The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment:
An Analysis of 24 Learning and Language
Barriers and Possible Intervention Strategies
Mark L. Sundberg, Ph.D., BCBA-D
(www.marksundberg.com)
Assessment of a Child’s Needs
•
•
•
•
•
A formal assessment and behavioral analysis is essential for
developing an intervention program
Identify the operant level of the existing skills
Compare those skills to those of a typically developing child
Identify the language, social, behavioral, and learning barriers that
are preventing more efficient learning
The failure to conduct an appropriate assessment results in one of
the biggest problems in programs that serve children with autism:
An inappropriate curriculum
Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment
and Placement Program:
The VB-MAPP
•
•
•
•
There are five components of the VB-MAPP
The VB-MAPP: Milestones Assessment contains 170 verbal
behavior milestones across 3 developmental levels (0-18 months,
18-30 months, 30-48 months) and 16 different verbal operants and
related skills
The VB MAPP: Barriers Assessment examines 24 common
learning and language barriers faced by children with autism or
other developmental disabilities
The VB MAPP: Transition Assessment evaluates a child’s ability
to learn in a less restrictive educational environment across 18
different skills
Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment
and Placement Program:
The VB-MAPP
•
•
The VB-MAPP: Skills Task Analysis and Tracking provides a
further breakdown of the 16 different skill areas in the form of a
checklist containing over 900 specific skills
The VB-MAPP: Placement and IEP Goals provides
recommendations for program development for children based on
their VB-MAPP profiles, and their specific scores for each of the
170 milestones and the 24 Barriers. In addition, over 200 IEP goals
directly linked to the skills and barriers assessments, and the verbal
behavior intervention program are provided
The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment
•
•
•
•
It is important to find out what a child can do (The VB-MAPP
Milestones Assessment), but it is also important to know what he
can’t do, and analyze why he can’t do it
The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment is a tool that is designed to
identify and score 24 different learning and language acquisition
barriers that may be affecting an individual child
Once a specific barrier has been identified, a more detailed
descriptive and/or functional analysis of that problem is required
There are many ways that a verbal repertoire or related skill can
become defective or impaired, and an individualized analysis will be
necessary to determine what the nature of the problem is for a
specific child, and what intervention program might be appropriate
The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment
•
•
•
•
There are several different types of barriers that can affect learning
and language development
Strong and persistent negative behaviors that impede teaching and
learning (e.g., tantrums, aggression, non-compliance)
Verbal operants or related skills that are absent, weak, or in some
way impaired (e.g., echolalia, rote intraverbals, mands that are really
tacts)
Social behavior and the speaker-listener dyad can also become
impaired for a variety of reasons (e.g., limited motivation for social
interaction, impaired mands, impaired listener skills)
The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment
•
•
•
Fundamental barriers to learning that must be analyzed and
ameliorated (e.g., the failure to generalize, weak motivators, prompt
dependency)
Specific behaviors that can compete with learning (e.g., selfstimulation, hyperactive behavior, or sensory defensiveness)
Problems related to physical or biological barriers that must be
overcome or accounted for in some way (e.g., articulation or motor
imitation errors may be due to physical limitations, matching errors
may be due to visual limitations, or listener errors may be related to
hearing problems)
The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
24 Common Learning and Language Acquisition Barriers
Behavior problems
Instructional control (escape/avoidance)
Impaired mand
Impaired tact
Impaired motor imitation
Impaired echoic (e.g., echolalia)
Impaired matching-to-sample
Impaired listener repertoires (e.g., LD, LRFFC)
The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Common Learning and Language Acquisition Barriers
Impaired intraverbal
Impaired social skills
Prompt dependency, long latencies
Scrolling responses
Impaired scanning skills
Failure to make conditional discriminations (CDs)
Failure to generalize
Weak or atypical MOs
The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Common Learning and Language Acquisition Barriers
Response requirements weakens the MO
Reinforcer dependent
Self-stimulation
Articulation problems
Obsessive-compulsive behavior
Hyperactivity
Failure to make eye contact
Sensory defensiveness
The VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment
Scoring the VB-MAPP Barriers Form
Rate the child on the VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment Form using a
Likert-type scale of 0 to 4
A score of 0 or 1 would indicate that there are no significant
barriers, and a formal intervention plan may not be required
A score of 2, 3, or 4 would indicate that there is a barrier that
probably should be addressed as part of the intervention program
For some children the immediate focus of the intervention program
should be on removing a particular barrier
Common immediate barriers to remove involve instructional
control, behavior problems, an impaired mand, and prompt
dependency
•
•
•
•
•
•
Impaired Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A functional analysis of verbal behavior (Skinner, Chap 1)
A behavioral analysis of words, phrases, and sentences emitted by
children and adults with language delays
Same basic principles of behavior as nonverbal behavior
What is the source of control?
