International Journal of Contemporary Education

E
Vol. 11, No. 2; October 2018
IISSN 2575-31777 E-ISSN 2575-3185
Published by Redfame Publishing
P
URL: http://ijce.redffame.com

A Pilot S
Study on Patterns
P oof Skill D
Developmment of Neeurotypiccal Childrren as
Measureed by the ABLLS-R R: Impliccations forr Educatiional Proggramming g for
Childrenn With Auutism
James W. Paartington1, Auttumn Bailey1, Scott W. Partington1
1
James W. Parrtington, Autum
mn Bailey, andd Scott W. Parttington, Pleasaant Hill, Califoornia, USA
Correspondennce: James W. Partington,
P Beehavior Analyssts. Inc., 3478 Buskirk Ave., Suite 1000, Plleasant Hill, CA 94523,
USA.

Received: Sepptember 13, 20018 Acccepted: Octobeer 25, 2018 Online Puublished: Octobber 29, 2018
doi:10.11114/iijce.v1i2.36199 U
URL: https://dooi.org/10.111144/ijce.v1i2.36119

Abstract
Many assessm ments used to measure
m the skkills of childreen with an auttism spectrum
m disorder (ASD D) diagnosis lack
l data
that delineatess patterns of skill
s developmment by neurottypical childreen. In the curreent pilot studyy, we administtered the
Assessment off Basic Languaage and Learnning Skills-Revvised (ABLLS--R) to neurotyypical children (N = 53) betw ween the
ages of six annd 72 monthss to examine typical skill ddevelopment aacross the majjor skill sets and repertoire es of the
ABLLS-R. Wee found that skkills from the Basic Learnerr skills sectionn emerged and developed eaarlier (i.e., by age a five)
than those fromm the other skkills sections. B
By age six, chiildren masteredd their motor sskills and 90%
% of the self-he
elp skills.
Academic skills took the loongest to emergge and develoop with childreen mastering oonly 51% of thhe related skillls by age
six. Implicatioons of these findings,
f as thhey relate to sskill developm
ment and identtifying develoopmentally app propriate
teaching objecctives for indivviduals with AASD, are discusssed.
Keywords: auutism, ABLLS--R, developmental disorders,, normative datta, applied behhavior analysiss, verbal behav
vior
1. Introductioon
The prevalencce of individuaals with an auttism spectrum disorder (ASD D) has drasticaally increased aand now affects one in
59 children (C Center for Diisease Controll and Preventiion, 2018). Thhis statistic deemonstrates thhe increasing need n for
effective educcational servicces and teachhing strategies. Individuals tasked with tthe delivery oof such servic ces (e.g.,
educators, behhavior analystts, parents, etcc.) should aim to develop annd consistentlyy engage in bbest practice. Guldberg
G
(2010) identiffied and descrribed several factors that chharacterize beest practice inccluding the abbility to recog gnize the
significant diffferences acrosss individuals w
with ASD withh regard to theeir skills, intelllect, and behavvior. Further, she noted
the importance of carefully and thoroughlly assessing the skills of eachh individual annd tailoring suubsequent interrventions
to meet his or her uniquee needs. Takeen together, oone can deduuce that engagging in best practice involves the
administrationn of a comprehhensive skills aassessment to thoroughly meeasure an exteensive range off skills, the app plication
of effective annd developmenntally approprriate teaching sstrategies, andd tracking cliennt progress over time to incrrease the
likelihood of ooptimal learninng and development. Conseqquently, practiitioners will neeed to adminisster a skills asssessment
that addressess these consideerations.
Those seeking to measure the skills off individuals w with ASD wiill typically aadminister eithher a norm-referenced
assessment orr a criterion-reeferenced assessment. Norm m-referenced asssessments yieeld scores thatt reflect the ex xtent that
an individual can perform a specific skiill set in relattion to his or her same-ageed, typically ddeveloping pee ers (e.g.,
Vineland II; Sparrow, Ciccchetti, & Ballla, 2005a) whhereas criterioon-referenced assessments ((e.g., Verbal Behavior B
Milestones Asssessment andd Placement P Program; Sunddberg, 2008) m measure the exxtent that an inndividual can perform
specific skills as measured byb his or her aability to meet the stated scorring criteria foor each item inn the assessmen
nt. Thus,
scores obtaineed from the foormer emphasize inter-indivvidual variability whereas thhe latter highliights the exten nt of the
unique skills oof that individuual.
Despite their wwidespread use, both types oof assessmentss contain, at beest, an insufficiient amount off empirical research on
typical skill deevelopment. Consider
C that mmost norm-refeerenced assessm ments contain data that refleects the perform
mance of
neurotypical cchildren acrosss major skill ssets and broad subdomains ((e.g., Communnication, Acaddemics, etc.) att a given

