Using Read-alouds of Grade-Level Biographies and Systematic Prompting to Promote ...

15 Pages·2012·0.53 MB·English

Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities
http://foa.sagepub.com/

Using Read-Alouds of Grade-Level Biographies and Systematic Prompting to Promote Comprehension
for Students With Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities
Pamela J. Mims, Melissa E. Hudson and Diane M. Browder
Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl 2012 27: 67
DOI: 10.1177/1088357612446859

The online version of this article can be found at:
http://foa.sagepub.com/content/27/2/67
Published by:
Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://foa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://foa.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Jun 14, 2012

What is This?
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
446859
m©Rsae sg2p ee0rpti1 nua2tbls .H.F caooancmmdu m/psj oeiolrunlmr InAinassusltstiiioPtsunemt:re m h aotnitnspds : DiO/o/iwntshsaw.ebnrwia lDi.vtieevselopmental Disabilities FOCUS27210.1177/1088357612446859Mi
Focus on Autism and Other
Using Read-Alouds of Grade-Level Developmental Disabilities
27(2) 67 –80
© 2012 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Biographies and Systematic Prompting Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
to Promote Comprehension for Students DOI: 10.1177/1088357612446859
http://focus.sagepub.com
With Moderate and Severe Developmental
Disabilities
Pamela J. Mims, PhD1, Melissa E. Hudson, PhD2, and Diane M. Browder, PhD2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a modified system of least intrusive prompts on text-dependent
listening comprehension for four middle-school-aged students with intellectual disability and autism during read-alouds of
adapted grade-level biographies. A system of least intrusive prompts was modified by inserting a rule for answering “Wh”
questions and an opportunity to hear sections of the biography again. The procedure was evaluated via a multiple probe
design across students. Outcomes indicate that all students improved listening comprehension after intervention and all
students maintained high levels of correct responding 2 weeks after intervention. In addition, three students generalized
skills to new biographies. The need for future research and implications for practice are discussed.
Keywords
shared story reading, read-alouds, biography, developmental disabilities, listening comprehension, literacy, intellectual dis-
ability, general curriculum access, adapted books, nonfiction literature, middle school
Even though access to the general curriculum has been (2003) found two paraprofessionals’ use of constant time
required for all students since the Individuals With Disabili- delay in science, German, and U.S. history classes promoted
ties Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, there con- learning of instructional targets drawn from the general edu-
tinue to be few studies in which researchers demonstrate cation curriculum (e.g., cooking symbols for bake, mix, stir;
how daily instruction can be linked to grade-level academic clothing necklines; definitions of terms from a science unit)
content standards for students with moderate and severe for students with moderate intellectual disability. Similarly,
developmental disabilities (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim- Polychronis, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen, and Jameson
Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008; Browder, Wakeman, (2004) found middle school general education teachers were
Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006). A lack of able to embed constant time-delay instruction with a focus
empirically supported models is especially critical given not only on basic skills like telling time and naming class-
that alternate assessments based on alternate achievement mates but also for some grade-appropriate geography con-
standards (AA-AAS) are required to be aligned with grade- tent (i.e., naming the capital cities of 20 states) for four
level standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). For students with developmental disabilities. Jimenez, Browder,
students to “show what they know” on state assessments and Courtade (2008) taught high school students with mod-
like the AA-AAS in academic content areas, models of erate developmental disabilities to use a nine-step algebra
effective teaching practices are needed. task analysis to solve functional math problems, and
Recently, researchers focusing on academic learning for
students with moderate and severe developmental disabili- 1East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, USA
ties have provided teachers with examples of ways to pro- 2University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
mote learning in the areas of reading, math, and science for
Corresponding Author:
students by extending well-known procedures like time
Pamela J. Mims, East Tennessee State University, 807 University Pkway.,
delay and task analysis to this new content. For example, 70548 Warf Pickel, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA
Riesen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, and Jameson Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
68 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(2)
Jimenez, Browder, and Courtade (2009) used multiple evaluated the effects of shared story reading on literacy for
exemplar training, time delay, and a graphic organizer (i.e., students with severe disabilities. Koppenhaver, Erickson,
Know, What, How, and Learn [KWHL] chart) to promote and Skotko (2001) found girls with Rett syndrome made
independent work during science inquiry lessons and gener- gains in early symbolic communication when they partici-
