View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Convergent Validity of the PEAK-E-PA and Two Common Assessments of Language Development: the ABLLS-R and the TOLD 1:4

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Convergent Validity of the PEAK-E-PA and Two Common Assessments of Language Development: the ABLLS-R and the TOLD 1:4
Language: English
Authors: Belisle, Jordan, Dixon, Mark R., Munoz, Bridget E., Fricke-Steuber, Kate
Source: Journal of Behavioral Education. Dec 2022 31(4):699-717.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Test Validity, Correlation, Psychometrics, Verbal Ability, Language Tests, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Diagnostic Tests, Applied Behavior Analysis
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Test of Language Development
DOI: 10.1007/s10864-020-09426-x
ISSN: 1053-0819
1573-3513
Abstract: The study evaluated the convergent validity of the PEAK-E-PA and two common assessments of language development used in educational and clinical settings: the ABLLS-R and the TOLD-I:4. The PEAK-E-PA provides a measure of a participant's ability to derive arbitrary stimulus relations, and may therefore provide a more complex analysis of language functioning than traditional behavior analytic language assessments. The results of the present study support a strong, significant relationship between the PEAK-E-PA and the ABLLS-R (r = 0.73, p < 0.01), but the obtained coefficient falls within the lower range of prior psychometric evaluations of behavioral language assessments. The results suggest a stronger relationship between the PEAK-E-PA the TOLD-I:4 (r = 0.94, p < 0.01), supporting the use of the PEAK-E-PA with individuals with autism who have progressed beyond the elementary verbal operant skills assessed for in traditional behavioral assessments.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1357070
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE3ILd2QVMUjKFjRKYKoNqcAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMuG7u2NHTiZ30Sq4gIBEICBm_vM4NlUfhLbtMAv2nqxxzSsjjOLitszLH4Mbco0mqn6saSgmHW6cXpkQv5OSHcpDX5RST-pSVMWWZ-OgH-tX-l1tZCkuHCvbT86X6unjcH-8ENBWtOHGtz42Z0pdAsvGj2cdHtWGTWlnrr-b6OqgdGDKz-IvgF7Mv63FOQesSlIzdhXj2kE40-pY9YmbFfhX6oJ4VuJ0hhDu_kk
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0160480417;41z01dec.22;2022Dec01.02:35;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0160480417-1&quot;&gt;The Convergent Validity of the PEAK-E-PA and Two Common Assessments of Language Development: The ABLLS-R and the TOLD 1:4&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;The study evaluated the convergent validity of the PEAK-E-PA and two common assessments of language development used in educational and clinical settings: the ABLLS-R and the TOLD-I:4. The PEAK-E-PA provides a measure of a participant&#39;s ability to derive arbitrary stimulus relations, and may therefore provide a more complex analysis of language functioning than traditional behavior analytic language assessments. The results of the present study support a strong, significant relationship between the PEAK-E-PA and the ABLLS-R (r = 0.73, p &amp;lt; 0.01), but the obtained coefficient falls within the lower range of prior psychometric evaluations of behavioral language assessments. The results suggest a stronger relationship between the PEAK-E-PA the TOLD-I:4 (r = 0.94, p &amp;lt; 0.01), supporting the use of the PEAK-E-PA with individuals with autism who have progressed beyond the elementary verbal operant skills assessed for in traditional behavioral assessments.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Keywords: PEAK; Stimulus equivalence; Assessment; Education&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Mark K. Dixon receives small royalties from sales of the PEAK curriculum&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-2&quot;&gt;Introduction&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Due to the increasing prevalence of autism diagnoses (Boyle et al [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and the language and cognitive deficits corresponding to this disorder (American Psychiatric Association [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;]), there is a need for the development of psychometrically valid and reliable behavioral assessments for use with this population. Developmental assessments outside of behavior analysis have traditionally been used for placement purposes, allowing for specialized educational services for those whose abilities are underdeveloped relative to typically developing same-age peers. Intelligence testing, for example, provides a metric describing the deviation from same age peers across several related cognitive tasks (e.g., memory, pattern recognition). Instruments generated by behavior analysts have deviated from this traditional model by (a) providing comprehensive criterion-referenced assessments that are used to generate targets for behavioral education and/or intervention (Gould et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]), and (b) basing assessment items on a functional account of skill development, rather than a structural account more typically adopted in norm-referenced assessments developed by other fields.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Function-based accounts assume that language develops due to a history of reinforcement for both vocal and non-vocal language events (Skinner [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &amp;amp; Roche [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This view differs substantially from traditional structuralist accounts that emphasis language topography, rather than how language allows for functional interaction between a person and his/her environment (Hancock, Cautilli, Rosenwasser, &amp;amp; Clark [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]). To demonstrate, the word &lt;emph&gt;dog&lt;/emph&gt; from a traditional structuralist account is a noun, because the word refers to a thing (i.e., a furry animal with four legs that barks). From a behavior analytic perspective, the word &lt;emph&gt;dog&lt;/emph&gt; could serve many functions. If a child is walking through a pet store with their parent and utters &quot;&lt;emph&gt;dog,&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; the utterance could serve as a request to see the dog or to identify that a dog is present in the store. Alternatively, if a teenager uttered &quot;&lt;emph&gt;dog&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; in the context of &quot;&lt;emph&gt;the dog days are over,&lt;/emph&gt;&quot; the expression could serve an escape function, as in the utterance transforms the function of thinking about the past by reorienting attention to events in the present. The utility of describing language functionally is that, instead of merely teaching a person to say &quot;&lt;emph&gt;dog&lt;/emph&gt;&quot; with topographical precision, instruction can progress from teaching early functional language skills, such as requesting and labeling, to more complex functional skills, such as describing feelings through metaphor.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Skinner ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]) first provided a purely behavior analytic theory of language development in &lt;emph&gt;Verbal Behavior&lt;/emph&gt;, emphasizing how a speaker acquires language through a history of direct reinforcement mediated by listeners in the environment. Skinner described several functional verbal operants, the most elementary of which included echoics, mands, tacts, transcription, textual, and intraverbal responses (see Sundberg and Michael [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;] for a review). A &lt;emph&gt;mand&lt;/emph&gt;, for example, describes a speaker requesting a stimulus (e.g., uttering &lt;emph&gt;&quot;cookie&quot;&lt;/emph&gt;) due to a history of receiving the stimulus from a listener (e.g., receiving a cookie). The utterance therefore functions to obtain a specific reinforcer from another person in the environment under certain motivational conditions. Extensions of these operants were also put forward to explain more complex aspects of human behavior (Skinner [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Behavior analysts have more recently adapted Skinner&#39;s theory to develop assessments of verbal operant development, providing standardized targets for behavioral language-learning intervention. The &lt;emph&gt;PEAK Direct Training and Generalization&lt;/emph&gt; assessments (Dixon [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;]), the &lt;emph&gt;Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program&lt;/emph&gt; (Sundberg [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and the &lt;emph&gt;Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills–Revised&lt;/emph&gt; (ABLLS-R; Partington [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]) are two examples of commonly used assessments. Preliminary research has supported the convergent validity of items contained within these assessments, evaluating the degree to which results generated by one assessment corresponds with other assessments meant to provide a metric of the same or a related construct (Downing &amp;amp; Haladyna [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Dixon et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Malkin et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Although the establishing the convergent validity of behavioral measures of the same construct (e.g., verbal operant behavior) is important, equally important is the correspondence between behavioral measures and normative assessments established in other fields. Convergent validity would be expected between behavioral and non-behavioral assessments, as individuals who deviate significantly from same-age peers topographically likely also deviate from same-age peers in the development of functional language skills. From a behavioral perspective, the functional account explains how the structural characteristics of language emerge in the first place (Skinner [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &amp;amp; Roche [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hayes &amp;amp; Brownstein [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Two studies have evaluated the convergent validity of the &lt;emph&gt;PEAK Direct Training&lt;/emph&gt; assessment with other, non-behavioral measures. Dixon et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]) evaluated the convergent validity of the P&lt;emph&gt;EAK Direct Training&lt;/emph&gt; assessment and the &lt;emph&gt;Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Fourth Edition&lt;/emph&gt;, and Dixon, Whiting, Rowsey, and Belisle ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]) evaluated the relationship between PEAK-DT and several standardized measures of IQ. Both studies reported strong convergent validity between the included measures.