Implementing the Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessmentand Placement Program (VB-MAPP): Teaching AssessmentTechniques

Clarissa S. Barnes & James R. Mellor &

Ruth Anne Rehfeldt

Published online: 1 January 2014# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2014

Abstract The Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessmentand Placement Program (VB-MAPP) is an assessmenttool used with individuals diagnosed with autism spec-trum disorder and other language delays (Sundberg2008). The milestones assessment section of the VB-MAPP is used to determine an individual’s current skilllevel. The results of the milestones assessment can beused to identify instructional goals and objectives. Thecurrent study examined the effects of behavioral skillstraining (BST) on the administration of the milestonesassessment by two educational professionals. The BSTintervention resulted in immediate increases in perfor-mance for both participants.

Keywords Behavioral skills training . Staff training .

Verbal BehaviorMilestones Assessment and PlacementProgram

The Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Place-ment Program (VB-MAPP) is a five-component

program designed to measure verbal behavior, guideindividualized instruction needed to address deficits inverbal behavior, and evaluate progress over the courseof a treatment program (Sundberg 2008). The assess-ment is used to evaluate performance on Skinner’s(1957) verbal operants across a number of tasks. Themilestones assessment is divided into three develop-mental levels (0–18, 18–30, and 30–48 months), basedon the attainment of developmental milestones by typ-ically developing children. The current study focused onlevels 1 and 2 of the milestones assessment of the VB-MAPP only. Level 1 of the assessment includes theevaluation of early mand, tact, listener, social, visual-perceptual and match-to-sample, independent play, mo-tor imitation, and echoic skills, as well as spontaneousvocal behavior. Level 2 of the assessment includescontinued evaluation of expanded level 1 skills (withthe exception of spontaneous vocal behavior) as well asan evaluation of listener responding by function, feature,and class, intraverbals, classroom/group routines, andlinguistic skills (see Sundberg 2008). Level 3 expandson the skills targeted in level 2 and assesses pre-academic behaviors in reading, math, and writing. TheVB-MAPP is a tool that can be used in a variety ofsettings with any number of clinical populations(Sundberg 2008). Many educational settings use theinstrument to establish language goals and objectivesfor individuals with autism spectrum disorder and otherdevelopmental disabilities.

As with all tools and protocols, the results of the VB-MAPP will only be meaningful if the assessment isconducted by professionals who are skilled in its

Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47DOI 10.1007/s40616-013-0004-5

C. S. Barnes : J. R. Mellor :R. A. RehfeldtBehavior Analysis and Therapy program; RehabilitationInstitute, Southern Illinois University,Carbondale, IL, USA

Present Address:C. S. Barnes (*)Division of Business, Social Work, and Education,Defiance College,701 N. Clinton St, Defiance, OH 43512, USAe-mail: cbarnes@defiance.edu

administration. Unlike many other language assess-ments, the VB-MAPP requires that administrators arefamiliar with Skinner’s (1957) analysis of verbal behav-ior and basic behavior analysis (Sundberg 2008). Thatis, administrators must be aware of the functional rela-tionships between verbal behavior and the speaker’senvironment in order to correctly design the assessmentenvironment and assess the verbal operants. Without anunderstanding of Skinner’s (1957) analysis of verbalbehavior, an individual may mistake one operant foranother based on formal similarity. Table 1 providesexamples of verbal operants in which the response to-pography, saying “train,” is the same, but the type ofoperant is different as evidenced by the antecedents andconsequences. Understanding the environment-behavior relations is also important for distinguishingbetween operants in which the responses are function-ally similar, but topographically different. Table 2 showsan example of an intraverbal probe and a listener re-sponse by feature, function, and class probe that havesimilar antecedents and consequences, but are differenttopographically and are assumed to be functionally in-dependent responses. These examples underscore theneed to ensure that those implementing the VB-MAPPare adequately trained in the behavior-analytic skillsnecessary to conduct the assessment.