alization of learned skills to untrained materials for middle pated in shared story reading with their mothers. In addi-
school students with moderate intellectual disability. tion, Browder, Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Lee
Providing instruction on grade-level content to students (2008) found shared story reading increased the indepen-
who are nonreaders is challenging. Nearly all academic learn- dent responses of three students with profound disabilities
ing (e.g., math, science, social studies, language arts) and who had previously been unresponsive during reading
many daily tasks (e.g., following a recipe to cook, using a gro- instruction. Mims, Browder, Baker, Lee, and Spooner
cery list to shop for food) require individuals to derive mean- (2009) found shared story reading promoted listening com-
ing from text. Browder et al. (2009) described a conceptual prehension for two elementary students with significant
model for literacy in which students with moderate and severe intellectual disability and visual impairments. A limitation
developmental disabilities have opportunities to learn to read of these studies was the focus on foundational literacy skills
through intense, effective instruction as well as opportunities (Browder, Mims et al., 2008; Koppenhaver et al., 2001) and
to gain meaning from text through listening comprehension. comprehension at a literal recall level (Mims et al. 2009).
Many older students with severe developmental disabilities Mims, Browder, and Spooner (2010) extended the litera-
have not had reading instruction and need to access content ture by investigating the effects of a modified system of
other ways. Even if students are readers, some upper grade least prompts on text-dependent listening comprehension
content may be beyond their reading level. One way to beyond literal recall. In the study, four elementary students
actively engage nonreaders and beginning readers with age- with moderate and multiple intellectual disability received
appropriate literature is through interactive read-alouds, intervention during shared story reading of an adapted chil-
which are also called shared story reading in the literature. dren’s book. When a reread prompt of targeted information
Shared story reading is a broad instructional approach was inserted into the verbal and model prompts of the sys-
used to promote young children’s emergent literacy (Justice tem of least prompts, students increased the number of text-
& Lankford, 2002), vocabulary development (Blewitt, dependent listening comprehension questions (e.g.,
Rump, Shealy, & Cook, 2009), print awareness (Pullen & sequencing, cause and effect) they answered. As in most
Justice, 2003), and receptive word learning (Justice, 2002). prior studies on shared story reading, Mims et al. focused
Shared story reading has been used to promote literacy for on elementary-aged students and used adapted picture
students with mild disabilities, including phonological books. In contrast, Browder, Trela, and Jimenez (2007)
awareness in young children with specific language impair- used adapted middle school novels in a read-aloud format.
ments (Justice, Kaderavek, Bowles, & Grimm, 2005), In this study, three middle school teachers learned to use a
emergent literacy skills in at-risk preschoolers (Justice & task analysis and systematic instruction to increase engage-
Kaderavek, 2002), young children with visual impairments ment during read-alouds of adapted novels for six middle
(Erickson & Hatton, 2007), and students with mild disabili- school students with moderate and severe intellectual dis-
ties (Katims, 1991). ability and autism. Following teacher training, students
Shared story reading has been adapted for use with stu- were able to identify vocabulary in text, read repeated story
dents with moderate and severe disabilities to promote lit- lines, participate in reading routines (e.g., turn the page),
eracy. When shared story reading is used with these students, read new words, and answer questions by referencing text.
the practice typically involves a partner reading a story To date, this has been the only study to extend interactive
aloud while providing opportunities and support for listener read-alouds to older students with moderate and severe
participation as well as ways for the listener to demonstrate developmental disabilities.
understanding of the text being read. Common features of The need exists for more research to evaluate how read-
shared story reading include the use of repeated story lines alouds can promote comprehension of academic content for
(e.g., main idea of a story or chapter), attention getters to students with moderate and severe developmental disabili-
engage the reader with the story’s context (e.g., apples for a ties and how learned skills might generalize to new content.
story about an orchard), and repeated opportunities to hear Although previous researchers, such as Browder et al.
the story read again (i.e., rereads). When shared story read- (2007) and Mims et al. (2010), have demonstrated learning
ing is used with older students, text is often summarized across stories, all stories were presented with systematic
into shorter, more easily understood chapters, with and instruction and repeated readings. Through systematic
without picture support, and read aloud to the listener. prompting of comprehension strategies (e.g., having the
Shared story reading is an evidence-based practice for reader focus on smaller chunks of text), it is plausible that
promoting literacy for students with extensive support the listener would be able to apply these skills to new text
needs (Hudson & Test, 2011) and researchers have without repeated readings.
