Reading Intervention for Students With Autism in Grades 4 Through 8: Addressing Individualized Needs With 1:1 Tutoring

Abstract

Thomas is a fifth grader who has always been apprehensive about participating in class. His parents have shared with him that he has autism, which can make social situations challenging, but they always encourage him to do his best. Thomas is very curious about many things, including what foods people like and how animals interact with humans. He is good at reading words, but sometimes he struggles to understand what the words mean together, especially in his social studies and science textbooks. As a participant in a university-led research project, he began working 1:1 with an adult tutor who provided reading instruction for 30 minutes per day for 50 lessons. This tutor helped Thomas improve his vocabulary and reading, which his classroom teacher reported led to improvements with his self-confidence in class. After several weeks of tutoring, Thomas’s teacher noticed he was more confident in his reading abilities and even began volunteering to read aloud in class.

The Challenge

Many students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) face significant challenges with reading comprehension (Keen et al., 2016). A meta-analysis by Keen and colleagues (2016) highlighted greater variability in academic performance among students with ASD compared to their neurotypical peers. Furthermore, the studies revealed that that the current base of research does not fully represent students from across the spectrum. This variability has also been reported in reader profile studies that show a large degree of variability in reading performance among students with ASD, with many having significant difficulties with reading comprehension (Lucas & Norbury, 2014; McIntyre et al., 2017). These difficulties with reading comprehension and academic performance can limit the pursuit of postsecondary education and career goals (Lyon, 1998).

“Despite an emphasis on behavioral interventions and social skills training for students with ASD, it is equally important to support academic areas, such as literacy development.

“A promising approach to addressing these needs is a newly developed reading intervention that provides systematic instruction with builtin mechanisms for individualized support.

“The structured materials and instruction are designed to support intensive Tier 2/3 interventions, delivered via 1:1 tutoring in addition to core instruction.

A longitudinal study comparing students across disability categories showed that students with ASD often face greater literacy challenges than those in other disability categories, including learning disabilities and emotional disorders (Wei et al., 2011). Despite an emphasis on behavioral interventions and social skills training for students with ASD, it is equally important to support academic areas, such as literacy development. Temple Grandin, a renowned autism advocate, emphasizes that the inability to read and understand text can impact life outcomes as much as challenges with social interactions (Grandin et al., 2004). Observational research suggests that instructional mismatches may exist due to the heterogeneity of needs across the autism spectrum (Solis & McKenna, 2023). How might educators address the unique instructional needs of students with ASD? Because of the challenges with reading that many students with ASD face, educators must provide supplemental Tier 2/3 instruction tailored to individual needs.

Addressing the Challenge

A promising approach to addressing these needs is a newly developed reading intervention that provides systematic instruction with built-in mechanisms for individualized support. A pilot study funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, conducted as part of a development project, showed promising results, with statistical differences favoring the treatment group on Woodcock Johnson Passage Comprehension Subtest (Solis et al., 2022). The intervention’s key components—vocabulary, main-idea summarization, prosody, reading fluency, and sentence-level comprehension—showed marked improvements in students with mild to moderate ASD (Solis et al., 2022). The instructional routines and instructional materials described in this article are part of a multicomponent intervention that is now being tested in a fully powered randomized controlled trial.

The structured materials and instruction are designed to support intensive Tier 2/3 interventions, delivered via 1:1 tutoring in addition to core instruction. After an initial 6-hour professional development session, tutors are equipped to deliver the intervention. Weekly check-ins with literacy coaches ensure fidelity of implementation. Table 1 provides evidence supporting each intervention component. The goal of this article is to review the components of the intervention by outlining instructional routines and sharing sample materials.

