Effectiveness of Direct
Instruction for Teaching
Statement Inference, Use of
Facts, and Analogies to Students
With Developmental Disabilities
and Reading Delays
Margaret Munro Flores and Jennifer B. Ganz
This study investigated the effects of a Direct Instruction (DI)
reading comprehension program implemented with students
who had developmental disabilities, including autism spectrum
disorders (ASD) and reading delays. There is little research in
the area of reading comprehension for students with ASD and
no research as to the effectiveness of reading comprehension
DI. A multiple-probe-across-behaviors design was employed. A
functional relationship between Direct Instruction and reading
comprehension skills and behaviors was demonstrated across
all behavioral conditions and across students. Results and their
implications are discussed.
I
ndividuals with developmental disabilities often have diffi-
culty comprehending text. Developmental disabilities (DD)
include mental retardation, attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Kan-
ner (1943) initially observed difficulties in reading compre-
hension and coherence in individuals with autism spectrum
disorders. Only a few studies, however, have investigated read-
ing proficiency in individuals with ASD. Recently, Nation,
Clarke, Wright, and Williams (2006) assessed a group of chil-
dren with ASD and discovered that many had delays in read-
ing decoding. Logically, those students must also have diffi-
culty with reading comprehension, which is a more complex
skill that incorporates reading decoding. However, it was strik-
ing that most of the students also had severe delays in reading
comprehension, including students who read words and por-
tions of texts accurately.
One component of reading comprehension is the ability to
access prior knowledge and integrate it into the current text
to enhance understanding. Wahlberg and Magliano (2004) in-
FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
VOLUME 22, NUMBER 4, WINTER 2007
PAGES 244–251
vestigated this ability in adults with high-functioning autism
and compared their performance to that of typically develop-
ing adults matched for IQ. The authors found that the par-
ticipants with autism had difficulty drawing on background
knowledge to comprehend vague texts. In particular, they
were less likely than their typically developing peers to use rel-
evant cues to assist in putting ambiguous texts into context.
They were, however, more able to make concrete connections
with the presence of a title along with an ambiguous text,
though their peers were able to make more global, abstract,
and correct connections than the participants with autism.
Some individuals with ASD do have comprehension skills at
levels expected for typically developing individuals of the same
intelligence. O’Connor and Hermelin (1994) studied the
reading abilities of two children with autism spectrum disor-
ders and normal IQs, finding that their comprehension was at
a level expected considering their mental ages; however, their
reading fluency, or speed, far exceeded that of peers matched
for chronological age.
Hyperlexia in Individuals With
ASD and DD
While there is not an exact, agreed-upon definition for hyper-
lexia, the term is generally used to refer to individuals who read
early (i.e., prior to school entry) and without explicit instruc-
tion (Snowling & Frith, 1986) and who have stronger word
recognition abilities than would be expected based on their in-
tellectual abilities (Silberberg & Silberberg, 1968). Many indi-
viduals with hyperlexia have a significant discrepancy between
their word-decoding abilities and their comprehension of sen-
 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 4, WINTER 2007
tences or passages (Snowling & Frith). Hyperlexia occurs in
some children with autism and some children with other
developmental delays, such as mental retardation. Craig and
Telfer (2005) recently described a child with pervasive devel-
opmental disorder–not otherwise specified, one of the disor-
ders under the ASD umbrella, who began reading before age
21⁄2 years and writing at age 18 months, before the develop-
ment of fluent oral language skills. By second grade, he dem-
onstrated advanced decoding skills and reading fluency (95th
and 84th percentiles, respectively) but delayed reading com-
prehension (16th percentile). Patti and Lupinetti (1993) de-
scribed an adult with autism and mental retardation (full scale
IQ = 49, mental age 6 years 3 months) who displayed hyper-
lexia, among other savant skills. The participant demonstrated
significantly higher word recognition abilities (grade equiva-
lent 6.2) than would be expected given her IQ but a significant
discrepancy between word recognition and reading compre-
hension (grade equivalent 2.2). Snowling and Frith studied
the reading abilities of typically developing children, children
with autism, and children with mental retardation. They found
that performance on reading comprehension tasks was related
to verbal ability. That is, children with mental retardation or
autism with verbal ability described as high considered context
when decoding homographs (words that are spelled the same
but pronounced differently according to context), recalled
more details from stories read, and were better able to make
connections to prior knowledge than the participants with ver-
bal ability described as low, despite surprisingly high perfor-
mance, or hyperlexia, on word decoding by this group. Happé
(1997) found that of 16 children with ASD, none was able to
use sentence context to decode homographs correctly, includ-
ing those with a range of verbal abilities and those with a range
of theory of mind abilities.
