Shared Book-Reading Amongst Parents of Autistic and Non-Autistic Children

ABSTRACT

Shared book-reading (SBR) is a commonplace interaction in the home, yet for families with autistic children, little is known about the types of books parents read with their children, their frequency of reading these books, or how this routine relates to those in families with non-autistic children. This study thus compared the frequency of SBR amongst parents of autistic/non-autistic children, focusing on various book genres (narrative, informational, alphabet, wordless). We also took parents’ variables (age, education, self-efficacy) into consideration. Participants were 216 parents (183 mothers, 33 fathers): 74 with autistic children (Mage = 6.56, SD = 1.33), and 142 without an autism diagnosis (Mage = 4.79, SD = 1.30). Parents of autistic children read wordless picturebooks, narratives, and alphabet books significantly more frequently with their children than those without autism, with no significant differences in terms of overall frequency of SBR. Understanding how these variables relate and interact can facilitate the creation of programmes that more effectively support families’ promotion of children’s literacy development, especially children with autism.

KEYWORDS:

• SBR
• genre
• literacy
• ASD
• preschoolers

Introduction

Extensive research exists on the quantity and quality of shared book reading (SBR) – when an adult reads a book with a child and engages with them in discussion surrounding the book, between parents and their typically-developing children (e.g. Dowdall et al. 2020; Grøver et al. 2023). However, similar research relating to autistic children is still in its relative infancy, and has focused on interventions (e.g. Boyle, McNaughton, and Chapin 2019). Compared to their typically-developing peers, autistic children often have delayed or impaired early language and literacy skills such as phonological awareness and concepts of print (Dynia et al. 2019; Eileen et al. 2021; Westerveld et al. 2016). Although interventions using SBR with autistic children have been beneficial (e.g. Tárraga-Mínguez, Gómez-Marí, and Sanz-Cervera 2020; Towson et al. 2021), little is known about the types of books parents read with their autistic children, their frequency of reading these books, or how these routines compare to parents of non-autistic children. Variables relating to SBR may vary between families with autistic/non-autistic children. For instance, compared to parents of non-autistic children, parents of autistic children often have lower parenting self-efficacy, which relates to the home learning environment that includes SBR (e.g. Benedetto, Calderone, and Ingrassia 2021; Bojczyk, Rogers Haverback, and Pae 2018). Additionally, while research shows that parents adapt their literacy interactions to children with disabilities (e.g. Aram, Bazelet, and Goldman 2010), to the best of our knowledge, there is no research that explores whether this extends to the types of books that they read with their children. This is despite evidence that different types of books promote different types of discourse (Bergman Deitcher and Johnson 2022). For example, wordless picturebooks may encourage more mental-emotional talk (e.g. Tompkins et al. 2018), which might be beneficial to autistic children. Individual variables such as parental gender and education relate to the nature of SBR interactions, such as less frequent reading or less sophisticated interactions (Cutler and Palkovitz 2020; Hoff 2013; Mol et al. 2008), though less is known about whether this is similar in families with autistic children. Aiming to fill in some of these gaps in the existing research, the current study explored SBR practices in families with autistic and non-autistic children. In light of global increases in autism diagnoses, gaining a better understanding of a practice known to promote children’s language and literacy learning can help in the creation of programmes that more effectively support the development of autistic children.

SBR with autistic children

Research in recent years shows that SBR can yield positive outcomes for autistic children (Kim et al. 2018; Tárraga-Mínguez, Gómez-Marí, and Sanz-Cervera 2020; Towson et al. 2021), particularly in areas where these children experience core challenges such as language and communication. Westerveld et al. (2020) found that parents’ SBR behaviours, particularly those that focus on the meaning of the story (teaching story structure, use of questions) predicted children’s verbal participation during SBR. Other intervention studies indicated that SBR can help autistic children learn social initiations such as commenting and engaging (D’Agostino et al. 2020; Rachelle, Paynter, and Westerveld 2020). In a meta-analysis of SBR interventions, Boyle et al. (2019) found that SBR had positive effects on autistic children’s listening comprehension, participation, and a small effect on expressive communication.