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
Mims et al. 69
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a been missed). Each student received intervention individu-
modified system of least intrusive prompts on text-dependent ally 3 times a week for approximately 20 min a day
listening comprehension for middle school students with between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. In addition,
moderate and severe developmental disabilities during the students continued to participate in three 45-min lan-
read-alouds of grade-level biographies. Specifically, we guage arts lessons each week, which focused on sight
examined the following questions: words, decoding, and comprehension of passages read
aloud from adapted novels (fiction). For these read-alouds,
1. What was the effect of a modified system of least the teacher was following a task analysis similar to that
intrusive prompts on text-dependent listening used by Browder et al. (2007) that did not include the range
comprehension during read-alouds of adapted of comprehension questions or least intrusive prompts
grade-level biographies? introduced in the current study. Prior to the study, none of
2. Did students generalize learned skills to new biog- the students had been taught rules for answering “Wh”
raphies? questions (i.e., who, what, why, when, and where) or the
3. Did the classroom teacher find the intervention use of a graphic organizer in answering sequencing ques-
beneficial for students with severe developmental tions (i.e., What came first? Next? Last?).
disabilities?
Materials
Method
Biographies. Biographies used for intervention were
Participants selected from two 6th-grade literature textbooks (Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston, n.d.; Littell, 2002). Together the spe-
Participation criteria included (a) ability to use symbolic or cial education teacher, Grade 6 language arts teacher, and
abstract language (i.e., communicated through picture sym- interventionist selected five biographies that peers without
bols or words), (b) met the federal definition for intellectual disabilities were likely to read or discuss during the school
disability and autism, (c) ability to make selections recep- year, those of John Brown, Gary Paulsen, Harriet Tubman,
tively from an array (e.g., eye gaze, pointing, activating a Matthew Henson, and Amelia Earhart. The interventionist
switch), (d) available for the study 3 times a week, (e) adapted the biographies for nonreaders by summarizing text
regular school attendance (e.g., no more than five absences using controlled vocabulary and pairing keywords with pic-
in previous 6 months), (f) signed informed parental con- ture symbols using Writing With Symbols 2000 software,
sent, and (g) teacher recommendation. One girl and three version 2.5 (2003). The adapted biographies were printed
boys, ages 12 to 14 years, met these criteria, and their and organized in three-ring binders because, even though
demographic information is provided in Table 1. listening comprehension was the dependent variable mea-
All of the students were classified as having autism and sured in this study and students were not required to read
intellectual disability. Wanda used spoken language to com- independently, it was important for students to have a
municate, and the other three participants used pictures and printed copy of each biography for the interventionist to
objects. Three of four students read some sight words with refer to the text during read-alouds. Biography length was
limited comprehension but Nathan had no word recognition reduced so it could be read entirely each session.
skills. All of the students had difficulty following verbal Content validity. To ensure the adapted biographies
directions and answering questions. The interventionist retained high quality (i.e., content and performance central-
who implemented the study and collected the data was a ity), an expert in middle school literacy and learning in the
full-time special education doctoral student with 10 years content areas compared the adapted biographies with the
experience in public schools teaching students with moder- original biographies and responded to the following ques-
ate and severe disabilities. tions: Do the adapted biographies capture the main points of
the original? Do the adapted biographies provide students
with significant disabilities similar experiences with grade-
Setting
level literature that peers without disabilities have with the
Students attended a self-contained class for students with original curriculum? The expert approved all the biography
autism in a middle school located in a large metropolitan summaries with no recommended revisions.
school district in the southeast. Individual baseline, inter- Questions. A total of 11 comprehension questions, includ-
vention, generalization, and maintenance sessions took ing 8 “Wh” questions (i.e., who, what, where, when, why)
place in a multipurpose room located across the students’ and 3 sequence questions (i.e., What came first? Next?
classroom. The room was shared by eighth-grade teachers Last?), were written for each biography and placed in text
and related service personnel for meetings, student counsel- so questions and answers fell on the same page. Compre-
ing, and student make-up work (e.g., taking tests that had hension questions from each biography are listed in Table 2.