Table 1

Empirical underpinnings

Study: sample	Research design	Summary of findings	Implementer (group size)
Connection building
Zheng et al., 2021: NA	Systematic review	Systematic review of the UCLA PEERS program for social skills: Results showed improvements with social functioning.	NA
Vocabulary
Grindle et al., 2013: 3 students with ASD	SCD, pre-post design	Mean vocabulary scores improved 47.5%.^a	ABA tutor (1:1)
Knight et al., 2015: 4 students with ASD	SCD, multiple probe	Mean vocabulary scores improved by 43.4%.	Researcher (1:1)
Main-idea summarization
Bailey et al., 2017: 20 students with ASD	Pre-post control group design	Improvement in passage level comprehension, T vs. C, ES = 0.32	Researcher (1:1)
Turner et al., 2017: 31 students with ASD	Pre-post control group design	Improvement in comprehension scores, T vs. C, ES = 1.57	Researcher (1:3)
Fluency with text
Barnes & Rehfeldt, 2013: 3 students with ASD	SCD, multiple probe	Mean percentage correct scores increased 20.2%.	Researcher (1:1)
Reisener et al., 2014: 4 students with ASD	SCD, withdrawal	Mean words correct per minute for repeated reading increased 51%.	Special education teacher (1:1)
Shhub et al., 2023: NA	Systematic review	Systematic review of prosody instruction: Results showed that instruction with model reading, repeated reading, and feedback improved prosody outcomes (i.e., phrasing).	NA
Sentence-level comprehension
Bethune & Wood, 2013: 3 students with ASD	SCD, multiple baseline	Mean scores on questions increased by 96%.	Researcher (1:1)
Ganz & Flores, 2009: 2 students with ASD	SCD, multiple baseline	Mean scores on questions increased by 73.5%.	Researcher (1:1)
Howorth et al., 2016: 4 students with ASD	SCD, multiple baseline	Mean scores on questions increased by 20%.	Special education teacher (1:1)
Multicomponent
Roux et al., 2015: 45 students with ASD	Pre-post control group design	Improvement in vocabulary scores, T vs. C, ES = 1.0 Improvement in main idea identification scores, T vs. C, ES = 0.89	Researcher (1:3)
Solis et al., 2022: 28 students with ASD	Pre-post control group design	Improvement in vocabulary scores, T vs. C, ES = 0.43 Improvement in comprehension, T vs. C, ES = 0.20	Researcher, paraprofessionals (1:1)
Solis et al., 2021: 5 students with ASD	SCD, simultaneous replication	Mean vocabulary scores improved 23.5%. Mean main idea scores improved 23.7%.	Researcher (1:3)

Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorder; C = control; ES = effect size (calculated as Hedges’s g); NA = nonapplicable; SCD = single case design; T = treatment.

Mean increase scores = grand mean final treatment score minus grand mean baseline score divided by points possible.

Intervention Components

Structure and Format

The intervention comprises 50 lessons, each lasting 30 minutes, delivered using a flipbook format. The flipbook contains student materials on one side and tutor lesson plans on the other (Solis et al., 2025). Each 30-minute lesson includes the following instructional components: connection building, vocabulary instruction, main-idea summarization, fluency with text, and sentence-level comprehension. The 1:1 tutoring format allows students to practice reading without the social pressures often experienced in upper elementary and middle school.

Connection Building

This component focuses on establishing rapport and effective communication with each student. Based on established research on social skills development (Zheng et al., 2021), connection-building activities are designed to be brief and integrated into the transition to the tutoring session. To get started with connection building, tutors can laminate three 5 × 7 cue cards and place them on a ring binder (see Figure 1 ). The front includes student materials, and the back provides instructions for the tutor.

Figure 1

Connection-building materials

Tutors select one of two prompts (“How’s it going?” or “Tell me about your day”) to encourage the student to engage in conversation, helping the tutor to gauge the student’s emotional state. If the student does not respond, tutors model an answer for the prompt and then reask the prompt. Next, tutors review the behavioral expectations using a cue card with visual representations. The final cue card provides a visual schedule of the activities. Tutors are encouraged to use the cue cards consistently for the first 10 sessions to build rapport and establish the routines and then as needed based on each student’s unique needs. We recommend continued use of the connection-building question prompts for all lessons.

Vocabulary and Main-Idea Summarization

For vocabulary and main-idea summarization instruction, we recommend using challenging text. A suitable source is NewsELA.com, which offers articles with adjustable Lexile levels (900–1200). Prior to instruction, each article should be divided into five sections with one section read per session as part of a five-lesson unit. One advantage of using NewsELA.com articles is the ability to adjust Lexile ranges to ensure texts are appropriately challenging but not so difficult that they cause frustration.

