factors related to individual differences in academic achievement is required (Jones et al., 2009,
Chen et al., 2018; Estes et al., 2011; Gillberg & Coleman, 2000; Wei et al., 2015). This study provided several observations that inform
the current understanding of the academic needs of autisticWoID children.
This study revealed two distinct academic subgroups of children. Most of the children (71 %) were characterized by normative
levels of calculation and low-average problem solving math abilities but reading abilities that were one standard deviation below the
standardized mean. This group is similar to previously identified “hypercalculia” groups (Estes et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2009; Wei
et al., 2015) that also demonstrated relatively high levels of achievement on math calculation compared to math problem solving and
reading abilities. This pattern is consistent with the literature on academic achievement in autisticWoID students. In terms of math,
other studies indicate that autisticWoID children may show normative levels of calculation but struggle with problem solving (Chiang &
Lin, 2007). The developmental disjunction of math calculation and problem solving is important to recognize. Some autisticWoID
children may first appear to excel in math due to a focus on the development of calculation skill in early grades. Subsequently, without
preemptive curricular support, they may fall behind as math instruction shifts to address more abstract, symbolic, and conceptual
aspects of mathematics (Whitby & Mancil, 2009). Also, intervention for later onset math difficulties may be complicated by the
negative attributions of students, teachers, or parents regarding this change in the pattern of academic achievement.
Evidence also indicated that autisticWoID students in regular education are also at risk for reading comprehension problems (Brown
et al., 2013; Nation et al., 2006; McIntyre, Solari, Gonzales et al., 2017, McIntyre, Solari, Grimm et al., 2017). This may not be sur­
prising since risk for reading comprehension difficulty is related to the core social-communication, referential-communication, and
social cognitive characteristics of autism (McIntyre, Solari, Gonzales et al., 2017, McIntyre, Solari, Grimm et al., 2017; McIntyre et al.,
2018; Norbury & Nation, 2011; Randi, Newman, & Grigorenko, 2010). The data here suggest that math and reading problems co-occur
in a substantial subset of autisticWoID children and that risk for achievement difficulties in both academic domains should be antici­
pated, evaluated, and considered in planning for appropriate supports in general education.
The second HA subgroup comprised 29% of the sample and was characterized by above-average calculation and problem solving
abilities and average reading fluency and reading comprehension. Parents reported significantly fewer learning problems than the LA
group, providing convergent validity of the identification of this subgroup. Alternatively, there was not a difference in parent report of
children with IEP between groups. This may be because IEPs address behavior, as well as academic issues.
Not surprisingly, IQ distinguished the academic achievement subgroups. The higher average group had an average full-scale IQ of
110.87, whereas the lower average group had an average IQ of 95.87. This finding is consistent with the observations of Ashburner
et al. (2010); Barnhill et al. (2000), and Chen et al. (2018) regarding the academic struggles of average to low-average IQ subgroups of
autistic children in general education. However, the data indicated that IQ did not fully account for subgroup membership. The