70
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

age. However, these data do not extend to specific skill areas (i.e., repertoires; e.g., Labeling, Requesting, etc.) and the
individual skills that comprise them. Thus, educators will likely struggle to identify specific repertoires and more
importantly, the specific skills within those repertoires that an individual needs to develop. In stark contrast,
criterion-referenced assessments review an extensive range of individual skills across several different repertoires, but
they do not contain data that delineates patterns of typical skill development. This limitation results in uncertainty as to
the extent that an individual should possess a specific skill at a given age. Regardless of the type of assessment
administered, both contain insufficient data on typical skill development—a limitation that leaves educators with
minimal and often, inadequate resources for determining developmentally appropriate teaching objectives. An ideal
assessment would thoroughly measure the extent (i.e., criterion-referenced assessment) that one possesses various skill
sets (e.g., Language), including the repertoires (e.g., Requesting, Labeling, Receptive Language, Intraverbals, etc.) and
individual skills that comprise them, and contain skill development data that allows for one to compare the data
obtained to that of a same-aged, neurotypical peer.
A popular criterion-referenced assessment tool that yields a comprehensive overview of several essential skills and
could prove useful as a means to measure skill development and inform educational programming is the Assessment of
Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised (ABLLS-R; Partington 2010a). Indeed, leading researchers in the field of
behavior analysis and several professional organizations identified the ABLLS-R as an important resource and skills
tracking system that can guide parents and professionals with teaching critical language and learner skills to children
with ASD (Aman et al., 2004; American Medical Association, 2014; Schwartz, Boulware, McBride, & Sandall, 2001;
Thompson, 2011). This widely used assessment reviews 544 skills across 25 different repertoires and emphasizes
language, social interaction, self-help, academic, and motor skills. Despite its popularity, a noteworthy limitation of the
ABLLS-R includes a lack of data that delineates typical skill development as measured by the specific skills, repertoires,
and skill sets that comprise the assessment.
Using the ABLLS-R to delineate patterns of typical skill development can highly benefit those that teach skills to
children with ASD while also addressing a prevailing gap in the assessment literature. Using the ABLLS-R to identify
patterns of typical development can greatly and positively impact the process of educational programming for parents
and educators. Specifically, these data may facilitate the process of determining developmentally appropriate teaching
objectives for children with ASD. For example, one might consult skill development data to determine which
repertoires to teach first and the specific skills within those repertoires to target, given the age and the existing skills of
the student with ASD. In addition to potentially benefitting parents and educators, the present pilot study also greatly
contributes to the assessment literature as it marks the first known effort toward establishing developmental norms using
a criterion-referenced assessment.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
2.1.1 Assessors
We recruited participants from six-hour training seminars, held in both the United States and Asia, on how to conduct an
ABLLS-R skills assessment (i.e., how to administer the assessment, how to score responses, collect data, etc.) delivered
by the first author. Following the seminar, some attendees (i.e., parents and professionals), which we will refer to from
here forth as “assessors,” volunteered to include their typically developing children in our research. All assessors (N =
42) received at least a Bachelor level degree and 83% previously administered the ABLLS-R prior to participating in our
study. The assessors did not receive compensation for their participation, however we provided them with free access to
their online ABLLS-R account (i.e., WebABLLS) for the duration of the study so that they could enter their data and
monitor the development of their child(ren).
2.1.2 Children
Upon receiving signed consent forms from the assessors, the researchers inquired about the health of all children
enrolled in the study (N = 53; 30 girls and 23 boys, age range: six to 72 months). All assessors reported their children as
healthy and as absent of any mental health disorders or learning disabilities. We then administered the Vineland II
questionnaire (Sparrow et al., 2005a) to all of the children to measure their adaptive functioning and found that the vast
majority of their Adaptive Behavior Composite scores (M = 110, range: 86-131) fell within the normal range.
2.2 Materials
2.2.1 Vineland II
The Vineland II is a norm-referenced assessment that measures personal and social skills, from birth through adulthood.
Scores obtained from the Vineland II reflect the performance of an individual in relation to the performance of a
same-aged, typically developing peer. The assessment contains five major domains including Communication, Daily