Although the interactive nature of SBR seems to promote children’s outcomes, the content of the book also seems to play a role. Children’s books often relate to characters’ thoughts and emotions and include mental state language (Dyer, Shatz, and Wellman 2000; Farkas et al. 2020). By engaging with storylines and characters’ lives, narratives can help individuals understand their own and others’ intentions, beliefs, emotions, thoughts, and desires – that is, their Theory of Mind (Brockmeyer Carlson, Koenig, and Harms 2013; Cates and Nicolopoulou 2019). Indeed, studies show that discourse that includes mental-state talk during SBR relates to the development of Theory of Mind in both typically-developing (e.g. Tompkins et al. 2018) and autistic children (Virginia, Peterson, and Mackintosh 2007), though research is more limited on the latter. While narratives appear to provide an opportunity for mental-state talk, and are the dominant genre selected for SBR (e.g. Bingham et al. 2018), there are numerous other children’s book genres available, including wordless picturebooks, alphabet books, and information books, which may differentially relate to the nature of the SBR interaction (Bergman Deitcher and Johnson 2022).

SBR with different genres

Research reveals that discourse during SBR of information books often focuses on content knowledge and vocabulary (Bergman Deitcher and Johnson 2022; Mol and Neuman 2014; Neuman 2017), and discourse when sharing alphabet books may focus more on the writing system (Bergman Deitcher, Aram, and Goldberg 2021; Davis, Ann Evans, and Pearl Reynolds 2010). Further, wordless picturebooks, where the text is absent and only the illustrations convey the story, may promote elaboration by parents, increase child participation, and reveal positive benefits for children’s early literacy skills, visual literacy skills, and narrative comprehension (Lorenz et al. 2020; Zevenbergen et al. 2021). They also provide opportunities to focus on social-emotional aspects of the story (e.g. Tompkins et al. 2018). Given these differences, parents may select particular types of books when reading to their autistic children. For example, they may specifically choose books that allow them to focus on areas where they can teach a lesson (Bergman Deitcher, Aram, and Adar 2019). The current study thus examined the frequency with which parents of autistic and non-autistic children read from common children’s book genres.

Parental variables

Various parental variables have been shown to relate to SBR. Some studies report differences in mothers’ and fathers’ style of reading with their children (e.g. Cutler 2023; Cutler and Palkovitz 2020), and at least one study found that fathers’ language input during SBR uniquely predicted children’s academic outcomes (Baker and Lynne Vernon-Feagans, and Family Life Project Investigators 2015). Additionally, extensive research with typically-developing children indicates that parents with higher levels of education read books more frequently with their children and engage in higher-quality readings – asking more open questions, teaching more vocabulary words, and promoting children’s participation (Barone et al. 2019; Hindman, Skibbe, and Foster 2014; Price and Kalil 2019). Although researched less, parents’ education also relates to their behaviours during SBR with autistic children. For example, Tipton et al., (2017) found that parents’ education positively correlated with clarification and evocative strategy use during reading. Parents’ self-efficacy, that is, their beliefs relating to their ability to parent effectively (e.g. Bojczyk, Rogers Haverback, and Pae 2018; Peacock-Chambers et al. 2017), are one factor in parents’ ability to create a supportive home learning environment (e.g. Albanese, Russo, and Geller 2019), of which SBR is an important element (Sénéchal and LeFevre 2014; Silinskas et al. 2020). For example, Santucci (2017) found that parenting self-efficacy predicted parents’ quantity of reading with preschoolers. As studies indicate that parents of autistic children often have reduced parenting self-efficacy (Albanese, Russo, and Geller 2019; Benedetto, Calderone, and Ingrassia 2021; Benson 2014; Scannell 2020), this variable takes on particular importance when examining literacy behaviours in families with autistic children.

Current study

This study examined differences in the frequency of SBR, including various book genres, between parents of autistic and non-autistic children, taking parents’ individual variables into consideration. Due to a lack of research, we explored the following question without a particular hypothesis: Are there differences in the overall frequency of SBR and in the frequency of SBR of specific genres (narrative, informational, fairy tale, ABC, wordless) between parents of autistic/non-autistic children? Additionally, in the light of the above-discussed research we posited two hypotheses:

1. Parents of autistic children will report lower levels of self-efficacy compared to parents of non-autistic children (Albanese et al., 2018; Scannell 2020)

2. Parental education and parenting self-efficacy will predict the overall frequency of SBR (Hindman, Skibbe, and Foster 2014; Santucci 2017).