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;One of the major criticisms levied against Skinner&#39;s verbal operant theory was that the functional analytic account did not adequately address how complex human language appears to emerge in the absence of direct contingencies (i.e., the generativity problem; Chomsky [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &amp;amp; Roche [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This has potentially limited application to work with children with diminished language abilities targeting elementary verbal operant performances (Dixon, Small, &amp;amp; Rosales [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This limited scope of application can be seen in normative age estimates provided in contemporary assessments. For example, developers of the Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program report that assessment items may provide meaningful targets for language instruction up-to the development expected of a typically developing 4-year-old (Sundberg [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Although a formal normalized assessment of the ABLLS-R has not been conducted, at least one resource suggests that the assessment is valid up-to the language development expected of a typically developing 9-year-old (TXautism.net, n.d.).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Language development undoubtedly continues in typically developing populations after age 9, and these structural developments are captured in normative evaluations provided by other fields. One example is the &lt;emph&gt;Test of Language Development, Fourth Edition&lt;/emph&gt; (TOLD-4; Hammill &amp;amp; Newcomer [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]), which provides normative estimates of structural language development by evaluating semantics and grammar, listening, organizing and speaking, and overall language ability. The TOLD-4 contains two assessments that differ in complexity. The TOLD-Primary-4 (TOLD-P:4) evaluates language abilities expected to emerge between the ages of 4 and 9 years, containing similar subtests as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (e.g., expressive and receptive vocabulary), and representing the same age ranges reported for the ABLLS-R. The TOLD-Intermediate-4 (TOLD-I:4) goes beyond the TOLD-P:4 by evaluating more complex language skills, such as combining sentences, morphological comprehension, and understanding multiple word meanings. The age range reported in the TOLD-I:4 is 8 to 18 years, progressing well beyond the skill development expected of a typically developing 4- or 9-year-old. The TOLD-4 assessments can provide meaningful information regarding structural deviations in language abilities experienced by individuals with autism from typically developing peers; however, a functional account of the greater language complexities is still needed.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Behavioral language assessments may stand to benefit from the inclusion of more contemporary accounts of language (e.g., Relational Frame Theory, stimulus equivalence, naming theory), which focus primarily on how derived relational responding can both accelerate language acquisition (Sidman &amp;amp; Tailby [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;]), as well as lead to the emergence of greater language complexities (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &amp;amp; Roche [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Derived relational responding describes the emergence of language in the absence of directly mediated reinforcement. To illustrate, a person may be directly taught that a picture of a dog (A) is the same as the vocal utterance &lt;emph&gt;&quot;dog&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; (B) (A-B), and that the vocal utterance &lt;emph&gt;&quot;dog&quot;&lt;/emph&gt; (B) is the same as the written word &lt;emph&gt;DOG&lt;/emph&gt; (C) (B-C). Note that the picture, utterance, and text are not formally similar, so the A-B and B-C relations must be directly reinforced initially. Given these two relations, most people can derive that the picture (A) is the same as the text (C) (A-C), and that text (C) is the same the picture (A) (C-A), without a history of direct reinforcement for making these relations. The ability to derive relations has been put forward as a higher-order generalized operant behavior (Barnes-Holmes &amp;amp; Barnes-Holmes [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Healy, Barnes-Holmes, &amp;amp; Smeets [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]) that underlies the development of many simple and complex language and cognitive events (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &amp;amp; Roche [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Healy, Barnes-Holmes, &amp;amp; Smeets [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Like Skinner&#39;s account, derived relational responding describes the functional development of language structures rather than merely their topographical properties. For this reason, we may anticipate that relational learning skills may more closely correlate with more advanced structural assessments such as the TOLD-I:4.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;emph&gt;The PEAK-Equivalence: Pre-Assessment&lt;/emph&gt; (PEAK-E-PA; Dixon [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]) is the only widely used behavioral assessment that exclusively evaluates a participant&#39;s ability to derive relations among stimuli. The PEAK-E-PA is a criterion-referenced direct assessment that provides a measure of an individual&#39;s abilities to derive relations of varying complexity (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence). The terms reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence are consistent with the terminology presented in stimulus equivalence theory, where each represents a more complex way of relating stimulus events. Instructional approaches generated from the results of the PEAK-E-PA have been shown to lead to the acquisition of target academic and vocational skills by individuals with autism (e.g., Dixon et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]); however, only a single study to date has evaluated the convergent validity of the PEAK-E-PA. Dixon, Belisle, and Stanley (2019) demonstrated a strong, positive correlation between derived relational responding and full-scale IQ in application with individuals with autism. Further research is needed to evaluate the assessment in terms of other behavioral and non-behavioral measures of language development to support the validity and scope of skills assessed in the PEAK-E-PA.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the convergent validity of the PEAK-E-PA with the &lt;emph&gt;Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills–Revised&lt;/emph&gt; (ABLLS-R; Partington [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref39&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and the &lt;emph&gt;Test of Language Development–Intermediate&lt;/emph&gt; (TOLD-I:4; Hammill &amp;amp; Newcomer [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The ABLLS-R was selected to determine the extent to which the skills measured in the PEAK-E-PA are related to skills traditionally evaluated in behavioral language assessments. A strong correlation in the context of the current study would both support application of the PEAK-E-PA with participants whose language abilities fall within the normative age range for the ABLLS-R (i.e., 0–9 years), as well as allow for comparison between the results reported by Malkin et al. with the results in the current study. The TOLD-I:4 was selected to provide a metric of structural skill development expected beyond the normative age ranges reported in traditional behavior analytic language assessments. Items on the TOLD-I:4 are appropriate for typically developing individuals between the ages of 8 and 18 years. Evaluating the relationship between derived relational responding and later structural language developments contributes to a functional understanding of how these more complex skills may develop, with implication for language-learning with individuals with autism.