THE ROLE OF INTRAVERBAL NAMING ON THE EMERGENCE OF NOVEL
INTRAVERBALS AND EQUIVALENCE CLASSES
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
(Applied Behavior Analysis)
by
Monica Lingchi Ma
FALL
2013
© 2013
Monica Lingchi Ma
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
THE ROLE OF INTRAVERBAL NAMING ON THE EMERGENCE OF NOVEL
INTRAVERBALS AND EQUIVALENCE CLASSES
A Thesis
by
Monica Lingchi Ma
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Caio Miguel, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Emily Wickelgren, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Charlotte Carp, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Monica Lingchi Ma
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract of
THE ROLE OF INTRAVERBAL NAMING ON THE EMERGENCE OF NOVEL
INTRAVERBALS AND EQUIVALENCE CLASSES
by
Monica Lingchi Ma
The purpose of the current studies was to evaluate the effects of teaching unidirectional
intraverbal relations in a statement format on the emergence of symmetry and transitivity
intraverbal relations and equivalence classes. In Experiment 1, eight undergraduates
were exposed to tact training, listener testing, intraverbal training, and a review phase.
Derived relations matching-to-sample (MTS) and intraverbal posttests were presented in
alternating fashion. The two undergraduates in Experiment 2 also passed all the posttests
despite the elimination of the review phase. For Experiment 3, all MTS posttests were
administered before intraverbal posttests and vice versa for four undergraduates. Despite
procedural variations, all fourteen participants met the emergence criteria for derived
relations MTS and intraverbal posttests. Combined results suggest that intraverbal
training may be sufficient for producing novel intraverbal and stimulus-stimulus classes.
Moreover, all participants emitted vocalizations at some point during the last MTS vocal
posttest, suggesting that intraverbal naming mediated responses.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Caio Miguel, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My deepest gratitude to the individuals whose ongoing support, advice, and
guidance have helped me achieve this academic and professional milestone:
To Dr. Caio Miguel, for infusing his passion for behavior analysis in me so that I
can become the scientist-practitioner I am today. His commitment as my academic
advisor has helped me immensely in my graduate career and will forever hold me
accountable for conducting research and finding evidence-based interventions.
To my committee members, Dr. Emily Wickelgren and Dr. Charlotte Carp, whose
insightful questions and suggestions, have influenced the development of this study.
To Amanda Chastain, Danielle Hernandez, Adrienne Jennings, Kelli Kent, and
Danika Zias, for conducting and analyzing all research sessions with me in three weeks.
To the cohort that took me under their wing, Sherrene Fu, Sarah Kohlman,
Gregory Lee, Kelly Quah, and Patricia Santos, they have made this academic journey so
memorable with their friendships and endless laughter.
To Preeti Davé, for being a good listener and always being there for me, despite
our distance and super busy schedules.
To Jason Greene, for his continual encouragement, patience, and understanding,
from start to finish.
To my father, mother, and sister, whom I love profoundly and cannot thank
enough for their endless support, love, and all they have done to make me a stronger and
more intelligent woman.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
2. EXPERIMENT 1 ................................................................................................. 17
Method ........................................................................................................... 17
Participants ............................................................................................... 17
Settings and Materials .............................................................................. 18
Response Measurement ........................................................................... 21
Experimental Design ................................................................................ 23
Interobserver Agreement ......................................................................... 26
Treatment Integrity .................................................................................. 27
Procedures ................................................................................................ 28
Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 37
P1 and P2 ................................................................................................. 37
P3 and P4 ................................................................................................. 42
P5 and P6 ................................................................................................. 45
P7 and P8 ................................................................................................. 49
vii
Vocal Posttest and Post-Experimental Interview ..................................... 53
Summary .................................................................................................. 55
3. EXPERIMENT 2 ................................................................................................. 60
Method ........................................................................................................... 60
Participants, Setting and Materials .......................................................... 60
Dependent Measures and Experimental Design ...................................... 60
Procedures ................................................................................................ 60
Results and Discussion ................................................................................... 61
P9 and P10 ............................................................................................... 61
Vocal Posttest and Post-Experimental Interview ..................................... 65
Summary .................................................................................................. 66
4. EXPERIMENT 3 ................................................................................................. 70
Method ........................................................................................................... 70
Participants, Setting and Materials .......................................................... 70
Dependent Measures and Experimental Design ...................................... 70
Procedures ................................................................................................ 71
Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 71
P11 and P12 ............................................................................................. 71
P13 and P14 ............................................................................................. 75
Vocal Posttest and Post-Experimental Interview ..................................... 79
Summary .................................................................................................. 81
5. GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 83
viii
Verbal Mediation ............................................................................................ 86
Limitations and Future Research ....................................................................89
Clinical Implications ...................................................................................... 96
Appendix A: MTS Testing and Training Datasheets ................................................. 97
Appendix B: Tact Training and Review Datasheets ................................................ 103
Appendix C: Listener, Testing, Training, and Review Datasheets .......................... 105
Appendix D: AB/BC Intraverbal Training Datasheets ............................................ 107
Appendix E: BA/CB Intraverbal Testing Datasheets .............................................. 109
Appendix F: AC/CA Intraverbal Testing Datasheets .............................................. 111
Appendix G: Remedial Training .............................................................................. 113
Listener Training .............................................................................................. 113
MTS Remedial Training ................................................................................... 113
References ................................................................................................................. 120
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Participant Demographics .................................................................................... 18
2. Target Intraverbal Relations ................................................................................. 20
3. Passing, Mastery, and Emergence Criterion for Each Condition ......................... 26
4. Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Integrity Across Participants ............... 27
5. Pre-Training Target Intraverbal Relations ............................................................ 29
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Experimental stimuli ............................................................................................ 19
2. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P1, P2, P5, and P6 .................... 24
3. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P3, P4, P7, and P8 .................... 25
4. Pre-training stimuli .............................................................................................. 29
5. Results for P1 on top panel and P2 on bottom panel ........................................... 39
6. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P1 ...................................................................................................... 40
7. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P2 ...................................................................................................... 41
8. Results for P3 on top panel and P4 on bottom panel ........................................... 43
9. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P3 ...................................................................................................... 44
10. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P4 ...................................................................................................... 45
11. Results for P5 on top panel and P6 on bottom panel ........................................... 47
12. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P5 ...................................................................................................... 48
13. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P6 ...................................................................................................... 49
14. Results for P7 on top panel and P8 on bottom panel ........................................... 51
xi
15. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P7 ...................................................................................................... 52
16. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P8 ...................................................................................................... 53
17. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P9 and P10 ............................... 61
18. Results for P9 on top panel and P10 on bottom panel ......................................... 62
19. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P9 ...................................................................................................... 63
20. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P10 .................................................................................................... 65
21. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P11 and P12 ............................. 71
22. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P13 and P14 ............................. 71
23. Results for P11 on top panel and P12 bottom panel ............................................ 73
24. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P11 .................................................................................................... 74
25. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P12 .................................................................................................... 75
26. Results for P13 on top panel and P14 on bottom panel ....................................... 77
27. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P13 .................................................................................................... 78
28. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P14 .................................................................................................... 79
xii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The formation of equivalence classes has served as a behavior analytic model for
understanding symbolic behavior and the emergence of novel behaviors (Sidman, 1994;
2009). In his seminal study, Sidman (1971) taught an intellectually disabled adolescent
two relations among three classes of stimuli – dictated words (A), pictures (B), and
printed words (C) – via a matching-to-sample (MTS) conditional discrimination
procedure. Within the MTS procedure, the participant was instructed to select a picture
(B) or printed word (C) from an eight stimuli array (i.e., visual comparison stimuli),
conditional upon a dictated word (A; i.e., an auditory sample stimulus) presented by the
experimenter. This arrangement of stimuli presentation is known as auditory-visual
MTS. After mastering these two relations (AB and AC), the participant was then able to
select printed words in the presence of corresponding pictures (BC), and to select pictures
in the presence of corresponding printed words (CB). As a result of this teaching
procedure, the ordered pairs (AB and AC) of stimuli became equivalent and substitutable
for one another. In other words, they acquired the same “meaning.” Sidman and Tailby
(1982) later coined the emergence of CB and BC relations given AB and AC training as
transitivity. If the AB and AC relations were trained via visual-visual MTS (e.g., in the
presence of a printed word as the sample, selecting a picture from the comparison array),
then and the derivation of BA and CA relations are known as symmetry. An additional
2
incidental byproduct of the training procedure in Sidman’s (1971) study was that after
training, the participant could also label (D) the pictures (B) and printed words (C).
Over the past four decades, numerous studies have replicated the findings on
equivalence across different populations such as typically developing children (e.g., de
Rose, Hidalgo, & Vasconcellos, 2013), children with autism (e.g., LeBlanc, Miguel,
Cummings, Goldsmith, & Carr, 2003) and adolescents with fragile X syndrome (Hall,
DeBernardis, & Reiss, 2006), using a variety of stimuli (e.g., Arntzen, Halstadtro, Bjerke
& Halstadtro, 2010; Haegele, McComas, Dixon, & Burns, 2011; Keintz, Miguel, Kao, &
Finn, 2011; Miguel, Yang, Finn, & Ahearn, 2009) and distinct training structures (e.g.,
Doughty, Kastner, & Bismark, 2011; Wilson & Hayes, 1996).
