Reread–Adapt and Answer–Comprehend (RAAC) is a reading intervention designed to target fluency and comprehension for students with disabilities. Previous researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of the intervention for students with learning disabilities. This study extended the research by using the RAAC intervention with three postsecondary students with autism spectrum disorder. In the context of a multiple baseline across participants design, the results can be interpreted to conclude that the RAAC intervention may improve oral reading fluency and comprehension for young adults with autism. Using the linear weekly growth model based on the slope, the authors calculated realistic and ambitious goals. Participants’ fluency gains exceeded the ambitious levels of growth and transferred to unpracticed passages. In addition, all participants correctly answered more factual and inferential comprehension questions during the intervention.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.
2.
BryantD. P.VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.UgelN.HamffA.HougenM. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle-school content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 238–252.
3.
ChardD. J.VaughnS.TylerB. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.
4.
ChhabraV.McCardleP. (2004). Contributions to evidence-based research. In McCardleP.ChhabraV. (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 3–12). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
5.
DaveyB.McBrideS. (1986). Effects of question-generation on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256–262.
6.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.McMasterK.Al OtaibaS. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and the dual discrepancy approach. In SwansonL.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 235–246). New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1982). Developing goals and objectives for educational programs. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
8.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27–49.
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55, 429–438.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
12.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.WilliamsJ. P.BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
13.
HasbrouckJ. E.TindalG. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 41–44.
14.
HomanS. P.KlesiusJ. P.HiteC. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 94–99.
15.
HuaY.TherrienW. J.HendricksonJ.Woods-GrovesS. (2012). Effects of combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on young adults with cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 72–83.
16.
KampsD.LockeP.DelquadriJ.HallR. V. (1989). Increasing academic skills of students with autism using fifth grade peers as tutors. Educational & Treatment of Children, 12, 38–51.
17.
KazdinA. E. (2010). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
LaBergD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
19.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197–216.
20.
MathesP. G.FuchsL. S. (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruction in special education resource rooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 233–243.
NationK. (1999). Reading skills in hyperlexia: A developmental perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 338–355.
23.
NationK.ClarkeP.WrightB.WilliamsC. (2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 911–919.
24.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
25.
National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26.
O’ConnorI. M.KleinP. D. (2004). Exploration of strategies for facilitating the reading comprehension of high-functioning students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 115–127.
27.
RashotteC. A.TorgesenJ. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–188.
28.
SamuelsS. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403–408.
29.
SkinnerC. H.ShapiroE. S. (1989). A comparison of taped-words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 12, 123–133.
30.
TawneyJ. W.GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
31.
TherrienW. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261.
32.
TherrienW. J.Gormley-BudinS. (2008). Effects of the Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend (RAAC) intervention on the reading achievement of students with reading and behavioral difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15, 33–38.
33.
TherrienW. J.WickstromK.JonesK. (2006). Effects of combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 89–97.
34.
University of Oregon. (2005). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS): Oral reading fluency. Retrieved from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/measures/orf.php
35.
WexlerJ.VaughnS.EdmondsM.ReutebuchC. K. (2008). A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 21, 317–347.
36.
WhalonK. J.Al OtaibaS. A.DelanoM. E. (2009). Evidence-based reading instruction for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 3–16.
