Academic Intervention Stephen Matteson EDPS 688, School Psychology Practicum Stephen Matteson EDPS 688, School Psychology Practicum

Client Characteristics  “Luke”  6-year-old Caucasian male  1 st grade(ish)  Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder  “Luke”  6-year-old Caucasian male  1 st grade(ish)  Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Problem Analysis  Difficulty with reading comprehension  RIOT/ICEL  Difficulty with reading comprehension  RIOT/ICEL R eview I nterview O bserve T est I nstruction Review of IEPAide InterviewObservationInformal test C urriculum Review of report card Student interviewObservationBenchmark testing E nvironment Review of recordsTeacher interviewObservationInformal test L earner Review of IEPStudent interviewObservationInformal test

RIOT/ICEL R eview I nterview O bserve T est I nstruction Works well for rewards Likes to set own pace Responds well to verbal reinforcement Needs structure and clear boundaries C urriculum Knows letters and sounds, not details Loves to count and spell Able to complete classroom tasks (CVC words) 96% accuracy; poor comprehension E nvironment Self-contained K; gen-ed. 1 st grade Needs direct instructions Needs order and organization Quiet, less distracting rooms L earner Uses escape phrases Likes routines and singing Relies on aide to calm and focus Needs heavy prompting

Problem Validation  Total Reading Comprehension (TRC)  Expected 1 st Grade BOY : Level D  Luke’s 1 st Grade BOY: Reading Behavior (RB)  Far Below Proficient  One of the lowest TRC scores in his grade  Total Reading Comprehension (TRC)  Expected 1 st Grade BOY : Level D  Luke’s 1 st Grade BOY: Reading Behavior (RB)  Far Below Proficient  One of the lowest TRC scores in his grade

ASD & Hyperlexia—A Review of Research  Nation et al. (2006)  Hyperlexia impacts comprehension.  Carberry (2014): Peer Tutoring  Higher Engagement  Benefits for typically developing students and those with disabilities  Chan and O’Reilly (2008): Social stories  Combined with comprehension questions and role-plays  May be effective for teaching classroom skills  Nation et al. (2006)  Hyperlexia impacts comprehension.  Carberry (2014): Peer Tutoring  Higher Engagement  Benefits for typically developing students and those with disabilities  Chan and O’Reilly (2008): Social stories  Combined with comprehension questions and role-plays  May be effective for teaching classroom skills

Measurement Strategy  How  TRC  Maze Passages  What  Ability to choose correct word based on context  Where  Conference room  Who  Pre-practicum student  When  Fridays, 10:30-10:45  How  TRC  Maze Passages  What  Ability to choose correct word based on context  Where  Conference room  Who  Pre-practicum student  When  Fridays, 10:30-10:45

Behavioral Definition  Reading Comprehension: the ability to read text and understand its meaning  NOT fluency or accuracy  Reading comprehension as measured by Maze passages:  Number of correctly chosen words divided by number of choices encountered in three minutes  If a choice is unclear (e.g. two words are circled), it is counted incorrect.  If a choice is skipped, it is counted incorrect.  If a choice is not reached within three minutes, it isn’t included in the count.  Reading Comprehension: the ability to read text and understand its meaning  NOT fluency or accuracy  Reading comprehension as measured by Maze passages:  Number of correctly chosen words divided by number of choices encountered in three minutes  If a choice is unclear (e.g. two words are circled), it is counted incorrect.  If a choice is skipped, it is counted incorrect.  If a choice is not reached within three minutes, it isn’t included in the count.

Examples  Luke made two choices. One of them was correct, so his reading comprehension score is 50% (1/2).  Luke made one correct choice and did not reach a second choice within three minutes. His reading comprehension score is 100% (1/1).  Luke made two choices. One of them was correct, so his reading comprehension score is 50% (1/2).  Luke made one correct choice and did not reach a second choice within three minutes. His reading comprehension score is 100% (1/1). John (carrot, went, sings) to the store. He bought apples, (oranges, ran, laughs), and bananas. John (carrot, went, sings) to the store. He bought apples, (oranges, ran, laughs), and bananas.