Method

Participants

Participants included 216 native Hebrew-speaking Israeli parents (183 mothers, 33 fathers). Parents’ ages ranged from 27 to 58 (M = 38.5, SD = 5.65), and T-test analysis revealed no significant difference between parents of autistic/non-autistic children in terms of age, t(118.272)= −1.95, p > .05. Parents’ education ranged from a high school diploma (17.6%), through a bachelor’s or similar degree (56.9%) to a master’s degree and beyond (25.5%). Chi-square tests revealed no significant difference between parents of autistic/non-autistic children in education, χ²(df 2, N = 216) = 3.40, p = .19; gender, χ²(df 1, N = 216) = 1.15, p = .28; or the number of children in the family, χ²(df 2, N = 214) = 5.83, p = .05. Of the participants, 74 were parents of autistic children (Mage = 6.56, SD = 1.33), and 142 were parents of children without an autism diagnosis (Mage = 4.79, SD = 1.30). Although the autism diagnosis was parent-reported, to receive this diagnosis in Israel, children must undergo physical, neurological, and emotional evaluations, conducted by at least one medical doctor (psychiatrist/neurologist) and one clinical psychologist, who must agree on the diagnosis, which is in line with the diagnostic criteria of the DSM-5 (Israel Ministry of Health 2023). The average age for diagnosis with autism was 36 months (SD = 17.89). T-tests revealed significant differences in age between autistic and non-autistic children, t(214) = −9.40, p < .001, with a greater number of older children in the autism group (M = 6.56, SD = 1.33) compared to the non-autism group (M = 4.79, SD = 1.30). Given the delays in learning to read amongst autistic children (Dynia and Solari 2021; Dynia et al. 2019; Solari et al. 2022), it is expected that parents will engage in SBR through older ages, even after the children enter school. Significant differences also emerged in terms of child gender χ²(df 1, N = 212) = 9.17, p = .002, with more males than females, which is consistent with the higher incidence of males with autism than females (Loomes, Hull, and Polmear Locke Mandy 2017). Additional participant characteristics can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic details for parents of autistic/non-autistic children.

	Parents of autistic children n = 74		Parents of non-autistic children n = 142
	n	%	n	%
Parent gender
Female	60	81.1	123	13.4
Male	14	18.9	19	86.6
Marital status
Married	67	90.5	134	94.4
Divorced	7	9.5	6	4.2
Single	0		2	1.4
No. children in family
1	14	19.4	12	8.5
2–3	50	69.4	107	75.4
4+	8	11.1	23	16.2
Parent education
Up to 12 yr.	9	12.2	29	20.4
BA+other	48	64.9	75	52.8
MA+	17	23.0	38	26.8
Child gender
Female	19	73.0	66	51.4
Male	54	25.7	73	46.5

N = 216.

Measures¹

Demographic questionnaire

This seven-item questionnaire solicited basic demographic information (e.g. parents’ age, level of education, profession). Questions also related to one child in the family with whom the parents read books, including child’s age, sex, and age of diagnosis (for families with an autistic child).

Frequency of SBR questionnaire

This researcher-developed questionnaire examined the frequency of SBR within the family. One question related to the frequency of SBR with the child. One question related to the frequency of reading various book genres – narrative, informational, fairy tale, alphabet book, and picture book (e.g. ‘How frequently do you or a family member read a narrative storybook to your child?’). Respondents answered using a scale ranging from 0 = never to 5 = every day. The questionnaire is based on others used in research of SBR of different genres (e.g. Bergman Deitcher, Aram, and Adar 2019; Bergman Deitcher, Aram, and Goldberg 2021), and the questions were validated by experts in the field of SBR and early childhood.

Parenting self-efficacy

This 15-item questionnaire (Lyon 2001) evaluated parents’ beliefs in their ability to parent (e.g. ‘To what extent do you feel you are a responsible parent?’) and their role as a parent (e.g. ‘To what extent are you satisfied with the attention you give to your child?’. The items related to: (a) satisfaction in their ability to love their child; (b) patience; (c) helping; (d) consistency; discipline; (f) satisfaction with responsibility; (g) satisfaction with involvement; (h) satisfaction with their general ability to parent. Parents agreed to items on a six-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 6 = very much. After reversing scores for five negatively-worded items, answers were averaged to achieve a total self-efficacy score, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of self-efficacy. Reliability in previous studies ranged from Cronbach’s α = .81 to .96 (e.g. Caspi 2021), and in the current study was α = .88.