71
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Living Skills, Socialization, Motor Skills, and a Maladaptive Behavior Index with each domain containing up to three
subdomains. It contains a wealth of empirical support for its pyschometric properties, including various forms of
validity and reliability (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005b).
2.2.2 WebABLLS
The online version of the ABLLS-R (i.e., WebABLLS) is identical to the printed version of the ABLLS-R and contains 25
repertoires—each of which corresponds to one of the following four major sections referenced in the ABLLS-R Scoring
Instructions and IEP Development Guide (Partington 2010b): Basic Learner skills, Academic skills, Self-help skills, and
Motor skills. The assessment contains a total of 544 items with each repertoire containing between six and 57 ABLLS-R
items. Participants can earn a score ranging between zero and up to four points per item depending on the specific
scoring criteria for each ABLLS-R item. Its international use by both parents and professionals reflect the strong clinical
significance of the assessment and recent empirical evidence points to the ABLLS-R as a valid assessment tool that
yields reliable scores (Malkin, Dixon, Speelman, & Luke, 2016; Partington, Bailey, & Partington, 2016; Usry,
Partington, & Partington, 2017).
2.3 Setting and Procedure
The description provided in the ABLLS-R Scoring Instructions and IEP Development Guide (Partington 2010b) noted
that any person familiar with the child could administer the assessment. Further, our recruitment method ensured that all
assessors received training on how to administer the ABLLS-R, score responses, and collect data. With these
considerations in mind, we allowed assessors to independently collect data on the performance of their child (i.e., we
did not collect data on inter-observer agreement [IOA] nor did we obtain data on procedural fidelity).
Data collection occurred between January of 2007 and May of 2013 in the home setting. Assessors could initiate data
collection as early as six months of age (or at a later age depending on the age of their child) and continue through up to
age 72 months. We asked assessors to begin collecting data once the child reached the next three-month stage in
development. For example, a parent of a 22-month old child would begin collecting data once their child turned two
(i.e., 24 months). At each three-month interval thereafter (e.g., 27 months, 30 months, etc.), participants would receive a
two-week data collection window, the week prior to and following the day of the three-month mark, to enter data into
their WebABLLS account. The researchers determined that administering the assessment on a frequent basis (i.e., every
three months) would enable a more thorough examination of skill development and that two weeks should provide the
assessors with ample time to complete the assessment. We informed participants that we scored data obtained outside
the two-week window, and incomplete data obtained within the two-week window, as missing data across all repertoires
for that data collection period. We encouraged the collection of data through age six, but participants could terminate
data collection at their discretion at any time during the study.
2.4 Data Analysis
2.4.1 Dependent Variables
The present study marks the first known effort to study skill development demonstrated by neurotypical children using
the ABLLS-R. Thus, we established and calculated two dependent variables to monitor the development of all 25
ABLLS-R repertoires and each of the four major skill sections: the percentage of only fully completed ABLLS-R items
and the percentage of both the fully and partially completed ABLLS-R items. The percentage of only fully completed
items reflects the extent that children mastered the skills associated with the repertoire or section whereas the
percentage of the fully and partially completed items reflect the extent that skills from a given repertoire or section had
emerged.
In order to obtain measures of our dependent variables at each age interval, we first needed to take a preliminary step
and determine the age that typically developing children mastered each level of scoring criteria for each ABLLS-R item.
To complete this precursor step, we established a priori that we considered a scoring level of an ABLLS-R item as
“mastered” at the earliest age that 95% or more of the participant sample met the stated scoring criteria for that
particular scoring level of the ABLLS-R item. This conservative mastery criterion, in addition to making calculations at
each three-month interval, allowed for a more accurate estimation of the age that our participant sample mastered each
level of scoring criteria for each ABLLS-R item in the assessment. To better illustrate our methodology, consider that the
ABLLS-R item D9 contains two possible points—a child receives one point for imitating one head movement and two
points for imitating three or more head movements. This preliminary step in the analysis yielded data on the earliest age
that 95% (or more) of our participant sample met the scoring criteria for one point and two points for this specific
ABLLS-R item.
After determining the age that participants mastered the criteria for each scoring level for each ABLLS-R item, we used
those data to obtain measures of our two dependent variables at each age interval. To accomplish this multi-step task,

72
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

we first coded all ABLLS-R items from each repertoire and section as either “partially complete” or “fully complete” at
each age interval. Partially complete ABLLS-R items consist of those in which 95% or more of the sample scored at
least a one, but did not meet the scoring criteria for the highest possible score. We consider an ABLLS-R item as
“mastered” when at least 95% of the participant sample met the scoring criteria for the highest possible score. One
exception to this coding method includes the ABLLS-R items from the Fine and Gross Motor repertoires as these items
contain a maximum of one possible point per item. Consequently, we only examined the mastery of these skills by
calculating the percentage of fully complete items from these repertoires as well as the Motor skills section.
Following the process of coding all applicable ABLLS-R items as fully or partially complete, we obtained measures of
our two dependent variables for all 25 ABLLS-R repertoires and each of the four major sections, at each age interval. To
obtain the percentage of fully complete items from an ABLLS-R repertoire or section at a given age, we calculated the
sum of the fully complete items from the repertoire or section of interest, divided that number by the total number of
items that comprise it, and multiplied the quotient by 100. For example, to calculate the percentage of only fully
complete ABLLS-R items for the Basic Learner section (i.e., repertoires A-P) at a given age, obtain the sum of the fully
complete items from repertoires A-P, divide the sum by the total number of items that comprise this section (i.e., 381
items in repertoires A-P), and multiply the quotient by 100. To calculate the percentage of both the fully and partially
complete items at a given age, we obtained the sum of the fully and partially complete ABLLS-R items from the
repertoire or section of interest, divided the sum by the total number of items that comprise the repertoire or section, and
multiplied the quotient by 100. We consider ABLLS-R repertoires and sections as “mastered” when 95% or more of its
items are coded as “fully complete.”
3. Results
We took a preliminary step prior to examining the emergence and development of skills from each section of the
ABLLS-R and its corresponding repertoires by identifying the age that 95% or more of our participant sample met each
level of scoring criteria for each ABLLS-R item. We provided visual displays depicting our results for all ABLLS-R items
in repertoires A through I (see Figure 1), J through R (see Figure 2), and S through Z (see Figure 3) with the number
inside each cell representing the age that 95% or more of the typically developing children met the stated scoring
criteria for that particular score. Note that in these figures, blank cells reflect scoring criteria that the children did not
master by age six or for one specific item (i.e., H3), it represents a skill that is not generally used by typically
developing children (i.e., intraverbal sign language). Although there are some exceptions, we also observed a general
pattern of skill development that showed that children typically mastered the lower numbered ABLLS-R skills (e.g.,
F1-F6) at an earlier age than the higher numbered skills (e.g., F22-F29). The data obtained from this preliminary step
enabled us to calculate the extent of repertoire and major skill section development in the subsequent analyses.