9
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

academic subgroups groups differed on working memory measures and these were associated with group membership
above-and-beyond variance in IQ. The results also indicated a marginal academic subgroup difference on a social-cognitive ToM
measure. Furthermore, analyses of the cognitive correlates of academic achievement indicates a pattern of independent contributions
of IQ, working memory, inferential thinking, and social cognition to individual differences in academic achievement, especially within
the LA subgroup. Problems with social cognition and a higher order language and inferencing are central to the cognitive phenotype of
autism (Baron-Cohen & Hammer, 1997; Norbury & Nation, 2011; Jolliffe & Baron-Cohen, 1999). Problems with working memory,
while not specific to autism can moderate learning problems in affected children (Calhoun et al., 2020). Hence, it is possible if not
likely that complex interactions between the cognitive phenotype of autism and domain-general aspects of cognition reflected in IQ
and working memory measures may exits and be important to understand in advancing education for autisticWoID students. The work
of Calhoun et al. (2020) who observed that working memory was related to learning problems in autisticWoID students who had
significant sleep disturbance, but not in students without sleep disturbance illustrates this possibility.
Thus, research to more precisely delineate the cognitive factors that relate academic achievement in autisticWoID children is
required. Nevertheless, the results of this study raise the immediate, practical implication that a careful assessment of cognitive
abilities, that includes but also goes beyond IQ measures, may be useful in educational planning for autisticWoID students. One issue
here is the number of autisticWoID children with borderline IQs (i.e., between 70–85). Approximately 12% of all students in school are
in the borderline range of IQ (Emerson et al., 2009). In this study, about 24% of the LA group of children had IQs in the borderline
range and indeed, approximately 24% of all second grade autistic children in the United States are functioning in the borderline range
of IQ (Maenner et al., 2020). This study did not find evidence that participants performed discrepant from their IQ level, as some
previous research has noted (Chen et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2009). However, borderline IQ scores have been associated with differ­
ences in memory, executive functions, and learning (Stefanelli & Alloway, 2020). Moreover, these children benefit substantially from
general education, but may require screening to identify strengths and weaknesses and extra supports, especially with regard to
working memory difficulties, to improve response to instruction (Alloway, 2010; Peltopuro, Ahonen, Kaartinen, Seppälä, & Närhi,
2014). In this study, 55% (N = 30) of the individuals in the LA group spent 80% or more of their day in general education classrooms
and parents reported that 19 of their children were placed in general education classrooms and an additional 15 were placed in general
education classrooms and received the help of an instructional aide. This suggests that a large proportion of individuals with these
differences in learning abilities are already spending their time in general education classrooms. Thus, there is a need to anticipate
significant heterogeneity in the learning abilities of autisticWoID students in order to provide them with the best supports for learning.
Differences in classroom placements were observed between the LA and HA groups. Participants in the HA cluster were more likely
to be placed in general education and thus, were more likely to spend 80% or more of their school days in a general education
classroom. Further, although 61% of the students in the LA group also spent most all of their day in general education, several members
in this group were placed in non-general education classrooms (n = 21) and many spent less than half of their day in general education
placements (n = 16; Table 1b). These data are similar to previous observations (White, Scahill, Klin, Koenig, & Volkmar, 2007) and
indicate that students autism with differing typical IQ status, working memory, and academic abilities may be referred to different
services. However, it is not clear if the teaching methods and curriculums in each placement are well enough informed to meet the
needs of these students, especially those attending regular education placements. Previous cluster analyses of academic abilities have
not provided data on their samples’ classroom placements or time spent in general education to our knowledge. Understanding the
factors associated with different educational placements, and the responses of these students to differing education placements may be
a priority for future research.
Finally, the observation of the robust differences in reading fluency across the academic subgroup differences was unexpected but
may also be informative. Reading fluency, or the combined measurement of speed and accuracy in passage reading, is pivotal to
reading comprehension in typical development and in autism (Kim, 2015; Klauda & Guthrie, 2008; Solari et al., 2017). In this study,
differences in reading fluency were the only achievement measure that was not correlated with IQ in either academic achievement
group. Rather, poorer reading fluency may be a marker of structural language development differences among more effortful for these
children (Solari et al., 2017). This may affect achievement across academic content areas. The literature also suggests that reading
fluency may involve executive functions (Horowitz-Kraus, 2016) or interact with executive functions (Meiri, Levinson, & Hor­
owitz-Kraus, 2019) in its relations with academic achievement. A third perspective suggests that fluency reflects the subjective
experience of ease or difficulty associated with completing a mental task (Oppenheimer, 2008). That subjective awareness can affect
task attention and the cognitive strategies and operations an individual uses to complete a task. Hence, the self-appraisal and history of
accomplishment with a task may impact fluency. All of these possibilities may warrant examination because of the specificity of
reading fluency for identifying children in the HA academic subgroup observed in this study. That is to say, reading fluency may reflect
a number of factors that should be examined more precisely in future attempts to understand the factors associated with better ac­
ademic outcomes among children with ASD.