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-3&quot;&gt;Methods&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-4&quot;&gt;Participants and Setting&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The present study included a total of 33 participants (24 males, 9 females). Demographic information for the participants is provided in Table 1. All participants had a diagnosis of autism, where 21 of the 33 (64%) participants had a sole diagnosis of Autism, while the remaining 12 (36%) had an additional diagnosis. We did not code the specific additional diagnoses in the current study. Participants included clients from two different agencies, where they received regular ABA services. The participants from the first agency ranged in age from 3 to 23 years (&lt;emph&gt;n&lt;/emph&gt; = 16), while the participants from the second agency ranged in age from 3 to 14 years (n = 17). Participants attended either of these agencies due to the family seeking ABA services, or by referrals from other agencies. In general, services at both agencies were provided due to cognitive and academic delays rather than on-going challenging behavior problems. Therapy hours varied across participants based on medical necessity (range, 2-h/week to 20-h/week) and behavioral programming was individualized across participants that included language-based instruction as well as interventions to address behavior challenges. Because the current study was not an intervention study, we did not adopt any exclusion criteria related to hours of intervention.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 1 Participant demographic information&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table frame=&quot;hsides&quot; rules=&quot;groups&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Characteristics&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;%&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;Age&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;3&amp;amp;#8211;5&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;33&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; 6&amp;amp;#8211;8&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; 9&amp;amp;#8211;11&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; 12&amp;amp;#8211;14&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;18&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; 15&amp;amp;#8211;17&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; 18&amp;amp;#8211;20&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; 21&amp;amp;#8211;23&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;Gender&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; M&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;24&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;72&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; F&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;27&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;Diagnosis&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Autism&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;33&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;100&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt; Dual-Diagnosis&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td char=&quot;.&quot; align=&quot;char&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;36&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Client assessment data were collected from existing client records for the purposes of the present study. All assessments had been previously conducted by either a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA), or by a professional employed at either agency operating under the direct supervision of the BCBA. All implementers had been formally trained to conduct the assessments. The assessments were administered either in the participant&#39;s home, or in a clinical setting at the agency. Inclusion in the study required that all assessments were conducted within a 4-month period. None of the participants had been involved in previous research evaluating the correlation between any of the assessments used in the current study. In addition, none of the participants utilized assistive communication technology to ensure that no adaptations were required when the assessments were administered. Assessment results were used at the agencies to aid in client placement and curricular programing, and were obtained from the agencies by the authors for the purposes of the present study.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To aid in replicating participant selection, the distribution of participant scores on each of the assessments are displayed in the left panel of Fig. 1. The data are presented as a percentage of the highest possible score attainable on each of the assessments. For example, percentage scores on the PEAK-E-PA were obtained by dividing the participant&#39;s score by 48, multiplied by 100. Participant scores on the ABLLS-R ranged from 8.2% to 99%, and the data appeared to be normally distributed. On the TOLD-I:4, scores ranged from 0 to 96%, and the data appeared to be positively skewed. Finally, scores on the PEAK-E-PA ranged from 2 to 88%, and also appeared to be positively skewed. The left panel shows IQ estimates for the participants in the study as a measure of overall intellectual functioning. The IQ estimates were obtained using the best fit linear regression formula reported by Dixon, Belisle, and Stanley ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref41&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]), where participant scores on the PEAK-E-PA were transformed based on the linear equation: &lt;emph&gt;Y&lt;/emph&gt; = 1.2436&lt;emph&gt;X&lt;/emph&gt; + 49.131. Data reported by Dixon, Belisle, and Stanley suggest a 0.804 correlation between scores on the PEAK-E-PA and IQ. These data only provide a rough estimate of IQ range to aid in participant selection in replications or extensions of the current study.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Fig. 1 Distribution of participant scores on the ABLLS-R, TOLD I:4, and PEAK-E-PA (Left) represented as a percentage of total assessment. Horizontal lines represent the median obtained sample value, boxes represent the lower and upper quartiles, and whiskers represent the range. (Right) Distribution of estimated full-scale IQ scores (Right) using the linear regression formula by Dixon, Belisle, and Stanley ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Dashed line represents mean normative IQ (i.e., 100), horizontal represents the median obtained sample value, box represents lower and upper quartile, and whiskers represent the range&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-5&quot;&gt;PEAK-Equivalence: Pre-Assessment&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The PEAK-E-PA is a 48-items criterion-referenced assessment that provides a metric for an individual&#39;s ability to derive reflexive, symmetrical, transitive, and equivalence relations. These four relational complexities serve as the subtests in PEAK-E-PA. The assessment contains a total of 12 items within each subtest, evaluating basic, intermediate, and advanced relations. For example, the Reflexivity subtest is comprised of 4 Basic Reflexivity items, 4 Intermediate Reflexivity Items, and 4 Advanced Reflexivity Items. The tested relations in each subtest are consistent with stimulus equivalence theory. In the Reflexivity subtest, A-A relations are instructed and subsequently tested. In the Symmetry subtest, A-B relations are instructed and the bidirectional B-A relations are subsequently tested. In the Transitivity subtest, two relations are directly instructed (e.g., A-B and B-C) and a single relation is subsequently tested, where the sample stimulus that was directly instructed serves as the sample stimulus in the tested relation (e.g., A-C). In the Equivalence subtest, two relations are directly instructed (e.g., A-B and B-C) and a single relation in subsequently tested, where the sample stimulus that was directly instructed serves as a comparison stimulus in the tested relation (e.g., C-A). The relations and stimuli are arbitrary to ensure that participants have not had a learning history with the relations in the assessment. For example, if participants were taught that &quot;apple&quot; (A) is the same as a picture of an apple (B) (A-B), and then the picture (B) to word (A) (B-A) relation was subsequently tested, there would be no way to determine that the correct response was a derived symmetrical B-A relation, rather than merely the result of a history of reinforcement for saying &quot;apple&quot; in the presence of pictures of apples. Instead, in PEAK-E-PA items, a participant may be taught that a &quot;cug&quot; (A) is the same as an arbitrary picture (B) (A-B), and subsequently tested for the arbitrary picture (B) to word (A) relation (B-A). In addition to visual and auditory stimuli as in the previous example, other stimuli used in the assessment include tactile, gustatory, and olfactory stimuli. Exemplar stimulus relations instructed and tested in the PEAK-E-PA subtests are shown in Fig. 2.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Fig. 2 Exemplar train and test relations across each of the four subtests in the PEAK-E-PA. Stimuli surrounded by dashed lines represent the arbitrary pictures and text utilized in the assessment, and the stimuli in quotations represent auditory/visual stimuli. The shaded panels represent the presented test relations. The figure was adapted from Dixon, Belisle, and Stanley ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Permission was obtained from the authors of the study to adapt the figure for the purposes of the present study&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;A single relation is tested within each item in the PEAK-E-PA. To evaluate participant responses, a correct response on a given item is given a score of &quot;1&quot; and an incorrect response is given a score of &quot;0.