This meta-analysis examined 36 studies comparing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and control groups in reading comprehension. Three moderators (semantic knowledge, decoding skill, PIQ) and two text types (high vs. low social knowledge) were examined as predictors of reading comprehension in ASD. The overall standardized mean difference for reading comprehension was g = -0.7 SD. The strongest individual predictors of reading comprehension were semantic knowledge (explaining 57 % of variance) and decoding skill (explaining 55 % of variance). Individuals with ASD were significantly worse at comprehending highly social than less social texts. Having ASD alone does not predict reading comprehension deficits. Instead, individual skills, especially language ability, must be considered before one can accurately predict whether a given individual with ASD will experience difficulties in reading comprehension.

No abstract

Body weight can be maintained in residents of SCUs regardless of pacing and other clinical characteristics. The comprehensive intervention of clinical dietitian time and an enhanced menu designed to be individualized for ambulatory people with dementia promoted significant gains in body weight. A minimum 5% weight gain is associated with survival in these residents of SCUs.

This research compared the written compositions of 16 adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders and 16 neurotypical control participants, and examined the influence of theory of mind on their writing. Participants ranging in age from 17 years to 42 years, matched on Vocabulary subtest scores from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (1997), completed the Social Attribution Task and wrote an expository and a narrative text. Texts were assessed on 18 variables representing quality, mechanics, and length. It was found that adults with HFASD wrote lower quality narrative and expository texts, and narratives of shorter length. Theory of mind was positively associated with writing quality and text length across both genres.

No abstract

This study explores the impacts of repeated curricular activities designed to promote metacognitive skills development and academic achievement on students in an introductory biology course. Prior to this study, the course curriculum was enhanced with pre-assignments containing comprehension monitoring and self-evaluation questions, exam review assignments with reflective questions related to study habits, and an optional opportunity for students to explore metacognition and deep versus surface learning. We used a mixed-methods study design and collected data over two semesters. Self-evaluation, a component of metacognition, was measured via exam score postdictions, in which students estimated their exam scores after completing their exam. Metacognitive awareness was assessed using the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) and a reflective essay designed to gauge students’ perceptions of their metacognitive skills and study habits. In both semesters, more students over-predicted their Exam 1 scores than under-predicted, and statistical tests revealed significantly lower mean exam scores for the over-predictors. By Exam 3, under-predictors still scored significantly higher on the exam, but they outnumbered the over-predictors. Lower-performing students also displayed a significant increase in exam postdiction accuracy by Exam 3. While there was no significant difference in students’ MAI scores from the beginning to the end of the semester, qualitative analysis of reflective essays indicated that students benefitted from the assignments and could articulate clear action plans to improve their learning and performance. Our findings suggest that assignments designed to promote metacognition can have an impact on students over the course of one semester and may provide the greatest benefits to lower-performing students.

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms

Caregivers usually reach out to professionals because they are concerned about their child's behaviour or development. Their much beloved child does not seem to act the way other children do. Parents of autistic children, prior to that child's diagnosis, will have likely noted their child's delays in reaching typical developmental milestones, more frequent or intense behavioural dysregulation, and have general concerns around their child appearing 'different' (Crane et al., 2018). They may worry that their parenting choices are to blame for child's difficulties.Parents often feel intense distress akin to grief after their child receives an autism diagnosis (Abbott et al., 2013;Mulligan et al., 2012). Sinclair's (2012) iconic essay, Don't Mourn for Us, recognizes that many parents feel such grief because of their 'shattered expectations'. This grief is further fueled by the 'stories of autism' crafted for families by both professionals and popular media. The diagnostic entity of autism is a subjective construct used by society to interpret and categorize behaviour, affect and ways of thinking -a sort of story or narrative (Duffy & Dorner, 2011). The way we share this diagnostic story with families will guide their thinking about 'how to accommodate and respect autistic children -and how to love them . . . Or they help autistic[s] . . . understand themselves, [and learn] how to get on in a world of neurotypicals' (Hacking, 2009, p. 502). Dominant autism narratives, including those shared by the diagnostician at the initial diagnosis, will be heard and internalized by families, autistic children and society as a whole.Until recently, the diagnosis of autism has been framed from a deficit-based perspective as seen in diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2008), as well as theories that describe autism as fundamentally characterized by central deficits in social motivation (e.g. Chevallier et al., 2012), or other skills. Not only genetic (e.g. Bailey et al., 1995), but also environmental (e.g. Christensen et al., 2013) literature on the aetiology of autism frames challenges as deficits rooted in the autistic person. The result is that the medical model has created stories of autism in