Three training structures (Saunders & Green, 1999) typically used in this type of
research are: one-to-many (OTM), many-to-one (MTO), and linear series (LS). With an
OTM procedure, the learner is taught to select different comparison stimuli in the
presence of the same sample stimulus (e.g., AB and AC relations). MTO entails the
selection of the same comparison stimulus in the presence of multiple sample stimuli
(e.g., BA and CA relations). LS describes a procedure in which the comparison stimuli
of the first taught relation (e.g., AB), serves as the sample in the second trained relation
(e.g., BC). The stimulus that is shared between trained relations is known as the node
(Fields & Verhave, 1987). Preliminary studies comparing the relative effectiveness of
the three training structures on the formation of equivalence classes have found OTM and
3
MTO to be equally effective (Smeets & Barnes-Holmes, 2005b), but slightly more
effective than LS (Arntzen, Grondahl, & Eilifsen, 2010).
The cost effectiveness of teaching a small number of relations in a systematic
manner that result in an intricate network of emergent relations has caught the attention
of many behavior analysts. The three main accounts attempting to uncover the
mechanisms underlying the emergence of derived relations are, Sidman’s theory of
equivalence (Sidman, 2000) and its derivation, the stimulus control topography
coherence theory (McIlvane & Dube, 2003), Relational Frame Theory (RFT; Hayes,
1996; Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001), and the naming hypothesis (Horne &
Lowe, 1996). Sidman’s account considers the emergence of novel relations to be a
primitive behavioral process wherein all stimuli participating in any three-term
contingency enter into equivalence relations during training. In a visual-visual MTS task,
for instance, given two trials (i.e., three-term contingencies) with identical antecedents,
consequences, and topographically similar responses (e.g., pointing), the two visual
stimuli across the two trials would enter the same equivalence class (see Sidman, 2000
for further details). Alternatively, both RFT and the naming hypothesis suggest that
derived relations are profoundly rooted in verbal behavior, but from different
perspectives. According to the RFT account, contingencies present during language
acquisition form frames of reference that set the stage for emergent relations (see Hayes,
1996). In contrast, the naming hypothesis suggests that language mediates the formation
4
of equivalence classes. For the purpose of this study, only the naming hypothesis will be
discussed in further detail.
The naming hypothesis extends Skinner’s (1957) interpretive exercise on a
functional analysis of verbal behavior using well-established behavior principles. Horne
and Lowe (1996) defined naming as a generalized operant which entails the bidirectional
relation of an individual responding as a listener to her own speaker behavior. The two
primary components of the naming relation are an elementary verbal operant (i.e., an
echoic, tact, or intraverbal) and conventional (i.e., learned) listener behavior. Horne and
Lowe (1996) described two mechanisms by which equivalence classes are formed,
common naming and intraverbal naming.
Common naming consists of a circular relation between a common tact1 and
conventional listener behaviors. For example, in the presence of a dog, a child overtly or
covertly tacts (i.e., labels) “dog” (speaker behavior), which produces a response product
that serves as a discriminative stimulus (SD) for orienting or pointing to the dog (listener
behavior). Stimuli that are part of the same name relation, evoke identical speaker and
listener behaviors, and hence pertain to the same category. For instance, in a recent study
conducted by Miguel and Kobari-Wright (2013), two children with autism spectrum
disorder between five and six years of age were taught the category name for three
groups of dogs. Pretests required participants to match pictures of dogs based on
1
Skinner (1957) defined a tact as a verbal operant under the control of a nonverbal
antecedent stimulus (e.g., an object, event, or property of one) that is maintained by
generalized reinforcement. An example would be saying “airplane” in the presence of an
airplane in the sky.
5
category membership: hound dog, work dog, or play dog. Neither participant was able to
categorize the nine pictures of dogs prior to tact training. Upon learning to tact each
picture of a dog with its category name, one participant passed the categorization posttest
and the other required additional instruction to tact the sample prior to selecting a
comparison stimulus to be able to categorize. These results suggest that when the second
participant tacted the sample stimulus overtly, she heard herself say the category name
and responded to the auditory stimulus by selecting the comparison stimulus that shared
the same name relation. This interlocking relation between speaker and listener behavior
is what supports common naming as a form of verbal mediation in problem solving tasks.
Similarly, Lowe, Horne, Harris, and Randle (2002), empirically evaluated the role
of common naming on stimulus substitutability using a categorization task with nine
toddlers between the ages of two and four. Six arbitrary stimuli divided into two threemember categories called “vek” and “zog” were used. In the beginning, participants
were taught to tact each of the six stimuli with the category name. Subsequently,
category MTS tests were administered in one of two ways: (1) a sample was presented,
the participant looked at the sample, and then selected the corresponding comparison
stimulus, or (2) a sample was presented, the participant was instructed to tact the sample,
and then selected the corresponding comparison stimulus. Results indicated that by
simply teaching a common tact, either vek or zog, all of the participants were able to
categorize the stimuli into different classes. Additionally, five participants required the
instruction to overtly tact the sample before selecting the comparison stimulus to pass,
6
which is consistent with the findings from Miguel and Kobari-Wright (2013) and with the
role of verbal mediation in the naming hypothesis.
Moreover, Sprinkle and Miguel (2012) compared and contrasted the efficacy of
teaching listener versus speaker behavior on the emergence of equivalence classes with
four children diagnosed with autism between the ages of five and seven. Within an
alternating treatments design, participants were exposed to two sets of stimuli, one
correlated with listener (MTS training) and one with speaker (textual/tact) training. Each
set of stimuli contained three three-member classes (18 stimuli total across sets). Initial
pretests evaluated whether participants could (1) select a picture (B) or printed word (C)
given a dictated name (A), (2) select a picture (B) when shown a printed word (C) and
vice versa (i.e., CB), and (3) orally label (D) a given picture (B) or printed word (C). For
listener training, participants were taught AB and AC relations, meaning that in the
presence of the dictated word (A), to select the corresponding picture (B) or printed word
(C) from the comparison array. During speaker training, participants were taught BD and
CD relations, meaning that in the presence of a picture (B) or printed word (C), engage in
tact or textual behavior (D), respectively. Posttests indicated that while listener training
alone cannot reliably lead to the emergence of speaker behavior and equivalence classes,
exposure to speaker training was sufficient for all participants to derive listener behavior
and equivalence classes. Such results support the notion that both speaker and listener
behavior are necessary for stimulus categorization to emerge (Miguel & Petursdottir,
2009).
7
The role of common naming on arbitrary categorization tasks (e.g., Lowe, Horne,
Harris, and Randle, 2002; Lowe, Horne, & Hughes, 2005; Horne, Hughes, & Lowe,
2006; Horne, Lowe, & Harris, 2007), nonarbitrary categorization tasks (e.g., Miguel,
Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2008), arbitrary matching (Eikeseth & Smith, 1992), and
non-arbitrary matching (e.g., Sprinkle & Miguel, 2012) are well-documented across
typically developing (e.g., Mahoney, Miguel, Ahearn, & Bell, 2011) and developmentally
disabled individuals (e.g., Miguel & Kobari-Wright, 2013). Common naming as a verbal
mediation strategy continues to propel extensive research, with the most recent endeavors
in deciphering complex linguistic phenomenon such as analogical reasoning (e.g.,
Lantaya, Fernand, LaFrance, Dickman, & Miguel, 2013; Quah, Lantaya, Meyer, &
Miguel, 2013).
Another verbal mediation strategy proposed by Horne and Lowe (1996) is
intraverbal naming. With intraverbal naming, the response product of a tact evokes an
intraverbal2 which leads to the individual responding to the final response product as a
listener (Lowe & Horne, 1996), thus creating a verbal rule linking stimuli together
(Dugdale & Lowe, 1990). For example, in the presence of a toothbrush, a child (overtly
or covertly) tacts, “toothbrush” (speaker behavior), which produces a response product
that serves as a verbal SD due to a history of reinforcement or “contiguous usage”
2
An intraverbal is an elementary verbal operant under the control of a verbal
discriminative stimulus, with no formal similarity or point-to-point correspondence
between the two (Skinner, 1957). Examples of intraverbals include answering questions,
responding to emails, engaging in debates, recalling past events, singing a song, and
telling a story. For instance, answering, “Fine” in response to the question, “How are you
doing?” or saying, “Cake” upon hearing, “Birthday.”
8
(Skinner, 1957) for the intraverbal, “toothpaste.” In turn, the intraverbal itself (saying
“toothpaste”) produces yet another response product that serves as an SD for picking up
the toothpaste (listener behavior).
Lowe and Beasty (1987) showed how 29 typically developing children between
the ages of two and five may have utilized intraverbal naming as a mediation strategy for
deriving relations on an MTS task. All MTS tasks employed a two-comparison stimuli
array from the same category (i.e., vertical vs. horizontal lines for line drawings, green
vs. red for colors, and triangle vs. cross for shapes). Initial teaching conditions included
matching a vertical line (A1) to green (B1) and a horizontal line (A2) to red (B2). Then,
participants were taught to relate a vertical line (A1) with a triangle (C1) and a horizontal
line (A2) with a cross (C2). Dependent variables included participants’ spontaneous
vocalizations throughout all training and testing phases and their performance on
symmetry (i.e., B1A1, C1A1, B2A2, and C2A2) and transitivity (i.e., B1C1, C1B1,
B2C2, and C2B2) MTS posttests. Results showed that of the 17 participants that passed
the equivalence posttest, all had intraverbally named the correct sample-comparison pairs
at some point during training. For example, after mastering AB and AC relations, when
presented with B2 as a sample stimulus on a posttest, a participant said, “down red
cross.” In this case, the presence of B2 was strong enough to evoke the tact “down”
which in turn evoked the intraverbal “red cross” and led to the selection of either A2 or
C2 that was present in the comparison array. Lowe and Beasty speculated that selfechoic repetition (Skinner, 1957) may have facilitated the emergence of symmetrical and
9
transitive intraverbal relations. For instance, when repeating, “down red cross down red
cross,” the frequency of “red” (B2) presented before “cross” (C2) may have been
sufficient to establish equivalence relations (i.e., B2C2 and C2B2).