&quot; Thus, participant scores on each subtest range from 0 to 12, and participant total scores on the assessment range from 0 to 48. Stimuli in the assessment are presented in either a match-to-sample format or in a go/no-go sequential presentation. For assessment items that are delivered in a match-to-sample format, the assessor presents a sample stimulus (e.g., A1) and two comparison stimuli (e.g., B1 and B2). For example, in a Basic Symmetry item, the participant is presented with a sample number (e.g., 2) and two comparison pictures (B1 and B2). The A1-B1 relation is then instructed while the stimuli are present. For example, the assessor points to the number 2, and says &quot;this is the same as this&quot; and points to the corresponding B1 picture. To test for the derived symmetrical relation, the comparison B1 picture is presented as the sample, and the number 2 along with a distractor comparison A2 stimulus is presented (e.g., 7). The assessor then delivers the instruction &quot;Find the same,&quot; where a correct response necessitates touching the A1 stimulus, and an incorrect response involves touching the A2 stimulus, or failing to touch the A1 stimulus within 5-s. For go/no-go sequential presentation items, the assessor presents a sample stimulus followed by a comparison stimulus. For example, in an Intermediate Reflexivity item, the assessor presents an olfactory stimulus (e.g., vanilla) followed by a second olfactory stimulus (e.g., either vanilla or vinegar). To instruct the A-A relation, the assessor either says &quot;those were the same&quot; (A1 to A1 presentation) or &quot;those were not the same&quot; (A1 to A2 presentation), and repeats with the other relation. Once the relation has been instructed, the assessor represents the sequential stimuli (either, A1-A1 or A1-A2) and asks, &quot;were those the same,&quot; where a correct response involves saying &quot;yes&quot; if the items are related or &quot;no&quot; if the items are not related. The assessor then presents the remaining sequence. A score of &quot;1&quot; for sequential presentation items requires that the participants correctly responds both &quot;yes&quot; and &quot;no&quot; contingent upon the stimuli sequentially presented. On all items, a test of mastery following train relations is not conducted and we retained this format to remain consistent with the standardized delivery of this assessment.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The materials for each item are standardized within the assessment. Visual stimuli were presented in a 75-page flip book. Common tangible objects (e.g., spoons, pencils) and sensory objects (e.g., edibles, tactile objects, olfactory scents) as called for in the assessment were the same materials across participants to ensure standardization of the assessment.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-6&quot;&gt;The Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The ABLLS-R is a 544-item criterion-referenced assessment that evaluates operant behavior across 25 skill domains. This assessment accounts for a wide range of skills, many of which are based on Skinner&#39;s verbal operant theory. Several foundational living skills such as toileting and motor skills are also assessed. All domains progress from simple to more complex tasks. The &lt;emph&gt;ABLLS-R Protocol&lt;/emph&gt; provides specific instructions for completion, as well as a skills tracking grid that provides a visual representation of one&#39;s current repertoire across each of the 25 skill domains. Picture stimuli and common objects are used as materials for this assessment. Assessors are responsible for collecting all materials to satisfy the assessment of skills that required the use of stimuli. Picture stimuli are often collected from existing materials or obtained from the Appendix listed on page 94 of the ABLLS-R Protocol Manual. All stimuli were identical within each of the agencies, but there were differences in the specific stimuli across the two agencies.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The skill areas that were examined in the ABLLS-R include: Cooperation and Reinforcer Effectiveness, Visual Performance, Receptive Language, Motor Imitation, Vocal Imitation, Requests, Labeling, Intraverbals, Spontaneous Vocalizations, Syntax and Grammar, Play and Leisure, Social Interaction, Group Instruction, Classroom Routines, Generalized Responding, Reading, Math, Writing, Spelling, Dressing, Eating, Grooming, Toileting, Gross Motor, and Fine Motor skills. Each skill domain area includes a different number of tasks that vary from 6–57. Each task under its corresponding skill domain includes a task identifier, a scoring box, the task name, the task objective, the relevant question, examples of the objective, and criteria for scoring. The presentation of stimuli varies depending on the skill under evaluation. For example, an assessor may need to provide the participant with an array of pictures from which they must arrange in a sequential manner to satisfy the task objective (skill B26), or, the assessor may need to evaluate one&#39;s ability to perform a certain task, such as brushing teeth (skill W6).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Depending on the task, a participant receives a score between 0 and 2 or 0 and 4. For example, Task B4 states the objective, &quot;When given an item, the student will match the object to one of three pictures in an array.&quot; The corresponding question states, &quot;Can the student match objects to corresponding pictures?&quot; The score for this item ranges from 0 to 2, with a score of 2 indicates that the participant &quot;can match three items in succession,&quot; and a score of 1 indicates that a participant &quot;can match a single item per task presentation.&quot; Following completion of this assessment, the obtained scores are summed under each domain, and an ABLLS-R total score ranging from 0 to 1,488 is calculated.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-7&quot;&gt;The Test of Language Development-Intermediate: Fourth Edition&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The TOLD-I:4 is an assessment used in diagnosing language disorders by determining the deviation of participants language from same aged peers. Therefore, the assessment is a norm-referenced rather than a criterion-referenced assessment, unlike the PEAK-E-PA and ABLLS-R. The assessment includes six subtests measuring broad domains of listening, organizing, and speaking, providing a structural metric of the complexity of a participant&#39;s language abilities. The specific subtests within the TOLD-I:4 include: Sentence Combining, Picture Vocabulary, Word Ordering, Relational Vocabulary, Morphological Comprehension, and Multiple Meanings.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Participant responses within each of the subtests are recorded in the examiner record booklet, providing a performance metric for each subtest and composite performance. Each assessment item includes specific instructions for the assessor to follow. The assessor first provides an exemplar related to each assessment item, and then delivers as test question to the participant. Example correct responses are provided in the assessment to standardize responses that are considered correct and responses that are considered incorrect. The first subtest, for example, assesses for the participant&#39;s ability to combine sentences. The assessor begins by providing the instruction &quot;make your sentence as short as you can,&quot; and then provides multiple sentences (e.g., &quot;I like milk. I like cookies&quot;). The participant is then required to combine the multiple sentences to produce a single sentence (e.g., &quot;I like milk and cookies&quot;). Correct participant responses are scored as a &quot;1&quot; and incorrect response are scored as a &quot;0.&quot; In later subtests, several assessment items include multiple components where multiple correct responses are possible, producing a possible item score greater-than 1. Scores for each test item are then summed to provide a total score within each subtest, as well as a composite total score for the assessment.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To obtain a normative age estimate, the raw scores are converted to scaled scores based on the age of the participant. For the purposes of the present study, only raw scores are reported for three reasons. First, several of the participants fell outside of the age-range required for the assessment; therefore a normalized scaled score for these participants could not be established. Second, we were interested in the correspondence between these advanced structural topographies, not the deviation of participants from typically developing peers. Therefore, scaling the scores based on age would not allow for such an analysis across the participants. Finally, prior research has failed to report a relationship between age and language abilities with this population in terms of functional skill development (Dixon, Whiting, et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]); therefore scaling based on age could skew the relationship as a product of the age distribution of the participants.