Vocabulary instruction

Tutors can identify vocabulary words from within the passages. One common selection method is based on the three-tier heuristic system developed by Isabel Beck and colleagues (Beck et al., 2013). Tier 1 words are typically part of everyday oral language, and tier 3 words are domain specific of knowledge (e.g., “abecedarian”). Tier 2 words offer the greatest instructional value because they are high-utility words commonly encountered across academic text. Stahl and Nagy (2006) described Tier 2 words as those that “may be uncommon in conversation but are part of the core of written language that students encounter in text” (p. 61).

A second approach is to review vocabulary lists of words identified through linguistic analysis, such as the Academic Vocabulary List (Coxhead, 2000) and the New Academic Vocabulary List (Gardner & Davies, 2014). For students with ASD, we recommend selecting words with high academic utility, low likelihood of incidental exposure, or high relevance to social communication. If necessary, texts can be adapted to incorporate these selected words.

Figure 2 illustrates the vocabulary instruction routine, which is grounded in research supporting vocabulary gains for students with ASD and other disabilities (Capin & Vaughn, 2017; Solis et al., 2022). Students begin by reading the word and its simplified definition. Then, they engage in a brief discussion about how the visual image represents the word’s meaning (e.g., “How does this picture help us understand our vocabulary word?”). Next, tutors ask students to read related words and sentences that include the target word. Finally, students complete discussion questions or sentence stems to apply the word in context and practice oral language (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2

Vocabulary materials

Recent research suggests that targeted vocabulary instruction should focus on three to five words per week (Vaughn et al., 2022). Based on the pragmatic language challenges of many students with ASD, we recommend teaching three words per week, with dedicated review days. For example, during a 5-day unit, one vocabulary word is introduced in Sessions 1 and 2. Session 3 focuses on reviewing the first two words. The third word is introduced in Session 4, and all three words are reviewed in Session 5 using simplified definitions and visual supports.

Main-idea summarization

Because we use challenging text (“stretch” text) that is above the student’s independent reading level, tutors provide scaffolds to support comprehension (see Figure 3 ). These include previewing and reviewing content, offering text accessibility through tutor read-alouds, and supporting reading via partner reading, echo reading, or choral reading depending on student preference.

Figure 3

Main-idea summarization lesson plan

After reading, tutors guide students on how to “get the gist” (Boardman et al., 2016; Solis et al., 2021). This routine involves asking two questions: “What the most important who or what? What are some important ideas in the reading?” If students struggle to answer the question prompts, tutors reduce the amount of text being reread and re-ask the prompt for the reduced portion of text to help them pinpoint the correct answer prior to re-asking the question prompt (Solis et al., 2022). Lesson plans include sample responses for tutor reference (see Figure 3 ).

Fluency With Text and Sentence-Level Comprehension

Prosody

Prosody is a multidimensional construct composed of phrasing, syntax, and expression (Danne et al., 2005). In other words, we speak and read with tone and inflection in our voices. We also read phrases and sentences with pauses that help convey meaning. During the development project, we noticed that many participating students lacked prosody with their reading. This is not surprising because many individuals on the spectrum often experience difficulties with prosody as part of their speech (Holbrook & Israelsen, 2020).

To support students in developing prosody, we recommend simplifying instruction to focus on phrasing. The first 3 to 5 minutes of fluency instruction should help students recognize grammatical cues (i.e., commas, periods) as indicators for phrasing during oral reading (see Figure 4 ). For example, tutors might say, “When I see a period, I know I need to pause for a moment. Periods help you understand when one idea ends and another begins.”

Figure 4

Prosody materials

Lessons should focus on specific grammatical units, such as periods, commas, quotation marks, and exclamation points. First, the tutor introduces the focus of the lesson and models reading the text with appropriate phrasing applying the grammatical cue. Then, the tutor reminds the student of the focus and asks them to read the text with appropriate phrasing, attending to the same grammatical cue (see Figure 4 ).

Reading fluency

Given the wide range of reading abilities across the autism spectrum, we recommend preparing materials at varying readability levels. This allows tutors to adjust text difficulty and ensures that students have practice reading at their instructional level. One way to determine the appropriate readability level is to select passages the student can read with approximately 90% accuracy (Fletcher et al., 2019). We suggest using results from oral reading fluency assessments and a process of trial and error to determine the student’s instructional level. To support social skill development, tutors may offer students a choice between two reading selections for each session. Suitable reading materials include professionally developed programs such as QuickReads passages (Hiebert, 2003) or Read Naturally (https://www.readnaturally.com/).