Reading Comprehension Instruction
Considering the dearth of research on reading comprehension
in individuals with ASD and DD and the indication from a few
studies that reading comprehension is often delayed in such
individuals, it is worth investigating strategies that most effec-
tively and efficiently affect such skills. O’Conner and Klein
(2004) implemented three reading strategies with 20 children
with ASD and found significant improvement in reading com-
prehension as a result of cuing students to determine referents
for pronouns but no significant improvement as the result of
using prereading questions or a cloze procedure. Other liter-
ature reporting systematic implementation of reading com-
prehension instruction with children with ASD could not be
located.
Nation and Norbury (2005) remarked that deficits in oral
language are a hallmark of ASD, which likely contributes to
impairments in reading comprehension. Further, Snowling
and Frith (1986) reported that students with ASD or MR with
245
low verbal abilities frequently performed poorly on assess-
ments of reading comprehension. Thus, it is logical that ap-
proaches that address reading comprehension first address
related oral language skills. Direct Instruction (DI) is one such
approach. DI reading comprehension programs have resulted
in improved reading comprehension when used with children
at risk for school failure (Carlson & Francis, 2002; Grossen,
2004), English language learners (Carlson & Francis), stu-
dents with reading disabilities or mental retardation (Carlson
& Francis), and children with epilepsy (Humphries, Neufeld,
Johnson, Engels, & McKay, 2005). DI has been used suc-
cessfully at a variety of ages, including early elementary (Carl-
son & Francis; Humphries et al.), late elementary (Humphries
et al.), and middle grades (Grossen, 2004; Humphries et al.).
Specifically, Direct Instruction programs have resulted in im-
provements in reading comprehension, resulting in 2 years of
improvement in a single year (Grossen, 2004) and enabling re-
cipients to demonstrate better comprehension skills than
matched peers who did not receive DI interventions (Carlson
& Francis).
Study Purpose
Nation and Norbury (2005) noted the need to investigate
individual components of reading comprehension that are
delayed in individuals with ASD in order to help develop in-
terventions to target these areas. The current study involved
(a) investigation of delays in components of reading compre-
hension in individuals with ASD and other DD who also had
reading delays and (b) implementation of components of Di-
rect Instruction to address these areas. The research study in-
vestigated the following: (a) the extent to which a DI program
could be implemented with students with ASD, DD, and read-
ing delays and (b) the effectiveness of a DI program with re-
gard to reading comprehension skills in the same students,
with specific reference to their progress in statement inference,
using facts, and analogies.
Method
Setting
The setting for this investigation was a private school for indi-
viduals with ASD and intellectual impairments. The school was
located on the campus of a small, accredited private school for
elementary and secondary students with high-incidence dis-
abilities. Two teachers, both of whom were state-certified
educators, participated. One of the teachers was also a board-
certified associate behavior analyst. The class consisted of 10
students, 5 of whom had ASD, 4 of whom had mental retar-
dation or developmental delays, and 1 of whom had attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
 FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
246

Participants
Four elementary students participated in the study. Their
background information is summarized in Table 1. All of the
students attended public schools prior to their enrollment in
the current private program and qualified for special education
based on federal guidelines.