Procedure

The study was approved by the ethics board of Kibbutzim College of Education. Participants were recruited using a snowball method. A description of the study was advertised in various Facebook groups for families of children with autism, and passed on by parents who agreed to participate. One parent from each family was asked to complete the questionnaires. Participants received a link to a Google Form that contained the consent form and the questionnaires, which were completed in order – demographic, frequency of reading, and self-efficacy questionnaires. All data were deidentified to ensure anonymity.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were run for all study variables. Pearson correlations were run to examine relations between the frequency of SBR of genres and parent variables. To explore differences between parents of autistic/non-autistic children, and decrease the chance of Type 1 errors, a two-way MANOVA was conducted with group (autistic/non-autistic) and education (level 1 = up to 12 years, level 2 = bachelor’s degree, level 3 = master’s degree and up) as the independent variables, and with the following dependent variables: frequency of SBR, frequency of the different genres (narrative, information, fairytale, ABC, picturebook), and self-efficacy. Finally, to predict the frequency of SBR, we ran a hierarchical regression with the following variables in Step 1: parents’ gender, age, and education, along with group (autistic/non-autistic); self-efficacy was added in Step 2, and frequency of SBR was the dependent variable.

Results

Descriptives

Across families (both autistic/non-autistic), SBR took place, on average, about three times per week (M = 3.06, SD = 1.41). Narrative books were shared the most frequently of the genres (M = 2.68, SD = 1.41), followed by fairy tales (M = 1.71, SD = 1.27), alphabet books (M = 1.67, SD = 1.33), informational (M = 1.24, SD = 1.19), and wordless picturebooks (M = 1.10, SD = 1.38). That is, narrative books were read roughly one-to-two times per week compared to the other genres, which were shared once per week or once every 2 weeks. Across groups, parents had fairly high parenting self-efficacy, with a mean of 4.83 (SD = 0.64) on the six-point scale.

Correlations

Results revealed a somewhat different pattern of correlations amongst parents of autistic and non-autistic children (see Table 2). Amongst the former group, the frequency of SBR significantly correlated with parents’ education, as well as with frequency of narrative and wordless book reading. Amongst parents of non-autistic children, overall frequency of SBR significantly related to frequency of reading narrative books, while parents’ education negatively related to frequency of information, fairytale, and alphabet book reading. Child gender did not correlate significantly with SBR variables in either group. Amongst non-autistic children, age positively correlated with fairy tale reading but negatively with wordless picture book reading. There was also a significant negative correlation between child age and wordless picturebooks with non-autistic children. Amongst parents of non-autistic children, parenting self-efficacy correlated significantly with overall SBR and SBR of narrative books, while for parents of autistic children, a significant negative relation was found between parenting self-efficacy and SBR of wordless picturebooks. In both groups, parenting self-efficacy was significantly negatively correlated with child’s gender, with higher levels of self-efficacy for parenting males.

Table 2. Correlations between the frequency of SBR and demographic variables by group.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Parent education	–	.04	−.03	.19*	.19*	.12	.08	−.10	−.17*	−.11
2. Child sex	−.11	–	−.12	−.02	.02	−.13	.14	.11	−.01	−.25**
3. Child age	.02	−.17	–	−.11	−.10	.00	.18*	.39	−.19*	−.06
4. Freq SBR	.22	.01	−.08	–	.65**	.25**	.12	−.00	.00	.27**
5. Freq narrative	.10	−.01	−.14	.64**	–	.38**	.13	.09	−.04	.18*
6. Freq informational	−.23*	−.06	−.14	.20	.13	–	.16	.30**	.14	.02
7. Freq fairy tale	−.34**	.16	−.26*	.13	.34**	.35**	–	.32**	.08	.09
8. Freq alphabet	−.24*	−.01	−.21	.03	.27*	.31**	.54**	–	.24**	.13
9. Freq wordless	.03	.07	−.10	−.02	.19	−.10	.15	.13	–	.14
10. Self-efficacy	.04	−.27*	.17	.19	.06	−.02	−.15	−.01	−.33**	–