73
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Figure 1. Mastery of the scoring criteria (in months) for ABLLS-R items in repertoires A through I

74
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Figure 2. Mastery of the scoring criteria (in months) for ABLLS-R items in repertoires J through R

75
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Figure 3. Mastery of the scoring criteria (in months) for ABLLS-R items in repertoires S through Z

3.1 Emergence and Mastery of ABLLS-R Repertoires

When measuring the development of skills from each major skills section and repertoire from the ABLLS-R, we used
data obtained from the preliminary step in the analysis to obtain measures of our two dependent variables. We then
graphed these data at ages six (n = 12), 12 (n = 18), 18 (n = 24), 24 (n = 32), 30 (n = 29), 36 (n = 32), 42 (n = 34), 48 (n
= 31), 54 (n = 25), 60 (n = 25), 66 (n = 13), and 72 months (n = 13) for each repertoire and major skill section from the
assessment. These data revealed patterns of typical skill development across the ABLLS-R repertoires, including the
extent that each repertoire emerged (see Table 1) and the percentage of the repertoire mastered (see Table 2), at each
six-month age interval.

76
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Table 1. The Percentage of Skills Emerged from Each ABLLS-R Repertoire

Repertoire Label .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs
A Cooperation & Reinforcer 0 21 21 79 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Effectiveness
B Visual Performance 0 0 0 7 22 30 52 78 100 100 100 100
C Receptive Language 0 3 12 42 54 77 95 96 100 100 100 100
D Motor Imitation 0 0 19 44 56 81 100 100 100 100 100 100
E Vocal Imitation 0 0 10 50 85 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
F Requesting 0 0 10 41 55 90 100 100 100 100 100 100
G Labeling 0 0 0 15 23 91 98 100 100 100 100 100
H Intraverbals 0 0 0 6 10 52 81 96 100 100 100 100
I Spontaneous Vocalizations 0 0 22 67 89 89 100 100 100 100 100 100
J Syntax and Grammar 0 0 0 0 15 50 90 95 95 100 100 100
K Play and Leisure 0 13 33 53 60 93 93 100 100 100 100 100
L Social Interaction 0 0 24 35 59 76 82 97 100 100 100 100
M Group Instruction 0 0 0 0 8 17 42 67 83 100 100 100
N Classroom Routines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100
P Generalized Responding 0 0 0 17 67 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Q Reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 29 35 59
R Math 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 14 31 59 66 66
S Writing 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 20 80 90 90 100
T Spelling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 29 43 86
U Dressing 0 0 0 0 33 47 47 60 73 87 100 100
V Eating 0 0 20 30 40 40 50 70 70 80 100 100
W Grooming 0 0 0 0 29 29 43 71 100 100 100 100
X Toileting 0 0 0 0 10 20 60 70 80 80 90 90
Note. The percentages above reflect the percentage of fully and partially complete items (i.e., emerged) from each
ABLLS-R repertoire. The items from the Gross (Y) and Fine Motor (Z) repertoires contain a maximum of only one
possible point and therefore, cannot be coded as partially complete (and thereby used to measure the emergence of skills
from these specific repertoires).

77
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Table 2. The Percentage of Skills Mastered from Each ABLLS-R Repertoire

Repertoire Label .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs
A Cooperation & Reinforcer 0 11 21 21 67 79 79 100* 100 100 100 100
Effectiveness
B Visual Performance 0 0 0 0 7 19 22 33 74 93 100* 100
C Receptive Language 0 0 5 19 32 44 58 68 95* 100 100 100
D Motor Imitation 0 0 0 4 22 48 70 89 96* 100 100 100
E Vocal Imitation 0 0 0 5 40 50 75 90 95* 95 95 100
F Requesting 0 0 3 7 45 62 90 100* 100 100 100 100
G Labeling 0 0 0 4 13 26 49 60 74 94 96* 100
H Intraverbals 0 0 0 0 0 13 15 23 38 83 94 100*
I Spontaneous Vocalizations 0 0 0 33 56 89 100* 100 100 100 100 100
J Syntax and Grammar 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 20 80 85 95* 95
K Play and Leisure 0 13 13 20 27 40 53 60 87 93 100* 100
L Social Interaction 0 0 3 15 29 35 44 56 79 97* 97 97
M Group Instructions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 58 100* 100 100
N Classroom Routines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 90 100* 100
P Generalized Responding 0 0 0 0 33 67 100* 100 100 100 100 100
Q Reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 41
R Math 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 7 38 45 48
S Writing 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 50 50 70
T Spelling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 57
U Dressing 0 0 0 0 0 13 27 27 40 67 80 87
V Eating 0 0 20 20 20 30 30 30 40 60 90 90
W Grooming 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 14 43 57 100* 100
X Toileting 0 0 0 0 0 10 40 40 60 60 80 90
Y Gross Motor 0 0 7 10 33 43 53 63 67 80 90 97*
Z Fine Motor 0 0 4 14 29 36 57 64 86 96* 96 100
Note. The percentages above reflect the percentage of fully complete items (i.e., mastered) from each ABLLS-R
repertoire. An asterisk denotes the earliest age that children mastered at least 95% of the items from its corresponding
repertoire.