Chris was a 14-year-old boy in the sixth grade with a di-
agnosis of autistic disorder. As a young child, Chris was diag-
nosed with autism based on an assessment conducted by his
pediatrician using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule
(Lord et al., 1989). Chris qualified for services in the public
schools under the category of autism. According to the
Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III), Chris’
performance in letter and word identification was within the
average range (standard score = 98), and his performance in
passage comprehension was significantly below average (stan-
dard score = 53).
Hali was an 11-year-old girl in the fifth grade. She had a
diagnosis of autistic disorder. As a toddler, Hali was evaluated
and diagnosed by a developmental pediatrician using the Pre-
Linguistic Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (DiLavore,
Lord, & Rutter, 1995). She qualified for special education ser-
vices in the public schools under the category of autism. Ac-
cording to the WJ-III, Hali’s performance in word and letter
identification was low average (standard score = 86), and her
performance in passage comprehension was significantly
below average (standard score = 67).
Jean was a 13-year-old girl in the fifth grade. Her intellec-
tual ability (IQ = 57) and adaptive behavior (standard score =
68), as measured by the classroom teacher’s ratings, were sig-
nificantly below average. When Jean attended public schools,
she qualified for special education services through the cate-
gories of mental retardation and other health impairment be-
cause of a medical diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. According to the WJ-III, Jean’s performance in both
word and letter identification and passage comprehension was
significantly below average (standard scores = 61 and 28, re-
spectively). Although Jean was not diagnosed with one of the
autism spectrum disorders, she was included in the study be-
cause she met the criteria for mental retardation and was
served through this category in the public schools. There is lit-
tle research in the area of reading comprehension intervention
for this population.
Sara was a 10-year-old girl in the fifth grade. Sara func-
tioned below the average range in intellectual ability (IQ = 75)
and adaptive behavior (standard score = 78) as measured by
the classroom teacher. When Sara attended public school, she
qualified for special education services under the category of
other health impairment because she had a medical diagnosis
of ADHD, which affected her academic performance. Ac-
cording to the WJ-III, Sara’s performance in word and letter
identification was low average (standard score = 89), and her
performance in passage comprehension was below average
(standard score = 84). Sara was included in the study because
she had a developmental disability (ADHD), she demon-
strated a delay in reading comprehension, and the classroom
teacher and researchers felt that she would benefit from the
intervention.
Materials
Reading comprehension instruction was provided using a Di-
rect Instruction program, Corrective Reading Thinking Basics:
Comprehension Level A (Engelmann, Haddox, Hanner, & Os-
born, 2002). The materials consisted of a scripted teacher
presentation book. To ensure efficient student learning, the pro-
gram is divided into strands of developing skills, and each les-
son consists of instruction in several strands. The researchers
chose three strands for this study: statement inference, using
facts, and analogies. These strands appear in successive order
within the program, with the statement inference strand be-
ginning with the first lesson. The researchers implemented in-
structional procedures and instructor behaviors as directed in the
manual. These procedures and behaviors consisted of (a) follow-
ing the given script, (b) choral student responses, (c) using a
clear signal to elicit student responses, (d) providing correction
procedures for incorrect responses or responses that were not
in unison, and (e) modeling skills, guiding students by respond-
ing with them, and asking students to respond independently.

TABLE 1
Description of Students
Reading achievement
Student Age Grade Exceptionality Cognitive ability (WJ-III)

Chris 14 6 Autism TONI IQ = 95 LW: SS = 98

PC: SS = 53
Hali 11 5 Autism TONI IQ = 87 LW: SS = 86
` PC: SS = 67
Jean 13 5 Mild mental retardation WASI IQ = 57 LW: SS = 61
PC: SS = 28
Sara 10 5 Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder WASI IQ = 75 LW: SS = 89
PC: SS = 84

Note. WJ=III = Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Achievement (Woodcock et al., 2001); TONI = Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (Brown et al., 1997); WASI =
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (Psychological Corp., 1999); LW = letter and word identification; PC = passage comprehension; SS = standard score.
