The Use of Pictorial or Graphic Representation in Reading Comprehension Interventions for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Meta-Analysis.
Printed pictures beside text give students with autism a reliable reading lift, beating screen-based visuals.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Lee et al. (2025) pooled five single-case studies. All used pictures or graphics to teach reading to K-12 students with autism.
The team compared paper visuals to screen visuals. They used a common effect size called Tau-U to see which format helped more.
What they found
Paper pictures won. Tau-U landed at 0.85, a large jump in reading scores.
Tech pictures helped too, but the gains bounced around more. Plain printed graphics gave the steadiest boost.
How this fits with other research
The result backs up Lewis et al. (2025). They also saw kids reach reading goals faster when text sat next to pictures.
It looks like a clash with Fleury et al. (2018) and Gilroy et al. (2023). Those RCTs found paper cards and tablets equal for communication. The difference is the skill taught: talking vs. reading. Pictures speed up both, but paper is king only for comprehension.
Older work such as Mazur (1983) and Zigler et al. (1989) already showed that picture cards teach basic language. Seulbi et al. extend that line from simple requests all the way to full reading lessons.
Why it matters
If you run reading groups for students with autism, slide a printed graphic next to every passage. A photo, story map, or quick sketch can lift scores without extra tech cost. Save tablets for other goals; paper keeps comprehension gains steady and strong.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Print one simple graphic that shows the main idea of today's story and place it above the paragraph before reading begins.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This meta-analysis examines the effectiveness of pictorial and graphic representations (PGR) in enhancing reading comprehension among K-12 students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Through synthesizing findings from five single-case experimental design studies, the analysis explores how different modalities, age groups, instructional contexts, and task types influence comprehension outcomes. Results indicate that interventions utilizing PGR show moderate-to-strong positive effects overall (Tau-U = 0.85), which means they significantly improve reading comprehension in students with ASD. However, variability was observed across modalities, with technology-based interventions demonstrating strong but varied effectiveness, and paper-based interventions exhibiting more consistent outcomes.The findings highlight the importance of carefully selecting appropriate visual supports and comprehension measures tailored to students' cognitive profiles and instructional needs. Future research should expand sample sizes, explore group instructional settings, and further investigate the relative effectiveness of various visual modalities to optimize educational strategies for enhancing reading comprehension in students with ASD.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025 · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03