Non-examples  Luke made two choices, but one of them is unclear (he circled two words) and the other is incorrect. His reading comprehension score is 0% (0/2).  Luke skipped one choice and made one correct choice in three minutes. His reading comprehension score is 50% (1/2).  Luke made two choices, but one of them is unclear (he circled two words) and the other is incorrect. His reading comprehension score is 0% (0/2).  Luke skipped one choice and made one correct choice in three minutes. His reading comprehension score is 50% (1/2). John (carrot, went, sings) to the store. He bought apples, (oranges, ran, laughs), and bananas. John (carrot, went, sings) to the store. He bought apples, (oranges, ran, laughs), and bananas.

Baseline

Goal Setting  Maze passages not generally used with 1 st graders  Abilities and challenges  95% accuracy by end of academic year  Roughly 3% per week  Maze passages not generally used with 1 st graders  Abilities and challenges  95% accuracy by end of academic year  Roughly 3% per week

Intervention Plan—Procedures  Procedures  15 minutes cooperative reading  Typically-developing peer  Comprehension questions throughout  15 minutes social story instruction  One-on-one  “My Reading Story”  Practice strategies  Procedures  15 minutes cooperative reading  Typically-developing peer  Comprehension questions throughout  15 minutes social story instruction  One-on-one  “My Reading Story”  Practice strategies

Intervention Plan—Materials  Cooperative reading text  Luke’s choice  Low word count  “My Reading Story”  Stickers  Checklist  Cooperative reading text  Luke’s choice  Low word count  “My Reading Story”  Stickers  Checklist

Intervention Plan—When, Where, Who  When  10:30-11:00 (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday)  10:30-10:45 (Tuesday)  10:45-11:00 (Friday)  Where  Hallway outside classroom  Persons Responsible  Myself  Two pre-practicum students  When  10:30-11:00 (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday)  10:30-10:45 (Tuesday)  10:45-11:00 (Friday)  Where  Hallway outside classroom  Persons Responsible  Myself  Two pre-practicum students

Decision Making Plan  Progress monitoring collected once a week  Data graphed and analyzed visually  Goal will be adjusted if:  Luke is not reaching goal  Reasonable progress is being made  Intervention will be changed if:  No progress is being made  Luke is regressing  Progress monitoring collected once a week  Data graphed and analyzed visually  Goal will be adjusted if:  Luke is not reaching goal  Reasonable progress is being made  Intervention will be changed if:  No progress is being made  Luke is regressing

Progress Monitoring

Formative Evaluation  Assessed after 5 th data point  Data unstable  Trend line vs. goal line  Intervention unchanged (for now)  Assessed after 5 th data point  Data unstable  Trend line vs. goal line  Intervention unchanged (for now)

Treatment Integrity  Missing school (absent, holidays, programs)  Impossible to standardize comprehension practice  Checklists  Intervention  Progress Monitoring  80% progress monitoring compared  Pre-practicum student and myself  100% interrater reliability  Missing school (absent, holidays, programs)  Impossible to standardize comprehension practice  Checklists  Intervention  Progress Monitoring  80% progress monitoring compared  Pre-practicum student and myself  100% interrater reliability

Summative Evaluation  Observations during progress monitoring  Plan to review data after 3 additional weeks  If Luke reaches 95% comprehension (or higher) for 3 consecutive weeks, the intervention will be discontinued.  Observations during progress monitoring  Plan to review data after 3 additional weeks  If Luke reaches 95% comprehension (or higher) for 3 consecutive weeks, the intervention will be discontinued.

References  Carberry, T. (2014). Teaching reading comprehension to students with high functioning, autism spectrum disorder: A review of the literature. Graduate Annual, 2,  Chan, J. M. & O’Reilly, M. F. (2008). A social stories intervention package for students with autism in inclusive classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(3),  Nation, K., Clarke, P., Wright, B., et al. (2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36,  Carberry, T. (2014). Teaching reading comprehension to students with high functioning, autism spectrum disorder: A review of the literature. Graduate Annual, 2,  Chan, J. M. & O’Reilly, M. F. (2008). A social stories intervention package for students with autism in inclusive classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(3),  Nation, K., Clarke, P., Wright, B., et al. (2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36,