 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 4, WINTER 2007
The researchers created the reading comprehension probes
according to the skills and behaviors included in the Di-
rect Instruction program. The probes consisted of 8-inch ×
11-inch (20-cm × 28-cm) sheets of paper with instructor
scripts for the given skill. For the statement inference probes,
the instructor read a statement and asked the student to repeat
the statement. The instructor then read a series of questions
related to the statement. The student responded to the ques-
tion by saying either the answer from the statement or, if the
statement did not provide enough information to answer the
question, “I don’t know.” An example of a statement is “The
noisy car drove past the school.” An example of a recall ques-
tion is “What kind of car drove past the school?” An example
of a question that could not be answered based on the infor-
mation in the statement is “When did the noisy car drive past
the school?” For the using facts probes, the instructor read two
facts to the student. The student was asked to repeat the facts.
The instructor then read a series of scenarios and asked the stu-
dent to tell which facts explained why certain events happened.
The student responded with the appropriate fact. Examples of
facts are “Wet floors are slippery” and “Driving fast causes ac-
cidents.” Examples of corresponding scenarios are “He slipped
in the hallway” and “Fred always drives the speed limit.” For
the analogy probes, the instructor read the first part of an anal-
ogy, and the student completed the last word. For example,
the instructor might read, “A rake is to leaves as a shovel is to
what?” The student would respond with “Dirt” (or any other
object or material that could be moved by a shovel).
Procedure
Instruction occurred for approximately 20 min per day during
regularly scheduled instructional time. One of the two re-
searchers carried out instruction in a group format. One day
per week, both researchers were present to verify treatment in-
tegrity, and the instructor role switched from week to week.
The first author provided instruction 3 or 4 days per week, and
the second author provided instruction 1 or 2 days per week.
The students received the same amount of instruction.
Baseline data were collected until each student demon-
strated a consistent performance across three consecutive data
points. Daily instruction began with statement inference and
continued until the students reached the criterion of three
consecutive probes at 100%. After students reached criterion,
statement inference instruction lessened to one or two times
per week, and using facts instruction began. The students had
difficulty remembering the facts that were read orally, so the
program was modified so that the facts were also presented in
written form with a picture cue. The students used the written
facts and picture cues to decide whether particular events within
orally read scenarios were caused by one of the facts. The pic-
ture cues were removed, leaving the written facts, and even-
tually the written facts were removed from instruction as well.
When all students reached the criterion of three consecu-
tive probes at 100% accuracy, instruction in using facts de-
creased to one or two times per week, and daily instruction in
247
analogies began. Daily instruction in analogies began with the
creation of analogies. First the researcher stated the relation-
ship, such as, “This analogy will tell what material objects are
made of.” The researcher named the objects, and the students
responded with the material of which each object was made.
Finally, the researcher and the students created the entire anal-
ogy and restated the relationship between the words in the
analogy. The steps in analogy instruction decreased progres-
sively so that the students created an analogy and recognized
the relationship with less guidance from the instructor.
The instructor followed the program’s prescribed scripts
for the particular behavior or skill (Engelmann et al., 2002).
This included modeling the particular skill for the students,
leading as the students demonstrated the skill or behavior, and
asking the students to perform the behavior independently
without the instructor. The students responded to questions
as a group. The instructor followed program procedures for
ensuring that the students responded together. The instructor
corrected errors in responses immediately by modeling the
correct response, leading the students in the correct response,
and asking the students to respond independently. The pro-
gram included instances when the students were asked ques-
tions individually, and these procedures were followed in those
instances as well.
The researchers administered probes individually prior to
daily instruction. There were multiple sets of probes that were
given in random order. In the interest of time, probes were
not administered to all students on the same day. Two students
completed a probe each day prior to instruction, for a total of
two or three probes per week per student.
Treatment Integrity and
Interobserver Agreement
The researchers carried out instruction according to a check-
list of teacher behaviors. These behaviors corresponded to the
procedures and behaviors prescribed by Engelmann et al.