Above the diagonal: correlations for parents of non-autistic children (n = 142); below the diagonal: correlations for parents of autistic children (n = 74). Freq = frequency.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Differences in SBR and self-efficacy amongst parents

Results of the two-way MANOVA examining differences between parents of autistic/non-autistic children revealed a significant main effect for group (autistic/non-autistic), F(7, 204) = 6.22, p < .001, partial η² =.18). As can be seen in Table 3, parents of autistic children read narratives, alphabet books, and wordless picturebooks significantly more frequently than parents of non-autistic children. Results revealed significant differences between parents of autistic/non-autistic children for self-efficacy, with parents of non-autistic children showing higher levels of efficacy (see Table 3).

Table 3. Comparisons between group (With/Without ASD) and education.

	Group						Education
	With ASD N = 74		Without ASD N = 142				Level 1 (<12 yrs) N = 38		Level 2 (Bachelor’s) N = 123		Level 3 (Master’s) N = 55
Variable	M	(SD)	M	(SD)	F(7, 204)	Partial η^2	M	(SD)	M	(SD)	M	(SD)		F(14, 408)	Partial η^2	Bonferroni post-hoc
Frequency SBR	2.85	(1.40)	3.17	(1.40)	1.13	.005	2.74	(1.46)	2.95	(1.40)	3.53	(1.29)		4.23*	.039	Level3 > 1,2
Narrative	2.95	(1.54)	2.54	(1.31)	4.75*	.022	2.26	(1.15)	2.69	(1.45)	2.95	(1.42)		1.59	.005
Information	1.01	(1.23)	1.36	(1.15)	0.77	.004	1.26	(1.25)	1.23	(1.17)	1.25	(1.22)		0.75	.007
Fairytale	1.88	(1.52)	1.62	(1.12)	2.00	.009	1.87	(1.02)	1.72	(1.36)	1.58	(1.23)		3.18*	.029	Level1 > 2,3
ABC	2.05	(1.24)	1.46	(1.33)	5.55*	.026	1.84	(1.28)	1.76	(1.34)	1.35	(1.29)		2.76	.026
Wordless	1.45	(1.67)	0.92	(1.16)	7.68**	.035	1.42	(1.42)	1.02	(1.31)	1.04	(1.48)		1.44	.014
Self-efficacy	4.63	(0.76)	4.94	(0.53)	21.21***	.092	4.86	(0.72)	4.85	(0.62)	4.76	(0.59)		1.91	.018

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Results further revealed a significant main effect for education (level 1 = up to 12 years, level 2 = bachelor’s degree, level 3 = master’s degree and up), F(14, 408) = 2.08, p < .01, partial η² = .07). Significant differences were also found for education. Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed the source of these differences, showing that level 3 (master’s degree and up) engaged in SBR significantly more frequently than those with of level 1 (up to 12 yrs) and level 2 (bachelor’s degree). Additionally, those with level 1 read fairytale books significantly more frequently than parents with levels 2 and 3 education.

A significant Group × Education interaction emerged for the overall model, F(14, 211) = 2.38, p < .01, partial η² = .00). A significant interaction was evident for the frequency of informational SBR, the frequency of fairytale SBR, and for self-efficacy. To test the source of the interaction, separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted for the three education levels with group (autistic/non-autistic child) as the independent variable and separately for group with education as the independent variable. As evident in Figure 1, parents of non-autistic children with a master’s degree reported more frequent reading of informational books compared to similarly educated parents of an autistic child. No other significant differences emerged between the groups based on education for informational SBR. Regarding fairytales, parents of autistic children with up to 12 years of education reported more frequent reading of fairytales than similarly educated parents of non-autistic children. Additionally, parents with a master’s degree with autistic children reported less frequent reading of fairytales than similarly educated parents of non-autistic children. No differences were found based on group and having a bachelor’s degree for fairytale reading. Results revealed that parents of non-autistic children with up to 12 years of education and those with a master’s degree reported higher self-efficacy than similarly educated parents of autistic children.

Figure 1. SBR of informational and fairytales and parenting self-efficacy according to education levels and group.

