UC Riverside

Problem behavior, such as non-engagement, impacts academic outcomes (McIntosh et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2003; Roberts et al., 2015). Theories examining the relationship between problem behavior and academics suggest the following regarding the directionality of the relationship: (a) academic challenges lead to problem behavior, (b) problem behavior leads to academic challenges, (c) academic challenges and problem behavior co-occur, and (d) attention related challenges lead to academic challenges and problem behavior (Hinshaw, 1992; McIntosh et al., 2008; Morgan et al., 2008). Additionally, they emphasize the importance of addressing problem behavior concurrently with academics. This is crucial for students with autism, seeing that academic challenges (e.g., reading comprehension) and problem behavior have been consistently reported as challenges for students with autism (Belardinelli et al., 2016; Huemer & Mann, 2010; Solis et al., 2016; Volkmar et al., 2014). However, there is limited research on reading comprehension and behavior interventions for students with autism focused on behavior interventions and outcomes. To address this gap in research, the present study analyzed levels of engagement through a secondary analysis of an alternating treatment single-case design study (N = 3) that was entirely implemented via a distance learning platform during Covid-19. This secondary analysis sought to compare the relative effects of a pre-developed reading intervention (Solis et al., 2022) to a reading intervention that embedded behavior supports (i.e., behavior expectations, visual schedule) on student engagement levels. Study effects were analyzed through a visual analysis (WWC, 2022). The results indicated that the reading intervention that embedded the behavior supports was not more effective than the reading intervention that did not embedded the behavior supports. Engagement levels increased for one out of three participants during the reading plus behavior intervention. For the additional two participants, engagement levels slightly increased during the reading plus behavior intervention. Surprisingly, engagement levels were high across participants and interventions, despite using a distance learning platform. The percentage of intervals with engagement ranged from 66% to 99% in the reading only intervention and from 75% to 100% in the reading plus behavior intervention. Social validity results indicated a preference for the reading plus behavior intervention. This study provides insight into the engagement of students with autism and the use of distance learning to implement interventions.