3.1.1 The Emergence and Mastery of ABLLS-R Repertoires From the Basic Learner Skills Section
The repertoires from the Basic Learner skills section emerged at an earlier age than those from the other ABLLS-R
sections. As shown in Table 1, skills from most of the repertoires (i.e., 80%) emerged by age two including skills from
the Cooperation and Reinforcer Effectiveness, Receptive Language, Play and Leisure, Motor Imitation, Vocal Imitation,
Requesting, Spontaneous Vocalization, Social Interaction, Visual Performance, Labeling, Intraverbals, and Generalized
Responding repertoires. The early emergence of skills from these repertoires coincides with the finding that typically
developing children also mastered many of the skills from the repertories in the Basic Learner skills section at an early
age (see Table 2). Specifically, typically developing children mastered 60% of the repertories from the Basic Learner
skills section by age five, 93% by age five and a half, and all of the repertoires from this skills section by age six.
The developmental path of most of the repertoires from this skill section was characterized by evidence of emergence at
a very early age and achieving full (or close to full) development by around age five. Using the data from Tables 1 and 2,
we provided a graphical display of the development of the Receptive Language repertoire (see Figure 4), as it reflects
commonly observed patterns of typical skill development across several of the repertoires within this particular skill
section. One can obtain graphical displays for each repertoire in the ABLLS-R by contacting the first author.

78
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Receptive Language
100

Percentage of Items in Repertoire

90
80
70
60
50
40
Mastered
30
Emerged
20
10
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Age (in years)

Figure 4. The development of the Receptive Language repertoire from the Basic Learner skills section of the ABLLS-R

3.1.2 The Emergence and Mastery of ABLLS-R Repertoires From the Academic Skills Section
In general, the repertoires from the Academic skills section emerged at a later age than the repertoires from any of the
other ABLLS-R sections. Only one skill from the Writing repertoire emerged by age two (i.e., ABLLS-R item S1—the
student uses any grip to hold a pen or pencil and draw a line)—only a few skills from the Math, Reading, and Spelling
repertoires emerged at or after the age of three (see Table 1). Typically developing children also took a longer time to
master their academic skills. By age six, children did not display mastery of any of the academic repertoires and further,
they mastered less than half of the skills from the Reading and Math repertoires by this age (see Table 2). We provided a
graph portraying the development of the Math repertoire (see Figure 5) to better illustrate the patterns of typical skill
development associated with the repertoires from this specific skill section.

Math
100
Percentage of Items in Repertoire

90
80
70
60
50 Mastere
40 d
30
20
10
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Age (in years)

Figure 5. The development of the Math repertoire from the Academic skills section of the ABLLS-R

79
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

3.1.3 The Emergence and Mastery of ABLLS-R Repertoires From the Self-Help Skills Section
Similar to the Basic Learner skills section, skills from the repertoires from the Self-help skills section emerged at an
early age—skills from each repertoire emerged by age two and a half (see Table 1). We found that despite the noticeable
gains made in skill development, children only mastered the skills from the Grooming repertoire by age six (see Table
2). The data provided demonstrate that children mastered several skills from the Dressing (i.e., 87% of items mastered),
Eating (i.e., 90% of items mastered), and Toileting (i.e., 90% of items mastered) repertoires, but they did not display
mastery over these repertoires by six years of age. The graphical display of the Dressing repertoire reflects the
characteristics of many of the self-help repertoires—skills emerged at an early age and children mastered most of the
skills from each repertoire by age six (see Figure 6).

Dressing
100
Percentage of Items in Repertoire

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 Mastere
d
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Age (in years)

Figure 6. The development of the Dressing repertoire from the Self-help skills section of the ABLLS-R

3.1.4 Mastery of ABLLS-R Repertoires From the Motor Skills Section

Our results indicate that children possessed some, albeit minimal gross and fine motor skills by age one and a half.
These repertoires appeared to gradually develop to the point that children mastered their fine motor skills by age five
and their gross motor skills by age six. The graphical display of the development of the Fine Motor repertoire (see
Figure 7) reflects the steady development of these skills.

Fine Motor
100
Percentage of Items in Repertoire

90
80
70
60
50
40 Mastered
30
20
10
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Age (in years)

Figure 7. The development of the Fine Motor repertoire from the Motor skills section of the ABLLS-R

80
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

3.2 Emergence and Mastery of the Major ABLLS-R Sections

As shown in Table 3, skills from the Basic Learner skills section emerged prior to the skills from the other sections (i.e.,
by age one). Skills emerged from the Motor skills and Self-help skills sections by age one and a half and skills from the
Academic skills section emerged by age two. Although skills from each ABLLS-R section emerged by this age, the
overall rate of skill development varied across the four sections. The graphical displays portraying the emergence and
mastery of skills from the Basic Learner, Motor, Self-help, and Academic skills sections (see Figure 8) reflect this
general finding. The descriptive statics and a visual inspection of the graphs revealed that by age two, the Basic Learner
skills section contained the highest percentage of skills emerged (i.e., 29%) in relation to the Motor (i.e., 12%),
Self-help (i.e., 7%), and Academic (i.e., 2%) skills sections. By age four, these percentages increased to 93%, 64%, 67%,
and 10% for each of the aforementioned sections, respectively.