Furthermore, Bentall, Dickins, and Fox (1993) investigated the effects of teaching
class names (i.e., common naming) versus individual names on the emergence of derived
relations. Six three-member classes created with 18 arbitrary stimuli were employed. Of
the 16 undergraduate participants, half received tact training on class names (six verbal
stimuli total) and half on individual names (eighteen verbal stimuli total). Participants
were then exposed to visual-visual MTS training to establish AB and BC relations. Prior
to the start of training, experimenters instructed participants to tact the sample stimulus
when it appeared and the comparison stimulus while selecting it. Upon mastery of AB
and BC relations, experimenters administered a MTS test consisting of trained relations,
symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence. Results indicated that participants who learned
class names made fewer errors on all test relations than participants who learned
individual names. A secondary dependent measure of this study was response latency,
the amount of time between the participant’s overt tact of the sample stimulus and
selection of the comparison stimulus. Compared to participants exposed to class names,
results indicated that participants who received training in individual stimuli names had
longer response latencies on tests of transitivity and equivalence. Bentall and colleagues
speculated that longer response latencies were correlated with nodal distance. That is,
intraverbal naming required two verbal links and one node (e.g., A goes with B, B goes
10
with C, so A goes with C) as opposed to common naming, which only required one
verbal link and no nodes (i.e., the category name) to solve the task. Five of the eight
participants in the individual name group reported creating intraverbal links as a strategy
for solving the derived relations MTS test. During the post-experimental interview, for
instance, one participant stated that given a particular sample stimulus, she “…imagined a
bracelet hung on the tusks, and tusks on a dinosaur” (p. 209). Recent studies that have
determined that visual imaging may facilitate the use of verbal mediation strategies (e.g.,
Kisamore, Carr, and LeBlanc, 2011) provide some insight on interpreting this
participant’s verbal report.
Smeets and Barnes-Holmes (2005a) conducted the first study directly examining
the role of intraverbal naming on equivalence. Using 15 arbitrary stimuli divided into
five three-member classes (i.e., A, B, C, D, and E), 16 typically developing five-year-old
participants were trained on AB and AC relations via visual-visual MTS training and
“N”(dictated name) D and “N”E relations via auditory-visual MTS training. Upon
passing symmetry and equivalence MTS tests (with or without remedial training), a
naming test was conducted to evaluate whether participants assigned an individual or
class name to each stimulus. As a result of the naming test, participants were further
divided into two groups, a “consistent group” with seven participants who tacted stimuli
with the same verbal response reliably (e.g., given the picture of an elephant, saying
“elephant” each time), and an “inconsistent group” with eight participants who tacted
stimuli with a different verbal response across presentations (e.g., given an elephant,
11
saying “car,” “elephant,” or “button” across trials). One participant was not eligible to
continue due to special circumstances. In accordance with intraverbal naming, the
product of tacting the sample stimulus should serve as an SD, evoking an intraverbal that
leads to the selection of the corresponding comparison stimulus. Thus experimenters
hypothesized that participants in the “consistent group” would form equivalence classes
because the same initial tact would reliably evoke the correct intraverbal relation (e.g., in
the presence of an elephant as the sample, tacting “elephant” evoked the intraverbal
“letter” or “wheel” and subsequently selecting the corresponding stimulus from the
comparison array). Conversely, those in the “inconsistent group” would not be able to do
so because random initial tacts would evoke random, unrelated, intraverbal relations (e.g.,
given an elephant as a sample, tacting “car” would evoke the intraverbal “voo,” and lead
to the selection of a comparison stimulus unrelated to the sample). Results showed that
three of seven (43%) and five of eight (63%) participants in the consistent and
inconsistent groups, respectively, passed the equivalence tests. These findings challenge
the intraverbal naming account because children in the inconsistent group were able to
form equivalence classes despite the lack of a reliable initial verbal response (i.e., a tact)
required for verbal mediation. The mixed results led Smeets and Barnes-Holmes to
conclude that naming alone was insufficient for explaining equivalence. A notable
limitation is that experimenters used an explicit naming test which generated rules for
engaging in overt verbal behavior. During a naming test, verbal responses under the
control of a verbal stimulus such as, “What do you call this?” (Smeets & Barnes-Holmes,
12
2005a) may not correspond with verbal responses under the control of variables present
during the experimental condition (e.g., visual stimuli, schedules of reinforcement, etc.;
Lima & Abreu-Rodrigues, 2010). Since verbal behavior in naming tests and
experimental conditions may differ because they are under the control of very different
antecedent stimuli, the accuracy of verbal reports on naming tests with regards to task
performance is questionable (Dugdale & Lowe, 1990; Horne & Lowe, 1996). Therefore,
despite naming tests, it is still unclear whether participants in the study conducted by
Smeets and Barnes-Holmes (2005a) engaged in covert verbal mediation strategies during
posttests.
In a recent unpublished dissertation, Carp (2012) evaluated whether a
combination of tact and visual-visual MTS training would be sufficient for the emergence
of vocal intraverbal relations and the formation of equivalence classes. A total of nine
familiar pictures divided into three three-member categories – states (A), birds (B), and
flowers (C) – were used. Initially, six typically developing kindergarteners were taught
to tact each of the nine stimuli with their common names (e.g., California, quail, poppy)
followed by an intraverbal test assessing the emergence of AB, AC, BA, CA, BC, and CB
vocal intraverbal relations. The intraverbal test was conducted in a question-answer
format. For instance, the experimenter would ask, “California (A3) goes with which
bird?” with the correct answer being “Quail (B3).” In this example, the word “bird”
served as the contextual cue for a vocal response related to category B (i.e., quail) and not
C (i.e., poppy). Subsequently, participants were exposed to visual-visual MTS training in
13
which participants were taught to relate state to bird (AB) and state to flower (AC)
relations. Upon mastery of AB and AC relations, an equivalence test (BC and CB
relations) for emerging visual-visual relations and a second intraverbal test were
administered. Results indicated that only two participants passed the equivalence test
following visual-visual MTS training, one participant passed after remedial training, and
three participants never passed, even with extensive remedial training. Furthermore, the
three participants who passed the equivalence test continued on to pass the intraverbal
test and the three participants who failed the equivalence test also failed the intraverbal
test. Such results are consistent with intraverbal naming because it is possible that
contingencies during training (i.e., reinforcement during MTS training) facilitated the
emergence and establishment of intraverbal relations that later mediated performance on
derived relations tests (Horne & Lowe, 1996). For example, given a picture of California
(A3) as the sample stimulus, participants covertly or overtly tacted, “California,” and
when shown the comparison stimuli, tacted “quail” (B3) or “poppy” (C3) while making a
selection. Although reinforcement was provided contingent upon selecting (i.e., pointing
to) the correct comparison stimulus, it also inadvertently strengthened any covert or overt
spontaneous verbal behavior that was occurring simultaneously. In this case,
reinforcement following the correct selection of a comparison stimulus also reinforced
any verbal behavior that may have been occurring concurrently with the selection
response, such as, “California (A3) – quail (B3)” and/or “California (A3)” – poppy (C3).”
In turn, due to self-echoic repetition (e.g., “California poppy California quail California
14
poppy California quail”), these intraverbal relations may have facilitated the emergence
of “quail (B3) – poppy (C3)” and “poppy (C3) – quail (B3)” (i.e., transitive relations) due
to contiguous usage (Skinner, 1957).
While previous studies demonstrated a correlation between intraverbal and
derived relations, they could not definitively conclude that participants engaged in
intraverbal naming as a form of verbal mediation. Bentall et al. (1993) and Carp (2012)
suggested that the most direct way to assess the role of intraverbal naming is to teach the
intraverbal relation and assess how participants perform on an MTS posttest where
stimuli are only intraverbally (i.e., arbitrarily) related. Thus, Santos, Ma, Jennings, Zias,
and Miguel (2013) conducted a study evaluating the exclusive role of intraverbal naming
on an arbitrary MTS task with undergraduate students. In Experiment 1, eighteen
arbitrary stimuli, each with an assigned Tagalog exemplar name, were divided into three
sets of six arbitrary stimuli with each set composed of two three-member categories.
Matching-to-sample pretests showed that all six participants were unable to match stimuli
from category A to category B based on experimental relations. Teaching conditions
aligned closely with the components required for using intraverbal naming as a verbal
mediation strategy on MTS tasks – tact, intraverbal, and listener behavior. The purpose
of tact training was to teach participants to say the name of each individual stimulus (e.g.,
manok, anim, ibon) and to establish each stimulus as a nonverbal SD. Listener testing
evaluated whether participants could select a comparison stimulus conditional upon a
dictated name. During intraverbal training, experimenters taught participants
15
unidirectional AB intraverbal relations in statement format using the autoclitic “___ goes
with ___” (e.g., Manok goes with Ibon) in the absence of visual stimuli. Upon meeting
mastery criteria for each condition, all six participants passed the AB MTS posttest,
which required them to match arbitrary stimuli solely based on the learned experimental
intraverbal relations. Furthermore, two of the participants overtly emitted the intraverbal
relation during posttests without having been explicitly instructed to do so.