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
70 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(2)
Table 1. Student Demographics
Characteristic Wanda Nathan John Gary
Age (in years) 14 14 13 12
Gender Female Male Male Male
Diagnosis Autism, SID Autism, SID Autism, SID Autism, SIDa
IQ/instrument No IQ score Unable to score 42a Unable to score
Adaptive behavior 61b 42 ± 3c Parent: 21 Teacher: 3d 55b
Communication and Uses speech; short Uses objects or gestures Uses some pictures; Uses some pictures;
symbol use sentences to communicate; relies uses range of objects uses range of objects
on context to use symbolically symbolically
object symbolically
Reading skills Reads some sight words; Identifies some basic Reads fewer than 20 Reads fewer than
limited decoding picture symbols; sight words with 20 functional sight
skills; lacks basic matches some objects picture symbol words; limited
comprehension to picture symbols; no support; limited comprehension skill
word reading comprehension skill
Listening skills Answers some Does not follow Does not follow verbal Good receptive skills
immediate recall verbal directions directions alone; for verbal directions
questions; often alone; needs visual needs repeated about everyday tasks;
responds to academic cues paired with verbal prompts/ follows personal
questioning by stating verbal prompts and cues; listens to only schedule but resists
last answer choice gestures to complete brief communication; change; limited
given task; requires many requires many attending skills during
repetitions to learn to repetitions to learn to instruction; requires
answer a question answer a question many repetitions to
learn to answer a
question
Relevant IEP goals Comprehension Match picture symbol to Identify target Decode new words
questions after a story adapted story (target vocabulary words
vocabulary)
Decode new words Basic story-based lesson Answer simple Identify adapted
skills (identify title, comprehension definitions of
author, turn page, etc.) questions vocabulary
Identify vocabulary and Attend to an adapted Read adapted story
definitions story and answer
comprehension
questions
Experience with shared Limited None Limited Limited
stories
Note: SID = severe intellectual disability; IEP = Individualized Education Program.
aNonverbal Battery of Cognitive Ability–Revised (Roid & Miller, 1997).
bComposite on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales–Second Edition (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005).
cGilliam Autism Rating Scale–Second Edition (Gilliam, 2006).
dScales of Independent Behavior–Revised: Broad Ind. Full Scale (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1997).
Students receptively responded to comprehension ques- Response options were attached to a page protector via
tions by selecting one of four response options. Response Velcro™ in a 2 × 2 format and organized sequentially by ques-
options included a combination of picture symbols and words tion. Placement of response options on page and order of pre-
printed on 2.5-in. × 1.5-in. index cards and laminated. Each sentation during intervention varied from session to session.
comprehension question included a correct response and three Graphic organizers. Two graphic organizers were created
plausible distracters (e.g., if the question asked about a person, for use in the intervention. The first graphic organizer (see
all response options were people). The target and distracter Figure 1) was similar to one used by peers to organize their
options contained picture symbols from the page so students responses to the sequence questions (i.e., What came first?
could not correctly answer the question by simply matching Next? Last?) in the general education language arts class.
the picture symbol from the response card to one on the page. The second was a T-chart graphic organizer with rules for
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
Mims et al. 71
Table 2. Comprehension Questions by Biography
John Brown Gary Paulsen Harriet Tubman Matthew Henson Amelia Earhart
1. W ho was Annie’s 1. What was Storm 1. Who was working 1. Who is the main 1. What did Amelia
father? built like? in the field? character? like to fly?
