The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) directly measures the ability of a person with developmental disabilities to learn basic discrimination tasks. Its ease of use, potential practical applications, and strong psychometric properties make the ABLA a valuable tool for research and training. However, despite the demonstrated usefulness of the ABLA, there still remains a portion of individuals with developmental disabilities whose discrimination skills cannot be measured. This is unfortunate, as it is important to have reliable and objective measures of basic discrimination skills for these individuals to help set appropriate objectives and design effective interventions. I evaluated whether a modified procedure, using an alternative operant (switch pressing), would improve the testability of individuals previously found to be untestable on the ABLA due to physical limitations in their motor responses. Three females with developmental and physical disabilities (aged 17, 25, and 34 years) participated in this study. All three participants were nonverbal, nonambulatory, and showed minimal physical movement. The study included two phases. In Phase 1, an alternate operant response (i.e., microswitch press) to the standard ABLA response was reliably established in an ABAB reversal-replication design for all participants. In Phase 2, the effectiveness of the alternate operant response for assessing ABLA discriminations was evaluated in a combined multiple-baseline across tasks and an ABAB reversal design. The results provided convincing evidence that the alternative operant response improved testability for all three participants. Responding on test trials improved from 0% on assessment trials when the ABLA response was used to near 100% when the switch-pressing response was used. All three participants also met the ABLA pass criterion of 8 consecutive correct responses for the visual-position discrimination task. Overall, the results of this study clearly showed that for individuals with minimal movement who are untestable on the ABLA due to limitations in motor responses an alternative operant can be used to overcome this difficulty, thereby effectively extending the utility of the ABLA.

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) directly measures the ability of a person with developmental disabilities to learn basic discrimination tasks. Its ease of use, potential practical applications, and strong psychometric properties make the ABLA a valuable tool for research and training. However, despite the demonstrated usefulness of the ABLA, there still remains a portion of individuals with developmental disabilities whose discrimination skills cannot be measured. This is unfortunate, as it is important to have reliable and objective measures of basic discrimination skills for these individuals to help set appropriate objectives and design effective interventions. I evaluated whether a modified procedure, using an alternative operant (switch pressing), would improve the testability of individuals previously found to be untestable on the ABLA due to physical limitations in their motor responses. Three females with developmental and physical disabilities (aged 17, 25, and 34 years) participated in this study. All three participants were nonverbal, nonambulatory, and showed minimal physical movement. The study included two phases. In Phase 1, an alternate operant response (i.e., microswitch press) to the standard ABLA response was reliably established in an ABAB reversal-replication design for all participants. In Phase 2, the effectiveness of the alternate operant response for assessing ABLA discriminations was evaluated in a combined multiple-baseline across tasks and an ABAB reversal design. The results provided convincing evidence that the alternative operant response improved testability for all three participants. Responding on test trials improved from 0% on assessment trials when the ABLA response was used to near 100% when the switch-pressing response was used. All three participants also met the ABLA pass criterion of 8 consecutive correct responses for the visual-position discrimination task. Overall, the results of this study clearly showed that for individuals with minimal movement who are untestable on the ABLA due to limitations in motor responses an alternative operant can be used to overcome this difficulty, thereby effectively extending the utility of the ABLA.

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) is a valuable tool that is used to assess the learning ability of individuals with developmental disabilities (DD). The ABLA was recently revised and is now referred to as the ABLA-R. A self-instructional manual was recently prepared to teach individuals how to administer the ABLA-R (DeWiele, Martin, Martin, Yu, & Thomson, 2011). Using a modified multiple-baseline design across a pair of university students, and replicated across four pairs, I evaluated the effectiveness of the ABLA-R self-instructional manual for teaching the students to administer the ABLA-R to individuals with DD. Each student: (a) after studying a brief description of the ABLA-R, attempted to administer the ABLA-R to a confederate role-playing an individual with DD (Baseline); (b) studied the ABLAR self-instructional manual (Training); and (c) once again, attempted to administer the ABLA-R to a confederate (Post-Training Assessment). Participants who achieved at least 90% accuracy in conducting the ABLA-R in their Post-Training Assessment with a confederate then administered the ABLA-R to an individual with DD in a Generalization phase. In Baseline, Post-training, and Generalization phases I scored each participant’s performance using the ABLA-R Tester Evaluation Form. The overall results indicate that the self-instructional manual is an effective method for training individuals to accurately administer the ABLA-R.