In Experiment 2, four undergraduate students, one from the previous study (P6)
and three new recruits were probed for the emergence of symmetrical intraverbal
relations and corresponding stimulus-stimulus relations (i.e., MTS performance). P7, P8,
and P9 were only exposed to training procedures for one set of stimuli, as opposed to
three sets for P6 (due to participation in Experiment 1). The same set of stimuli was used
across participants to evaluate derived relations. Following training conditions and the
final AB MTS posttest, P6 and P7 were exposed to a BA intraverbal posttest and then a
BA MTS posttest. For P8 and P9, the order of the tests was reversed so that the BA MTS
posttest was administered before the BA intraverbal posttest. P8 passed the BA MTS
posttest, but failed the BA intraverbal posttest and spontaneous vocalization data showed
that inaccurate performance was correlated with the absence of overt vocalizations. The
remaining three participants passed the posttests, demonstrating the emergence of
symmetrical intraverbal and stimulus-stimulus relations. These findings suggest that tact
and intraverbal training alone may be sufficient to establish symmetrical intraverbal and
stimulus-stimulus relations.
16
Provided that preliminary data on the role of intraverbal naming on derived
symmetry relations is promising (Santos et al., 2013), and that teaching efficacy increases
as a function of equivalence class formation and expansion (Sidman & Tailby, 1982), the
next logical step would be to assess the role of intraverbal naming on transitivity and
equivalence relations. Therefore, the purpose of the following two experiments is to
evaluate the effects of teaching unidirectional intraverbal relations in a statement format
on (1) the emergence of symmetrical (i.e., bidirectional) and transitive intraverbal
relations, and (2) the formation of equivalence (stimulus-stimulus) classes.
17
Chapter 2
EXPERIMENT 1
Method
Participants
Participants included eight undergraduate students from California State
University, Sacramento (CSUS), 2 males (P2 and P3) and 6 females (P1, P4, P5, P6, P7,
and P8) between the ages of 21 and 34. Prior to the start of the study, participants were
asked to complete a demographics survey including the following information: gender,
age, grade point average, and primary language (see Table 1). Individuals who
participated in any prior stimulus equivalence studies were excluded. Participants were
required to attend one 2.5-hour session with a 5-minute break offered after completing
each condition (e.g., after pretests, after meeting mastery criteria for tact training, etc.),
for a maximum of five breaks per session. Participants received extra credit for an upperdivision college-level psychology course upon completion of the study.
18
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Participant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Gender
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
Age
21
24
30
22
34
22
22
31
30
25
23
23
31
24
GPA
2.6
N/A
3.8
3.5
3.4
2.3
3.7
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.4
2.6
3.3
Primary Language
English
English
English
English
English
English
English
English
English
English
English
English
Tagalog
English
Setting and Materials
All experimental sessions were conducted at the Verbal Behavior Laboratory at
CSUS. The room measured 7 x 3 m, and included several tables and office chairs, two
desktop computers, two vertical filing cabinets, and a bookshelf.
Stimuli consisted of nine common images (similar to Carp, 2012), further divided
into three categories – birds (A), states (B), and flowers (C) (see Figure 1), with three
members each (i.e., A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, and C3). For intraverbal and MTS
tasks, cross set stimuli with the same number were considered a correct match (e.g., A1
and B1) and those with a different number, an incorrect match (e.g., B2 and C1). Target
intraverbal relations are shown in Table 2. The letter-number code (e.g., A3) assigned to
each stimulus was for the experimenter’s use only; participants were not exposed to these
19
codes. All stimuli were presented via the computer program, Mestre Libras (Elias,
Goyos, Saunders, & Saunders, 2008) on a 15-inch LCD computer screen.
[A1] Cardinal
[A2] Yellowhammer
[A3] Mockingbird
A1
A2
A3
[B1] Virginia
[B2] Alabama
[B3] Texas
B1
B2
B3
[C1] Dogwood
[C2] Camellia
[C3] Bluebonnet
C1
C2
Figure 1. Experimental stimuli.
C3
20
Table 2
Target Intraverbal Relations
Antecedent Stimuli
Baseline
A  B Bird  State
The state for [A1] is…
[A1] Cardinal
The state for [A2] is…
[A2] Yellowhammer
The state for [A3] is…
[A3] Mockingbird
Correct Response
[B1] Virginia
[B2] Alabama
[B3] Texas
B  C State  Flower
The flower for [B1] is…
The flower for [B2] is…
The flower for [B3] is…
[B1] Virginia
[B2] Alabama
[B3] Texas
[C1] Dogwood
[C2] Camellia
[C3] Bluebonnet
Symmetry
B  A State  Bird
The bird for [B1] is…
The bird for [B2] is…
The bird for [B3] is…
[B1] Virginia
[B2] Alabama
[B3] Texas
[A1] Cardinal
[A2] Yellowhammer
[A3] Mockingbird
C  B Flower  State
The state for [C1] is…
The state for [C2] is…
The state for [C3] is…
[C1] Dogwood
[C2] Camellia
[C3] Bluebonnet
[B1] Virginia
[B2] Alabama
[B3] Texas
Transitivity
A  C Bird  Flower
The flower for [A1] is…
The flower for [A2] is…
The flower for [A3] is…
[A1] Cardinal
[A2] Yellowhammer
[A3] Mockingbird
[C1] Dogwood
[C2] Camellia
[C3] Bluebonnet
C  A Flower  Bird
The bird for [C1] is…
The bird for [C2] is…
The bird for [C3] is…
[C1] Dogwood
[C2] Camellia
[C3] Bluebonnet
[A1] Cardinal
[A2] Yellowhammer
[A3] Mockingbird
For each testing and training condition, predetermined blocks consisting of a set
number of trials were presented to ensure that stimuli were presented in counterbalanced
21
order to eliminate potential biases (e.g., side bias, exposure, etc.; Green, 2001). Sample
stimuli varied unsystematically across trials so that each sample was presented three
times within an 18- or 27-trial block. Comparison stimuli were programmed so that (1)
comparison arrays consisted of three stimuli per trial, (2) the position of comparison
stimuli varied across trials, and (3) the position of the correct comparison stimulus per
sample stimulus appeared in the left, middle, and right positions one time each across
three trials within a block. For example, in a MTS block, given A1 as a sample stimulus,
B1 appeared on the left for one trial, middle for another, and right for the last, with A2
and A3 serving as sample stimuli for trials interspersed in between. Each sample
stimulus was presented three times during 27-trial blocks for tact training and listener
testing and training, and 18-trial blocks for intraverbal training and testing, and MTS
tests. Two patterns of 18- and 27-trial blocks were presented in randomized order to
control for repeated exposure. See Appendix A-F for trial order on data sheets.
Response Measurement
Dependent Variables. For tact and intraverbal training, the dependent variable
was the percentage of correct unprompted vocal responses (e.g., for a tact trial, when
shown a picture of cardinal [A1], participants said “cardinal [A1],” and for an intraverbal
trial, given the fill-in-the-blank statement “The state for cardinal [A1] is…,” participants
said “Virginia [B1]”). During listener testing and training, performance was measured as
the percentage of correct unprompted selection of a comparison stimulus from a threestimuli array conditional upon the dictated name of a sample stimulus (e.g., when the
22
computer program said “Cardinal [A1],” participants selected the picture of the cardinal
[A1] and not the yellowhammer [A2] or mockingbird [A3]). Three variables were
measured during MTS test conditions, (1) the percentage of correct unprompted
comparison stimulus selection in the presence of a given sample stimulus (e.g., given
cardinal [A1] as a sample, selecting Virginia [B1] and not Alabama [B2] or Texas [B3]),
(2) response latency, the amount of time in seconds between the presentation of the
comparison array and the selection of a comparison stimulus (Bentall et al., 1993;
Dymond and Rehfeldt, 2000), and (3) participants’ spontaneous vocalizations (i.e.,
anything participants overtly say that was not specified by the experimenter).
Data Collection. Participants were seated in front of a computer screen and next
to the primary experimenter to avoid experimental cueing. The wall behind the computer
screen was unadorned. An Apple iPad 2 © was propped up to the right of the participant
and experimenter for recording purposes. A trained observer sat behind participants and
the experimenter to collect data. The trained observer recorded correct unprompted (+),
prompted (P), incorrect responses (-), and spontaneous vocalizations in vivo for all
training and testing sessions. To avoid the possibility of incidentally reinforcing
participants’ chaining of incorrect and correct responses together (e.g., “self-correction”),
the participants’ first response was used to determine if the response was correct or
incorrect. For instance, if participants answered, “Texas, I mean Virginia” during a tact
training trial, “Texas” was used. For all conditions, participants were required to respond
within 5 s of the presentation of the sample stimulus, with the exception of intraverbal
23
and MTS tests, which was 10 s (Santos et al., 2013). The purpose of increasing the
amount of time participants had to respond during test conditions was to assess whether
longer response latencies were correlated with nodal distance (Bentall et al., 1993).
Responses which were no nodes apart (i.e., AB, BC, BA, BC) should have equal response
latencies that are shorter than those for responses which are one node apart (i.e., AC,
CA). The final percentage for any given block was calculated as follows: number of
correct unprompted (+) responses divided by the total number of trials. The software
digitally recorded correct and incorrect responses for MTS and listener tests as well as
response latency. The trained observer collected data on intraverbal training and testing,
and spontaneous vocalizations during the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest.