(2002). Once per week, one of the researchers observed the
other researcher while she was providing instruction. Each of
the treatment integrity observations was carried out with 100%
accuracy. Approximately 60% of the instructional probes were
checked for interobserver agreement, which was calculated as
agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements multi-
plied by 100. Interobserver agreement was 98% for these
probes. By student, the agreements and disagreements were as
follows: (a) 25 agreements and 1 disagreement for Chris (96%
agreement), (b) 27 agreements and no disagreements for Hali
(100% agreement), (c) 25 agreements and 1 disagreement for
Jean (96% agreement), and (d) 27 agreements and no dis-
agreements for Sara (100% agreement).
Research Design
A multiple-probe-across-behaviors design was employed. The
behavioral conditions were statement inferences, using facts,
and analogies. Baseline data were collected for all four students
across all three conditions. When the data were stable across
 FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
248
three consecutive data points, Direct Instruction for statement
inference began. When all students reached the criterion for
this condition (three consecutive probes at 100%), Direct In-
struction for using facts began. When all of the students
reached criterion for this condition (three consecutive probes
at 100%), Direct Instruction for analogies began. Instruction
continued until the students reached criterion of three con-
secutive probes at 100% accuracy.
Results
Figures 1 through 4 present the percentage of correct answers
for reading comprehension probes for Chris, Hali, Jean, and
Sara. The x axis represents reading comprehension probes, and
the y axis represents the percentage of correct responses for
each reading comprehension probe.
Chris
Baseline. During baseline, Chris’ mean performance for
statement inference was 24%, and he performed at a consistent
level across three probes. His mean performance for using facts
was 0%, and he performed at a consistent level across three or
more data points. His mean performance for analogies was
30%. Although his performance decreased considerably from
the first data point to the second, the remaining data points
were fairly stable.
Statement Inference Condition. Chris’ mean perfor-
mance for the statement inference condition was 90%, with a
range of 58% through 100%. He reached criterion in eight
FIGURE 1. Percentage of correct responses on probes
across statement inference, using facts, and analogies con-
ditions for Chris.
probes, with no overlap between baseline and treatment.
Chris’ data showed an upward path. Chris maintained his per-
formance when the frequency of instruction decreased and
after 1 month of no instruction.
Using Facts Condition. Chris’ mean performance for
the using facts condition was 94%, with a range of 75%
through 100%. He reached criterion in five probes, with no
overlap between baseline and treatment. Chris’ data showed
an upward path. Chris maintained his performance when the
frequency of instruction decreased and after 1 month of no
instruction.
Analogies Condition. Chris’ mean performance for the
analogies condition was 90%, with a range of 60% through
100%. He reached criterion in six probes, with one overlap-
ping data point between baseline and treatment. Chris’ data
showed an upward path. Chris maintained his performance
when the frequency of instruction decreased and after 1 month
of no instruction.
Hali
Baseline. During baseline, Hali’s mean performance for
statement inference was 11%. Her mean performance for using
facts was 0%, and she performed at a consistent level across
three probes. Her mean performance for analogies was 23%,
with consistent performance across three or more data points.
Her performance for analogies was more variable than for the
other conditions, but it did not show an upward path, and
none of the data points was above 40% accuracy.
FIGURE 2. Percentage of correct responses on probes
across statement inference, using facts, and analogies con-
ditions for Hali.
 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 4, WINTER 2007
Statement Inference Condition. Hali’s mean perfor-
mance for the statement inference condition was 92%, with
a range of 67% through 100%. She reached criterion in six
probes, with no overlap between baseline and treatment.
Hali’s data showed an upward path. Hali maintained her per-
formance when the frequency of instruction decreased and
after 1 month of no instruction.
Using Facts Condition. Hali’s mean performance for the
using facts condition was 83%, with a range of 50% through
100%. She reached criterion in eight probes, with no over-
lap between baseline and treatment. Hali’s data showed an
upward path. Hali maintained her performance when the fre-
quency of instruction decreased and after 1 month of no
instruction.