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) is an empirically validated assessment tool for assessing the learning ability of persons with intellectual disabilities and children with autism. During the administration of an ABLA, an examiner attempts to teach an examinee to perform six individual tasks, called levels, using standardized prompting and reinforcement procedures until either a pass or fail criterion is met on each task. The majority of studies investigating the ABLA have been conducted with adults with intellectual disabilities. Research has demonstrated that the six levels of the ABLA are hierarchical in terms of difficulty, and that pass/fail performance on the levels is highly predictive of the ease or difficulty with which examinees will learn a variety of training tasks (Vause, Yu, & Martin, 2007). The present study examined the predictive validity of the ABLA with 9 children with autism, assessed at ABLA levels 2 and 3. A parent of each child was asked to predict the child’s pass-fail learning performance on 20 criterion tasks. In addition, according to the child’s ABLA performance, I predicted that each child would pass the criterion tasks that corresponded to his/her previously passed ABLA levels, and would fail the criterion tasks that were corresponded to his/her previously failed ABLA levels. I then attempted to individually teach each criterion task to each child, using standardized prompting and reinforcement procedures, until each child met either the pass criterion or the fail criterion of the ABLA. Ninety-two percent of the predictions based on the children’s ABLA performance were confirmed, and the ABLA was significantly more accurate than the parents for predicting the children’s performance on the criterion tasks.

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) is an empirically validated assessment tool for assessing the learning ability of persons with intellectual disabilities and children with autism. During the administration of an ABLA, an examiner attempts to teach an examinee to perform six individual tasks, called levels, using standardized prompting and reinforcement procedures until either a pass or fail criterion is met on each task. The majority of studies investigating the ABLA have been conducted with adults with intellectual disabilities. Research has demonstrated that the six levels of the ABLA are hierarchical in terms of difficulty, and that pass/fail performance on the levels is highly predictive of the ease or difficulty with which examinees will learn a variety of training tasks (Vause, Yu, & Martin, 2007). The present study examined the predictive validity of the ABLA with 9 children with autism, assessed at ABLA levels 2 and 3. A parent of each child was asked to predict the child’s pass-fail learning performance on 20 criterion tasks. In addition, according to the child’s ABLA performance, I predicted that each child would pass the criterion tasks that corresponded to his/her previously passed ABLA levels, and would fail the criterion tasks that were corresponded to his/her previously failed ABLA levels. I then attempted to individually teach each criterion task to each child, using standardized prompting and reinforcement procedures, until each child met either the pass criterion or the fail criterion of the ABLA. Ninety-two percent of the predictions based on the children’s ABLA performance were confirmed, and the ABLA was significantly more accurate than the parents for predicting the children’s performance on the criterion tasks.

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) is a valuable tool that is used to assess the learning ability of individuals with developmental disabilities (DD). The ABLA was recently revised and is now referred to as the ABLA-R. A self-instructional manual was recently prepared to teach individuals how to administer the ABLA-R (DeWiele, Martin, Martin, Yu, & Thomson, 2011). Using a modified multiple-baseline design across a pair of university students, and replicated across four pairs, I evaluated the effectiveness of the ABLA-R self-instructional manual for teaching the students to administer the ABLA-R to individuals with DD. Each student: (a) after studying a brief description of the ABLA-R, attempted to administer the ABLA-R to a confederate role-playing an individual with DD (Baseline); (b) studied the ABLAR self-instructional manual (Training); and (c) once again, attempted to administer the ABLA-R to a confederate (Post-Training Assessment). Participants who achieved at least 90% accuracy in conducting the ABLA-R in their Post-Training Assessment with a confederate then administered the ABLA-R to an individual with DD in a Generalization phase. In Baseline, Post-training, and Generalization phases I scored each participant’s performance using the ABLA-R Tester Evaluation Form. The overall results indicate that the self-instructional manual is an effective method for training individuals to accurately administer the ABLA-R.

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) test, developed by Kerr, Meyerson, and Flora (1977) assesses the ease or difficulty with which individuals with developmental disabilities are able to learn a simple imitation and five two-choice discrimination tasks. During ABLA Level 2, referred to as a position discrimination task, the client is presented with a yellow can always on the left and a smaller red box always on the right. The client is required to place an irregularly shaped piece of foam into the container on the left (the yellow can) for a correct response. With this task a client can learn to make a correct response based on position, colour, shape, or size cues, or some combination of these. The current study evaluated the relative difficulty of ABLA Level 2 and two additional types of position discriminations. The first type of task was similar to ABLA Level 2, except that it used identical containers, and thus contained both relative and absolute position cues (the REAB task), but not shape, colour, or size cues. The second type of task was similar to ABLA Level 2; however, it incorporated identical containers that varied in their absolute positions, which required a relative position discrimination to arrive at the correct response (the RE task). In Experiment 1, I used an alternating-treatments design with replication within and across three participants who passed ABLA Level 2 but failed all higher levels, to examine how many trials were required to master tasks analogous to ABLA Level 2, versus REAB tasks, versus RE tasks. In Experiment 2, I used a within-subject design with replication across three participants to further clarify the relative difficulty of the three position discrimination tasks, and to determine whether correct container location (i.e. left versus right) can influence the difficulty of learning the tasks. The results demonstrated that there was no consistent difference in difficulty between the three types of tasks, and the difficulties experienced by P1 and P2 can be accounted for entirely by an interaction between the right-left location of the correct response and handedness.

