An Evaluation of a Self-Instructional Manual for Teaching Individuals How to Administer the Revised ABLA Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) is a tool that is used to assess the learning ability of individuals with intellectual disability (ID) and children with autism. The ABLA was recently revised and is now referred to as the ABLA-Revised (ABLA-R). A self-instructional manual was 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, we evaluated the effectiveness of the ABLA-R self-instructional manual for teaching the students how to administer the ABLA-R. Each student: (a) after examining a brief description of the ABLA-R, attempted to administer the ABLA-R to a confederate role-playing an individual with ID (Baseline); (b) studied the ABLA-R selfinstructional manual (Training); and (c) re-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 then administered the ABLA-R to an individual with ID in a Generalization Assessment. Although additional research is needed, our results suggest that the self-instructional manual is an effective tool for training individuals to accurately administer the ABLA-R.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".