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;As a procedural check, we also evaluated inter-observer agreement (IOA) to assess the agreement between two separate observers in their calculation of existing participant assessment scores. Total scores were collected for each participant across the PEAK-E-PA, all four subdomains presented in the PEAK-E-PA, the ABLLS-R, and the TOLD-I:4. Raw data were interpreted by each observer, and agreement was calculated for 36.2% of the PEAK-E-PA and ABLLS-R assessments, and 29.8% of the TOLD-I:4 assessments. IOA was 100% for each of the three assessments.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-8&quot;&gt;Data Analysis&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Several statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between the PEAK-E-PA, ABLLS-R, and TOLD-I:4. First, we obtained Pearson correlation coefficients indicating the strength of the relationship between total scores across the three measures. Coefficient values range from 0 to 1, where scores closer to 1 indicate a stronger relationship. Conventionally, coefficient values above 0.70 indicate a strong relationship; however, the strength of the relationship may be better viewed in the context of other psychometric evaluations of behavior analytic language assessments, which have produced correlation coefficients ranging from 0.76 (PEAK-DT to IQ; Dixon, Whiting, Belisle, &amp;amp; Rowsey, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref47&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;]) to 0.95 (PEAK-DT to VB-MAPP; Malkin et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref48&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Therefore, we describe the current results in the context of this current range.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Second, we conducted two linear regression analyses. The first was conducted to evaluate the relationship between PEAK-E-PA and the ABLLS-R and the second was conducted to evaluate the relationship between PEAK-E-PA and the TOLD-I:4. The linear regression provides a best-fit linear equation describing the relationship between the assessments. The obtained equation provides a rate parameter and y-intercept. In the context of the present study, the rate parameter describes an increase in the estimated participant score on either the ABLLS-R or TOLD-I:4 per 1-unit increase in the participant&#39;s score on the PEAK-E-PA. For example, if a best fit rate parameter of 20 was obtained, then an increase of 20 on an assessment would be expected given an increase of 1 score on the PEAK-E-PA. The y-intercept in the present study provides an estimate of the value on the assessment at which the PEAK-E-PA would provide a meaningful measure of derived relational responding. For example, if the y-intercept for an assessment was 200, then a score of 200 on that assessment would likely be required before differentiated results could be obtained on the PEAK-E-PA (i.e., a PEAK-E-PA score of 0 would be likely for all participants who score below 200 on the assessment). If a negative y-intercept is obtained, then the PEAK-E-PA is likely appropriate for all participants with whom the assessment is conducted. In the case of negative y-intercept values, the PEAK-E-PA may be used to determine the appropriateness of the other assessment. The cut-off value for the PEAK-E-PA could therefore be determined by substituting 0 for &lt;emph&gt;Y&lt;/emph&gt; to obtain an estimate of the x-intercept. If, for example, the obtained x-intercept was 4, then the other assessment would be unlikely to yield differentiated results for participants who score below 4 on the PEAK-E-PA.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-9&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results of the present study are summarized in Figs. 3, 4 and Table 2. Table 2 provides a correlation matrix including participant total scores on the PEAK-E-PA, ABLLS-R, and TOLD-I:4. In addition, each of the subtests of the PEAK-E-PA are included in the matrix. The results indicate strong, significant relationships between the PEAK-E-PA and both the ABLLS-R and TOLD-I:4. The relationship with the ABLLS-R, although strong, falls at the lower range of prior correlations reported in prior research. Malkin et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]) reported a 0.95 correlation between PEAK-DT and the ABLLS-R; thus, the correlation reported here suggests a weaker relationship between the PEAK-E-PA and the ABLLS-R. The correlation between the PEAK-E-PA and the TOLD-I:4 falls in the upper range of reported correlations, strongly supporting the convergent validity of these two assessments. Three of the PEAK-E-PA subtests (i.e., Reflexivity, Symmetry, and Transitivity) additionally produced a correlation coefficient exceeding 0.80 with the TOLD-I:4. A weaker relationship was obtained for the Equivalence subtest; however, the positive skew observed in the distribution of participant PEAK-E-PA scores may account for this difference, as several participants may have score a 0 on this subtest weakening the correlation. All of the PEAK-E-PA subtests resulted in a coefficient below 0.80 with the ABLLS-R. The results also suggest that the Transitivity subtest was most strongly correlated with the TOLD-I:4 and the Symmetry subtest was most strongly correlated with the ABLLS-R. This finding therefore suggests that earlier items on the PEAK-E-PA are more likely than later items to converge with results on the ABLLS-R, whereas later PEAK-E-PA items are more likely than earlier items to converge with results on the TOLD-I:4. All correlations were statistically significant at the 0.01 level, suggesting that the reported coefficients were unlikely to have occurred by chance.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Fig. 3 Scatter-plot of the relationship between participant scores on the PEAK-E-PA and ABLLS-R. Dashed line shows a linear regression fit to the data and the best fit formula and obtained R2 value is shown&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Fig. 4 Scatter-plot of the relationship between participant scores on the PEAK-E-PA and the TOLD I:4. Dashed line shows a linear regression fit to the data and the best fit formula and obtained R2 value is shown&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 2 Correlation matrix of PEAK-E-PA Total Score, PEAK-E-PA subtests, ABLLS-R Total Score, and TOLD I:4 total score&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table frame=&quot;hsides&quot; rules=&quot;groups&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;PEAK-E-PA Total&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Reflexivity&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Symmetry&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Transitivity&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Equivalence&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;ABLLS-R Total&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;TOLD I:4 Total&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;PEAK-E-PA Total&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8211;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Reflexivity&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.862**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8211;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Symmetry&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.957**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.799**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8211;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Transitivity&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.930**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.666**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.864**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8211;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Equivalence&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.709**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.449**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.578**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.703**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8211;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;ABLLS-R Total&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.728**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.663**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.686**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.646**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.540**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8211;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;TOLD I:4 Total&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.940**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.823**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.882**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.905**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.612**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;.617**&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td align=&quot;left&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8211;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;*&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.05, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt;.01&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Figures 3 and 4 provide scatter-plots visually summarizing the relationship between the PEAK-E-PA and the ABLLS-R and TOLD-I:4, respectively. For the ABLLS-R, visual analysis of the data supports the reported correlation coefficient in that participant scores on the PEAK-E-PA appear to be positively correlated with the ABLLS-R. The best-fit equation produced a rate parameter estimate of 21.52, suggesting that increases of 1 score on the PEAK-E-PA are predictive of increases of 21.52 on the ABLLS-R. The obtained y-intercept value was 442.7, suggesting that participants who score below this value on the ABLLS-R are unlikely to score above 0 on the PEAK-E-PA. The obtained R&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; provides an index of the goodness of fit for the linear equation in predicting the obtained data, suggesting that 52% of the variance in participant ABLLS-R scores are predicted by performance on the PEAK-E-PA. This R&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; value is lower than prior convergent validity analyses of behavioral language assessments. For the TOLD-I:4, visual analysis of the data again supports a positive correlation with participant scores on the PEAK-E-PA. The best-fit rate parameter estimate of 7.69 suggests that increases of 1 score on the PEAK-E-PA are predictive of increases of 7.69 on the TOLD-I:4. The obtained y-intercept was -23.8, suggesting that all participants who score at least a 1 on the TOLD-I:4 are likely to obtain a score above 0 on the PEAK-E-PA, allowing for differentiated results. To determine the score on the PEAK-E-PA at which participants are likely to obtain differentiated results on the TOLD-I:4, we substituted 0 for &lt;emph&gt;Y&lt;/emph&gt; and solved for &lt;emph&gt;X.