Analogies Condition. Hali’s mean performance for the
analogies condition was 90%, with a range of 60% through
100%. She reached criterion in five probes, with no overlap be-
tween baseline and treatment. Hali’s data showed an upward
path. Hali maintained her performance when the frequency of
instruction decreased and after 1 month of no instruction.
Jean
Baseline. During baseline, Jean’s mean performance for
statement inference was 52%, and she performed at a consis-
tent level across three probes. Her mean performance for using
facts was 14%, with consistent performance across three probes.
Her mean performance for analogies was 23%. Although her
performance with respect to analogies was more variable than
FIGURE 3. Percentage of correct responses on probes
across statement inference, using facts, and analogies con-
ditions for Jean.
249
that of the other participants, Jean’s data points did not show
an upward path.
Statement Inference Condition. Jean’s mean perfor-
mance for the statement inference condition was 97%, with a
range of 83% through 100%. She reached criterion in five
probes, with no overlap between baseline and treatment.
Jean’s data showed an upward path. Jean maintained her per-
formance when the frequency of instruction decreased and
after 1 month of no instruction.
Using Facts Condition. Jean’s mean performance for the
using facts condition was 96%, with a range of 75% through
100%. She reached criterion in four probes, with no overlap
between baseline and treatment. Jean’s data showed an up-
ward path. Jean maintained her performance when the fre-
quency of instruction decreased and after 1 month of no
instruction.
Analogies Condition. Jean’s mean performance for the
using facts condition was 83%, with a range of 60% through
100%. She reached criterion in six probes, with no overlap be-
tween baseline and treatment. Jean’s data showed an upward
path. Jean maintained her performance when the frequency of
instruction decreased and after 1 month of no instruction.
Sara
Baseline Conditions. During baseline, Sara’s mean per-
formance for statement inference was 41%. Although her per-
FIGURE 4. Percentage of correct responses on probes
across statement inference, using facts, and analogies con-
ditions for Sara.
 FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
250
formance was not consistent across three probes, she did not
demonstrate a clear upward path, and none of the data points
was above 50%. Her mean performance for using facts was 0%,
and she performed at a consistent level across three or more
data points. Her mean performance for analogies was 28%.
Her performance for analogies was variable, but her data did
not show an upward path, and none of the data points was
above 40% accuracy.
Statement Inference Condition. Sara’s mean perfor-
mance for the statement inference condition was 93%, with a
range of 83% through 100%. She reached criterion in nine
probes, with no overlap between baseline and treatment. Sara’s
data showed an upward path. Sara maintained her perfor-
mance when the frequency of instruction decreased and after
1 month of no instruction.
Using Facts Condition. Sara’s mean performance for the
using facts condition was 91%, with a range of 50% through
100%. She reached criterion in eight probes, with no overlap
between baseline and treatment. Sara’s data showed an upward
path. Sara maintained her performance when the frequency of
instruction decreased and after 1 month of no instruction.
Analogies Condition. Sara’s mean performance for the
analogies condition was 96%, with a range of 80% through
100%. She reached criterion in four probes, with no overlap
between baseline and treatment. Sara’s data showed an upward
path. Sara maintained her performance when the frequency of
instruction decreased and after 1 month of no instruction.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness
of a Direct Instruction reading comprehension program for
students with developmental disabilities, including ASD. A
functional relationship between DI and reading comprehen-
sion skills was demonstrated. All four students met criterion
across the statement inference, using facts, and analogies con-
ditions. There was one overlapping data point across all stu-
dents and conditions. Furthermore, there was an immediate
and marked change in student performance between the base-
line and treatment conditions. All of the students maintained
their performance after reaching criterion and following the
end of instruction. All of the students maintained their per-
formance 1 month after all instruction ended.
The students successfully participated in the DI program
with only one modification, the addition of visual cues during
the using facts conditions. The students were engaged in in-
struction and participated in the form and at the pace pre-
scribed by the program. There were few off-task behaviors,
which is consistent with previous DI research (Grossen, 2002).