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) test, developed by Kerr, Meyerson, and Flora (1977) assesses the ease or difficulty with which individuals with developmental disabilities are able to learn a simple imitation and five two-choice discrimination tasks. During ABLA Level 2, referred to as a position discrimination task, the client is presented with a yellow can always on the left and a smaller red box always on the right. The client is required to place an irregularly shaped piece of foam into the container on the left (the yellow can) for a correct response. With this task a client can learn to make a correct response based on position, colour, shape, or size cues, or some combination of these. The current study evaluated the relative difficulty of ABLA Level 2 and two additional types of position discriminations. The first type of task was similar to ABLA Level 2, except that it used identical containers, and thus contained both relative and absolute position cues (the REAB task), but not shape, colour, or size cues. The second type of task was similar to ABLA Level 2; however, it incorporated identical containers that varied in their absolute positions, which required a relative position discrimination to arrive at the correct response (the RE task). In Experiment 1, I used an alternating-treatments design with replication within and across three participants who passed ABLA Level 2 but failed all higher levels, to examine how many trials were required to master tasks analogous to ABLA Level 2, versus REAB tasks, versus RE tasks. In Experiment 2, I used a within-subject design with replication across three participants to further clarify the relative difficulty of the three position discrimination tasks, and to determine whether correct container location (i.e. left versus right) can influence the difficulty of learning the tasks. The results demonstrated that there was no consistent difference in difficulty between the three types of tasks, and the difficulties experienced by P1 and P2 can be accounted for entirely by an interaction between the right-left location of the correct response and handedness.

Level 6 of the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) assesses the ease or difficulty with which persons with developmental disabilities (DD) are able to learn a two-choice auditory-visual discrimination. Individuals with DD who have passed ABLA Level 6 are likely to have at least some language skills, and their language is likely to be more complex than those individuals who have not passed Level 6 (Marion et al., 2003). Thus, an individual’s performance on Level 6 of the ABLA may be predictive of the types of language skills he/she will readily learn. Previous research (Verbeke, Martin, Yu & Martin, 2007) demonstrated that an individual’s pass/fail performance on ABLA Level 6 predicted his or her ability to point to pictures of common objects when the tester said the names of the objects. The present research examined whether performance on ABLA Level 6 might predict the ability of a person with a severe DD to learn to say the names of common objects (called tacting). Specifically, this study investigated whether participants who passed ABLA Level 6 (the Auditory-Visual Group – Group 1) would more readily learn object naming behavior (vocal tacts) than those clients who failed ABLA Level 6 (the Visual Group – Group 2). The groups were matched on the Communication Subscale of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS). Results indicated that: (a) Group 1 met mastery criterion for a significantly larger number of naming responses than Group 2; and (b) the mean number of trials to mastery criterion was significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 2. The implications for language training are discussed.

Level 6 of the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) assesses the ease or difficulty with which persons with developmental disabilities (DD) are able to learn a two-choice auditory-visual discrimination. Individuals with DD who have passed ABLA Level 6 are likely to have at least some language skills, and their language is likely to be more complex than those individuals who have not passed Level 6 (Marion et al., 2003). Thus, an individual’s performance on Level 6 of the ABLA may be predictive of the types of language skills he/she will readily learn. Previous research (Verbeke, Martin, Yu & Martin, 2007) demonstrated that an individual’s pass/fail performance on ABLA Level 6 predicted his or her ability to point to pictures of common objects when the tester said the names of the objects. The present research examined whether performance on ABLA Level 6 might predict the ability of a person with a severe DD to learn to say the names of common objects (called tacting). Specifically, this study investigated whether participants who passed ABLA Level 6 (the Auditory-Visual Group – Group 1) would more readily learn object naming behavior (vocal tacts) than those clients who failed ABLA Level 6 (the Visual Group – Group 2). The groups were matched on the Communication Subscale of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS). Results indicated that: (a) Group 1 met mastery criterion for a significantly larger number of naming responses than Group 2; and (b) the mean number of trials to mastery criterion was significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 2. The implications for language training are discussed.