&lt;/emph&gt; The results suggest that a score of at least 3.1 would be required on the PEAK-E-PA before participants are likely to score above 0 on the TOLD-I:4. The obtained R&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; value suggests that 88% of the variance in participant scores on the TOLD-I:4 are accounted for by scores on the PEAK-E-PA, suggesting a stronger linear fit compared to prior convergent validity evaluations of behavioral language assessments with non-behavioral measures (e.g., PPVT, IQ).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The strong correlation reported between the PEAK-E-PA and the TOLD-I:4 exceeded 0.90, suggesting that these two measures may report scores of an identical construct (i.e., a mono-trait assessment, rather than a multi-trait assessment of two independent constructs). In reviewing Fig. 4, this strong correlation may have been inflated by oversampling of participants with low scores on the TOLD-I:4. Although this may be common for providers utilizing the PEAK curriculum with children with disabilities, we conducted a secondary analysis by removing participants who scores below 50 on the TOLD-I:4. Results still supported a strong positive correlation between the PEAK-E-PA and the TOLD-I:4 (&lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.79, p &amp;lt; 0.05), but the score was lower than reported while retaining the full sample. This suggests that for participants with moderate scores on the TOLD-I:4, the PEAK-E-PA may provide additional information to inform language training. Removing these participants also resulted in only a moderate correlation between the ABLLS-R and the TOLD-I:4 (&lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.59, p &amp;lt; 0.05), providing further support that a functional assessment of language grounded in derived relational responding may be necessary to account for the more complex skills measured using tools like the TOLD-I:4.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-10&quot;&gt;Discussion&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The purpose of the present study was to provide an evaluation of the convergent validity of the PEAK-E-PA with two common assessments of language development in application with individuals with autism. More recent behavior analytic research has begun moving beyond an analysis of the correspondence between related constructs of behavioral measures towards an evaluation of behavioral measures with non-behavioral measures (i.e.., normative assessments of language functioning). This study sought to further a growing body of psychometric research in behavior analysis (e.g., Dixon et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Malkin et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]) by examining the relationship between the PEAK-E-PA the ABLLS-R as a more traditional and functional behavior analytic evaluation, and the TOLD-I:4 as a measure of more advanced structural language skills. The PEAK-E-PA is the first assessment to provide a metric of derived relational responding (Dixon [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]), allowing for an analysis of the correspondence between derived relational responding and the advanced language constructs of which derived relational responding is intended to explain (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, &amp;amp; Roche, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Results of the present investigation provide data that suggest a relationship does exist between the three language assessments. More specifically, the data reveal a relationship between verbal operant development, linguistic structure, and derived relational responding. Such a relationship yields important implications towards a greater understanding of the complexities of human language. If the ability to derive relations is directly related to the development of the early verbal operants, and if this same ability is also directly related to a more complex structural language framework, then the results may have several implications for a functional understanding of the development of a more complete language repertoire.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Perhaps the greatest implication is that the PEAK-E-PA may provide more meaningful functional targets for behavioral intervention once elementary verbal operant skills have begun to develop, as well as account for greater complexities of language development once a learner moves beyond the scope of traditional verbal operant approaches. A limitation in the literature on application of Skinner&#39;s verbal behavior approach is that participants have been largely limited to children with disabilities that severely limit language functioning (Dixon, Small, &amp;amp; Rosales, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Thus, to begin to target more advanced repertoires, we may need to utilize technologies based on derived relational responding (Rehfeldt [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib26&quot; id=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;26&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Another implication of the current findings is that the results did not support a strong relationship between PEAK-E-PA and the ABLLS-R relative to the results reported by Malkin et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]) for PEAK-DT to ABLLS-R, who obtained a correlation coefficient of 0.95. This suggests that behavioral measures that evaluate the same construct (i.e., verbal operant development, derived relational responding) may contain a degree of construct validity, which is established through multiple evaluations including measures of both convergence and discrimination between measures (Downing &amp;amp; Haladyna [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref57&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The stronger correlation reported by Malkin et al. in the context of the current study, therefore adds initial evidence that the PEAK-E-PA and ABLLS-R may have construct validity. Further research is needed in this area.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Despite the results of the present study, the results should be considered preliminary due to several limitations. First, although the results support the convergent validity of the PEAK-E-PA with the ABLLS-R and the TOLD-I:4, analyses were not conducted to evaluate the discriminant validity of the PEAK-E-PA with measures of unrelated constructs. For a complete analysis of construct validity, both convergent and discriminant validity must be assessed (Downing &amp;amp; Haladyna [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]), providing a ready avenue for future research in this area.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Second, because participant scores were taken from existing client records from two agencies, IOA on participant responses during the assessments, as well as measures of assessment integrity, were not assessed. Although IOA is not commonly reported in psychometric evaluations in other disciplines, it is a common measure of reliability in behavior analytic research, and its inclusion would increase the internal validity of the obtained results. Similarly, providing a measure of assessment integrity would increase the internal validity of the findings by ensuring the assessments were conducted as described. The use of existing client records does, however, provide an element of external validity as the assessments examined in the current study were collected in a manner consistent with settings in which the measures are likely to be conducted. Corresponding to this limitation, because assessment results were obtained from existing records, we do not know the temporal locus of the assessment within on-going language training at the agency. We do know that all participants were undergoing language instruction, so the scores represent values during intervention, although the format of on-going intervention was likely highly individualized. Future research may consider evaluating how treatment variables, such as the length and structural characteristics of treatment, predict outcomes of this or similar analyses.