2. Why could free 2. What did Storm like 2. Why was Harriet 2. Why did Matthew 2. Why did Amelia
Blacks not read or to do? afraid to go north get a job? have to find warmer
write? alone? air?
3. What did father ask 3. What was storm 3. Why did the 3. W hy did Matthew 3. W hat was coming
his children to do? hiding? brothers follow join the crew of a from the manifold?
Harriet? ship?
4. When did the men 4. What did Storm 4. W hen would 4. Who asked 4. What did the little
hide? bury in the snow? Harriet be sent Matthew to study white clouds look
south? while he was at sea? like?
5. What did the 5. Why did the dogs 5. Who helped 5. Who was Peary 5. Why did Amelia “fly
Liberation army have to work hard? Harriet? looking for? in the shade”?
want to do?
6. Who is guilty? 6. Where was the 6. Who was the 6. W hat was Peary’s 6. W hat did Amelia eat
stove loaded? Underground goal? during the flight?
Railroad?
7. Who did Annie 7. What did Storm 7. Why did Harriet 7. Why did the 7. Why was Amelia
think was brave? and Gary do give the woman her Eskimos like afraid to go through
together? quilt? Matthew? a thunderstorm?
8. Who sang a song 8. What did Storm 8. Where did Harriet 8. What did Congress 9. Where did Amelia
about John Brown? talk with? think she was? give Matthew? land her plane?
9. What happened 9. What happened 9. What happened 9. What happened 9. What happened
first? first? first? first? first?
10. What happened 10. What happened 10. What happened 10. What happened 10. What happened
next? next? next? next? next?
11. What happened 11. What happened 11. What happened 11. What happened 11. What happened
last? last? last? last? last?
This decreased the threat of learning through prolonged
testing and exposure to materials. Maintenance data were
collected on students who had finished the study while
First Next Last
other students continued intervention. Study phases
included baseline, intervention, generalization, and mainte-
nance. The interventionist conducted baseline sessions for
five sessions prior to intervention and task performance
Figure 1. Graphic organizer for sequence questions
data for each student was low and stable or descending.
Students were introduced into intervention in a time-lagged
manner until all students completed intervention.
answering “Wh” questions (see Figure 2). Intervention Experimental control was demonstrated by a consistent
materials were adapted and constructed by the intervention- change in level of data from baseline condition to interven-
ist from supplies found at an office supply store for approxi- tion condition across students for all biographies.
mately US$150.00, a cost determined to be practical and Baseline probes of biographies were conducted prior to
cost-effective by the research team. and between intervention phases. These probes indicated the
number of correct unprompted responses to comprehension
questions. The order of biographies was varied across par-
Research Design
ticipants to control for sequence effect. With the exception
A multiple probe across students design (Gast, 2010) was of the last biography for John which was taught 4 times, stu-
used to establish experimental control and allowed for dents received instruction on each biography three sessions
instruction to begin with one student while periodic base- as additional readings may have resulted in memorization of
line probe sessions were conducted with all other students. the answers to the questions rather than listening to the text.
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
72 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(2)
sessions and 28% of intervention sessions. During baseline,
the third author scored each question as correct (+) or incor-
rect (−). During intervention, each question was scored item
by item and the prompt level required for the student to pro-
vide the correct response was recorded. IOA was calculated
by taking number of agreements divided by the number of
agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%.
IOA for baseline and intervention sessions was 100% for all
students for all sessions.
Procedural fidelity was computed by having the third
author score whether or not the interventionist presented
each step of the intervention for each predetermined com-
prehension question across 27% of baseline sessions and
28% of intervention sessions. Procedural fidelity was calcu-
lated by dividing number of steps present by total number of
steps planned and multiplying by 100% (Billingsley, White,
& Munson, 1980). Procedural fidelity for baseline and inter-
vention sessions was 99.8% (range = 98%–100%).