The VB-MAPP manual and guide (Sundberg 2008)provides some instruction on how to implement themilestones assessment; however, it is unclear if theinstructions are sufficient for conducting the assessmentsuccessfully, or with fidelity. Previous research hasshown that when a manual is specifically designed toteach a skill, it may be an effective method for estab-lishing the repertoire. For example, Miltenberger andFuqua (1985) evaluated the effectiveness of both aninstructional manual and behavioral skills training onthe acquisition of behavioral interviewing skills andfound that both instructional methods were equally

successful in teaching the target skills. According tothese results, it is possible that the written instructionsprovided in the VB-MAPP guide and protocol(Sundberg 2008) are sufficient to teach professionalsto administer the assessment. Alternatively, if writteninstructions are not sufficient in teaching professionalsto administer the assessment, behavioral skills training(BST; Miltenberger 2008) may be an effective instruc-tional method. BST consists of four components asfollows: instructions, modeling, rehearsal, and feed-back, and has repeatedly been demonstrated as an effec-tive method for teaching a variety of clinical skills toparaprofessional staff and students (e.g., Rosales et al.2009; Sarokoff and Sturmey 2004).

Iwata et al. (2000) demonstrated the efficacy of amodified BST procedure when teaching undergraduatesto implement functional analyses. The BST procedureconsisted of group instruction with written materials,video models, rehearsal with a confederate client, andperformance-specific feedback. Following exposure tothe instructional package, all participants demonstratedmastery performance of the attention, play, and demandfunctional analysis conditions. Similar results have beendemonstrated when using BST to teach special educa-tion teachers the skills required for discrete-trial teach-ing (Sarokoff and Sturmey 2004). Behavioral skillstraining included instruction with written descriptions,modeling, rehearsal, and feedback. Prior to the interven-tion, the participants’ mean performance was below50 % accuracy. Following BST, mean performance forall participants improved to above 95 %. Rosales et al.(2009) used BST to teach two undergraduate and onegraduate student to implement the Picture ExchangeCommunication System (PECS). The BST packageconsisted of verbal and written instruction, a quiz, rolerehearsal, video simulations, modeling, and correctivefeedback. Following instruction, all three participantssuccessfully implemented phases 1–3 of PECS with

Table 1 An example of verbal operants that are formally the same, but have different antecedent controlling variables and are maintained bydifferent consequences

Verbal operant Antecedent Response Consequence

Echoic Another person says “Train” “Train” Nonspecific reinforcement/praise

Mand Providing a track with no traina “Train” Access to a train

Tact A picture scene with a train “Train” Nonspecific reinforcement/praise

Intraverbal “What goes choo choo?” “Train” Nonspecific reinforcement/praise

a There must be a motivating operation in place for the train set (i.e.., the child must “want” to play with the train set)

Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47 37

confederate learners. Furthermore, results were shownto generalize to at least one learner with developmentaldisabilities for all participants andmaintain after 1monthfor one participant. Together, the results of these studiessuggest that BST is an effective instructional method forthe acquisition of skills relevant to complex behaviortechnologies when written instruction alone is notsufficient.

Accurate administration of the VB-MAPP is impor-tant so that appropriate goals and objectives can betargeted for language instruction. In addition to consum-ing the written instruction that is provided in the VB-MAPP guide, individuals interested in administering theassessment can attend VB-MAPP workshops. However,to date, the efficacy of these strategies for teachingothers to administer the assessment has not been ex-plored. As the assessment grows in popularity, it is theresponsibility of the professional community to ensurethat those who will be administering the assessment aretaught to run it with fidelity. The first step in ensuringthat professionals are taught to conduct the assessmentcorrectly is to evaluate the effects of current behavioralinstructional procedures, such as BST, on participantperformance. The current study examined the effectsof behavioral skills training on implementation of levels1 and 2 of the VB-MAPP milestones assessment.

Method

Participants, Setting, and Materials

Two school psychologists, Lucy and Ethel, servedas participants. Lucy and Ethel had 22 and17 years, respectively, of experience assessing chil-dren with disabilities using a variety of standard-ized assessments. Examples of the assessments thatEthel regularly conducted include the WechslerIntelligence Scale for Children®—Fourth Edition

(Wechsler 2003), Stanford-Binet IntelligenceScales—Fifth Edition (Roid 2003), Woodcock-Johnson® III (McGrew 2001), Gray Oral ReadingTest—Fourth Edition (Wiederholt and Bryant2001), Kaufman Test of Educational Achieve-ment—Second Edition (Kaufman and Kaufman2004), Gilliam Autism Rating Scales—Second Edi-tion (Gilliam 2001), and the Adaptive BehaviorAssessment System®—Second Edition (Harrisonand Oakland 2003). Lucy regularly conducted theaforementioned assessments and also had experi-ence administering the Autism Diagnostic Obser-vation Schedule—Generic (ADOS; Lord et al.2000). Neither participant had administered a VB-MAPP prior to participating in the study. Bothparticipants had a basic understanding of behavioranalysis and were completing the coursework nec-essary to sit for the Behavior Analysis Certifica-tion Board© examination. A basic overview of theverbal operants was included in the courseworkthat the participants completed prior to their in-volvement in the study. This overview consisted ofdefinitions and examples of each of the verbaloperants in text (e.g., Cooper et al. 2007) as wellas in-class lecture and discussion.