These sources of control will often reveal that what appears to be a
correct response in form is actually incorrect in function
Might not be the same source of control observed in a typically
developing child (e.g., asking “What’s your name”)
Each verbal operant can be susceptible to unwanted sources of
control
Impaired Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
The behavior analyst must determine what the correct source of
control should be, and how that source can be established
The functional analysis of verbal behavior is on-going
The failure to conduct such an analysis may result in rote or
defective verbal repertoires that can become difficult to change
This is how behavior analysis is different, this is what we do
The primary focus today will be on the verbal operants, but many
of the other barriers are directly related to impaired verbal
behavior and will be covered in the workshop (e.g., demand kills
the MO, scrolling, prompt dependency, failing to generalize, weak
conditional discrimination skills)
Analysis of an Impaired Mand Repertoire
•
•
•
A substantial number of children with autism have an absent,
weak, or impaired mand repertoire
Many of these same children have extensive tact and listener
skills, as well as other elevated scores on the VB-MAPP
Milestones Assessment
Often, under these circumstances it is not uncommon to see the
child engage in a tantrum or some other form of negative
behavior as a mand
Analysis of an Impaired Mand Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
A word acquired under SD control may not automatically transfer
to MO control
The distinction between SD and MO antecedent control is not
systematically incorporated into many of the popular language
assessment and intervention programs designed for children with
autism
There are many potential causes of a defective mand repertoire and
a functional analysis is necessary to determine the cause for an
individual child
Here are 50 possible causes of an impaired mand repertoire
Most problems involve a combination of causes
Potential Causes of an Absent, Weak, or
Impaired Mand Repertoire
•
•
•
•
Limited mand training and limited opportunities to mand
Mands are not required to obtain specific reinforcement
Mand training is not part of the child’s early language training
history
Not enough manding trials and opportunities are provided each
day
Potential Causes of an Absent, Weak, or
Impaired Mand Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Response form problems, and failing to try augmentative
communication
The target response form is too difficult for the child
Shaping techniques are not used
There is a limited availability of established imitative or echoic
responses
Can’t establish differential response topographies
Articulation cannot be understood by listeners
When a child has no or limited vocal behavior, sign language or
PECS have not been tried
Push for sentences too soon (e.g., “I want...please”)
Potential Causes of an Absent, Weak, or
Impaired Mand Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
Impaired mands are established early
Negative behavior functions as mands
A single response topography functions as the mand (e.g., “more,”
“please,” “this,” “mine,” “yes”)
Inappropriate mands become established and become hard to
eliminate (e.g., “Cup” as the mand for all drinks)
Motivation (MO) does not control the response form
Intervention Strategies for
Established Impaired Mands
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
START OVER
Use a trained professional
Use the strongest MOs
Use sign language
Target 1, then ASAP, 2 specific response topographies
Use standard prompt and fade techniques
Use DRI and extinction for existing negative mand
Potential Causes of an Impaired Mand
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mand curriculum problems
Choosing the wrong words (signs or pictures) as the first mands to
teach
The mand training curriculum is poorly sequenced
Mand training does not move beyond tangibles and manipulatives
Mands are not incorporated into daily functional verbal behavior
A small group of mands has a strong history of reinforcement (e.g.,
candy, juice, skittles)
Potential Causes of an Impaired Mand
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MO Problems
Relevant MOs are not identified
There is no current MO in effect for the targeted item
Satiation effects weaken the MO
MOs are all too similar (e.g., food, toys)
Free or cheap access to reinforcers is available without manding
The child has weak MOs in general
The response requirement is too high and weakens the MO
(specific barrier)
Potential Causes of an Impaired Mand
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MO Problems (cont.)