Table 3. The Percentage of Skills Emerged from Each Section of the ABLLS-R
ABLLS-R Section .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Yrs Yr Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs
Basic Learner skills 0 2 9 29 43 72 86 93 99 100 100 100
Self-help skills 0 0 5 7 29 38 50 67 79 86 98 98
Academic skills 0 0 0 2 2 5 6 10 35 52 59 70
Note. The data in this table reflect the percentage of fully and partially complete items (i.e., emerged) from each
ABLLS-R section.

Motor Skills
Basic Learner Skills 100
Percentage of Items in

100 90
80
Percentage of Items in

70
Repertoire

80
60
Repertoire

60 50
40
40 30
20
20
10
0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Age (in years) Age (in years)

Self-help Skills
Percentage of Items in

100 Academic Skills

100
Repertoire

80
Percentage of Items in

80 Mastered
60 Emerged
Repertoire

60
40
40
20 20
0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Age (in years) Age (in years)

Figure 8. The development of skills from the four major sections of the ABLLS-R

81
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Children mastered skills from only two of the four ABLLS-R sections by age six (see Table 4). These skills include those
from the Basic Learner and Motor skills sections by ages five and six, respectively. In addition, although they did not
display mastery over their self-help skills, neurotypical children developed the vast majority (i.e., 90%) of them by age
six. The skills from the Academic section contained the least amount of growth and development through age five in
relation to the skills from the other ABLLS-R sections. Our data revealed that children did not master any of the
ABLLS-R items from the Academic skills section until age three and a half. Further, our results indicate that typically
developing children mastered only 5% of the ABLLS-R items from the Academic section by age four, slightly over a
quarter by age five (i.e., 27%), and barely over half (i.e., 51%) by age six.

Table 4. The Percentage of Skills Mastered from Each Section of the ABLLS-R
ABLLS-R Section .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Yrs Yr Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs
Basic Learner skills 0 1 3 8 23 36 49 60 81 95* 98 99
Self-help skills 0 0 5 5 5 17 29 29 45 62 86 90
Academic skills 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 10 27 32 51
Motor skills 0 0 5 12 31 40 55 64 76 88 93 98*
Note. The data in this table represent the percentage of fully complete items (i.e., mastered) from each ABLLS-R section.
The asterisk reflects the earliest age that participants mastered 95% or more of the items from its corresponding section.

4. Discussion
The current pilot study aimed to delineate patterns of skill development demonstrated by neurotypical children so that
parents and educators could make data-driven decisions when determining educational priorities for individuals with
ASD. To achieve our research objective, we used ABLLS-R data obtained from neurotypical children to identify the age
that typically developing children mastered each level of scoring criteria for each ABLLS-R item. These data enabled us
to make subsequent calculations and thereby examine the emergence and mastery of skills from each of the four major
sections of the ABLLS-R and their corresponding repertoires.
Our research team took an unconventional approach to meet our research objectives. The results obtained from the
present study relied on descriptive statistics and visual inspections of graphical displays of our data as opposed to
conducting statistical analyses. When deciding upon the appropriate methodology to use, we considered the suggestions
provided by Ator (1999) who called for researchers to consider the experimental question, design, and data obtained
when determining the appropriateness of inferential statistics. Parameters from the present study, which included our
goal of examining and providing visual evidence to illustrate patterns of typical skill development across the different
sections of the ABLLS-R and their corresponding repertoires, influenced our decision to forgo the conventional method
of using statistical analyses to highlight age-related gains made in skill development. By conducting a visual inspection
of the graphical displays and examining the descriptive statistics presented in the tables, readers can observe the
obvious changes (or lack thereof in some cases) in the dependent variables as a function of increased age, for each
major section and repertoire in the ABLLS-R. Furthermore, many researchers have historically encouraged the practice
of visually inspecting graphical displays of data as opposed to evaluating results based on data obtained from statistical
analyses (e.g., Fahmie & Hanley, 2008; Perone, 1999; Sidman, 1960).
The resulting patterns of typical skill development afford parents, professionals, and researchers with several benefits.
Prior to examining the development of the major ABLLS-R sections and their corresponding repertoires, we first
determined the age that 95% of our participant sample met each level of the scoring criteria for each ABLLS-R item.
Findings obtained from this initial step provide a unique contribution to the assessment literature and can highly benefit
those who teach skills to children with ASD. Specifically, these data can facilitate the process of selecting
developmentally appropriate teaching objectives by shedding light on which ABLLS-R skills to teach a student given
their current age and existing skills. For example, if a teacher wanted to teach motor imitation to a 30-month-old learner
with ASD, our data reveal that age-appropriate targets may include items D1-D3, D9, D10, and the criteria for the score
of a “one” on items D14 and D15 since typically developing children display mastery over these ABLLS-R items and
scoring levels by 30 months of age. Likewise, we can use these data to infer that other ABLLS-R items, such as
D16-D27 and the criteria for scoring a “two” on items D14 and D15, may not represent developmentally appropriate
teaching objectives for a 30-month-old learner with ASD since typically developing children acquire these skills at a
later age. Parents or professionals can then use these data to determine what skills to teach and may consider starting