The setting for each session was determined by thepreference of the caregiver of the child being assessed.Locations included a university office, the child’s home,the child’s school, a youth room in a church, and aconference room at the office where the participantsworked. Commercially available materials included theVB-MAPP assessment guide and protocol (Sundberg2008), the reinforcer assessment for individuals withserve disabilities (RAISD; Fisher et al. 1996), and var-ious toys and assessment materials used during theassessment. Additional materials developed by the ex-perimenter for the purposes of this study included a VB-MAPP checklist, pre-assessment interview, administra-tion handbook, and instructional PowerPoint®

Table 2 An example of different operants that are topographically different, but have similar antecedent controlling variables and aremaintained by similar consequences

Verbal operant Antecedent Response Consequence

Listener responding by feature,function, class

“Where do you sleep?” with a picture scene(or other visual) present

Points to a bed Nonspecific reinforcement/praise

Intraverbal “Where do you sleep?” with no relevant visuals “Bed” Nonspecific reinforcement/praise

38 Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47

presentation (available upon request from the first au-thor). The pre-assessment interview was designed to beconducted with caregivers to determine at which level ofthe VB-MAPP it is most appropriate to begin a child’sassessment, and to determine the best type of assessmentenvironment for that child. Questions designed to iden-tify the initial assessment level were questions about thechild’s use of verbal operants. Questions designed todetermine the best type of assessment environment werequestions about the conditions under which the childwould most likely comply with instructions and interactwith the assessment administrator. Examples of inter-view questions are shown in Table 3. The administrationhandbook consisted of a brief description of each verbaloperant assessed in the VB-MAPP and lists of potentialways to probe those skills using materials commonlyfound in classrooms (e.g., books and inset puzzles). Theinstructional PowerPoint® presentation was developedbased on the information in the administration hand-book and was used as an aid during instruction. TheVB-MAPP checklist was used to measure the partici-pant’s responses during levels 1 and 2 assessments (seeAppendix).

Design, Dependent Measures, and InterobserverAgreement

A multiple-probe design across participants wasused to evaluate the effects of training in imple-mentation of levels 1 and 2 of the milestonesassessment. Instruction was implemented withLucy once the results showed stable respondingfor both participants during pretest probes. OnceLucy’s posttest results were visually judged to bestable, and Ethel’s pretest results were also judged

to be stable and low, instruction was implementedwith Ethel.

The dependent measure was the percentage ofpoints earned on the implementation checklist forlevels 1 and 2 of the VB-MAPP milestones assess-ment (see Appendix). The checklist for level 1consisted of a total of 27 responses. A total of29 responses were measured during level 2 assess-ments. The responses on each checklist were se-lected by a team of clinicians who observed VB-MAPP assessments and identified administrator be-haviors that appeared to result in successful assess-ments. Successful assessments were those in whichthe child being assessed engaged in minimal chal-lenging behavior and the assessor completed all ofthe probes necessary to evaluate the child’s skills.

For each response on the checklist, participantscould earn 0, 1, or 2 points with a higher pointvalue indicating better performance. Specificcriteria for each point value varied for each re-sponse and were explicitly stated on the checklist.For all items rated using the categories “never,”“for a portion of the session,” and “throughout thesession,” a “never” was scored if the participantwas not observed to engage in the response at anypoint during the assessment. “For a portion of thesession” was scored if the participant engaged inthe response at any point during the first half ofthe session or the second half of the session.“Throughout the session” was scored if the partic-ipant engaged in the response during both halvesof the session. If a response was not applicable,that item on the checklist was crossed out andeliminated from the calculation of the percentageof points earned. For example, in order for aparticipant to perform the response specified in

Table 3 Sample questions from the pre-assessment interview

Category Question

Environmenta Will your child sit at a table to work? If so, how long will he or she generally work?

Environment Are there any items, noises, or activities that your child dislikes that should be avoided during the assessment?

Levelb Does your child label actions, like clapping, sleeping, eating, or jumping?