SBR frequency: 0 = never to 5 = every day; Self-efficacy scale: 1 = not at all to 6 = very much

Column means are written in the columns. Statistical significance is represented by stars next to the relevant column descriptor.

*p < .05, ***p < .001

Regarding differences by education within group, parents of autistic children with up to 12 years of education read fairytales significantly more often than those with a master’s degree (p = .005), but not those with a bachelor’s degree (p = .02). No significant differences were found regarding fairytale SBR for parents with non-autistic children based on education.

The hierarchical regression predicting the frequency of SBR revealed that of the demographic variables (gender, age, education) entered in Step 1, only education was significant, explaining 6% of the variance in parents’ frequency of SBR, with lower education predicting lower frequency of SBR (see Table 4). Similarly, group (autistic/non-autistic) was not significant. In Step 2, education remained significant, and beyond education, parenting self-efficacy added 11% to the explanation of the variance in frequency of SBR.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression examining contribution of variables to the frequency of SBR.

Variable	B	SE B	β	R^2	ΔR^2
Step 1				.06	.06**
Constant	2.18***	.79
Parent gender	0.36	.26	.09
Parent age	−0.004	.02	−.02
Education	0.41	.15	.19**
Group	−0.31	.20	−.10
Step 2				.11	.05***
Constant	−0.18	1.02
Parent gender	0.21	.26	.05
Parent age	−.01	.02	−.04
Education	0.43	.14	.20**
Group	−0.15	.20	−.05
Self-efficacy	0.53	.15	.24***

**p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

This study explored the frequency of overall SBR, and of particular book genres, amongst families with an autistic/non-autistic child, taking parental variables into consideration. Results showed that overall frequency of SBR related significantly to parents’ education, regardless of whether a child was diagnosed with autism, such that parents with higher education read more frequently with their children. Surprisingly, parenting self-efficacy related significantly to the frequency of SBR only amongst families with autistic children. While parents of autistic and non-autistic children did not differ significantly in their overall frequency of SBR, differences did emerge relating to the genres, albeit with small effect sizes. Parents of autistic children read wordless picturebooks significantly more frequently than parents of non-autistic children, but they also read narratives and alphabet books more frequently. In terms of education, parents with higher education read fairy tales significantly less frequently. Level of education and having an autistic/non-autistic child also interacted regarding frequency of reading informational books and fairy tales, and parenting self-efficacy. Lastly, regression analyses revealed that only education and self-efficacy significantly predicted the frequency of overall SBR, with self-efficacy predicting beyond education.

SBR of genres with autistic/non-autistic children

Families with autistic/non-autistic children did not significantly differ in their overall frequency of SBR. The messaging surrounding the importance of SBR – advocated by paediatricians, early educators, advertisements, and others, may explain the prevalence of this parent–child interaction across families (e.g. Council on Early Childhood, 2014). Additionally, neither parents’ age nor gender significantly predicted the frequency of SBR. While previous research has shown differences between mothers and fathers in SBR (Cutler 2023; Cutler and Palkovitz 2020), it may be that the number of fathers in our study precluded any effects from being detected.

Significant differences did emerge relating to the book genres between parents of autistic/non-autistic children. Specifically, parents of autistic children read more narratives, alphabet, and wordless picturebooks compared to families of non-autistic children. While wordless picturebooks, which promote more mental-state talk and children’s involvement (Smadja, Ziv, and Aram 2021; Tompkins et al. 2018), might seem a logical choice for autistic children who have difficulties in these areas, it is interesting to note that these parents also read narratives and alphabet books more frequently. Narrative books similarly include social-emotional situations (Dyer, Shatz, and Wellman 2000; Farkas et al. 2020), and may also provide opportunities to focus on these elements with autistic children. Additionally, narratives are the most commonly read books during SBR (e.g. Daniels et al. 2022). Parents of autistic children may have higher self-efficacy for reading the more common narrative books, or they may find it better suits their children or their goals for the SBR. Regarding alphabet books, research indicates that autistic children have difficulties learning to read, particularly in areas such as phonological awareness and reading comprehension (Asberg Johnels et al. 2019; Fleury and Lease 2018; Fleury et al. 2021; Westerveld et al. 2018). It may be that parents want to focus on basic early literacy skills, such as phonological awareness (National Early Literacy Panel 2008), which is easily accomplished using alphabet books. Alternatively, some studies indicate that autistic children may demonstrate more advanced letter knowledge (e.g. Dynia et al. 2014). In reading alphabet books with their autistic children, parents may be playing to their children’s strengths or interests (Bergman Deitcher, Aram, and Adar 2019; Daniels et al., 2022).