Study Limitations
One limitation of the study is that Direct Instruction was not
compared to another reading comprehension intervention.
Therefore, other interventions may be as effective or more ef-
fective, and further research using other designs is needed. An-
other limitation is external validity, the degree to which the
results can be generalized beyond the experimental conditions
(Kazdin, 1982). A small group of students who varied some-
what in intellectual ability and levels of reading achievement
demonstrated success with the program. However, more stu-
dents with varied levels of functioning are needed to general-
ize the results to larger populations. A third limitation is the
extent to which the results can be generalized to other re-
sponses. This study examined the effects of implementation of
a portion of a DI program. It is not known whether the same
results would occur across other portions or with a compre-
hensive implementation of the program. The generalization of
the results across settings is the fourth limitation of the cur-
rent study. This study was conducted in a small-group setting
within a private school. Although all of the students had pre-
viously attended public schools and qualified for special edu-
cation services, it is not known whether the same effects would
occur if implemented in a public school setting.
Another limitation of this study is the behavior change
agent (Kazdin, 1982). The primary researchers, rather than
the students’ teachers, delivered instruction. This study was an
initial investigation of the effectiveness of a DI reading com-
prehension program by the primary researchers. The first au-
thor was trained in DI methodology as a classroom teacher and
was certified as a trainer by the Association for Direct Instruc-
tion. This may have increased the treatment integrity. On the
other hand, the researcher’s presence may have influenced the
students’ performance by increasing their motivation to per-
form well for an outsider. Furthermore, the results may be less
practical or applicable because the classroom teacher did not
implement the program. In order for the classroom teacher to
provide effective implementation of the program, she would
need training in the methodology. Implementation of the pro-
gram by a teacher in a typical classroom would strengthen the
results. To bridge the gap between research and practice, ap-
propriately trained teachers should implement research proce-
dures in a typical classroom.
Implications and Future Research
There is little research in the area of reading comprehension
for students with developmental disabilities, including ASD.
Deficits in oral language (Nation & Norbury, 2005), drawing
on background knowledge (Wahlberg & Magliano, 2004),
and poor verbal abilities (Snowling & Frith, 1986) contribute
to deficits in reading comprehension. Engelmann et al. (2002)
included explicit instruction in these areas. The program
implemented in this study emphasizes oral language com-
prehension through thinking operations, such as analogies,
 VOLUME 22, NUMBER 4, WINTER 2007
providing evidence for beliefs or conclusions, classification, de-
ductions, description, inductions, meaning of opposites and
meaning of the same, statement inferences, and understand-
ing true and false. This program also teaches useful informa-
tion that increases students’ background knowledge. These are
all skills that researchers have identified as deficits for students
with ASD and DD.
This study showed a functional relationship between DI
and performance for all students across all conditions. Because
only a portion of the program was implemented, further re-
search is needed to investigate the effectiveness of other por-
tions of the program. In addition, research is needed regarding
the possible modifications or accommodations that may be
needed for students with ASD or DD. The probes used within
the study measured specific skills included in the program; fur-
ther research is needed to measure other aspects of reading
comprehension, such as passage comprehension across con-
tent areas. In addition, research is needed related to the effec-
tiveness and feasibility of a comprehensive implementation of
the program, and in particular regarding the ability of typical
classroom teachers to implement DI for reading comprehen-
sion with students with ASD and DD. A comprehensive im-
plementation of the program combined with curriculum-based
assessments may provide more information as to this inter-
vention’s benefits to students’ overall reading comprehension.
Three of the four students who participated in the study
demonstrated substantial differences between their reading
decoding and reading comprehension skills. This is one char-
acteristic of individuals with hyperlexia, which occurs in stu-
dents with ASD and DD (Craig & Telfer, 2005; Happé, 1997;
Silberberg & Silberberg, 1968; Snowling & Frith, 1986).
