This comparison draws in part from “Stuck in Level 2” by Patrick McGreevy, Ph.D, BCBA-D Author of the Essential for Living Curriculum (BehaviorLive), and extends it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. The decision framework, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →One of the central insights in McGreevy's stuck-at-Level-2 analysis is the distinction between teaching to the assessment — designing instruction to achieve passing scores on VB-MAPP items — and teaching to mastery — developing the robust, generalized, functional repertoires that the VB-MAPP items are intended to sample. These approaches are not the same, and programs that prioritize assessment scores over functional mastery consistently produce learners whose progress plateaus at the level where the gap between these two orientations becomes consequential.
This distinction is not a criticism of the VB-MAPP as an instrument. The assessment is a sampling tool, and like any sampling tool, its validity depends on whether the behaviors it samples are representative of the learner's broader repertoire. When instruction is organized primarily around mastering the specific items on the assessment rather than the underlying repertoires those items are meant to represent, the assessment loses its predictive validity. The learner may score at Level 2 but lack the behavioral flexibility that Level 2 performance is supposed to predict.
The comparison below examines the key differences between these two instructional orientations and helps BCBAs identify which practices are most associated with genuine advancement versus superficial progress.
| Factor | Evidence-Based Approach | Traditional Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Mastery Criterion | Teaching to the Assessment: Mastery declared when the learner meets the criterion on VB-MAPP items with training stimuli; generalization probes optional or infrequent | Teaching to Mastery: Mastery criterion includes generalization to novel exemplars, novel instructors, and natural settings before the skill is considered functionally acquired |
| Exemplar Selection | Teaching to the Assessment: Training conducted with a small number of familiar exemplars that are used consistently across trials; novel stimuli introduced primarily at assessment time | Teaching to Mastery: Multiple exemplars used from the earliest stages of acquisition; variety of materials, settings, and instructors built into training before criterion is declared |
| Verbal Operant Balance | Teaching to the Assessment: Proportional to VB-MAPP item distribution; may overemphasize tacting and listener responding where these are most prominent on the assessment | Teaching to Mastery: Weighted toward manding as the motivational foundation for language development; intraverbal instruction systematically expanded alongside tact and listener responding |
| Generalization Data | Teaching to the Assessment: Generalization data collected only when specifically required by the assessment; data system focused on acquisition trials with training stimuli | Teaching to Mastery: Generalization probes are a routine, scheduled component of the data system; advancement to new targets contingent on documented generalization of prior targets |
| Program Revision Triggers | Teaching to the Assessment: Program modification triggered when VB-MAPP scores indicate lack of progress at the level scale; may not capture within-level stagnation | Teaching to Mastery: Program modification triggered by failure of generalization probes or by analysis of the learner's functional language use across natural settings, regardless of assessment score level |
| Outcome Expectation | Teaching to the Assessment: Advancement measured primarily by upward movement on the VB-MAPP score; transition to pre-academic curriculum triggered by achieving Level 3 passing scores | Teaching to Mastery: Advancement measured by functional language use in natural environments; transition to pre-academic curriculum triggered by demonstrated flexibility, spontaneity, and generalization of language across contexts |
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Use this framework when approaching stuck in level 2 in your practice:
Does the data support a need for intervention? Is there a meaningful impact on the individual's quality of life, safety, or access to reinforcement?
YES → Proceed to assessment NO → Document reasoning, monitor
A functional assessment should guide intervention selection. Avoid defaulting to standard protocols without individual analysis. Consider environmental variables, setting events, and private events.
YES → Select evidence-based approach matched to function NO → Complete assessment first
Goals should be co-developed. Assent and informed consent are ethical requirements. The individual's preferences and values matter in selecting both goals and methods.
YES → Proceed with collaborative plan NO → Engage in shared decision-making
This course covers the clinical and ethical dimensions in detail with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Stuck in Level 2 — Patrick McGreevy · 1 BACB General CEUs · $0
Take This Course →We extended this decision guide with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind each approach, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
280 research articles with practitioner takeaways
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
258 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB General CEUs · $0 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide
Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.