Experimental Design
A two-tier non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants (Watson &
Workman, 1981) was used to evaluate the emergence of derived relations. As shown in
Figure 2, four participants (P1, P2, P5, and P6) were exposed to the following conditions:
pre-training, MTS pretest, tact training, listener testing, AB/BC intraverbal training,
training review, AB/BC MTS posttest, BA/CB intraverbal testing, BA/CB MTS posttest,
remedial symmetry training (if needed), AC/CA intraverbal testing, and AC/CA MTS
posttest. Remedial training for failing listener testing and MTS posttests were designed
but were not evaluated because all participants meeting the passing or emergence criteria
(see Appendix G). For the other four participants (P3, P4, P7, and P8), the order of
conditions were identical with the exception that for the BA/CB (symmetry) and AC/CA
24
(transitivity) posttests, the corresponding MTS posttests will be conducted prior to the
intraverbal test (e.g., BA/CB MTS posttest before BA/CB intraverbal test) as specified in
Figure 3. Mastery, passing, and emergence criteria for each condition are presented in
Table 3.
Figure 2. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P1, P2, P5, and P6. Arrows and
boxes with dashed lines represent conditions that will be conducted if participants fail to
meet the passing criteria for the preceding condition. Arrows and boxes with solid lines
represent standard conditions.
25
Figure 3. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P3, P4, P7, and P8. Arrows and
boxes with dashed lines represent conditions that will be conducted if participants fail to
meet the passing criteria for the preceding condition. Arrows and boxes with solid lines
represent standard conditions.
26
Table 3
Passing, Mastery, and Emergence Criterion for Each Condition
Condition
1
Targets
per block
Trials per
block
Number of attempts
Pre-training
1 (P1, P3, P5, P7)
2 (P2, P4, P6, P8)
Criterion
3 consec.
correct
< 50%
MTS Pretest
6
18
2
Tact Training
9
27
N/A
1 block 100%
3
Listener Testing
9
27
2
1 block 100%
Listener Training
9
27
N/A
1 block 100%
4
AB/BC Intraverbal Training
6
18
N/A
1 block 100%
5
Review
N/A
Tact
9
27
N/A
1 block 100%
Listener
9
27
N/A
1 block 100%
AB/BC Intraverbal
6
18
N/A
1 block 100%
AB/BC MTS Posttest
6
18
2
1 block >89%
Remedial Phase 1
9
9
N/A
1 block 100%
Remedial Phase 2
9
9
N/A
1 block 100%
Remedial Phase 3
3
9
N/A
1 block 100%
7
BA/CB Intraverbal Testing
6
18
2
1 block >89%
8
BA/CB MTS Posttest
6
18
2
1 block >89%
Remedial Phase 1
3
9
N/A
1 block 100%
Remedial Phase 2
3
9
N/A
1 block 100%
9
AC/CA Intraverbal Testing
6
18
2
1 block >89%
10
AC/CA MTS Posttest
6
18
2
1 block >89%
Remedial Phase 1
3
9
N/A
1 block 100%
Remedial Phase 2
3
9
N/A
1 block 100%
AC/CA MTS Vocal Posttest
6
18
1
1 block >89%
6
11
Interobserver Agreement (IOA)
A second observer collected data from digital video recordings for 50% of each
condition in which Mestre Libras did not record responses (i.e., tact training, and
27
intraverbal training and testing) for IOA purposes. An agreement for each trial is defined
by both observers scoring the trial as correct unprompted, prompted, or incorrect.
Discrepancies between observers were scored as a disagreement. Point-by-point
percentage of agreement was calculated using the following formula: total number of
agreements divided by total number of agreements plus disagreements and then
multiplied by 100. Each participants’ mean IOA percentage and range across conditions
are shown in Table 4.
Table 4
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Integrity Across Participants.
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13
P14
Interobserver Agreement
Mean
Range
99.3
97.6-100
100
100-100
98.1
88.8-100
100
100-100
97.7
88.9-100
100
100-100
100
100-100
99.1
94.4-100
97.2
88.8-100
99.3
97.2-100
100
100-100
100
100-100
100
100-100
100
100-100
Treatment Integrity
Mean
Range
99.6
94.4-100
99.3
90.2-100
100
100-100
99.2
88.8-100
100
100-100
99.8
97.8-100
99.7
96.2-100
99.4
94.4-100
99.2
94.4-100
99.5
94.4-100
100
100-100
100
100-100
100
100-100
100
100-100
Treatment Integrity (TI)
The second observer also assessed TI for 50% of sessions across conditions. Data
were collected on the correct implementation of each trial, including: (1) the timing of
prompts (e.g., no delay vs. after 5-seconds), and (2) the delivery of consequences (e.g.,
28
after every response or none). The trial was coded as incorrect if either of these
components were implemented incorrectly or omitted. Treatment integrity across
conditions was calculated by dividing the number of correctly executed trials by the total
number of trials across conditions and multiplied by 100. Means and ranges for TI for
individual participants are included in Table 4.
Procedures
Pre-training. The purpose of this condition was to familiarize participants with
the different training procedures and computer program. Six familiar stimuli (see Figure
4) not related to those of the study, divided equally into two categories were used for this
condition only. Practice trials for tact training, listener testing, intraverbal training (see
Table 5) and MTS tests were conducted separately until participants reached three
consecutive correct unprompted responses on each task. The procedures for each
condition are described in detail below using experimental stimuli in place of familiar
stimuli.
29
[A1] Pig
[A2] Elephant
[A3] Cat
A1
A2
A3
[B1] Orange
[B2] Banana
[B3] Apple
B1
B2
Figure 4. Pre-training stimuli.
B3
Table 5
Pre-Training Target Intraverbal Relations
Antecedent Stimuli
A  B Animal  Fruit
The fruit for [A1] is…
[A1] Pig
The fruit for [A2] is…
[A2] Elephant
The fruit for [A3] is…
[A3] Cat
Correct Response
[B1] Orange
[B2] Banana
[B3] Apple
MTS pre- and posttests. The purpose of this condition was to determine
whether participants could match the stimuli shown in Figure 1 based on the intraverbal
relations listed in Table 2. The experimenter read the following instructions to
participants prior to the start of the condition:
In this condition, you will be shown a blank screen with a blue box
positioned at the top left corner. Click on the box and a picture will
appear. Then click on the picture and three pictures will appear
underneath it. I want you to click on the picture on the bottom row that
best matches the picture at the top. You will have 10-seconds to respond
after the pictures appear across the bottom of the screen and the first
30
picture you click will be recorded as your answer. I will not be giving you
any feedback at this point. Do you have any questions?
Each trial began with participants using the mouse to click on a blue box at the
top left corner of the screen (the observing response) for a visual stimulus to appear (e.g.,
cardinal [A1]) on the top right corner. Participants then clicked on the stimulus (the
observing response). Subsequently, three pictures appeared across the bottom of the
screen (e.g., Virginia [B1], Alabama [B2], and Texas [B3]). Participants had 10 s to
respond once comparison stimuli appeared before the experimenter prompted, “Please
make a selection.” There were no programmed consequences following correct or
incorrect responses. Upon selecting a comparison stimulus by using the mouse to click
on it, a blank screen with a blue box at the top left corner appeared, signaling the start of
the next trial. For the pretest, six relations were tested: (1) bird to state (AB), and (2)
state to flower (BC), (3) state to bird (BA), (4) flower to state (CB), (5) bird to flower
(AC), and (6) flower to bird (CA). The AB/BC relations served as baseline relations and
participants were directly trained on these two relations. Posttests assessed for the
emergence of BA/CB symmetry relations and AC/CA transitivity relations and were
conducted in the orders specified in Figures 2 and 3. Sessions were conducted in 18-trial
blocks in which each of the six sample stimuli were presented three times with the
corresponding comparison stimulus presented one time each in the left, middle, and right
positions.
For the pretest, the criterion for continuing to the next condition was one to two
18-trial blocks with 50% or less of correct responses. For posttests, participants were
31
given two attempts (i.e. two blocks) to meet the passing or emergence criteria, so that if
participants failed the first block, a second block was presented. If participants also
failed the second block, then remedial training was implemented. The passing criterion
for AB/BC relations and emergence criteria for BA/CB and AC/CA relations was set at
one 18-trial block with 16 out of 18 trials (89%) of correct responding.
If P1, P2, P5, and P6 failed to meet the passing or emergence criterion for BA/CB
and AC/CA MTS posttests, the experimenter directly taught participants the
corresponding intraverbal relations that were presented in the preceding intraverbal test
condition (see Appendix G). However, if P3, P4, P7, and P8 failed to meet the passing or
emergence criterion for BA/CB and AC/CA relations, they continued to the
corresponding intraverbal test. Failure to meet the emergence criterion for the
subsequent intraverbal test resulted in remedial training as specified for the
corresponding MTS task (see Appendix G). For example, if a participant scored 67% and
50% on two consecutive blocks of BC/CA MTS and proceeded to score 33% on the
following BC/CA intraverbal test, then remedial training for BC/CA relations was
conducted. Nonetheless, if a participant met emergence criteria for the intraverbal test,
the corresponding MTS posttest was repeated and if he or she still failed, remedial
training was implemented.
The terminal condition for each participant was one 18-trial block of AC/CA
MTS vocal posttest. Prior to the start, the experimenter read the following instructions to
participants:
32
For this last condition, I want you to think out loud so that we know what
your thought process is as you are solving the task. The rest of the
condition will be identical to the previous matching conditions with 10seconds to respond and no feedback until the very end. Do you have any
questions?
The emergence criteria was set at one 18-trial block with 16 out of 18 trials (89%) of
correct responding regardless of vocalizations emitted.
Tact training. The purpose of this condition was to teach participants to label
each of the nine stimuli when presented successively. Prior to this condition, the
experimenter read the following instructions to participants:
In this condition, you will be shown a blank screen with a blue box
positioned at the top. Point to the box with your finger and after I click on
the box with the mouse, a picture will appear. I want you to tell me what
you see. In the beginning, I will help you by saying the name of the
picture and having you repeat after me. Then, I will let you label the
picture as best as you can. You will have 5-seconds to respond after the
picture appears and your first answer will be recorded as your response. I
will give you feedback on correct and incorrect answers to help you along
the way. Do you have any questions?