Level Does your child use words to tell you what he wants? If so, what are some examples?

Level Can your child sort pictures according to categories like putting all animals together and all clothes together?

a Questions labeled “environment” are from the portion of the interview used to determine the best type of assessment environmentb Questions labeled “level” are from the portion of the interview used to determine which level of the milestone assessment to begin with

Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47 39

item 12 on the checklist, the child who the partic-ipant was assessing would have had to avoid atask that was presented naturalistically. If the childnever avoided any tasks presented in a naturalisticformat during the assessment, the item could notbe scored; therefore, the observer crossed that itemout and did not count it toward the participant’spercentage of points earned.

Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were col-lected for 80 % of all pretest probes and 50 %of all posttest probes. Agreement was evaluated ona point by point basis and was calculated bydividing the number of agreements by the numberof agreements plus disagreements and multiplyingby 100. Mean pretest and posttest IOA for Lucyand Ethel was 82.5 (range 78–89.7 %) and 85.9 %(range 78–93.1 %), respectively.

Procedures

Pretest Probes Before BST was implemented, partic-ipants were asked to read the VB-MAPP protocol andguide book in order to prepare to implement levels 1and 2 of the milestones assessment. Participants alsohad access to toys and assessment materials pur-chased by the district for which they worked; no othermaterials were provided to the participants. Access tothese materials was provided in an effort to simulatethe sort of minimal training conditions to which pro-fessionals implementing new assessments are oftenexposed. Seven to 10 days after receiving the VB-MAPP protocol and guide, both participants beganpretest probes. A level 1, test probe consisted of theparticipant implementing an entire level 1 VB-MAPPmilestones assessment and a level 2 test probeconsisted of the participant implementing an entirelevel 2 VB-MAPP milestones assessment with a child.

No formal child demographics (e.g., age, diag-nosis, and placement) were collected as the focuswas on the behavior and skills of the test admin-istrators; however, anecdotally, we can report thatthe children who were assessed varied in skilllevel, diagnosis, and verbal ability. Participantsassessed different children throughout the studyand never assessed the same child more thantwice. The only instructions provided to the par-ticipants during test probes were to complete theassessment and to notify the experimenter when

they were finished. The experimenter observedthe participant and recorded her responses on theVB-MAPP checklist. No feedback or error correc-tion was provided.

Behavioral Skills Teaching BST consisted of five com-ponents as follows: instruction, modeling, rehearsal andfeedback, and remedial teaching as needed.

Instruction Instructions were delivered in a smallgroup format with 1–3 additional clinicians whowere not serving as participants in the presentstudy. During instruction, the first author gave apresentation using PowerPoint® slides (availablefrom the first author upon request). The slideswere shown on a large screen and each participantwas given a printed copy of the slides and theadministration handbook. The presentation beganwith general information about the VB-MAPP andits uses. Next, descriptions and examples wereprovided of each operant assessed in the mile-stones assessment. For example, a slide was pre-sented on the mand that provided a definition ofmanding and examples of evoking mands by eithercontriving establishing operations or capitalizingon existing establishing operations. Similar slideswere presented for each operant. The final portionof the PowerPoint® included general assessmenttechniques. This section included items such asinterspersing probes for different operants through-out the assessment, providing a rich environmentby attending to the child, providing access topreferred items, and taking breaks for play-basedassessment or preferred activities; altering task pre-sentation from table top to naturalistic presenta-tion; and using materials for multiple sub-skillassessments. Each behavior on the VB-MAPPchecklist was covered in the instructions portionof the intervention package. Participants were ableto ask questions throughout the instructional ses-sion and were encouraged to do so. Instructionslasted between 90 and 120 min depending on thenumber of questions asked by participants andnumber of additional people attending the session.

Modeling Video models of the experimenter andother experienced clinicians implementing the VB-MAPP were shown immediately after the instruc-tion component of training was completed. The

40 Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47

video models consisted of different clips fromlevels 1 and 2 milestones assessments modelingall of the behaviors on the VB-MAPP checklistused to assess the participants’ performance (seeAppendix). For example, one video clip illustratedfollowing the child’s lead, creating a rich environ-ment, interspersing tasks, and maximizing the useof materials (e.g., using books to probe multipleoperants). Text was embedded in the video clips toorient the viewer to the target behavior(s) beingmodeled. Participants were also shown an orga-nized assessment kit, a completed pre-assessmentinterview, and a completed RAISD during themodeling portion of BST.