Self-stimulation or obsessive behaviors compete with other MOs
Failing to capture and create MOs
No variation in captured or created MOs
Weak MOs for verbal information
MOs for social and peer manding are weak, and intervention is not
provided
MOs are too strong and the mand repertoire becomes too strong
Potential Causes of an Impaired Mand
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SD control (e.g., prompts) problems
The response is prompt bound by physical, echoic, imitative, or
intraverbal discriminative stimuli
A verbal stimulus acquires control and blocks MO control
A nonverbal stimulus acquires control and blocks MO control
A relevant nonverbal stimulus is faded too soon (before solid MO
control is established)
Scrolling gets reinforced (specific barrier)
Spontaneous mands are not fostered and never develop
Manding does not come under the control of natural contingencies
Poor audience control
Intervention Strategies for
Mand Scrolling
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
START OVER
Use a trained professional
Use the strongest MOs
Establish two specific response topographies, then three, etc.
Possibly use one response as a tact
Echoic, imitation, & LDs won’t work as the second topography,
intraverbal responses with signs will (e.g., “sign book”)
Use standard prompt and fade techniques
Don’t fade out the object too soon (multiple control)
Use DRI and extinction for existing negative mand
Potential Causes of an Impaired Mand
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consequence problems
Inappropriate manding is reinforced
Specific reinforcement is not used
Reinforcement is delayed
Differential reinforcement with extinction is not systematically
used
Manding is punished
Manding persistence is not established via intermittent
reinforcement
Potential Causes of an Impaired Mand
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
Generalization problems
Mands only required and reinforced in a specific setting, time, or
with specific people
MO generalization training is not provided
Manding response generalization training is not provided
Overgeneralization
An Analysis of an Impaired Tact Repertoire
•
•
•
•
The tact repertoire is less susceptible to becoming defective than
the mand or intraverbal, due in part to the nature of the controlling
variables for the tact
Nonverbal stimulus control is more measurable and accessible, and
in general, much clearer than motivational control (mand), and
verbal stimulus control (intraverbal)
It is often the case that the wrong nonverbal stimulus acquires
control of a tact
For example, when teaching tacts related to verbs, the goal is that
the specific moving nonverbal stimulus evokes a specific response,
not the object related to the movement
An Analysis of an Impaired Tact Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
•
Some children learn to emit a word that is a verb in form but not in
function, as in the response “drinking juice” when just shown a
cup, or “throwing ball” when shown a ball
Similar problems can be observed in efforts to teach tacts related
to other parts of speech such as prepositions and adjectives (e.g.,
“above” and “below”; “big” and “little”)
Gone unchecked, these tacting errors can be difficult to change and
can become the source of other verbal problems later in training,
such as intraverbal rote responding
There are many potential causes of a defective tact repertoire and a
behavioral analysis is necessary
Here are 30 possible causes of an impaired tact repertoire
Most problems involve a combination of causes
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Tact
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
Limited tact training and other barriers
Formal tact training has not been provided, but is necessary
Not enough tact trials are provided each day
Limited tacting in the natural environment
Other barriers such as instructional control and behavior problems
dominate the educational day
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Tact
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Response form problems
The target response form is too difficult for the child
Articulation is unintelligible by listeners
Shaping techniques are not used
There is a limited availability of established imitative or echoic
responses
Can’t establish differential response topographies
Augmentative communication has not been tried
Sentences and carrier phrases are overemphasized too soon
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Tact
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tact curriculum problems
The general progression of tact development in typically
developing children is ignored, thus the curriculum is poorly
sequenced (e.g., adjectives before nouns are firmly established)
Nonfunctional or irrelevant tacts targeted
Single stimulus and single response tacts have been over
conditioned
Limited training with multiple SDs and multiple response tacting
(e.g., noun-noun, noun-verb)
Tacts are not transferred to other verbal operants (e.g., mands, IVs)
Failure to analyze complexities of tacts involving prepositions,
pronouns, adjectives, private events, social behavior, etc.