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;A final limitation was that only two autism treatment agencies were involved in the study. This limitation reduces the external validity of the results, as we are unsure the degree to which findings generalize to participants from other agencies. The positive skew observed in the distribution of participant scores on the TOLD-I:4 and the PEAK-E-PA suggest that the sample may not have been perfectly representative of all individuals with autism. IQ estimates also suggested that most of the participants were below the overall population mean (i.e., full scale IQ = 100) in intellectual functioning. We do not know if the same results would be obtained given a normal distribution of participant scores. Idiosyncratic agency variables, such as assessor experience with the assessments and the participants, may have also affected the results. It should be noted that prior research on the convergent validity of behavioral language assessments have only been conducted at single agencies, so this limitation is common across this current body of research.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Future research should therefore address the above limitations, as well as continue to evaluate the reliability and validity of behavioral language assessments in application with individuals with autism. Such evaluations are necessary to ensure that our assessments are reliable, and provide meaningful targets for behavioral intervention, and this undertaking will only serve to improve the quality of behavioral education for individuals with autism and increase the credibility of behavioral approaches to language development in educational settings. Another avenue for future research may be to evaluate the degree to which improvements in derived relational responding leads to corresponding improvements in related subtests of the ABLLS-R and the structural language skills evaluated in the TOLD-I:4. The TOLD-I:4, in addition to providing information for placement purposes, can also provide a metric of improvements in overall language functioning. If derived relational responding is necessary for the types of language events assessed in the TOLD-I:4, then improving derived relational responding as a generalized operant should lead to corresponding improvements in language structures. An initial study conducted by Dixon, Belisle, Blevins, and Hayes (in press) supports the utility of the PEAK-E curriculum in improving overall levels of derived relational responding, but corresponding improvements in other language measures are currently unknown.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In summary, researchers have begun to support the convergent validity of behavior analytic criterion-referenced language assessments with other behavioral and non-behavioral measures of language. Traditional behavior analytic assessments have lacked scope in application with individuals with autism, providing meaningful targets only up-to the language development expected of a typically developing 11-year-old. By incorporating contemporary advances in derived relational responding, the PEAK-E-PA may provide greater scope in the complexity of assessed-for skills. The results reported in the current study show a strong, positive relationship between the PEAK-E-PA and the ABLLS-R and TOLD-I:4, where the TOLD-I:4 is intended to assess language skills that develop beyond the scope of the ABLLS-R and other traditional assessments. The results therefore have implications for the assessment and treatment of individuals with autism who have progressed beyond instruction aimed at establishing early language abilities.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-11&quot;&gt;Compliance with Ethical Standards&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-12&quot;&gt;Conflict of interest&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The second author received small royalties from the sale of the PEAK Relational Training System.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-13&quot;&gt;Ethical Approval&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0160480417-14&quot;&gt;Publisher&#39;s Note&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0160480417-15&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; References &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib1&quot; idref=&quot;ref2&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;1&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. 2013: Washington, D.C; American Psychiatric Association. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib2&quot; idref=&quot;ref33&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;2&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Barnes-Holmes D, Barnes-Holmes Y. Explaining complex behavior: Two perspectives on the concept of generalized operant classes. The Psychological Record. 2000; 50: 251-265. 10.1007/BF03395355&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib3&quot; idref=&quot;ref1&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;3&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Boyle CA, Boulet S, Schieve LA, Cohen RA, Blumberg SJ, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Kogan MD. Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997–2008. Pediatrics. 2011; 127: 1034-1042. 10.1542/peds.2010-2989. 21606152&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib4&quot; idref=&quot;ref26&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;4&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Chomsky N. A review of BF Skinner&#39;s Verbal Behavior. Language. 1959; 35: 26-58. 10.2307/411334&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib5&quot; idref=&quot;ref10&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;5&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR. PEAK Relational Training System: Direct Training Module. 2014: Carbondale, IL; Shawnee Scientific Press&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib6&quot; idref=&quot;ref11&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;6&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR. PEAK Relational Training System: Generalization Module. 2014: Carbondale, IL; Shawnee Scientific Press&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib7&quot; idref=&quot;ref37&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;7&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR. PEAK Relational Training System: Equivalence Module. 2015: Carbondale, IL; Shawnee Scientific Press&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib8&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;8&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon, M. R, Belisle, J, Blevins, A, &amp;amp; Hayes, S. C. (in press). Derived relational responding is a generalized operant: Evidence from children with autism using the PEAK curriculum. Behavior Analysis in Practice.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib9&quot; idref=&quot;ref41&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;9&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon, M. R, Belisle, J, &amp;amp; Stanley, C. R. (2018). Derived relational responding and intelligence: Assessing the relationship between the PEAK-E Pre-Assessment and IQ with individuals with disabilities. The Psychological Record.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0284-1.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR, Belisle J, Stanley CR, Daar JH, Williams LA. Derived equivalence relations of geometry skills in students with autism: An application of the PEAK-E curriculum. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. 2016; 32: 38-45. 10.1007/s40616-016-0051-9. 27606220. 4883554&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR, Belisle J, Stanley C, Rowsey K, Daar JH, Szekely S. Toward a behavior analysis of complex language for children with autism: Evaluating the relationship between PEAK and the VB-MAPP. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2015; 27: 223-233. 10.1007/s10882-014-9410-4&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR, Belisle J, Whiting SW, Rowsey KE. Normative sample of the PEAK relational training system: Direct training module and subsequent comparisons to individuals with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014; 8: 1597-1606. 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.07.020&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR, Carman J, Tyler PA, Whiting SW, Enoch MR, Daar JH. PEAK relational training system for children with autism and developmental disabilities: Correlations with peabody picture vocabulary test and assessment reliability. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2014; 26: 603-614. 10.1007/s10882-014-9384-2&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR, Rowsey KE, Gunnarsson KF, Belisle J, Stanley CR, Daar JH. Normative Sample of the PEAK Relational Training System: Generalization Module with Comparison to Individuals with Autism. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2017; 26; 1: 101-122. 10.1007/s10864-016-9261-4&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR, Small SL, Rosales R. Extended analysis of empirical citations with Skinner&#39;s Verbal Behavior: 1984–2004. The Behavior Analyst. 2007; 30: 197-209. 10.1007/BF03392155. 22478497. 2203633&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Dixon MR, Whiting SW, Rowsey K, Belisle J. Assessing the relationship between intelligence and the PEAK relational training system. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014; 8: 1208-1213. 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.05.005&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Downing SM, Haladyna TM. Handbook of test development. 