Rehearsal and Feedback Immediately following theinstruction and modeling components of the inter-vention, the rehearsal and feedback componentbegan. Participants were given an opportunity torehearse 3–5 target behaviors at a time in a seriesof short role plays with a confederate learner. Priorto each role play, the experimenter told the partic-ipant which target behaviors, from the VB-MAPPchecklist, she was required to perform. Participantswere also told that they should select their ownmaterials from an array of available stimuli. Forexample, in one role, play participants were askedto demonstrate probes for mands, tacts, and listen-er responding as well as to determine if bookscapture the child’s attention (i.e., steps 8, 11, 23,25, 30, and 31 on the checklist). After each role-play, the experimenter provided performance-specific feedback. Feedback included telling theparticipant which responses were correct andwould earn full points on the checklist and whichresponses were not correct and would not earn fullpoints on the checklist. The experimenter told theparticipant how to alter the incorrect response andhad her practice it correctly with the confederate.Role plays were the same for both participants.

Posttest Posttest probes were identical to pretestprobes. The mastery criterion was set at 90 %across two consecutive posttest probes for bothlevels 1 and 2.

Remedial Teaching If participants earned less than90 % of the possible points on posttest probes,remedial teaching was implemented. Remedialteaching included providing additional performancespecific feedback. The experimenter reviewed eachstep on the checklist that was not scored fullpoints and provided a description of how theycould have completed the step. During feedback,participants were also praised for 3–5 steps on thechecklist that earned full points.

Results and Discussion

Results for Lucy and Ethel are presented in Fig. 1.Pretest probes for both participants indicated thatthey did not implement either level of the mile-stones assessment at the criterion of 90 % ofpoints earned prior to BST. Lucy’s pretest perfor-mance was 64 and 51.9 % of points earned forlevels 1 and 2, respectively. Ethel’s mean pointsearned on pretest probes for level 1 of the assess-ment was 58.4 % (range 40.4–70 %), and for level2 her mean performance was 55.3 % (range 42.8–72 %). Following BST, Lucy’s performance in-creased for both levels 1 and 2. Her level 1performance post-training was a mean of 94.5(range 90–97.9 %) and 88.25 % (range 78.6–98.1 %) for levels 1 and 2, respectively. Ethel’sperformance also improved following training to amean of 91.6 (range 78.9–98 %) and 94.1 %(range 88–98.1 %).

The results of the study indicate that BST maybe an effective method for teaching school psy-chologists to implement levels 1 and 2 of the VB-MAPP milestones assessment. As shown in Fig. 1,performance for both participants increased imme-diately after the small group BST. That is, whileadditional feedback was needed for participants toreach the mastery criterion of 90 % or better, theinitial training session did result in improved per-formance. These results are important when con-sidering the possibility of implementing similartraining methods in other districts and settingswhere time and resources for staff training areminimal. Future research should further examinethe effects of BST with groups of increased size.

Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47 41

It would also be wise to evaluate whether theassessment techniques learned for levels 1 and 2(e.g., organizing materials, establishing one’s selfas a reinforcer) generalize to the level 3 milestonesassessment. The maintenance of such skills overtime should also be evaluated.

As shown in Fig. 1, Ethel’s pretest score deterio-rated over time. This decreasing trend may havebeen a function of time between the pretest probesand her exposure to the VB-MAPP guidebook. In aconversation with the experimenter, she indicatedthat she carefully read the guidebook prior to herinitial pretest probes for each level; however, shedid not re-read the material prior to subsequentpretest probes. It is unclear if Ethel’s performancewould have improved upon further review of theguidebook. Additional research should focus on

the effects of written material review prior toevery assessment administration.

The initial pretest performance for both partici-pants was relatively high with each earning at least50 % of the possible points prior to instruction.Further analysis of the participants’ performanceshows that both Ethel and Lucy were earning fullpoints for the responses on the checklist that maybe identified as “general assessment techniques.”For example, during baseline, both participantscompleted the RAISD, established rapport withthe child they were assessing, followed the child’slead during play based probes, provided access topreferred items/probed mands throughout the as-sessment, and provided breaks for play (or play-based assessment). These assessment skills may besimilar to those used with the other tests that the

Fig. 1 The percentage ofpoints earned for Lucy (toppanel) and Ethel (bottompanel) for levels 1 and 2 ofthe VB-MAPP milestonesassessment during pretest andposttest probes. Remedialtraining sessions were con-ducted following all posttestprobes that the participantsscored less than 90 %correct on

42 Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47

participants regularly administered (e.g., ADOS). Itwas not until after BST that the participants con-sistently earned full points on checklist steps thatare more specific to the VB-MAPP, such as prob-ing each of the operants throughout the assess-ment, contriving motivating operations for mands,and managing assessment materials. These resultssuggest that the instructional material in the VB-MAPP guide and protocol (Sundberg 2008) shouldbe supplemented in order for participants to reachthe mastery criterion.

