Discrimination skill as a predictor of prevocational performance of institutionalized mentally retarded clients.

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to determine whether an assessment of the discrimination skills of institutionalized mentally retarded clients provided information regarding subsequent prevocational performance. During Experiment 1, the two-choice discrimination skills of 20 mentally retarded clients were assessed with six diagnostic tasks. Following assessment, 12 clients were administered several criterion tasks to determine the accuracy of prediction of the assessment tasks on prevocational analogue tasks. During Experiment 2, nine clients were administered a prevocational sorting task, and the accuracy of prediction of the discrimination assessment was again evaluated. Results indicated that the results of assessment are useful in predicting performance across most of the analogue tasks and the prevocational sorting task.

The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities Test for Predicting Learning of Persons With Intellectual Disabilities

“…Across six of the studies (excluding Condillac, 2002, in which the participants had a dual diagnosis of MR plus autism or PDD-not otherwise specified [NOS]), 77 participants had a diagnosis of MR with a range of profound to mild MR and with ages ranging from 4 to 55. Across those six studies, there were 23 participants who experienced criterion A-tasks, and Kerr, & Carroll (1983) A-Tasks: Containers were sometimes a box and a can, sometimes two boxes and sometimes two cans, of different sizes and colors (cubes and cylinders matched boxes and cans in size or shape for Level 4). B-Tasks: One prevocational sorting task at each of Levels 2, 4, and 6 involving red and blue chips and white containers.…”

“…Research on the ABLA test was reviewed by Martin, Yu, and Vause (2004). That research indicates that (a) the ABLA tasks are ordered as listed in Table 1 such that most individuals who pass a certain level of discrimination also pass at lower levels of the hierarchy and those who fail a certain level of discrimination also fail at higher levels, and this has been demonstrated for persons with MR (Kerr et al, 1977;Martin, Yu, Quinn, & Patterson, 1983), children with Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD); Ward & Yu, 2000), and typically developing children (Casey & Kerr, 1977); (b) the ABLA test has very high test-retest and intertester reliability (Martin et al, 1983); (c) if a testee fails an ABLA level, then tasks requiring that ABLA level are very difficult to teach using the SPR procedures of the ABLA test (Meyerson, 1977;Stubbings & Martin, 1995;Wacker, Kerr, & Carroll, 1983;Wacker, Steil, & Greenebaum, 1983;Witt & Wacker, 1981;Yu & Martin, 1986); (d) mismatching of ABLA test level of clients to ABLA difficulty of training tasks causes aberrant behaviors (Vause, Martin, Cornick et al, 2000;Vause, Martin, & Yu, 1999); (e) direct-care staff with no knowledge of the ABLA test often mismatch the ABLA test level of clients and the ABLA difficulty level of training tasks (DeWiele & Martin, 1996;Vause, Martin, Cornick et al 2000); and (f) the ABLA has concurrent validity with language, reading, and adaptive behavior assessments (Barker-Collo, Jamieson, & Boo, 1995;Casey & Kerr, 1977;Meyerson, 1977;Richards, Williams, & Follette, 2002;. The degree of intellectual disability as measure by IQ is roughly associated with ABLA test performance, with 73% of persons with moderate MR, 35% of persons with severe MR, and no persons with profound MR able to learn ABLA Levels 5 and 6 (the auditory discriminations; Kerr et al, 1977).…”

“…Overall, 71% of the predictions were confirmed. Wacker, Kerr et al (1983) examined the predictive validity of the ABLA test on four-choice discriminations with 12 adults with profound to moderate MR. The sample included four participants who were at ABLA Level 2, four who were at ABLA Level 4, and four who were at ABLA Level 6.…”

Teaching Equivalence Relations to Individuals with Minimal Verbal Repertoires: Are Visual and Auditory-Visual Discriminations Predictive of Stimulus Equivalence?

“…The ABLA test is highly predictive of the ease or difficulty with which an individual is able to perform educational, prevocational , and vocational tasks (Stubbings & Martin, 1995Wacker, Kerr, & Carroll, 1983;Wacker, Steil, & Greenbaum , 1983). For example, Wacker, Kerr, et al examinEld whether the ABLA test predicted participants' abilities to perform two·-choice and four-choice vocational analogue tasks .…”

The Hierarchical Relationship Between Several Visual and Auditory Discriminations and Three Verbal Operants among Individuals with Developmental Disabilities

“…Auditory Visual Discrimination: The same as Level 5, A conditional auditory-visual except that the right-left position of the containers is ran-nonidentity discrimination, with domly alternated. the same auditory cues as Level 5, and with only color, shape, and size as relevant cues Research on the ABLA test indicates that: (a) the test levels are hierarchically ordered in difficulty for persons with developmental disabilities (Kerr et al, 1977;Martin, Yu, Quinn, & Paterson, 1983), children with autistic spectrum disorders (Ward & Yu, 2000), hearing impaired, multiple handicapped persons (Wacker, 1981), and typically developing children (Casey & Kerr, 1977); (b) failed ABLA levels are difficult to teach using standard prompting and reinforcement procedures (Conyers, Martin, Yu, & Vause, 2000;Meyerson, 1977;Stubbings & Martin, 1995Wacker, Kerr, & Carroll, 1983; Wacker, Steil, & Greenbaum, 1983;Witt & Wacker, 1981;Yu & Martin, 1986); (c) pass-fail performances on ABLA levels have high predictive validity for performances on other tasks (Stubbings & Martin, 1995Tharinger, Schallert, & Kerr, 1977;Wacker, Kerr et al, 1983;Wacker, Steil et al, 1983); (d) the ABLA is a better predictor of a client's learning performance than experienced staff with direct knowledge of that client (Stubbings & Martin, 1998); (e) mismatching of ABLA test level of clients to ABLA difficulty of training tasks results in more aberrant behaviors (Vause, Martin, & Yu, 1999;Vause, Martin, Cornick et al, 2000); and (f) direct-care staff with no knowledge of the ABLA test often mismatch the ABLA test level of clients and the ABLA difficulty level of training tasks (DeWiele & Martin, 1996;Vause, Martin, Comick et al, 2000). The ABLA test has proven to be a valuable tool for matching the learning ability of clients to the difficulty of training tasks for individuals with developmental disabilities .…”