After participants pointed to the blue box (the observing response) located at the
top of the computer screen, the experimenter clicked on the blue box and a visual
stimulus appeared. Initially, a zero-second delay echoic prompt was provided upon the
presentation of a stimulus, where the experimenter said the name for participants to
repeat. After the first nine-trials of the first block, a constant 5-second prompt delay
(Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2011) was implemented for the remaining 18 trials and all
subsequent blocks. Participants had the opportunity to respond independently within the
5-second interval before the experimenter’s echoic prompt. The experimenter provided
33
praise for all correct unprompted responses. If participants responded incorrectly, the
experimenter said, “Try again. Cardinal (A1). What is it?” had participants repeat the
answer, and re-presented the trial. Following the first correct unprompted response, the
experimenter only provided praise for all subsequent correct unprompted responses and
not prompted responses (Karsten & Carr, 2009). Sessions were conducted in 27-trial
blocks in which each of nine sample stimuli were presented three times in predetermined
random order. The mastery criterion for proceeding to the next condition was one 27trial block with 27 out of 27 trials (100%) of correct responding.
Listener testing. The purpose of this condition was to assess how accurately
participants can select a comparison stimulus from a three-stimulus array upon hearing a
dictated name. The experimenter read the following instructions to participants at the
beginning:
In this condition, you will be shown a blank screen with a blue box positioned at
the top left corner. Click on the blue box and a white box will appear and the
program will say a name. Then click on the white box and three pictures will
appear beneath it. I want you to click on the picture on the bottom row that best
matches the name that you heard. You will have 5-seconds to respond after the
pictures appear across the bottom of the screen and the first picture you click will
be recorded as your answer. I will provide you with feedback at the end of this
task. Do you have any questions?
Each trial began with participants using the mouse to click a solid blue box
presented on the top left corner of the computer screen. A white box appeared on the top
right corner and Mestre Libras dictated the name of a target stimulus. Subsequently,
participants clicked on the white box (the observing response) and three pictures
appeared across the bottom of the screen. Participants were given 5-seconds to respond
34
and there were no programmed consequences for correct or incorrect responses. Sessions
were conducted in 27-trial blocks in which each of nine sample stimuli were presented
three times and the corresponding comparison stimulus presented one time each in the
left, middle, and right positions. Participants were given two attempts to meet the
passing criterion, which was set at one 27-trial block with 27 out of 27 trials (100%) of
correct responding. Failure to pass listener testing resulted in listener training (see
Appendix G).
Intraverbal training. The purpose of this condition was to teach participants
intraverbals which established the relations between two stimuli from different classes.
Target intraverbal relations are presented in Table 2. Blocks contained mixed AB and
BC relations, with each relation targeted three times.
For the first block, the experimenter read the following instructions to
participants:
In this condition, I will say a complete statement for you to repeat. Once
you repeat the statement, I will give you with a fill-in-the-blank statement
to complete. You will have 5-seconds to respond and your first response
will be recorded. I will give you feedback on correct and incorrect
answers to help you along the way. Do you have any questions?
Each trial began with the experimenter modeling a statement (i.e., a prompt) for
participants to repeat. Once participants repeated the statement, the experimenter
presented the same statement in a fill-in-the-blank format and gave participants 5-seconds
to complete it. For example, the experimenter said, “The state for cardinal (A1) is
Virginia (B1)” and participants echoed, “The state for cardinal (A1) is Virginia (B1).”
35
Subsequently, the experimenter said, “The state for cardinal (A1) is…” and waited 5seconds for participants to respond. Praise was provided for correct responses and the
second observer recorded it as a prompted (P) response. Following an incorrect response,
the second observer marked the trial as incorrect (-) and the experimenter implemented
an error correction procedure by saying, “Try again,” stating the correct answer, and
repeating the trial. For instance, “Try again. Virginia (B1). The state for cardinal (A1)
is…”
Starting with the second block, trials consisted of fill-in-the-blank statements
only. The experimenter told participants:
Now, I will no longer model the statement beforehand. I will just give you
the fill-in-the-blank statement and I want you to finish it to the best of
your ability. You will have 5-seconds to respond and your first answer
will be recorded. I will give you feedback on correct and incorrect
answers to help you along the way. Do you have any questions?
For example, the experimenter only said, “The state for cardinal (A1) is…” and
gave participants 5-seconds to respond. If participants responded correctly praise was
provided. If participants responded incorrectly, the experimenter stated the correct
response, and immediately re-presented the trial.
Sessions were conducted in 18-trial blocks with each of the six target relations
presented three times. The mastery criterion for moving to the next condition was one
18-trial block with 100% of correct responding.
Review. The purpose of this condition was to ensure participants maintained
accurate responding of trained skills in the absence of programmed consequences. The
36
review condition made sure that performance on posttests could not be attributed to
sudden changes in the schedule of reinforcement (e.g., ratio strain; Baum, 1993).
The review phase included a minimum of one 27-trial block of listener, two18trial blocks of intraverbal, and two 27-trial blocks of tact, with trials within a block
counterbalanced as mentioned in the corresponding sections. The listener, tact, and
intraverbal sequence was fixed to eliminate the possibility of presenting tact, intraverbal,
then listener, as this is the sequence of behaviors that participants needed to engage in
during posttests if they used intraverbal naming as a mediation strategy. The first block
of tact and intraverbal review were divided into three equal segments (i.e., 3 6-trial
segments for 27-trial blocks, and 3 6-trial segments for 18-trial blocks, respectively) so
that the probability of reinforcement for the first third of the trials is 100%, the second is
50%, and the last is 0%. This fading procedure was not applied to the listener review
because listener testing was initially conducted in the absence of reinforcement and hence
reinforcement did not need to be faded. If responding in the first block was maintained at
100% correct responding for tact and intraverbal, a second block was administered in the
absence of programmed consequences. Error correction (i.e., echoic prompt and
repeating the trial) was provided for each incorrect response. The criterion for moving to
the next condition, AB/BC MTS posttest, was set at one 18-trial block at 100% correct
responding for the intraverbal review and one 27-trial block at 100% of correct
responding for each listener and tact reviews with no reinforcement.
37
Intraverbal testing. This condition was conducted in the same manner as
intraverbal training, with the exception of no programmed consequences or error
correction procedures, and participants were given 10-seconds to respond after the
experimenter presented the fill-in-the-blank statement. The two relations tested were (1)
BA/CB (symmetry), and (2) AC/CA (transitivity), in the order specified in Figures 2 and
3. Participants were given up to two attempts (i.e., two blocks) to meet the emergence
criterion. Sessions were conducted in 18-trial blocks and each of the six target relations
were presented three times in an unsystematic manner. There was no passing criterion
for intraverbal tests and participants proceeded to the corresponding MTS task (P1, P2,
P5, and P6) or necessary remedial training (P3, P4, P7, and P8) after up to two 18-trial
blocks of intraverbal testing. Upon completing BA/CB intraverbal testing, P1, P2, P5,
and P6 moved on to the BA/CB MTS posttest and P3, P4, P7, and P8 moved on to
remedial training or proceeding MTS posttest regardless of performance on the
intraverbal test. The emergence criterion for intraverbal relations was set at one 18-trial
block with 16 out of 18 trials (89%) or higher of correct responding (Carp, 2012).
Results and Discussion
P1 and P2
Figure 5 depicts the percentage of correct responses across MTS pre- and
posttests, listener tests, and intraverbal tests for P1 (top panel) and P2 (bottom panel). P1
performed below chance level (50%) for all MTS pretests, AB/BC (22%), BA/CB (39%),
and AC/CA (33%). She reached the mastery criterion for tact training after three blocks
38
(81 trials) and continued on to pass the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials).
Subsequently, she met the mastery criterion for intraverbal training after six blocks (108
trials). During the review, she needed one block (27 trials) of listener, two blocks (54
trials) of tact, and two blocks (36 trials) of intraverbal. In the posttest phase, she met
passing or emergence criterion on the first block for the AB/BC MTS (100%), BA/CB
intraverbal testing (94%), BA/CB MTS (100%), AC/CA intraverbal testing (100%), and
AC/CA MTS (89%), in this order. Additionally, she passed the AC/CA MTS vocal
posttest (100%) by correctly tacting stimuli or emitting an intraverbal relation relevant to
the stimuli presented for each trial (100%) of the block. There were no significant
differences in latency for AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests in terms of (1)
averages for each test (M = 2.53 s, M = 2.05 s, and M = 2.58 s, respectively), (2) cross
test first trial performance (3.03 s, 2.68 s, and 2.40 s, respectively), and (3) across trials
within the first block (see Figure 6).
39
Figure 5. Results for P1 on top panel and P2 on bottom panel. The solid diamond,
square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS tests, respectively.
The solid circle refers to the listener test. The “X” stands for the BA/CB intraverbal test
and the asterisk for the AC/CA intraverbal test.