Future research should assess the efficacy of work-shops and other popular instructional techniques that arecurrently being used to teach professionals to implementthe VB-MAPP. In the current study, Lucy earned 90% ofthe points available for level 1 of the milestones assess-ment after the initial BST session (e.g., instructions,video model, role-playing the assessment with a con-federate). Her level 2 scores improved after the initialBST session, but she required three remedial teachingsessions before meeting the 90 % criterion. Ethel onlyrequired one remedial teaching session for levels 1 and 2each before earning 90 % of the points possible for eachlevel after the initial BST session. These results maysuggest that if workshops include these components ofBST, they could be effective in establishing some of theskills necessary to implement the levels 1 and 2 of theVB-MAPP milestones assessment.

There are several limitations that should be noted.First, it is unclear if all of the behaviors listed on thechecklist are necessary for successful implementa-tion of the VB-MAPP. Similarly, because BST andthe remedial instruction were implemented as atreatment package, it is unclear if all of the compo-nents are necessary for the desired behavior change.Future research should examine the effects of BSTwith and without remedial instruction on adminis-tration of the VB-MAPP to determine which instruc-tional components should be included in VB-MAPPworkshops and training. The initial BST package(instructions, modeling, rehearsal with a confeder-ate, and feedback) was completed in less than 3 hper participant. However, the remedial instructionwas much more time consuming, as this componentrequired ongoing observation and communicationbetween the individual conducting the training andthe individual learning to implement the assessment.

It will also be important to evaluate whether theresults of the VB-MAPP assessments can be usedto develop instructional programs for the childrenbeing assessed to validate that the assessment isbeing administered in an effective way that gener-ates useful learner results.

Participants in this study were preparing to be-come Board Certified Behavior Analysts. It is un-clear how their coursework and field experiencerequired to be eligible for certification may haveaffected their performance, as both participantswere familiar with the terminology used in theVB-MAPP (e.g., mand, tact, intraverbal) and basicbehavior change procedures (e.g., reinforcement,extinction). While the VB-MAPP guide suggeststhat individuals who conduct the assessment havea “basic understanding of behavior analysis, Skin-ner’s (1957) analysis of verbal behavior, and lin-guistic structure” (Sundberg 2008, p. 16), addition-al research should be conducted with participantswho may be likely to use the assessment, but whohave less experience behavior analysis and theverbal operants (e.g., social workers, special edu-cation teachers, early intervention providers). Re-sults of such studies may provide a further under-standing of the prerequisite skills necessary toimplement such an assessment.

Finally, future research should employ a more rigor-ous experimental design. The current study used amultiple-probe design across two participants design.This design could be strengthened by adding additionalparticipants, increasing the number of pretest probes forthe first participant (Lucy in the current study), andadding follow-up probes. Despite the limitations to theexperimental design used in the present study, the resultsare promising and convincing. Specifically, the imme-diate and robust effects shown for both participantsduring posttest probes provide evidence that the inter-vention was effective in establishing the skills necessaryto complete levels 1 and 2 of the VB-MAPP milestonesassessment.

Acknowledgments We thank Tracey Tufenk for her assis-tance in data collection. We thank Leigh Grannan for hercontribution in the development of the pre-assessmentinterview.

All author-developed materials are available by contacting thefirst author.

Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47 43

Appendix

VB-MAPP LEVEL 1 & 2 CHECKLIST

Participant #:_________________________ Date:_________________ Phase: ____________

Observer: __________________________ P R Level: 1 2

Level 1 only items = Bold Level 2 only items = shaded

PREASSESSMENT denraEstnioP1. RAISD has been completed with parent/relevant other

20Not completed Completed

2. Pre-assessment Interview Completed with parent/relevant other

20Not completed Completed

3. Instructional materials are ready and organized (e.g. grouped according to sub-skill)

0 1 2 No organization Materials

organized without clear labels

Materials organized and

clearly labeled by subskill

4. Structures environment according to parental report of level of instructional control (e.g. will the child sit at a table)

0 1 2 Environment does

not reflect the environment

recommended by interview

Environment has some aspects

recommended by the interview

Environment clearly reflects environment

recommended by interview

5. Has protocol/data sheet and writing utensil 0 1 2

Protocol/data sheet and writing utensil

are not present

Protocol/data sheet and writing utensil are present but not easily accessible

Protocol and data sheet are present

and easily accessible

ASSESSMENT denraEstnioP6. Establishes rapport with child – few demands, follows child’s

lead, preferred activities/items available 0 1 2

Begins assessment without

establishing rapport

Spends <5 min establishing

rapport

Spends 5-10 min establishing

rapport

7. Gains momentum by beginning assessment with easy tasks then introduces more difficult tasks (as determined by parental/relevant other report or observation)

0 1 2 Did not consult

report/observe to determine easy

skills

Started with 1-2 trials of easy tasks

Started with 3+ easy tasks

8. Probes mands throughout the assessment – allows frequent opportunities to gain access to preferred stimuli

0 1 2 Never For a portion of the

session Throughout the

session

9. Controls access to assessment materials and preferred items (if child gains access materials are moved or future access is blocked)

0 1 2 Child accesses

materials not being used 7 or more

times during the assessment

Child accesses materials not being

used 4-6 times during the assessment

Child accesses materials not being

used 3 or fewer times during the

assessment

10. Intersperses listener responding and tact probes 0 1 2

Never For a portion of the session

Throughout the session

44 Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47

11. Determines early on whether books function as conditioned reinforcers or captures child’s attention (tact and listener trials probes can be efficiently completed over the course of looking at book)

0 1 2

Probes using books 31 minutes or more into the assessment or does not probe

books

Probes using books within the first 16-30 minutes of the

assessment

Probes using books within the first 15

minutes of the assessment

12. If the child is actively avoiding probes presented naturalistically the practitioner represents the tasks later in a discrete trial format

0 1 2 Never Sometimes Frequently

13. If the child is actively avoiding probes presented in a discrete trial format the practitioner represents the tasks later in a naturalistic format

