Variables related to differences in standardized test outcomes for children with autism.
Simple motivation supports during testing give kids with autism higher, more accurate scores.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with kids who have autism. They gave the same test many times.
Each time they changed small things. They added breaks, praise, and fun items.
Then they took the supports away. They put them back again. This showed clear cause and effect.
What they found
Scores went up every time the supports were in place.
When supports were removed, scores dropped.
The pattern repeated across kids, proving the boost was real.
How this fits with other research
Micai et al. (2021) seems to disagree. They found kids with autism did worse on reading tasks even when goals were clear. The key difference: they never added extra motivation or breaks.
Dugdale et al. (2000) used the same reversal style. They showed you can reinforce variety in teens with autism. Both studies prove small antecedent tweaks create big behavior changes.
Planer et al. (2018) also changed what came before the task. They used high-probability requests to raise compliance. Adkins et al. (1997) used attention and praise to raise test scores. Same principle, new setting.
Why it matters
You can raise a child’s true score on any test by adding brief breaks, praise, and preferred items. This matters for IEP decisions and placement meetings. Try it next time you run the VB-MAPP or any standardized tool.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before the next test session, set a 2-minute break every 10 minutes and keep a small bowl of high-interest items for quick praise delivery.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to assess whether manipulation of variables related to motivation and attention in children with autism would influence performance on standardized tests. Two different testing conditions were compared: One consisted of the usual standardized testing procedures; during the other, specific variables that were hypothesized to relate to each child's responsiveness to task stimuli were manipulated. Data were collected in the context of a repeated reversals experimental design with condition order varied within and across children. Six children participated in a total of 44 separate testing sessions, controlled for order of conditions, number of sessions, and type of test. Results showed consistent differences between the two conditions, suggesting that improving motivation and attention in children with autism may considerably influence test performance and interpretation. Findings are discussed in relation to the difficulty in administering and interpreting changes in performance on standardized tests with this population.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1997 · doi:10.1023/a:1025894213424