Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have documented sensory processing difficulties across the lifespan; however there is limited empirical support for the sensory-based interventions that have become ubiquitous with the population. This study was conducted to address this need and examine the effect of sensory-based interventions on skill acquisition for five elementary-age students with ASD. Proponents suggest that sensory-based interventions can be used to facilitate optimal levels of arousal so that children are available for learning. A single-case alternating treatments design was used to evaluate functional relations between the two sensory-based antecedent interventions and correct responding on expressive identification tasks. Upon visual analysis of the graphed data, functional relations were apparent for two participants. A positive relation between one sensory activity and correct responses was evident for a third student, but his rate of skill acquisition was too slow to verify a functional relation during the study. Results were undifferentiated for two students; one reached mastery criteria with both sensory-based interventions, while one made only modest improvement in expressive identification. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to identify predictors of growth. Scrutiny of the results of the level-1 analysis revealed that there were significant differences among the participants at the start of the study (00 = 388.46, ²(4) = 45.97, p \u3c .001) and that all of the students made significant gains during the study (10 = 2.35, t(4) = 3.43, p \u3c .05). Using treatment as a predictor in Model 2 resulted in the finding of no significance for the sensory-based interventions in predicting growth. The two biggest level-2 predictors of student growth were age (11 = 0.055, t(2) = 6.403, p \u3c .001) and IQ (22 = 0.21, t(2) = 13.41, p \u3c .001). Although not clinically significant, Childhood Autism Rating Scale scores as a level-2 predictor of growth may have practical significance. Implications for mixed-modality research and applied practice are discussed