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Tact
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
Stimulus control problems
Tacting is prompt bound by echoic, imitative, or other SDs
Scrolling through targeted tacts gets reinforced
The wrong source of control is established (e.g., tacting verbs or
emotions from pictures)
Metonymical tacts are established and reinforced (e.g., tacting by
function or association)
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Tact
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
Stimulus control problems
Verbal plus nonverbal conditional discriminations (CDs) are not
established (e.g., verbal stimuli do not establish a feature of
nonverbal stimuli as an SD: as in IV-Tact CDs)
No spontaneous tacting or tacting in the natural environment due
to additional variables present during formal training (e.g., CMOReflexive, contextual prompts)
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Tact
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consequence problems
Tacting is not reinforced
Tacting is punished
Excessive or inappropriate tacting gets reinforced
Tacting not reinforced by natural or automatic contingencies
Intermittent reinforcement is not used to establish persistence
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Tact
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
Generalization problems
Generalization training is not provided
Stimulus classes are not established
Response classes are not established
An Analysis of the VP-MTS Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
Many children with autism do well on visual discrimination tasks
because they are usually easier than verbal tasks
However, some children do not do well on these tasks, and a more
detailed analysis of the child and the task is required
Visual skills, especially MTS, are often more complex than they
might appear
MTS requires that a child attend to the sample stimulus, scan an
array of comparison stimuli, and select a matching item based on
some specific criteria (i.e., identical, non identical, arbitrary,
association, sequences, patterns, designs, and categories)
These skills involve a conditional discrimination where the first
stimulus (the sample) should establish a second stimulus as a
discriminative stimulus (SD)
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak VP-MTS
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Physical limitations
Some type of vision impairment
Poor muscle tone, fine motor control, or CP
Limited VP-MTS training
No formal training on visual discrimination tasks
Instructional control and behavior problems dominate
The child stims with materials
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak VP-MTS
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
VP-MTS curriculum problems
The targeted visual tasks are out of developmental sequence
No systematic progression to increasingly complex tasks (e.g.,
steps are too small or too large, or nonexistent)
No functional use of skills outside of teaching sessions (e.g.,
matching socks, arts & crafts)
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak VP-MTS
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
Conditional discrimination problems
There is a failure to make conditional discriminations (two SDs and
two behaviors)
The sample stimulus does not evoke scanning behavior
The sample stimulus does not establish SD/S-delta relations in the
comparison array
Matching-to-Sample
Nonverbal SD1
Array (SD2)
+
Sample
Nonverbal Response
Comparison
S
SD
S
Select Ball
Matching-to-Sample:
A Conditional Discrimination
Nonverbal SD1
(A ball)
Sample
R1 scan
Nonverbal
array
S
S
SD2/Sr1
R2 Select ball
Comparison
S
S
Sr2
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak VP-MTS
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comparison array problems
There is a failure to scan visual arrays and comparisons efficiently
Over conditioning with a small array (limited array variation)
The task is too easy because the items in the comparison array are
very different from each other
Limited training with large arrays and scenes
Limited training with similar stimuli in the array
Limited training with arrays in the natural environment (3D)
Limited training with the combination of large arrays and similar
stimuli in scenes and in the natural environment
Identical Objects: Varied Array Size
Object Matching-to-Sample With
Varied Array Size
Array of 3 - Neat
100
Array of 3 - Neat
Array of 4 - Messy
80
Percent Correct Matching
Array of 6 - Messy
60
40
Array of 8 - Messy
20
Par ti ci pant 4
0
1
2
3
Se ts of Trials
4
5
Identical Pictures: Similar Stimuli
Identical Pictures: Array of Similar Stimuli
Array of 3
Array of 5
100
80
Percent Correct
60
Array of 7-8
40
Array of 10
Par ticipant 1
20
Array of 15
0
1
2
3
Se s s ions
4
5
Identical Objects:
Similar Stimuli-Varied Array Size
Identical Objects: Similar Stimuli
Different Array Sizes
3-N
3-N
3-N
4 -N
3-N
4-M
100
80
3-N
N = Near Ar ray
M = Messy Ar ray
Percent Correct
60
40
6 -M
20
Par ti ci pant 1
4-M
10-M
2
3
7-M
6-M
6-M
4-N
0
1
4
5
6
7
8
Se ts of Trials
9
10
11
12
13
14
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak VP-MTS
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Impaired VP-MTS established early
The child is prompt bound by position, body movement, eye or
pointing prompts, etc.