0 1 2 Never Sometimes Frequently

14. Provides behavior specific praise contingent on correct responding (“That’s right, she is jumping!”)

0 1 2 Never For a portion of the

session Throughout the

session

15. Provides frequent breaks for “play” 0 1 2

Provides breaks only after the child shows disinterest in the assessment

Provides breaks before the child

shows disinterest in the assessment some of the time

Provides breaks before the child

shows disinterest in the assessment most of the time

16. Names items throughout to provide opportunities for echoic responses

0 1 2 Never For a portion of the

session Throughout the

session

17. Follows child’s lead for play based probes – presents tasks based on child’s interests

0 1 2 Never For a portion of the

session Throughout the

session

18. Provides contingency statements and pre-instructs tasks (e.g. “Let’s look at a book now and then we can play cars”)

0 1 2 Never For a portion of the

session Throughout the

session

19. Provides praise/access to preferred items to avoid challenging behavior

0 1 2 Never For a portion of the

session Throughout the

session

20. If child engages in challenging behavior presents easy task and provides a break or access to preferred items

0 1 2 Never For a portion of the

session Throughout the

session

21. Provides opportunity for the child to make choices (e.g. look at the book or do a puzzle)

0 1 2 Never For a portion of the

session Throughout the

session

22. Entices client with item for mands (e.g. has it in view, but out of reach)

0 1 2 Presents the item and keeps it out the child’s reach for none of the

mand probes OR probes less than 5

mands

Presents the item and keeps it out of the child’s reach for at least some

of the mand probes

Presents the item and keeps it out of the child’s reach

for all mand probes

23. Probes tacts naturally (e.g. while looking at a book or playing) throughout the assessment

0 1 2 Never OR probes less than 5 tacts

For a portion of the session

Throughout the session

24. Probes responding to hearing his or her name throughout the assessment

0 1 2 Probes

responding to name more than 3 times in a row OR

less than 2 responding to

name

Probes responding to name no more

than 3 times in a row

Probes responding to name no more than twice in a

row

Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47 45

25. Intersperses listener responding probes throughout the assessment

0 1 2 Probes more than

15 listenerresponses in a

row OR does not probe at least 6

listenerresponding tasks

Probes between 11-15 listenerresponses in a

row

Probes no more than 10 listener responses in a

row

26. Probes VP & MTS throughout assessment 0 1 2

Probes more than15 VP & MTS responses in a row OR probes

less than 5 VP & MTS skills

Probes between 11-15 VP &

MTS responses in a row

Probes no more than 10 VP &

MTS responses in a row

27. Probes motor imitation throughout the assessment as itpertains to activities

0 1 2 Probes more than

11 motor imitation

responses in a row OR probes

less than 5 motor imitation skills

Probes 6-10motor imitation responses in a

row

Probes no more than 5 motor

imitation responses in a

row

28. Contrives establishing operations for missing items0 1 2

Never or probesless than 5 mands for missing items

For a portion of the session

Throughout the session

29. Contrives establishing operations for missing actions0 1 2

Never or probesless than 5 mands

for missing actions

For a portion of the session

Throughout the session

30. Probes tacts naturally (e.g. while looking at a book orplaying) throughout the assessment

0 1 2 Never OR probesless than 15 tacts

For a portion of the session

Throughout the session

31. Intersperses listener responding probes throughout the assessment

0 1 2 Probes more than

20 listenerresponses in a row

OR probes less than 15 listener

responding

Probes between 16-20 listener

responses in a row

Probes no morethan 15 listener

responses in a row

32. Probes VP & MTS throughout assessment 0 1 2

Probes more than20 VP & MTS responses in a row OR probes

less than 15VP/MTS

Probes between 16-20 VP & MTS responses in a row

Probes no morethan 15 VP &

MTS responses ina row

33. Probes LRFFC throughout the assessment 0 1 2

Probes more than11 LRFFC

responses in a row OR probes less than 5 LRFFC

skills

Probes 6-10 motor LRFFC responses

in a row

Probes no morethan 5 LRFFC

responses in a row

34. Probes motor imitation throughout the assessment as itpertains to activities

0 1 2 Probes more than

11 motor imitation responses in a row

OR probes less than 10 motor imitation skills

Probes 6-10 motor imitation responses

in a row

Probes no morethan 5 motor

imitation responses in a row

35. Intersperses intraverbals throughout the assessment 0 1 2

Probes more than20 intraverbalresponses in a row OR probes

less than 10intraverbals

Probes between 16-20 intraverbalresponses in a row

Probes no morethan 15 intraverbalresponses in a row

TOTAL 0’s = 1’s = 2’s = Sum:

Total score: Level 1: _____/_____Level 2: _____/_____

IOA: (# of agreements/agreements + disagreements) = _______ / ______+______ X 100% = ________%

46 Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47

References

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Appliedbehavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996).Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assess-ment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journalon Mental Retardation, 101, 15–25.

Gilliam, J. E. (2001). Gilliam Asperger’s disorder scale (GADS).Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Harrison, P., & Oakland, T. (2003). Adaptive behavior assessmentsystem (ABAS-II). San Antonio, TX: The PsychologicalCorporation.

Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S. W., Lindberg, J. S.,Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., et al. (2000). Skill acquisitionin the implementation of functional analyses methodology.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 181–194. doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-181.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman test ofeducational achievement: second Edition—comprehensiveform. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Jr., Leventhal, B. L.,DiLavore, P. C., et al. (2000). The autism diagnostic obser-vation schedule—generic: a standard measure of social andcommunication deficits associated with the spectrum of au-tism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30,205–223. doi:10.1023/A:1005592401947.

McGrew, K. S. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL:Riverside Publishing.

Miltenberger, R. G. (2008). Behavior modification: principles andprocedures (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Miltenberger, R. G., & Fuqua, R. W. (1985). Evaluation ofa training manual for the acquisition of behavior as-sessment interviewing skills. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 18, 323–328. doi:10.1901/jaba.1985.18-323.

Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales, (SB5).Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Rosales, R., Stone, K., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2009). The effects ofbehavioral skills training on implementation of the pictureexchange communication system. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 42, 541–549. doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-541.

Sarokoff, R. A., & Sturmey, P. (2004). The effects of behavioralskills training on staff implementation of discrete-trial teach-ing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 535–538. doi:10.1901/jaba.2004.37-535.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall, Inc.

Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones assessmentand placement program. Concord, CA: AVB.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation.

Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001).Gray oral reading tests-(GORT-4). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Analysis Verbal Behav (2014) 30:36–47 47