Following a similar approach used in prior studies of students with ASD (Barnes & Rehfeldt, 2013; Reisener et al., 2014), fluency instruction begins with the tutor modeling the reading while the student follows along. The student then practices reading, either independently or with guided support. Guided reading options may include choral reading, echo reading, or independent reading, depending on the student’s preference. After reading, the tutor offers students positive and constructive feedback. Then, the tutor would select a discussion prompt from a menu of options, such as “What is the main idea? Tell me the most important idea in this part.”

Does it make sense?

To ensure that fluency instruction is purposeful (Vaughn et al., 2022), tutors ask sentence-level comprehension questions through the “Does it make sense?” (DIMS) activity (see Figure 5 ). Based on the reading content, students evaluate whether a sentence makes sense (yes) or not (no). Students use context clues from the fluency passage to justify their responses. Some DIMS items can also be designed to promote general knowledge development. If the students select an incorrect answer, the tutor asks them to point to the part of the sentence that supports or contradicts the meaning. If students continue to struggle, the tutor guides them to reread a specific portion of the sentence: “Let’s look at this part of the sentence again and see if we can find a clue.”

Figure 5

Fluency and “Does it make sense?”

After Thomas completed the lessons, his tutor asked him questions to understand what he enjoyed and see whether he had any suggestions for improving the instruction. Thomas said he liked reading the “hard” stories because he learned interesting things. He shared that the “Does it make sense?” activity helped him pay attention while reading and that the nonsensical sentences were funny! He added that he would miss working with his tutor, “Can we have 100 lessons instead of 50 so I can spend more time with you?” The tutor for Thomas also had the opportunity to provide feedback on her experience: “I loved working with Thomas each day. Seeing him progress was so rewarding. I’m so glad he learned so much and enjoyed the tutoring.”

Conclusion

Many students with autism need intensive, individualized reading intervention to meet their instructional needs (Keen et al., 2016). This article offers practical guidance for instructors, including those limited with experience, to implement 1:1 tutoring as part of Tier 2/3 reading interventions. Potential benefits include alignment with students’ instructional reading levels, opportunities to support social skill development (i.e., making choices), and chances for students to respond to text by working 1:1 with an adult, which eliminates concerns about social anxiety (Solis et al., 2025). Understanding and nurturing the individualized needs of each student offers opportunities to improve reading outcomes and higher levels of enjoyment. By developing and using the instructional routines and materials presented in this article, teachers can effectively provide 1:1 reading interventions for students with ASD in the middle grades.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through R324A220215 to the University of California, Riverside. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

ORCID iD

Michael Solis

Michael Solis, PhD, University of California, Riverside, USA.

References

Bailey

Arciuli

Stancliffe

R. J.

(2017). Effects of ABRACADABRA instruction on spelling in children with autism spectrum disorder. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(2), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1276183

Barnes

C. S.

Rehfeldt

R. A.

(2013). Effects of fluency instruction on selection-based and topography-based comprehension measures. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(6), 639–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.02.010

Beck

I. L.

McKeown

M. G.

Kucan

(2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.

Bethune

K. S.

Wood

C. L.

(2013). Effects of coaching on teachers’ use of function-based interventions for students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413478637

Boardman

A. G.

Vaughn

Buckley

Reutebuch

Roberts

Klingner

(2016). Collaborative strategic reading for students with learning disabilities in upper elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625067

Capin

Vaughn

(2017). Improving reading and social studies learning for secondary students with reading disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(4), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917691043

Coxhead

(2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951

Danne

M. C.

Campbell

J. R.

Grigg

W. S.

Goodman

M. J.

Oranje

(2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading. (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fletcher

J. M.

Lyon

G. R.

Fuchs

L. S.

Barnes

M. A.

(2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. The Guilford Press.

10.

Ganz

J. B.

Flores

M. M.

(2009). The effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching language to children with autism spectrum disorders: Identifying materials. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0602-6

11.