2006: Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Gould E, Dixon DR, Najdowski AC, Smith MN, Tarbox J. A review of assessments for determining the content of early intensive behavioral intervention programs for autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2011; 5: 990-1002. 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.01.012&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hammill DD, Newcomer PL. Test of Language Development–Intermediate–Fourth Edition (TOLD-I:4). 2005: Austin, TX; PRO-ED inc&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hancock MA, Cautilli JD, Rosenwasser B, Clark K. Four tactics for improving behavior analytic services. The Behavior Analyst Today. 2000; 1: 35-38. 10.1037/h0099873&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hayes SC, Barnes-Holmes D, Roche B. Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. 2001: New York, NY; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: c2001. 10.1007/b108413&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hayes SC, Brownstein AJ. Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations, and a behavior-analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst. 1986; 9: 175-190. 10.1007/BF03391944. 22478660. 2741891&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Healy O, Barnes-Holmes D, Smeets PM. Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2000; 74: 207-227. 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-207. 11029023. 1284792&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Malkin A, Dixon MR, Speelman RC, Luke N. Evaluating the relationships between the PEAK Relational 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. 2017; 29: 341-351. 10.1007/s10882-016-9527-8&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Partington J. Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised (The ABLLS-R). 2006: Pleasant Hill, CA; Behavior Analysts&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Rehfeldt RA. Toward a technology of derived stimulus relations: An analysis of articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1992–2009. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2011; 44: 109-119. 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-109. 21541138. 3050465&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sidman M, Tailby W. Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1982; 37: 5-22. 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5. 7057129. 1333115&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Skinner BF. Verbal behavior. 1957: New York, NY; Appleton-Century Crofts. 10.1037/11256-000&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sundberg ML. VB-MAPP: Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program. 2008: Concord, CA; AVB Press&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sundberg ML, Michael J. The benefits of Skinner&#39;s analysis of verbal behavior for children with autism. Behavior Modification. 2001; 25: 698-724. 10.1177/0145445501255003. 11573336&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; TXautism.net, (n.d.). Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised: Overview. Retrieved from &lt;ulink href=&quot;http://www.txautism.net/evaluations/assessment-of-basic-language-and-learning-skills-revised-ablls-r&quot;&gt;http://www.txautism.net/evaluations/assessment-of-basic-language-and-learning-skills-revised-ablls-r&lt;/ulink&gt;&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Jordan Belisle; Mark R. Dixon; Bridget E. Munoz and Kate Fricke-Steuber&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl1&quot; bibid=&quot;bib18&quot; firstref=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl2&quot; bibid=&quot;bib28&quot; firstref=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl3&quot; bibid=&quot;bib21&quot; firstref=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl4&quot; bibid=&quot;bib20&quot; firstref=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl5&quot; bibid=&quot;bib30&quot; firstref=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl6&quot; bibid=&quot;bib29&quot; firstref=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl7&quot; bibid=&quot;bib25&quot; firstref=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl8&quot; bibid=&quot;bib17&quot; firstref=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl9&quot; bibid=&quot;bib14&quot; firstref=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl10&quot; bibid=&quot;bib24&quot; firstref=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl11&quot; bibid=&quot;bib22&quot; firstref=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl12&quot; bibid=&quot;bib12&quot; firstref=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl13&quot; bibid=&quot;bib13&quot; firstref=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl14&quot; bibid=&quot;bib16&quot; firstref=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl15&quot; bibid=&quot;bib15&quot; firstref=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl16&quot; bibid=&quot;bib19&quot; firstref=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl17&quot; bibid=&quot;bib27&quot; firstref=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl18&quot; bibid=&quot;bib23&quot; firstref=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl19&quot; bibid=&quot;bib10&quot; firstref=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl20&quot; bibid=&quot;bib11&quot; firstref=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl21&quot; bibid=&quot;bib26&quot; firstref=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1357070
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Convergent Validity of the PEAK-E-PA and Two Common Assessments of Language Development: the ABLLS-R and the TOLD 1:4
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Belisle%2C+Jordan%22&quot;&gt;Belisle, Jordan&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Dixon%2C+Mark+R%2E%22&quot;&gt;Dixon, Mark R.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Munoz%2C+Bridget+E%2E%22&quot;&gt;Munoz, Bridget E.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Fricke-Steuber%2C+Kate%22&quot;&gt;Fricke-Steuber, Kate&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Journal+of+Behavioral+Education%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Journal of Behavioral Education&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. Dec 2022 31(4):699-717.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Test+Validity%22&quot;&gt;Test Validity&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Correlation%22&quot;&gt;Correlation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Psychometrics%22&quot;&gt;Psychometrics&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Verbal+Ability%22&quot;&gt;Verbal Ability&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Language+Tests%22&quot;&gt;Language Tests&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22&quot;&gt;Autism Spectrum Disorders&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Diagnostic+Tests%22&quot;&gt;Diagnostic Tests&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Applied+Behavior+Analysis%22&quot;&gt;Applied Behavior Analysis&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SU&quot; term=&quot;%22Test+of+Language+Development%22&quot;&gt;Test of Language Development&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10864-020-09426-x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1053-0819&lt;br /&gt;1573-3513
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The study evaluated the convergent validity of the PEAK-E-PA and two common assessments of language development used in educational and clinical settings: the ABLLS-R and the TOLD-I:4. The PEAK-E-PA provides a measure of a participant&#39;s ability to derive arbitrary stimulus relations, and may therefore provide a more complex analysis of language functioning than traditional behavior analytic language assessments. The results of the present study support a strong, significant relationship between the PEAK-E-PA and the ABLLS-R (r = 0.73, p &lt; 0.01), but the obtained coefficient falls within the lower range of prior psychometric evaluations of behavioral language assessments. The results suggest a stronger relationship between the PEAK-E-PA the TOLD-I:4 (r = 0.94, p &lt; 0.01), supporting the use of the PEAK-E-PA with individuals with autism who have progressed beyond the elementary verbal operant skills assessed for in traditional behavioral assessments.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1357070
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1357070
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10864-020-09426-x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 699
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Verbal Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diagnostic Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Applied Behavior Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test of Language Development
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Convergent Validity of the PEAK-E-PA and Two Common Assessments of Language Development: the ABLLS-R and the TOLD 1:4
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Belisle, Jordan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dixon, Mark R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Munoz, Bridget E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fricke-Steuber, Kate
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1053-0819
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3513
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Behavioral Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1