Scrolling behavior gets reinforced
There is a reinforcement history for position preference, or specific
response patterns
A verbal consequence like “No” becomes an SD to pick another
item
If reinforcement is not provided for first selection, the child
quickly selects another item
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak VP-MTS
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
Generalization problems
Generalization training is not provided
Stimulus classes are not established
Response classes are not established
An Analysis of the Listener Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The complexities of verbal stimulus control
An early indication of impending language problems is that a child
does not appear to attend to others when they speak, or
“understand” what is said
The behavior of the listener involves several repertoires
1) Necessary for a verbal episode
“The behaviors of the speaker and listener taken together compose
what may be called the total verbal episode” (Skinner, 1957, p. 2)
2) The listener consequates the speaker’s behavior
Mediates reinforcement (the definition of VB, p. 2)
“The verbal community maintains the behavior of the speaker with
generalized reinforcement” (p. 151)
An Analysis of the Listener Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
•
3) The listener functions as an SD and MO for verbal behavior
(The Audience, Chapter 7 in VB)
“The listener, as an essential part of the situation in which verbal
behavior is observed, is... a discriminative stimulus” (p. 172)
“This function is to be distinguished from the action of the listener
in reinforcing behavior” (p. 172)
4) The listener “takes additional action”
“Verbal behavior would be pointless if a listener did nothing more
than reinforce the speaker for emitting it” (p. 151)
“The action which a listener takes with respect to the verbal
response is often more important to the speaker than generalized
reinforcement” (p. 151)
An Analysis of the Listener Repertoire
•
•
•
•
There are three types of action
Nonverbal respondent behavior
Nonverbal operant behavior
Verbal behavior
The Different Action Taken by the Listener
•
•
•
Nonverbal respondent behavior
“Among the special effects of verbal behavior are the emotional
reactions of the listener” (p. 154)
“If a verbal stimulus accompanies some state of affairs which is
the unconditioned or previously conditioned stimulus for an
emotional reaction the verbal stimulus eventually evokes this
reaction” (p. 154) (e.g., “snake” literary works, anger, passio
An Analysis of the Listener Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
Nonverbal operant behavior (“Receptive language”)
Listener compliance (e.g., “jump”)
Listener discriminations (LDs) (e.g., “Touch the car.” “Where is
the number 5?”)
Listener Responding by Function, Feature, and Class (LRFFC)
(e.g., “Can you find an animal?” “Which one do you eat with?”)
“These examples remind us of the fact that the behavior of the
listener is not essentially verbal. The listener reacts to a verbal
stimulus whether with conditioned reflexes or discriminated
operant behavior, as he reacts to any feature of the environment”
(p. 170)
An Analysis of the Listener Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
Verbal operant behavior
“In many important instances the listener is also behaving at the
same time as a speaker” (p. 34)
“An important fact about verbal behavior is that the speaker and
listener may reside within the same skin” (p. 163)
“Some of the behavior of listening resembles the behavior of
speaking, particularly when the speaker ‘understands’ what is
said” (p. 11)
Much of what is traditionally called “listening” is covert verbal
behavior, consisting of all the verbal operants (e.g., we can
covertly emit echoics, mands, tacts, intraverbals, autoclitics, etc.)
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Physical limitations
Some type of hearing impairment
Limited listener training
No formal training on listener skills
Instructional control and behavior problems dominate
The child stims with the materials
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fails to participate in the verbal episode
The speech of others does not function as an SD for attending
The speech of others does not function as a conditioned reinforcer
People are conditioned punishers (avoidance, loner)
Social barriers present (separate barrier)
Fails to consequate the speaker’s behavior
Does not mediate reinforcement for the verbal behavior of others
(e.g., get things manded)
Does not reinforce the verbal behavior of others (e.g., head nods,
attending)
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
Fails to function as an SD and MO for verbal behavior
The child has not become an SD for certain verbal behavior from
others (e.g., “Did you bring your game boy?”)
