Relations of learning abilities, task characteristics, and acquisition of skills in children with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study sought to establish whether rate of task acquisition may be affected by the interaction between learning ability and task difficulty for children with autism spectrum disorder enrolled in an early intensive behavioural intervention (EIBI) program. To do so, specific teaching tasks selected from the Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised (ABLLS-R) that were previously categorized into learning ability levels were taught to two children recruited from an EIBI program. Each participant, P05 and P07, was assigned three teaching tasks that were programmed as a match, a mismatch above, and a mismatch below their current learning ability level. Teaching tasks were taught using discrete trial teaching methods for a maximum of 64 trials per task. A single teaching task, mismatched below P05’s learning ability, was mastered after 25 trials. No other teaching task was mastered within 64 trials for either participant. As this was only the first study to assess the rate of task acquisition for ABLLS-R tasks categorized into learning ability levels through direct observation, future researchers should continue to explore the effects of task difficulty on rates of task acquisition.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".