Gardner

Davies

M. A.

(2014). New Academic Vocabulary List. Applied Linguistics, 35, 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015

12.

Grandin

Duffy

Attwood

(2004). Developing talents: Careers for people with Asperger syndrome. Autism Asperger Publishing Company.

13.

Grindle

C. F.

Carl Hughes

Saville

Huxley

Hastings

R. P.

(2013). Teaching early reading skills to children with autism using MimioSprout Early Reading. Behavioral Interventions, 28(3), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1364

14.

Hiebert

(2003). QuickReads: A research-based fluency program. Modern Curriculum Press.

15.

Holbrook

Israelsen

(2020). Speech prosody interventions for persons with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29(4), 2189–2205. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00127

16.

Howorth

Lopata

Thomeer

Rodger

(2016). Effects of the TWA strategy on expository reading comprehension of students with autism. British Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12122

17.

Keen

Webster

Ridley

(2016). How well are children with autism spectrum disorder doing academically at school? An overview of the literature. Autism, 20, 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315580962

18.

Knight

V. F.

Wood

C. L.

Spooner

Browder

D. M.

O’Brien

C. P.

(2015). An exploratory study using science eTexts with students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 30(2), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614559214

19.

Lucas

Norbury

C. F.

(2014). Levels of text comprehension in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD): The influence of language phenotype. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(11), 2756–2768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2133-7

20.

Lyon

G. R.

(1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 14–18.

21.

McIntyre

N. S.

Solari

E. J.

Grimm

R. P.

Lerro

L. E.

Gonzales

J. E.

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

22.

Reisener

C. D.

Lancaster

A. L.

McMullin

W. A.

(2014). A preliminary investigation of evidence-based interventions to increase oral reading fluency in children with autism. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 30(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2013.869785

23.

Roux

Dion

Barrette

Dupéré

Fuchs

(2015). Efficacy of an intervention to enhance reading comprehension of students with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Remedial and Special Education, 36(3), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514533998

24.

Shhub

Jimenez

Solis

(2023). Reading prosody interventions: Instruction supporting improvements with phrasing and syntax. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 39(6), 530–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2022.2147464

25.

Solis

McKenna

J. W.

(2023). Reading instruction for students with autism spectrum disorder: Comparing observations of instruction to student reading profiles. Journal of Behavior Education, Online, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09532-6

26.

Solis

Reutebuch

C. K.

Falcomata

Jimenez

Cravalho

(2022). Reading intervention for students with ASD in the middle grades: An alternating treatment study of embedded interests reading and expository text conditions. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 25(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2021.1942279

27.

Solis

Reutebuch

Falcomata

Steinle

Miller

Vaughn

(2021). Vocabulary and main idea reading intervention using text choice to improve content knowledge and reading comprehension of adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Modification, 45(1), l66–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519853781

28.

Solis

Reutebuch

Vaughn

Jimenez

(2022). Reading enhancements for students with autism spectrum disorder: A matched randomized pilot experimental study. Research on Autism Spectrum Disorders, 93, 101937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2022.101937

29.

Solis

Shen

Jimenez

Reutebuch

(2025, February). Project READ-ASD initial efficacy trial: Preliminary results from cohort one data. Poster presented at the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego, CA.

30.

Stahl

S. A.

Nagy

W. E.

(2006). Teaching word meanings. Erlbaum.

31.

Turner

Remington

Hill

(2017). Developing an intervention to improve reading comprehension for children and young people with autism spectrum disorders. Educational & Child Psychology, 34(2), 13–26.

32.

Vaughn

Gersten

Dimino

Taylor

M. J.

Newman-Gonchar

Krowka

Kieffer

M. J.

McKeown

Reed

Sanchez

St. Martin

Wexler

Morgan

Yañez

Jayanthi

(2022). Providing reading interventions for students in Grades 4-9. Educator’s practice guide (WWC 2022007). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

33.

Wei

Blackorby

Schiller

(2011). Growth in reading achievement of students with disabilities, ages 7 to 17. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107800106

34.

Zheng

Kim

Salzman

Ankenman

Bent

(2021). Improving social knowledge and skills among adolescents with autism: Systematic review and meta-analysis of UCLA PEERS® for adolescents. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 4488–4503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04885-1