40
Figure 6. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P1. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
Similarly, P2 also failed the AB/BC (M = 33% across two blocks), BA/CB (M =
39% across two blocks), and AC/CA (M = 36% across two blocks) MTS pretests. Upon
completing three blocks (81 trials) of tact training, he met mastery criterion and
subsequently passed the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials). He achieved
mastery criterion for intraverbal training with six blocks (108 trials). Within the review,
he required one block (27 trials) of listener, two blocks (54 trials) of tact, and three blocks
(54 trials) of intraverbal. He went on to pass the AB/BC (89%), BA/CB (100%), and
AC/CA (100%) MTS posttests and met emergence criterion for BA/CB (100%), and
AC/CA (100%) intraverbal tests. Moreover, P2 passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest
41
while emitting experimentally defined tacts or intraverbal relations for 12 out of 18 trials
(67%). For the other six trials, he produced self-generated intraverbals that corresponded
with some feature of the stimuli presented, such as “This little flower goes with the big
bird that’s red.” Cross test data showed a notably longer response latency for the first
AB/BC trial (7.88 s) when compared to the first BA/CB (3.57 s) and BA/CB (4.70 s)
trials. However, there were negligible differences on AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS
posttests with regards to (1) first block averages (M = 3.65 s, M = 2.90 s, and M = 3.50 s,
respectively), and (2) across trials within the block (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P2. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
42
P3 and P4
Figure 8 shows the percentage of correct responses across MTS pre- and posttests,
listener tests, and intraverbal tests for P3 (top panel) and P4 (bottom panel). P4
performed below chance level for all MTS pretests, AB/BC (0%), BA/CB (6%), and
AC/CA (22%). He reached the mastery criterion for tact training after three blocks (81
trials) and continued on to pass the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials).
Subsequently, he met the mastery criterion for intraverbal training after three blocks (54
trials). During the review, he needed one block (27 trials) of listener, two blocks (54
trials) of tact, and two blocks (36 trials) of intraverbal. In the posttest phase, he met
passing or emergence criterion on the first block for the AB/BC MTS (100%), BA/CB
MTS (100%), BA/CB intraverbal testing (100%), AC/CA MTS (100%), and AC/CA
intraverbal testing (89%), in this order. Additionally, he passed the AC/CA MTS vocal
posttest (100%) and correctly tacted stimuli or emitted an intraverbal relation relevant to
the stimuli presented for four out of 18 trials (22%). Cross test data showed a longer
response latency for the first AC/CA trial (2.95 s) when compared to the first AB/BC
(2.22 s) and BA/CB (1.92 s) trials. There were no significant differences in latency for
AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests in terms of (1) averages for each test (M =
2.61 s, M = 2.34 s, and M = 2.95 s, respectively), and (2) across trials within the first
block (see Figure 9).
43
Figure 8. Results for P3 on top panel and P4 on bottom panel. The solid diamond,
square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS tests, respectively.
The solid circle refers to the listener test. The “X” stands for the BA/CB intraverbal test
and the asterisk for the AC/CA intraverbal test.
44
Figure 9. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P3. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
P4 also failed the AB/BC (M = 17% across two blocks), BA/CB (M = 17% across
two blocks), and AC/CA (M = 33% across two blocks) MTS pretests. Upon completing
two blocks (54 trials) of tact training, she met mastery criterion and subsequently passed
the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials). She achieved mastery criterion for
intraverbal training with three blocks (54 trials). Within the review, she required one
block (27 trials) of listener, two blocks (54 trials) of tact, and two blocks (36 trials) of
intraverbal. She went on to pass the AB/BC (100%), BA/CB (100%), and AC/CA
(100%) MTS posttests and met emergence criterion for BA/CB (100%), and AC/CA
(100%) intraverbal tests. Moreover, P4 passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest (100%)
45
while emitting correct tacts or intraverbal relations for 18 out of 18 trials (100%).
Latency data for P4’s AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests were negligible with
regards to (1) first block averages (M = 2.06 s, M = 1.94 s, and M = 1.90 s, respectively),
(2) cross test first trial performances (2.58 s, 2.28 s, and 2.65 s, respectively), and (3)
across trials within the block (see Figure 10).
Figure 10. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P4. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
P5 and P6
Figure 11 depicts the percentage of correct responses across MTS pre- and
posttests, listener tests, and intraverbal tests for P5 (top panel) and P6 (bottom panel). P5
performed below chance level for all MTS pretests, AB/BC (22%), BA/CB (39%), and
46
AC/CA (11%). She reached the mastery criterion for tact training after five blocks (135
trials) and continued on to pass the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials).
Subsequently, she met the mastery criterion for intraverbal training after 11 blocks (198
trials). During the review, she needed one block (27 trials) of listener, two blocks (54
trials) of tact, and four blocks (72 trials) of intraverbal. In the posttest phase, she met
passing or emergence criterion on the first block for the AB/BC MTS (100%), BA/CB
intraverbal testing (100%), BA/CB MTS (100%), AC/CA intraverbal testing (94%), and
AC/CA MTS (94%), in this order. Additionally, she passed the AC/CA MTS vocal
posttest (100%) and correctly tacted stimuli or emitted an intraverbal relation relevant to
the stimuli presented in 6 out of 18 trials (33%). For the other 12 trials, she emitted tacts
or intraverbals that corresponded with the color of the stimuli (e.g., “Red white,” when
cardinal [A1] was the sample and dogwood [C1] was the correct comparison). Cross test
data showed a notably longer response latency for the first AC/CA trial (4.08 s) when
compared to the first AB/BC (2.73 s) and BA/CB (2.17 s) trials. There were no
significant differences in latency for AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests in terms
of (1) averages for each test (M = 1.77 s, M = 1.67 s, and M = 1.72 s, respectively), and
(2) across trials within the first block (see Figure 12).
47
Figure 11. Results for P5 on top panel and P6 on bottom panel. The solid diamond,
square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS tests, respectively.
The solid circle refers to the listener test. The “X” stands for the BA/CB intraverbal test
and the asterisk for the AC/CA intraverbal test.
48
Figure 12. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P5. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
Similarly, P6 also failed the AB/BC (M = 47% across two blocks), BA/CB (M =
33.5% across two blocks), and AC/CA (M = 36% across two blocks) MTS pretests.
Upon completing two blocks (54 trials) of tact training, she met mastery criterion and
subsequently passed the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials). She achieved
mastery criterion for intraverbal training with five blocks (90 trials). For the review, she
required one block (27 trials) of listener, two blocks (54 trials) of tact, and two blocks (36
trials) of intraverbal. She went on to pass the AB/BC (94%), BA/CB (100%), and
AC/CA (100%) MTS posttests and met emergence criterion for BA/CB (100%), and
AC/CA (94%) intraverbal tests. Moreover, P6 passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest
49
(100%) but only emitted an experimentally defined tact and no intraverbal relations in
one out of 18 trials (6%). Cross test data showed a notably longer response latency for
the first AB/BC trial (3.68 s) when compared to the first BA/CB (2.67 s) and AC/CA
(2.28 s) trials. Latency data for P6’s AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests were
negligible with regards to (1) first block averages (M = 2.39 s, M = 2.28 s, and M = 2.67
s, respectively), and (2) across trials within the block (see Figure 13).
Figure 13. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P6. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
P7 and P8
Figure 14 shows the percentage of correct responses across MTS pre- and
posttests, listener tests, and intraverbal tests for P7 (top panel) and P8 (bottom panel). P7
50
performed below chance level for all MTS pretests, AB/BC (44%), BA/CB (44%), and
AC/CA (0%). She reached the mastery criterion for tact training after two blocks (54
trials) and continued on to pass the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials).
Subsequently, she met the mastery criterion for intraverbal training after two blocks (36
trials). During the review, she needed one block (27 trials) of listener, two blocks (54
trials) of tact, and two blocks (36 trials) of intraverbal. In the posttest phase, she met
passing or emergence criterion on the first block for the AB/BC MTS (94%), BA/CB
MTS (100%), BA/CB intraverbal testing (100%), AC/CA MTS (89%), and AC/CA
intraverbal testing (100%) in this order. Additionally, she passed the AC/CA MTS vocal
posttest (100%) and correctly tacted stimuli or emitted an intraverbal relation relevant to
the stimuli presented in all 18 trials (100%). There were no significant differences in
latency for AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests in terms of (1) averages for each
test (M = 2.02 s, M = 1.96 s, and M = 1.77 s, respectively), (2) cross test first trial
performance (1.80 s, 1.33 s, and 1.75 s, respectively), and (3) across trials within the first
block (see Figure 15).
51
Figure 14. Results for P7 on top panel and P8 on bottom panel. The solid diamond,
square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS tests, respectively.
The solid circle refers to the listener test. The “X” stands for the BA/CB intraverbal test
and the asterisk for the AC/CA intraverbal test.
52
Figure 15. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P7. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
P8 also failed the AB/BC (M = 22% across two blocks), BA/CB (M = 41.5%
across two blocks), and AC/CA (M = 8.5% across two blocks) MTS pretests. Upon
completing two blocks (54 trials) of tact training, she met mastery criterion and
subsequently passed the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials). She achieved
mastery criterion for intraverbal training with seven blocks (126 trials). For the review,
she required one block (27 trials) of listener, two blocks (54 trials) of tact, and two blocks
(36 trials) of intraverbal. She went on to pass the AB/BC (100%), BA/CB (100%), and
AC/CA (89%) MTS posttests and met emergence criterion for BA/CB (100%), and
AC/CA (100%) intraverbal tests. Moreover, P8 passed the AC/CA vocal posttest (100%)
53
and emitted experimentally defined tacts or intraverbal relations for all trials (100%).
Cross test response latency data showed a notably longer response latency for the first
AB/BC trial (7.07 s) when compared to the first BA/CB (5.18 s) and AC/CA (3.25 s)
trials. On the contrary, P8’s AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests were negligible
with regards to (1) first block averages (M = 3.24 s, M = 2.65 s, and M = 2.43 s,
respectively), and (2) across trials within the block (see Figure 16).