There is not enough evidence to suggest that the students in
this study demonstrate this condition; however, further re-
search is needed to investigate the effectiveness of a com-
prehensive implementation of a DI reading comprehension
program for individuals with hyperlexia. It is not known
whether students with these characteristics are more likely to
be successful with DI or whether other students with ASD or
DD whose reading decoding and comprehension abilities are
similarly deficient would be successful.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Margaret M. Flores, PhD, is an assistant professor of special education
at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research includes effec-
tive reading and mathematics methods and strategies for students with
disabilities. Jennifer B. Ganz, PhD, BCBA, is an associate professor of
special education at the University of Texas at San Antonio and is a
board-certified behavior analyst. Ganz has worked for 12 years as a gen-
eral and special education teacher and an educational consultant spe-
cializing in autism spectrum disorders. She conducts and publishes
research on interventions that address communication and social skills
deficits in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Address: Mar-
garet M. Flores, University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of
Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching, One UTSA Circle, San An-
tonio, TX 78249; e-mail: margaret.flores@utsa.edu.edu
251
REFERENCES
Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K. (1997). Test of non-
verbal intelligence (3rd ed.). Austin TX: PRO-ED.
Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D. J. (2002). Increasing the reading
achievement of at-risk children through direct instruction: Evalua-
tion of the Rodeo Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE). Jour-
nal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 141–166.
Craig, H. K., & Telfer, A. S. (2005). Hyperlexia and autism spectrum
disorder: A case study of scaffolding language growth over time.
Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 364–374.
DiLavore, P. C., Lord, C., & Rutter, M. (1995). The pre-linguistic
autism diagnostic observation schedule. Los Angeles: Western Psy-
chological Corp.
Engelmann, S., Haddox, P., Hanner, S., & Osborn, J. (2002). Cor-
rective reading thinking basics: Comprehension level A. Columbus,
OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Grossen, B. (2004). Success of a direct instruction model at a sec-
ondary level school with high-risk students. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 20, 161–178.
Grossen, B., J. (2002). The BIG accommodation model: The direct
instruction model for secondary schools. Journal of Education for
Students Placed At Risk, 7, 241–263.
Happé, F. G. E. (1997). Central coherence and theory of mind in
autism: Reading homographs in context. British Journal of Devel-
opmental Psychology, 15, 1–12.
Humphries, T., Neufeld, M., Johnson, C., Engels, K., & McKay, R.
(2005). A pilot study of the effect of direct instruction program-
ming on the academic performance of students with intractable
epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 6, 405–412.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous
Child, 2, 217–250.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical
and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press
Lord, C., Rutter, M., Goode, S., Heemsbergen, J., Jordan, H., Maw-
hood, L., et al. (1989). Autism diagnostic observation schedule. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Corp.
Nation, K., Clarke, P., Wright, B., & Williams, C. (2006). Patterns of
reading ability in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 911–919.
Nation, K., & Norbury, C. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension
fails: Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language
Disorders, 25, 21–32.
O’Conner, I. M., & Klein, P. D. (2004). Exploration of strategies for
facilitating the reading comprehension of high-functioning stu-
dents with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and De-
velopmental Disorders, 34, 115–127.
O’Connor, N., & Hermelin, B. (1994). Two autistic savant readers.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 501–515.
Patti, P. J., & Lupinetti, L. (1993). Brief report: Implications of hy-
perlexia in an autistic savant. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 23, 397–405.
Psychological Corporation. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of in-
telligence (WASI) [Manual]. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Silberberg, N. E., & Silberberg, M. D. (1968). Case histories in hy-
perlexia. Journal of School Psychology, 7, 3–7.
Snowling, M., & Frith, U. (1986). Comprehension in “hyperlexic”
readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 392–415.
Wahlberg, T., & Magliano, J. P. (2004). The ability of high func-
tioning individuals with autism to comprehend written discourse.
Discourse Processes, 38, 119–144.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-
Johnson III tests of achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.