5. Study limitations

The sample size and composition was one limitation in the study design. Participants in this study were a majority White (65%) and
male (80%). The limited sample composition of this study can only provide information on a small portion of the autistic population.
Further research should aim to recruit from a broader range of socioeconomic status, as well as racial/ethnic and gender identities.
Additionally, while other studies of academic subgroups have used larger samples, future research on academic subgroups should
continue to use large samples and continue to investigate a larger range of cognitive variables. It is also unclear if these subgroups
remain stable over time or if these groups could change over time after the implementation of educational supports. Thus, a

10
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

longitudinal study of academic subgroups and the effect of educational supports would greatly improve our understanding of autistic
students’ learning.
Another limitation of this study and research on academic development in autism in general is that measurement variance may
contribute to differences across studies. For example, although the data in this study was consistent with the two academic subgroups
identified in the Chen et al. (2018) report, the data were not consistent with the four subgroups identified in the Wei et al. (2015) study.
Differences across studies can result from many studies including sample and measurement differences. Wei et al. (2015) used a
sentence closure reading comprehensions paradigm, where the GORT measure used here involves a passage reading paradigm.
Different reading achievement paradigms provide distinctively different types of information (Keenan, Betjemann, & Olson, 2008) as
do different math achievement measures such as the WIAT-III versus more recently developed measures such as the Feifer Assessment
of Mathematics (Fiefer & Clark, 2016), which may tap into number sense abilities in addition to mathematics, or the KeyMath-3
(Connolly, 2007). Given the great variety of measures available, it is likely that measurement differences will persist across future
studies. However, this means that comparative differences across studies will need to be interpreted cautiously.
Finally, this study examined some of the cognitive correlates of individual differences of achievement in autisticWoID children. The
research was not designed to test specific hypotheses about these factors with a rigorous and differentiated battery of language,
cognitive and/or executive function measures. Nevertheless, this observational study has contributed data that raise several hy­
potheses. This study along with many others provide a foundation for large sample, hypothesis-driven studies that will be better able to
move toward informing the educational practices necessary to provide all autistic children the most affective and appropriate edu­
cation possible.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jennifer C. Bullen: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization.
Matthew C. Zajic: Methodology, Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Nancy McIntyre: Methodology, Investigation, Writing -
review & editing. Emily Solari: Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Peter Mundy: Methodology, Supervision, Funding
acquisition, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Institute of Educational Sciences (R324A120168) and the UC Davis Department of Psychiatry Lisa
Capps Endowment for Research on Education and Neurodevelopmental Disorders. We are grateful for the time and dedication of our
participating families.

References

Alloway, T. P. (2010). Working memory and executive function profiles of individuals with borderline intellectual functioning. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 54(5), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01281.x
Ashburner, J., Ziviani, J., & Rodger, S. (2010). Surviving in the mainstream: Capacity of children with autism spectrum disorders to perform academically and
regulate their emotions and behavior at school. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2009.07.002
Barnhill, G., Hagiwara, T., Myles, B. S., & Simpson, R. L. (2000). Asperger syndrome: A study of the cognitive profiles of 37 children and adolescents. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15(3), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760001500303
Baron-Cohen, S., & Hammer, J. (1997). Parents of children with Asperger syndrome: what is the cognitive phenotype? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(4),
548–554. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1997.9.4.548
Bullen, J. C., Swain Lerro, L., Zajic, M., McIntyre, N., & Mundy, P. (2020). A developmental study of mathematics in children with autism Spectrum disorder,
symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or typical development. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-
020-04500-9
Calhoun, S. L., Pearl, A. M., Fernandez-Mendoza, J., Durica, K. C., Mayes, S. D., & Murray, M. J. (2020). Sleep disturbances increase the impact of working memory
deficits on learning problems in adolescents with high-functioning Autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(5), 1701–1713.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03928-y
Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V., & Maintainer, A. N. (2015). Package “NbClust” title determining the best number of clusters in a data set depends r (&= 3.1.0).
Chen, L., Abrams, D. A., Rosenberg-lee, M., Iuculano, T., Wakeman, H. N., Prathap, S., … Menon, V. (2018). Quantitative analysis of heterogeneity in academic
achievement of children with autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618809353
Chiang, H. M., & Lin, Y. H. (2007). Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism: A review of literature. Autism, 11(6),
547–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361307083259
Conners, K. C. (2008). Conners (3rd edition). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Connolly, A. J. (2007). KeyMath-3 diagnostic assessment. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2005). SRS: Social responsiveness scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Conway, A., Kane, M., & Engle, R. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(12), 547–552. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.005
Davidson, M. M., Kaushanskaya, M., & Weismer, S. E. (2018). Reading comprehension in children with and without ASD: The role of word reading, oral language, and
working memory. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(10), 3524–3541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3617-7
Devine, R. T., & Hughes, C. (2013). Silent films and strange stories: Theory of mind, gender, and social experiences in middle childhood. Child Development, 84(3),
989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12017