The child’s presence and behavior does not establish MOs for
others
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
Listener curriculum problems
The general progression of listener development in typically
developing children is ignored, thus the curriculum is poorly
sequenced (e.g., teaching adjectives before nouns are firmly
established)
Single stimulus and single response listener discriminations (LDs)
have been over conditioned
Limited training with multiple SDs and multiple listener responses
No systematic progression to increasingly complex tasks (e.g.,
steps are too small or too large, or nonexistent)
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
Listener curriculum problems
No functional use of skills outside of teaching sessions (e.g., all
table top LDs)
Failure to analyze complexities of LDs related to prepositions,
pronouns, adjectives, social behavior, etc.
Listener skills are not related to other verbal operants (e.g., tacts,
mands, intraverbals)
No LRFFC training has been provided
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
Conditional discrimination problems
Failure to emit conditional discriminations across modalities (a
verbal and nonverbal SDs and two behaviors)
Verbal stimuli do not evoke scanning behavior
The verbal stimulus does not establish SD/S-delta relations in the
comparison array
Listener Discriminations
Verbal SD1
+
Array (SD2)
Nonverbal Response
SD
Select Ball
“Touch ball” +
S
S
Listener Discriminations (LD):
A Conditional Discrimination
Verbal SD1
(“Touch ball”)
R1 scan
Nonverbal
array
S
S
SD2/Sr1
S
R2 Select ball
S
Sr2
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comparison array problems
There is a failure to scan the comparisons arrays efficiently
Over conditioning with a small array (limited array variation)
The task is too easy because the items in the comparison array are
very different from each other
Limited training with large arrays and scenes,
Limited training with similar stimuli in the array
Limited training with arrays in the natural environment (3D)
Limited training with the combination of large arrays and similar
stimuli in scenes and in the natural environment
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Impaired listener behaviors established early
The child is prompt bound by position, body movement, eye or
pointing prompts, etc.
Scrolling behavior gets reinforced
There is a reinforcement history for position preference, or specific
response patterns
A verbal consequence like “No” becomes an SD to pick another
item
If reinforcement is not provided for first selection, the child
quickly selects another item
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Listener
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
Generalization problems
Generalization training is not provided
Stimulus classes are not established
Response classes are not established
An Analysis of the Intraverbal Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
Verbal SDs are usually much more complicated than the nonverbal
SDs
Verbal SDs usually contain multiple components, occurring in a
brief time frame
Multiple words as SDs almost always involve verbal conditional
discriminations
Vocal verbal stimuli are transitory, nonverbal stimuli tend to be
more static
Attending to verbal SDs is often more laborious than attending to
nonverbal SDs
An Analysis of the Intraverbal Repertoire
•
•
•
•
•
Many words that are not clearly evoked by a corresponding
nonverbal stimulus (e.g., the, a, can’t, usually, if, its, for, of,
anyway, whatever) but form the VCDs
IV responses are typically more complex than responses associated
with tacts
The MLU of a tact tends to be much shorter than the MLU for an
intraverbal
There is often only so much that can be said about a specific
nonverbal stimulus (e.g., the tact bike vs. IV story about a bike)
The tact response is often shaped to include only the salient
information
An Analysis of the Intraverbal Repertoire
•
•
•
•
Intraverbal behavior is most prone to becoming rote for children
with autism
The task of directly teaching intraverbal behavior is complicated
and endless
Early intraverbal training is pretty straight forward, but by 3-4
years of age, a typical child acquires 1000s of different intraverbal
relations
Most adults have hundreds of thousands of different intraverbal
relations as a part of their verbal repertoires (e.g., newspaper,
books, the internet)
An Analysis of the Intraverbal Repertoire
•
•
•
Contact with these verbal stimuli can evoke numerous intraverbal
responses, such as discussions of the facts (e.g., global warming,
autism, SD vs. the MO)
The number of different intraverbal relations far outnumbers the
number of different mands and tacts. The frequency of mands may
be greater than intraverbals, but often the mands are related to a
relatively small set of MOs
Language would be simple “if a verbal repertoire was like a
passenger list on a ship or plane” (Skinner, 1957 p. 91)
An Analysis of the Intraverbal Repertoire
•
•
•
Many children with autism have a great deal of difficulty acquiring
meaningful intraverbal behavior. Some have acquired 100s of
tacts and LDs, but fail to acquire more than a few simple
intraverbal relations
Tacting, imitation, echoic, matching, LDs, textual, and