82
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

with skills that typically developing children master at the earliest possible age. For example, they might consider
teaching D1 before D2 because typically developing children master the first three scoring levels of the item D1 at an
earlier age than D2. While these data can guide program development, we also used them to calculate the descriptive
statistics needed to examine the emergence and development of skills from the major ABLLS-R sections and their
corresponding repertoires.
A second benefit to examining the emergence and mastery of skills from the major skill sections of the ABLLS-R and
their corresponding repertoires includes an enhanced insight into typical skill development. With these data, researchers
and practitioners can now determine the extent that typically developing children mastered major skill sections (e.g.,
Basic Learner skills), repertoires (e.g., motor imitation), and individual skills within those repertoires (e.g., motor
imitation using objects, imitation of leg and foot movements, etc.) at any half-year age interval through age six. Parents
and professionals can reference these data when identifying skills to teach an individual with ASD. For instance, one
can infer from these data that developmentally, one should consider teaching a child with ASD skills from the Receptive
Language and Labeling repertoires prior to teaching him or her skills from the Intraverbal repertoire since typically
developing children master skills from the former two repertoires at an earlier age than the latter.
One can also use the skill development data obtained from the present study to confirm the appropriateness of
programming guidelines and recommendations provided by experts in the area of ASD treatment. Specifically, some
popular resources provide general recommendations for educational programming, but fail to document adequate
empirical evidence in support of their claims. One such example includes the ABLLS-R guidebook (Partington, 2010b)
in which the author strongly recommends teaching skills from the Basic Learner skills section prior to teaching
academic skills. Despite the lack of references provided in the guidebook, our results coincide with and confirm the
appropriateness of these suggestions. In contrast, our findings do not fully support the description of a curriculum
provided by other experts in the area of ASD treatment. When describing the characteristics of a curriculum, Leaf and
McEachin (1999) stated, “A strong emphasis should be placed on learning to talk, the development of conceptual and
academic skills, and promoting play and social skills. However, as a child gets older, the emphasis should shift to
practical knowledge and adaptive skills.” While our findings support their recommendation to initially place a strong
emphasis on teaching language to children with ASD, they do not support their recommendation that calls for the
teaching of conceptual and academic skills prior to adaptive skills.
In addition to facilitating the process of determining developmentally appropriate educational priorities, our data also
point to skill development as a complex process that likely includes complex relationships between specific repertoires.
Consider the four repertoires from the Basic Learner skills section that developed by age four: Spontaneous
Vocalizations, Cooperation and Reinforcer Effectiveness, Requesting, and Generalized Responding. The observation
that children displayed noticeable increases or mastered skills from other repertoires (e.g., Receptive Language,
Imitation, etc.) shortly after mastering these repertoires, highlights the possibility that one or more of these four specific
repertoires may represent precursor skills required for further skill development. Moreover, given the language and
learner skills associated with these repertoires (i.e., the spontaneous use of sounds and language, the motivation to
comply with others and partake in learning tasks, the ability to generalize learned responses, and the ability to request
for objects, events, or information, etc.), it follows that deficits in any of these skill areas may complicate the process of
acquiring other important skills that typically develop at a later age (e.g., receptive language, labeling, imitation, etc.).
A second example illustrating that a complex relationship may exist across specific repertoires includes the finding that
the Receptive Language and Labeling repertoires developed prior to the Intraverbal repertoire. Nonverbal stimuli
present in the immediate, physical environment control a verbal labeling response (i.e., tact) whereas verbal stimuli
control receptive and intraverbal responses (Skinner, 1957). In contrast to an intraverbal response, the use of receptive
language requires one to emit a non-verbal response. As such, intraverbal responses require one to possess sufficient
receptive language and labeling skills in order to accurately talk about things in their physical absence. Thus, a child
that cannot respond to the words spoken by others and talk about objects or events in the immediate environment (i.e.,
tacts), would likely struggle to provide an accurate intraverbal response. This logic may explain why children acquired
their receptive language and labeling skills prior to acquiring the skills from the Intraverbal repertoire.
Collectively, the aforementioned findings allow us to draw some general conclusions regarding typical skill
development and yield some important implications for educational programming for individuals with ASD. First, we
view skill development as a complex process in which specific ABLLS-R repertoires may act as mediating or
moderating variables that influence the age-related development observed across other ABLLS-R repertoires. While the
scope of our study does not enable us to confirm the accuracy of this conclusion, the developmental literature would
benefit from further examining this topic. Second, when prioritizing teaching objectives for individuals with ASD,
parents and professionals should initially teach and develop skills from the Basic Learner and Motor skills sections in
the ABLLS-R since these skills emerge and are mastered by typically developing children at a young age. Third, one