11
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

Ehlers, S., Gillberg, C., & Wing, L. (1999). A screening questionnaire for Asperger syndrome and other high-functioning autism spectrum disorders in school age
children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023040610384
Elbro, C., & Buch-Iversen, I. (2013). Activation of background knowledge for inference making: Effects on reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(6),
435–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.774005
Emerson, Eric, Madden, Ros, Robertson, Janet, Graham, Hilary, Hatton, Chris, & Llewellyn, Gwynnyth (2009). Intellectual and physical disability, social mobility,
social inclusion, and health. Centre for Disability Research.
Estes, A., Rivera, V., Bryan, M., Cali, P., & Dawson, G. (2011). Discrepancies between academic achievement and intellectual ability in higher-functioning school-aged
children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(8), 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1127-3
Fiefer, S. G., & Clark, H. K. (2016). Fiefer assessment of mathematics. Lutz, FL: PAR.
Gillberg, C., & Coleman, M. (2000). The biology of the autistic syndromes. Cambridge University Press.
Gotham, K., Risi, S., Pickles, A., & Lord, C. (2007). The autism diagnostic observation schedule: Revised algorithms for improved diagnostic validity. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), 613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0280-1
Griswold, D. E., Barnhill, G. P., Smith Myles, B., Hagiwara, T., & Simpson, R. (2002). Asperger syndrome and academic achievement. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 17, 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576020170020401
Happé, F. G. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal
children and adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(2), 129–154.
Horowitz-Kraus, T. (2016). The role of executive functions in the reading process. In A. Khateb, & I. Bar-Kochva (Eds.), Reading fluency. Literacy studies (perspectives
from cognitive neurosciences, linguistics, psychology and education) (vol 12). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30478-6_4.
Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., … Dilig, R. (2020). The condition of education 2020. NCES 2020-144. National Center for Education
Statistics.
Jolliffe, T., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). A test of central coherence theory: linguistic processing in high-functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome: is local
coherence impaired? Cognition, 71(2), 149–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00022-0
Jones, C. R. G., Happé, F., Golden, H., Marsden, A. J. S., Tregay, J., Simonoff, E., … Charman, T. (2009). Reading and arithmetic in adolescents with autism Spectrum
disorders: Peaks and dips in attainment. Neuropsychology, 23(6), 718–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016360
Kao, G. S., & Thomas, H. M. (2010). Test review: C. Keith Conners “Conners 3rd edition” Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-health systems, 2008. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(6), 598–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909360011
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral
comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279
Kim, Y. S. G. (2015). Developmental, component-based model of reading fluency: An investigation of predictors of word-reading fluency, text-reading fluency, and
reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.107
Kim, S. H., Macari, S., Koller, J., & Chawarska, K. (2016). Examining the phenotypic heterogeneity of early autism spectrum disorder: Subtypes and short-term
outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12448
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2),
310–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310
Lauderdale-Littin, S., Howell, E., & Blacher, J. (2013). Educational placement for children with autism spectrum disorders in public and non-public school settings:
The impact of social skills and behavior problems. Education and training in autism and developmental disabilities (pp. 469–478).
Lecce, S., Zocchi, S., Pagnin, A., Palladino, P., & Taumoepeau, M. (2010). Reading minds: The relation between children’s mental state knowledge and their
metaknowledge about reading. Child Development, 81(6), 1876–1893. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01516.x
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lockl, K., Ebert, S., & Weinert, S. (2017). Predicting school achievement from early theory of mind: Differential effects on achievement tests and teacher ratings.
Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.007
Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P., Risi, S., Gotham, K., & Bishop, S. (2012). Autism diagnostic observation schedule (2nd ed.). Torrance, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Maenner, M. J., Shaw, K. A., Baio, J., et al. (2020). Prevalence of autism Spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years — Autism and developmental disabilities
monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries (Washington, DC : 2002), 69(No. SS-4), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6904a1
Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2008). WISC-IV and WIAT-II profiles in children with high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(3),
428–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0410-4
McCrimmon, A. W., & Smith, A. D. (2012). Review of the wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence–Second edition (WASI-II). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
31(3), 337–341.
McIntyre, N. S., Oswald, T. M., Solari, E. J., Zajic, M. C., Lerro, L. E., Hughes, C., … Mundy, P. C. (2018). Social cognition and reading comprehension in children and
adolescents with autism spectrum disorders or typical development. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 54(August 2017), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rasd.2018.06.004
McIntyre, N. S., Solari, E. J., Gonzales, J. E., Solomon, M., Lerro, L. E., Novotny, S., … Mundy, P. C. (2017). The scope and nature of reading comprehension
impairments in school-aged children with higher-functioning autism Spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(9), 2838–2860. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3209-y
McIntyre, N. S., Solari, E. J., Grimm, R. P., Lerro, L. E., Gonzales, J., & Mundy, P. C. (2017). A comprehensive examination of reading heterogeneity in students with
high functioning autism: Distinct reading profiles and their relation to autism symptom severity. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(4), 1086–1101.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3029-0
Meiri, R., Levinson, O., & Horowitz-Kraus, T. (2019). Altered association between executive functions and reading and math fluency tasks in children with reading
difficulties compared with typical readers. Dyslexia, 25(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1624
Norbury, C., & Nation, K. (2011). Understanding variability in reading comprehension in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: Interactions with language
status and decoding skill. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(3), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888431003623553
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.014
Pellicano, E. (2010). Individual differences in executive function and central coherence predict developmental changes in theory of mind in autism. Developmental
Psychology, 46(2), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018287
Peltopuro, M., Ahonen, T., Kaartinen, J., Seppälä, H., & Närhi, V. (2014). Borderline intellectual functioning: A systematic literature review. Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 52(6), 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.6.419
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, 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0938-6
Ricketts, J., Jones, C. R. G., Happé, F., & Charman, T. (2013). Reading comprehension in autism spectrum disorders: The role of oral language and social functioning.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(4), 807–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1619-4
Rutter, M., Bailey, A., & Lord, C. (2003). Manual for the social communication questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Sheslow, D., & Adams, W. (2003). Wide range assessment of memory and learning–Second edition (WRAML2). Delaware: Wide range Inc.
Solari, E. J., Grimm, R., Mcintyre, N. S., Lerro, L. S., Zajic, M., & Mundy, P. C. (2017). The relation between text reading fluency and reading comprehension for students
with autism spectrum disorders, 42(June) (pp. 8–19). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2017.07.002.
Stefanelli, S., & Alloway, T. P. (2020). Mathematical skills and working memory profile of children with borderline intellectual functioning. Journal of Intellectual
Disabilities, 24(3), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629518821251