Procedures
Baseline. The interventionist and student sat side-by-side
at a table for all sessions. Response options and graphic
organizers (i.e., sequence graphic organizer and “Wh” ques-
tion T-chart) were on the table in front of student. To begin,
the interventionist showed the student the biography and
said, “Today, we are going to read a biography about [per-
son’s name]. A biography is a true story.” The interventionist
held the adapted biography in front of the student so both
could see the printed page and moved a finger under text
Figure 2. Rules for answering comprehension questions while reading aloud. At predetermined points in the story,
the interventionist stopped and asked 1 of 11 comprehension
questions paired with the biography. After a question was
asked, the interventionist pointed to and read aloud the
Dependent Variable and Data Collection
response options, looked expectantly at student, and waited
Procedures
4 s for a response. If a response was correct, the interven-
Dependent variable. The dependent variable was the num- tionist recorded “+” on the data sheet. If the student
ber of correct unprompted responses to text-dependent lis- responded incorrectly or made no response within 4 s, the
tening comprehension questions (see Table 2). Each interventionist recorded “−” and continued reading. Each
question was asked at a predetermined time during a read- biography was read entirely and students were given an
aloud of adapted biographies, which occurred the same way opportunity to answer all comprehension questions each ses-
each time the biography was read. Data summarized the sion. The interventionist did not prompt or praise student
number of correct unprompted responses to comprehension responses or refer to the sequence graphic organizer or “Wh”
questions during the read-aloud. question T-chart. General verbal praise was given for work
Data collection. The interventionist delivered intervention behaviors and attending to task on a variable ratio schedule.
to all students and immediately scored student responses on a Intervention. Intervention included a modified system of
data sheet as each comprehension question was asked. A sec- least intrusive prompts delivered during a read-aloud of an
ond person from the research team observed 25% of baseline adapted biography. The interventionist began each session as
and intervention sessions and scored student responses to described in baseline procedures. At predetermined points
comprehension questions for purposes of computing interob- during the read-aloud, the interventionist stopped and asked
server agreement (IOA) reliability, and interventionist behav- 1 of 11 comprehension questions and waited 4 s for a
iors for purposes of computing procedural fidelity. response. If the response was correct, the interventionist
IOA and procedural fidelity. IOA reliability for student recorded the response as a correct unprompted response,
response data collection was taken on 27% of baseline delivered descriptive verbal praise, and continued reading the
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
Mims et al. 73
biography. If the response was incorrect or no response was pointed to and read aloud the four response options, then
given within 4 s, increasingly intrusive prompts were pro- immediately pointed to and said the correct response (e.g.,
vided until the student gave the correct response. In this “The answer is John Brown.”) and asked the student to do
study, the system of least intrusive prompts was modified by the same (e.g., “Now, you do it.”). After 10 question–answer
inserting a rule for answering “Wh” questions and an oppor- trials at 0-s delay, another 10 question–answer trials were
tunity to hear sections of the biography read again (i.e., conducted in the same fashion, but a 4-s delay was inserted
rereads). The first prompt involved the interventionist stating after presenting the response options, giving the student an
the type of “Wh” question being asked and its rule while opportunity to respond independently. Descriptive verbal
pointing to the “Wh” word and rule on the T-chart. For exam- praise was given after each correct response, and a student-
ple, if the student failed to respond to the question, “Who was selected reinforcer was given at the end of training. Errors
Annie’s father?” the interventionist said, “When you hear were interrupted and the correct response modeled and the
who, [pointed to ‘who’ on T-chart], listen for a person’s controlling prompts were given. After massed-trial training,
name” [pointed to rule on T-chart]. The interventionist then intervention was delivered using the procedures described
reread the paragraph containing the answer (i.e., general previously. Massed-trial training was given before the next
reread prompt), repeated the question and response options, six intervention sessions, then discontinued when Nathan’s
and waited 4 s for a student response. The rules stated in the data demonstrated a therapeutic change in level (i.e.,
first level prompt for each question are shown in Figure 2. increased number of correct unprompted responses).