transcriptive have a degree of sameness that may come easier for
children with autism than intraverbal behavior
Not only are the antecedents for these repertoires more consistent
and clearer, but also the response is frequently the same (e.g., a
spoon is usually “spoon,” 2 is always “two”)
An Analysis of the Intraverbal Repertoire
•
•
•
•
Intraverbal relations, by their very nature, involve constantly
changing SDs and responses
For example, a tree is always a tree for echoic, tacting, matching,
etc., but the discussion about trees can be comprised of hundreds,
if not thousands of different intraverbal relations
Furthermore, the discussion about trees may never occur exactly
the same way each time
However, this type of defective intraverbal behavior is not
uncommon for some high functioning individuals with autism, and
especially those with Aspergers
Potential Causes of an Absent or Weak Intraverbal
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
Limited intraverbal training
No formal training on intraverbal skills
Instructional control and behavior problems dominate
Potential Causes of an Impaired Intraverbal
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intraverbal curriculum problems
Training is provided, but it’s to early in the intervention program to
focus on intraverbals
The general progression of intraverbal development in typically
developing children is ignored, thus the curriculum is poorly
sequenced
The specific target responses are not in the child’s repertoire as
tacts, mands, LDs, or LRFFCs
No systematic progression to increasingly complex tasks (e.g.,
steps are too small or too large, or random)
Failure to analyze complexities of intraverbals related to
prepositions, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, social behavior, etc.
Potential Causes of an Impaired Intraverbal
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intraverbal curriculum problems
The IV responses are broken from MOs and nonverbal SDs too soon
Intraverbal chains are not established (self as a listener)
Continued intraverbal training is provided in the absence of the
relevant nonverbal and MO context (e.g., listing words)
No functional use of skills outside of teaching sessions
No formal multiple tact plus intraverbal training (e.g., “What color is
the ball” vs. “What shape is the ball?”)
Limited training with multiple intraverbal responses
Intraverbal skills are not related to other verbal operants (e.g., tacts,
mands, LDs, LRFFC)
No LRFFC training has been provided
Potential Causes of an Impaired Intraverbal
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Verbal conditional discrimination problems
One verbal stimulus does not alter the evocative effect of a second
verbal stimulus
The problem becomes worse with more than two critical stimuli,
however training continues on without fixing the problem
Insufficient training on basic verbal conditional discriminations
Nonverbal and cross-modalities CDs may be absent, weak, or
impaired
The individual stimuli in the verbal antecedent do not have stimulus
control over any verbal responses (e.g., “not”)
Child does not attend to multiple verbal stimuli (early words are Sdeltas)
Potential Causes of an Impaired Intraverbal
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stimulus and motivational control problems
The child’s echoic repertoire is too strong (echolalia)
Specific verbal stimuli in the antecedent are too salient and block the
establishment of stimulus control by other words
Nonverbal stimuli control the response form (tact prompt bound)
MOs control response forms (strong IVs on favorite topics)
Rote intraverbal response have been over conditioned
Poor audience control
The speaker is his own listener (self-talk)
Potential Causes of an Impaired Intraverbal
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Impaired intraverbal behaviors established early
Rote intraverbal responses have been firmly established due to a
conditioning history
Out of context or irrelevant intraverbal training may establish odd
forms of IV behavior
Automatic reinforcement may establish odd forms of intraverbal
behavior (“delayed echolalia”)
Simple verbal stimuli and single verbal responses have been over
conditioned (e.g., opposites)
Intraverbal scrolling behavior gets reinforced
Potential Causes of an Impaired Intraverbal
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consequence problems
No automatic reinforcement for IV behavior
Intermittent reinforcement procedures have not been used to
established persistence
A punishment history for intraverbal behavior
An extinction history for intraverbal behavior
A reinforcement history for odd, inappropriate, or impaired IV
behavior
Failure to self-edit verbal behavior
Potential Causes of an Impaired Intraverbal
Repertoire and Intervention Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
Generalization problems
Generalization training is not provided
Sameness has been over conditioned in the tact, LD, and MTS,
and the inherent variation of verbal stimuli cause problems
Verbal stimulus classes are not established
Verbal response classes are not established
Thank You!
For an electronic version of this
presentation visit:
marksundberg.com/ABAI