12
J.C. Bullen et al. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 92 (2022) 101933

Stevens, T., Peng, L., & Barnard-Brak, L. (2016). The comorbidity of ADHD in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders,
31, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2016.07.003
Tirado, M. J., & Saldaña, D. (2016). Readers with autism can produce inferences, but they cannot answer inferential questions. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 46(3), 1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2648-6
Toll, S. W. M., van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., & van Luit, J. E. H. (2011). Executive functions as predictors of math learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 44(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410387302
Vaughan-Jensen, J., Adame, C., McLean, L., & Gámez, B. (2011). Test review: D. Wechsler Wechsler individual achievement test. San Antonio, TX: Pearson, 2009.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(3), 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910385645
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, (WIAT-III) (3rd ed.). London: The Psychological Corporation.
Wei, X., Christiano, E. R. A., Yu, J. W., Wagner, M., & Spiker, D. (2015). Reading and math achievement profiles and longitudinal growth trajectories of children with
an autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 19(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/136236131351654
Whitby, P. J. S., & Mancil, G. R. (2009). Academic achievement profiles of children with high functioning autism and Asperger syndrome: A review of the literature.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(4), 551–560.
White, Susan Williams, Scahill, Lawrence, Klin, Ami, Koenig, Kathleen, & Volkmar, Fred R (2007). Educational Placements and Service Use Patterns of Individuals
with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(8), 1403–1412.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray oral reading tests—Fifth edition (GORT-5). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

13