If the student failed to respond or responded incorrectly, a Maintenance. Maintenance data were collected 2 weeks
second prompt was given. In the second prompt, the interven- after intervention was completed. Maintenance conditions
tionist reread the sentence containing the answer (i.e., targeted were the same as baseline conditions except biographies were
reread prompt), modeled the correct response (e.g., pointed to randomly selected from biographies used during intervention.
response option for John Brown), reread the question and Generalization. Generalization of learned skills was mea-
response options, and waited 4 s for a student response. If the sured during the introduction of new biographies. General-
student failed to demonstrate a correct response, the interven- ization was measured by comparing the mean number of
tionist provided a third prompt. In the third prompt, the inter- correct unprompted responses to comprehension questions
ventionist provided the controlling prompt by pointing to the during baseline to the mean number of correct unprompted
correct response option and saying, “The answer is John responses during baseline probes taken during intervention
Brown. Your turn. You point to John Brown.” Descriptive ver- prior to instruction on new biographies. The mean number
bal praise was given for correct responses (e.g., “You’re right! of correct unprompted responses during baseline probes
John Brown was Annie’s father.”). Students were given pre- after intervention was computed by adding the total number
ferred items following all sessions. of correct unprompted responses for each baseline probe
The sequence graphic organizer (see Figure 1) was used divided by the number of baseline probes (i.e., five).
during intervention to help students organize their responses to
three sequence questions following the prompting procedure
Data Analysis
previously described, but the number of response options the
student had to select from was different for the second and During baseline and intervention, the number of correct
third sequence questions. For the first question (i.e., What hap- unprompted responses was graphed. Data were analyzed by
pened first?), students selected from one of four response visually inspecting graphed data to identify trend, level, and
options and placed their responses in the first box of the graphic variability and to determine whether a functional relation
organizer. This response was no longer available in the array of existed between the independent and dependent variables.
options. For the second question (i.e., What happened next?), Prediction, verification of prediction, initial effect, and repli-
students selected from one of three response options and cation of effect were assessed for all students and biographies.
placed it in the second box. For the third sequence question
(i.e., What happened last?), students selected from the two
Results
remaining response options and placed it in the third box.
Massed-trial training. After the 1st week of intervention, Each student answered 165 “Wh” questions across five
the second participant, Nathan, failed to demonstrate a ther- biographies during intervention. Wanda answered 106
apeutic change in level. Massed-trial training was imple- questions correctly (i.e., 64%); Nathan, 77 (i.e., 47%);
mented on how to answer a comprehension question before John, 92 (i.e., 56%); and Gary, 124 (i.e., 75%). Student
the next biography was introduced to increase his correct performance data are displayed in Figure 3.
unprompted responses. Questions were taken from the A comparison of the mean number of correct unprompted
biography used with Nathan during intervention the 1st responses and ranges for baseline, intervention, and gener-
week. For each trial, the interventionist ensured student alization for each student are provided in Table 3. Each
attention (e.g., Ready?), asked a comprehension question, biography was assessed at least once in baseline; baseline
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
74 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(2)
Baseline Bio 1 Bio 2 Bio 3 Bio 4 Bio 5 Biography
11 Ind. Key
Wanda student Maintenance
10 responses
9 begin
8
Harriet
7
Tubman
Wanda's
6
Independent
5 Bio 4
BL responses are
4
respresented by
3 Bio 3 John
BL open circles. Brown
2
Bio 2 Bio 5
1 BL BL
0
11 Maintenance Gary
10 IV + IV + Paulsen
9 Nathan massed massed
trials trials
8
s
e 7
s
n 6 Bio 2 Matthew
o BL Henson
p 5
s
e 4
R
nt 3 Bio 5 BBioL 1 X
e 2 Bio 3 Bio 4 BL
ud 1 BL BL Amelia
St 0 Earhart
ect 11
rr10 Maintenance
o John
C 9
of 8
er 7
b
m 6
u 5 Bio 3
N Bio 4 BL
4 BL Bio 5 Bio 1
3 BL BL
Bio 2
2 BL Spring
1 Break
0 // Maintenance
11
10 Gary
9
8
7
6 Bio 4
5 BL
4 Bio 5 Bio 3
BL
BL
3
12 BBioL 1 BBioL 2 BSpreriankg 2 weeks
0 // //
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Sessions
Figure 3. Number of unprompted correct student responses during shared story reading of a biography across all study phases
Note: Each data point represents one complete reading of an adapted biography.