Informational books were read less frequently, especially amongst families with autistic children. These books can promote content knowledge and vocabulary, elements important for reading comprehension (Bergman Deitcher and Johnson 2022; Mol and Neuman 2014; Neuman 2017). Moreover, recent research suggests that incorporating these books may promote engagement in autistic children (Ford and Fleury 2021), highlighting the importance of including informational books into SBR repertoires.

Regarding the frequency of reading informational books and fairy tales, we found that level of education and having an autistic/non-autistic child interacted, such that parents with non-autistic children with a master’s degree read informational books more frequently than similarly educated parents of autistic children. Parents with a master’s degree read fairy tales less frequently with autistic children than parents with non-autistic children, while parents with up to 12 years of education read fairy tales more with their autistic children than similarly educated parents of non-autistic children. It is difficult to know how to interpret these findings. It may be that parents with higher education levels have more knowledge overall regarding the benefits of different types of books, and they want to broaden the horizons of their autistic children, thus reading fewer fairy tales. It is also possible that these parents are sensitive to the underlying messages and morals of fairy tales and suspect their autistic children may struggle to understand them, thus reading them less frequently. These findings may also reflect the differences in age between the autistic/non-autistic children, with better-educated parents being more aware of their children’s developmental stage. More research is needed on parents’ goals in selecting specific genres to read with their children, and how this may vary between parents of autistic/non-autistic children and children’s age.

Parenting self-efficacy

Supporting our hypothesis, and in line with existing research (Benedetto, Calderone, and Ingrassia 2021), parents of non-autistic children showed higher levels of self-efficacy than parents of autistic children. Moreover, self-efficacy significantly predicted the frequency of SBR, beyond education, highlighting this aspect of parenting and its relation with important early learning interactions. In a review, Hohlfeld et al. (2018) found that parent training programmes can successfully increase parenting self-efficacy in parents of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. At the same time, Jennifer et al. (2021) noted the need for additional research in creating interventions that promote autism-specific parenting self-efficacy.

Limitations & future research

The current study has various limitations. While it provides quantitative information regarding SBR interactions with autistic/non-autistic children, qualitative research can provide deeper insights into parents’ considerations in their book selections and how they view SBR with autistic children. Significant age differences exist between the autistic/non-autistic children. Although age did not significantly relate to the frequency of SBR, nonetheless, future research should more closely consider age when exploring SBR in these groups. The study’s results revealed complex relations between parents’ education, frequency of reading different genres, and self-efficacy. Analyses such as Structural Equation Modeling can facilitate understanding of the directionality of the variables and possible mediation effects. Although we found some differences between the autistic/non-autistic groups, the effect sizes were small, and indicate a need for replication. The study focused on native Hebrew-speaking participants, but future studies can explore potential cross-cultural differences. Lastly, there were substantially fewer fathers than mothers, and thus insufficient representation of the fathers’ role. Future research with more fathers, or solely on fathers, can shed light on characteristics of the fathers’ SBR with autistic/non-autistic children.

Implications & conclusions

Early childhood care and education is an important foundation for promoting the growing population of autistic individuals, especially in more inclusive education settings. There is a need for more comprehensive research to better understand the nature of SBR interactions with autistic children, in both home and school contexts (Murphy, Pentimonti, and Chow 2023). While the current study contributes to this, we encourage researchers and practitioners to broaden their examination and extend the knowledge base and understanding of SBR and parents’ book selection with autistic children beyond its current scope. Additionally, in the light of the dearth of SBR of information books by parents of autistic children, helping parents understand the benefits of this genre may promote their inclusion in SBR interactions. Further, in the light of our findings regarding self-efficacy, interventions that target parenting self-efficacy amongst parents of autistic children may be a potential means to strengthen the home learning environment in these families.

Ethics

The authors elected not to share the data for this study in adherence with the guidelines from the Ethics Board.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Measures are in Hebrew and are available from the authors upon request.