83
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

should forego teaching academic skills to individuals with ASD until the learner displays mastery of other, more
functional skills that typically occur earlier in development (e.g., skills from the Basic Learner and Motor skills
sections). Finally, since typically developing children generally master the lower numbered ABLLS-R items prior to the
higher numbered items, parents and professionals should select learning objectives that target skills acquired at a
younger age (i.e., lower numbered ABLLS-R items) prior to teaching more advanced skills (i.e., higher numbered
ABLLS-R items). Given our data reveal some exceptions to this general finding, we encourage individuals to reference
Tables 1 through 3 prior to selecting teaching objectives.
The present pilot study contains some limitations that warrant further discussion. First, we recruited a smaller than ideal
participant sample given the number of levels of the independent variable that we examined. The use of a larger
participant sample would lend further confidence to our findings and depending on the sample size, may lead to the
establishment of normative data that documents the skills of a typically developing child at a given age. Because of this
limitation alone, we view these findings as preliminary evidence of typical skill development that requires future
research to confirm the accuracy of our findings (by using a larger participant sample and addressing the other
limitations noted below).
A second and related limitation includes our age range used to examine typical skill development. Our data confirm that
children do not master all of the skills from a few ABLLS-R repertoires (e.g., Dressing) and sections (i.e., Academic and
Self-help) by age six despite the increasing trends observed in our data. Using a larger age range that includes data from
participants older than the age of six would enable researchers to identify when these skills fully develop.
A third limitation includes our decision to forgo the steps of calculating IOA data and obtaining measures of treatment
fidelity. As we previously noted, we recruited assessors at various ABLLS-R training seminars across the United States
and Asia. This methodology complicated our ability to identify other, qualified individuals whom could collect IOA
data and assess treatment fidelity throughout our lengthy data collection period. This limitation in particular hinders our
ability to ascertain the extent that the assessors properly administered the ABLLS-R and accurately scored the
performance of the children. In light of this limitation, our method of recruiting participants ensured that all assessors
received the same quality of training from the same individual (i.e., a Board Certified Behavior Analyst with over 35
years experience with conducting ABLLS-R skills assessments) on how to administer the ABLLS-R and collect data.
Further, a recent study found that individuals without any formal training could administer the ABLLS-R and still obtain
highly reliable scores (Usry et al., 2017). While these facts may help to mitigate the effects of this limitation, improving
upon the overall strength and believability of our results requires one to collect and interpret IOA data and to obtain
measures of treatment fidelity. Taking these steps would represent one of several different strategies that researchers can
include in future studies to further examine typical skill development.
Researchers can further our knowledge on typical skill development by addressing the noted limitations as well as some
of the prevailing gaps in the literature. One strategy may include replicating the present study using a larger participant
sample, collecting IOA data, and measuring treatment fidelity throughout the data collection period. Another related
strategy could include collecting and analyzing data obtained from participants from different countries to better
understand the generality of our results. In addition, researchers can shed further light on typical skill development by
using a larger age range to more accurately pinpoint the age that children display mastery over more complex skills (i.e.,
various self-help and academic skills). A second area for future research includes determining the extent that complex
relationships exist between the different ABLLS-R repertoires. Specifically, future research may seek to examine
whether some repertoires may function as mediating or moderating variables that influence or explain the age-related
increases in skill development observed across other, potentially related repertoires. This area of research could yield
invaluable information on which skill areas to target or prioritize given their relation to subsequent skill development.

References
Aman, M. G., Novotny, S., Samango-Sprouse, C., Lecavalier, L., Leonard, E., Gadow, K. D., & Chez, M. (2004).
Outcome measures for clinical drug trials in autism. CNS Spectrums, 9, 36-47.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852900008348
American Medical Association. (2014). CPT assistant. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association.
Ator, N. A. (1999). Statistical inference in behavior analysis: Environmental determinants? The Behavior Analyst, 22,
93-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391985
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2018). Data and statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/NCBDDD/autism/data.html.
Fahmie, T. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2008). Progressing toward data intimacy: A review of within-session data analysis.

84
International Journal of Contemporary Education Vol. 1, No. 2; October 2018

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-319

Guldberg, K. (2010). Educating children on the autism spectrum: Preconditions for inclusion and notions of “best
autism practice” in the early years. British Journal of Special Education, 37, 168-174.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2010.00482.x
Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (1999). A work in progress: Behavior management strategies and a curriculum for intensive
behavioral treatment for autism. New York: DRL Books.
Malkin, A., Dixon, M. R., Speelman, R. C., & Luke, N. (2016). Evaluating the relationships between the PEAK
Relations Training System-Direct Training Module, Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised,
and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9527-8
Partington, J. W. (2010a). The Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised. Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior
Analysts, Inc.
Partington, J. W. (2010b). The Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised: Scoring instructions and
IEP development guide. Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior Analysts, Inc.
Partington, J. W., Bailey, A., & Partington, S. P. (2016). A pilot study examining the test-retest and internal consistency
reliability of the ABLLS-R. Journal of Psychoeduational Assessment. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916678348
Perone, M. (1999). Statistical inference in behavior analysis: Experimental control is better. The Behavior Analyst, 22,
109-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391988
Schwartz, I. S., Boulware, G. McBride, B. J., & Sandall, S. R. (2001). Functional assessment strategies for young children
with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 222-227.
https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760101600404
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York, NY: Basic Books
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://doi.org/10.1037/11256-000
Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005a). Vineland adaptive behavior scales (2nd ed.). Bloomington, MN:
Pearson.
Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005b). Vineland adaptive behavior scales: Survey forms manual (2nd
ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Sundberg, M. (2008). VB-MAPP Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program: A language and
social skills assessment program for children with autism or other developmental disabilities: Guide. Concord, CA:
AVB Press.
Thompson, T. (2011). Individualized autism intervention for children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Usry, J. N., Partington, S. W., & Partington, J. W. (2017). Using expert panels to examine the content validity and
inter-rater reliability of the ABLLS-R. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 1, 27-38.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-017-9574-9

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

85