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013
Mims et al. 75
Table 3. Mean Number of Correct Unprompted Student Responses During Read-Alouds Across Study Phases
Baseline Biography 1 Biography 2 Biography 3 Biography 4 Biography 5 Generalization
Student M Range M Range M Range M Range M Range M Range M Change Range
Wanda 3.4 2–5 6.3 4–8 8.0 6–9 8.3 5–10 7.7 5–10 7.7 5–10 5.0 +1.6 3–7
Nathan 2.7 2–3 3.7 2–5 4.0 2–5 4.7 3–7 6.3 4–8 6.3 4–8 2.5 −0.2 1–4
John 2.0 1–3 5.3 5–6 5.0 4–6 8.3 7–10 5.0 4–6 5.75 4–9 2.75 +0.75 2–4
Gary 2.2 1–3 5.3 2–7 9.0 9.0 9.3 7–11 8.3 7–10 4.5 +2.3 2–6
Table 4. Correct Student Responses to “Wh” Questions Across John. The number of correct unprompted responses for
Biographies John increased from baseline, with a noticeable peak during
Biography 3.
Correct student
Gary. Gary’s correct unprompted responses increased
Question Opportunities (n) responses (n) %
steadily across the biographies.
What 348 197 57
Who 120 76 63
Generalization
Why 132 85 64
When 24 16 67
In Figure 1, the generalization data points are enclosed
Where 36 25 69
within phase lines (e.g., Bio 1 BL, Bio 2 BL). This data
point indicates performance on the new (not yet trained)
biography to be introduced in the next phase. As can be
seen in Table 3, the mean number of correct unprompted
mean was computed by calculating the total number of cor- responses for baseline probes after intervention was higher
rect unprompted responses divided by the number of base- for three students but lower for Nathan.
line sessions. To compute the mean number of correct
unprompted responses for each biography during interven-
Social Validity
tion, the sum of correct unprompted responses was divided
by the total number of sessions the biography was taught in The classroom teacher completed a social validity form for
intervention. Table 4 contains the frequency and percentage each student after the study ended. Using a 5-point Likert-
of correct student responses by “Wh” question. type scale, the classroom teacher indicated her level of
Wanda. Although Wanda’s educational records and her agreement or disagreement with 10 statements by circling
teacher indicated that she was a nonreader except for some one of five responses (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 =
sight words, beginning with Biography 2, Wanda began to neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree). Statements
read the biographies aloud and answer the comprehension measured study procedures (e.g., the system of least
questions without any help from the interventionist after prompts is appropriate for the student) and outcomes (e.g.,
intervention. Wanda’s performances during independent the adapted biographies helped access the general curricu-
reading are displayed in Figure 3 as a second data series. lum for this student).
Wanda’s mean number of correct unprompted responses The teacher strongly agreed that the use of system of least
during independent reading sessions increased considerably intrusive prompts was appropriate for all students, the use of
from baseline through the five biographies. rules for answering “Wh” questions was appropriate for all
Nathan. Because Nathan’s response to the first biography students, and the adapted biographies helped all students
was minimal, the research team provided massed-trial access the general curriculum. In addition, the teacher
instruction (i.e., 10 question–answer trials at 0-s delay and 10 strongly agreed to statements, “I am considering using the
question–answer trials at 4-s delay) prior to intervention until system of least intrusive prompts to help increase my other
he showed a therapeutic change in level. Massed-trial instruc- students’ comprehension skills” and “I am considering using
tion occurred for six sessions (i.e., two biographies). Biogra- rules for answering ‘Wh’ questions with the students in my
phy 2 showed an increase in correct unprompted responses as classroom.” The teacher agreed comprehension questions
did Biography 3. For the remaining biographies, the massed- from adapted biographies were important and adequate for most
trial instruction was discontinued. Nathan showed an increase students and the ability to correctly answer text-dependent
in correct unprompted responses for Biography 4, and main- comprehension questions during a biography lesson was a
tained level of responding for Biography 5. valuable skill for all but one student. Anecdotally, the teacher
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on April 3, 2013