Figure 16. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P8. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
Vocal Posttest and Post-Experimental Interview
None of the participants spontaneously emitted target tacts or intraverbals during
the MTS posttests until specifically instructed to do so for the AC/CA MTS vocal
54
posttest. P3 and P7 were the only participants who tacted the sample (e.g., a flower), the
related state, and produced the corresponding intraverbal (e.g., a bird). For example, P7
said, “Yellowhammer, Alabama, camellia,” when shown A2 as the sample and, C1, C2,
and C3 as the comparisons. Three participants, P1, P4, and P8 produced intraverbals that
only included the name of the sample and correct comparison stimuli, such as,
“Bluebonnet, mockingbird.” P2, P5, and P6 emitted self-generated intraverbals that were
composed of (1) a target tact and/or a physical feature, or (2) two physical features of the
sample and/or comparison stimuli. For example, in the presence of dogwood (C1) as the
sample, P6 said, “Dogwood is red,” with “red” corresponding to the color of the cardinal
(A1), the correct comparison stimulus. Given the same trial, P5 said, “Red,” in the
presence of dogwood (C1), which describes the color of the corresponding comparison
stimulus, the cardinal (A1), and not the sample itself, which is white. Lastly, P2 was the
most creative and said statements such as, “This little flower (dogwood [C1]) goes with
the big bird that’s red (cardinal [A1]),” for the same trial.
In the post-experimental interview, seven of the eight participants admitted using
some form of verbal mediation to determine the correct response on MTS and intraverbal
posttests. P4 was the only participant who reported not knowing how she was emitting
correct responses on posttests. P1 and P6 reported that their problem solving strategy
was to supplement the target intraverbal relations with previous knowledge. For
example, P6 reported establishing the mockingbird (A3) – Texas (B3) – bluebonnet (C3)
relation by thinking about the book, “To Kill a Mockingbird from Texas, and then the
55
blue lonestar state…[which is] Texas” for bluebonnet. The majority of participants (P2,
P3, P5, P7, and P8) explained that they linked the sample back to the corresponding state
to identify the correct comparison stimulus (e.g., “Put the names of things together with
the state,” “The bird goes to the state, so it must go to the flower,” “I was grouping them
by the state-flower and state-bird for each state”). These self-reported verbal mediation
strategies are consistent with the notion that training structures utilizing familiar stimuli
(i.e., states) as nodes are effective in producing derived relations (Arntzen & Lian, 2010;
Holth & Arntzen, 1998). Familiar or meaningful stimuli can function as SDs (Arntzen &
Lian, 2010; Fields, Arnzten, Narty, & Eilifsen, 2012) to evoke behaviors that lead to
reinforcement, such as selection responses or precurrent behaviors (i.e., problem solving
strategies; Palmer 1991) when the desired response is unknown (Delaney & Austin,
1998). Common naming, intraverbal naming, joint control (Lowenkron, 2006), and
visual imaging are all examples of precurrent behaviors. In terms of the current study, it
is possible that if flowers (C), a less familiar class of stimuli, served as nodes rather than
states (B), then participants would have had difficulties establishing equivalence
relations.
Summary
As shown in Figure 2, P1, P2, P5, and P6 were exposed to intraverbal tests before
MTS posttests for each emerging relation (i.e., BA/CB and AC/CA). Conditions were
presented in reverse order for P3, P4, P7, and P8, so that MTS posttests were conducted
before intraverbal tests (see Figure 3). Despite this procedural variation, all eight
56
participants demonstrated the emergence of symmetry (BA/CB) and transitivity (AC/CA)
intraverbal relations, as well as stimulus-stimulus classes following tact training, listener
testing, and AB/BC intraverbal training. None of the participants required more than one
block for each of the MTS posttests to meet the passing criterion and hence none needed
remedial training.
Prior to training, all participants failed the MTS pretests for all relations (i.e.,
AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA). Results from the AB/BC MTS posttest support the notion
that tact training, listener testing, and AB/BC intraverbal training, as a package, were
effective in teaching participants to match pictures that were arbitrarily related (i.e., only
related via the intraverbal relation and not physical characteristics; Santos et al., 2013).
Participants’ performance on BA/CB and AC/CA MTS posttests suggest that the training
package was also sufficient in establishing equivalence classes. Additionally, all
participants met the emergence criteria for both BA/CB and AC/CA intraverbal tests on
the first block, suggesting that the training package was effective in teaching participants
to emit intraverbal relations that were symmetrical (BA/CB) or transitive (AC/CA) to
baseline (AB/BC) relations.
In examining the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest, P1, P5, and P8 shared a similar
performance pattern. These three participants met the mastery criteria on the first block
(89%, 94%, and 89%, respectively) of the AC/CA MTS posttest. However, when
instructed to talk about their problem solving strategy aloud in the AC/CA MTS vocal
posttest, P1, P5, and P8 scored 100% correct responding for that block, demonstrating an
57
improvement in responding accuracy. In the common naming literature, if participants
failed to categorize following training in speaker (i.e., tact) and listener (i.e., selection)
behaviors, an effective remedial strategy consisted of instructing participants to overtly
tact the sample before selecting the comparison stimulus within a MTS framework (Lowe
et al., 2002; Miguel & Kobari-Wright, 2013). The findings from P1, P5, and P8’s
AC/CA MTS posttest and AC/CA MTS vocal posttest seems to resonate with this
response pattern. That is, requiring a verbal response in the presence of the sample
stimulus may improve selection accuracy for the comparison stimulus, and therefore
strengthening the hypothesis that verbal mediation plays a role the formation of
equivalence classes (Horne & Lowe, 1996).
Response latency data on MTS posttests were mixed across the eight participants;
there were no clear differentiations in latency across the different relations tested. For
most of the participants, the differences were minute. The AC/CA MTS posttest assessed
for the derivation of transitivity relations. Since two relations were required to relate a
bird (A stimuli) to a flower (C stimuli), bird (A) to state (B) and state (B) to bird (C), a
participant using verbal mediation as the problem solving strategy would require more
time on a transitivity trial when compared to a baseline (AB/BC) or symmetry (BA/CB)
trial (Carp, 2012). Notably, P3 and P5 had longer latencies for the first trial of the
AC/CA MTS posttest (2.95 s and 4.08 s) than the AB/BC (2.22 s and 2.73 s) and BA/CB
(1.92 s and 2.17 s) MTS posttests, replicating the findings from previous studies (e.g.,
Bentall et al., 1993; Carp, 2012). However, P2, P6, and P8 spent considerably more time
58
on the first trial of the AB/BC MTS posttest (7.88 s, 3.68 s, and 7.07 s) than the BA/CB
(3.57 s, 2.67 s, and 5.18 s) and AC/CA (4.70 s, 2.28 s, and 3.25 s) MTS posttests. P1, P4,
and P7 did not show a differentiation in response latency for the first trial across the three
posttests.
One possible explanation for the mixed response latency results is that the training
package included superfluous components that led to participants learning to select while
engaging in alternative forms of mediation before reaching the MTS posttests. For
example, the tact or listener review tasks following AB/BC intraverbal training exposed
participants to the visual stimuli again and thus may have allowed participants to relate
stimuli based on the intraverbal relations. It is possible that during the review,
participants related stimuli using intraverbal naming, but after repeated exposures to the
pairing via strategies such as visual imaging (e.g., Kisamore et al., 2011), their responses
during MTS posttests may have come under the control of self-generated intraverbals
(e.g., P2 saying “The mockingbird belongs with the bluebonnet”), other verbal mediation
strategies (e.g., in the presence of bluebonnet [C3] as the sample, P6 said, “Grey,” which
corresponded with a physical characteristic of mockingbird [A3], the correct comparison
stimulus), or no mediation strategies at all (Stromer, MacKay, & Remington, 1996).
While it is possible that participants may have matched stimuli based on visual mediation
strategies, previous studies evaluating visual-visual MTS training only (Smeets &
Barnes-Holmes, 2005a) or in combination with tact training (Bentall et al., 1993; Carp,
2012) on MTS tests of symmetry and transitivity relations, have produced inconsistent
59
emergent relations, with failures correlated with faulty verbal repertoires (e.g., failures to
demonstrate emerging intraverbal relations were correlated with failures on MTS tests for
the same emergent relation; Carp, 2012). Therefore, it is very unlikely that participants
formed equivalence classes in the current study without engaging in any form of verbal
mediation, at least not in the initial stages. Therefore, the purpose of Experiment 2 was
to evaluate whether the review phase was an essential component following tact training,
listener testing, and AB/BC intraverbal training, for the emergence of derived intraverbal
relations and equivalence classes and its effect on response latency.
60
Chapter 3
EXPERIMENT 2
Method
Participants, Setting and Materials
Participants included two female (P9 and P10) undergraduate students from
CSUS, ages 30 and 25, respectively (see Table 1), and were recruited based on the same
criteria as specified in Experiment 1. They were given extra credit for an upper-division
psychology course for completing the study. Settings and materials were identical to
those described in Experiment 1.
Dependent Measures and Experimental Design
A two-tier non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants (Watson &
Workman, 1981) was used to evaluate the emergence of derived relations. Mastery,
passing, and emergence criteria for each condition were the same as Experiment 1 (see
Table 3).
Interobserver agreement (IOA) and treatment integrity (TI) data were also
collected as described in Experiment 1. Each participant’s IOA percentage and range as
well as TI mean and range are shown in Table 4.
Procedures
All training and testing conditions were identical to those described in Experiment
1 and presented in the same order as P1, P2, P5, and P6, with the omission of the review
61
phase. More specifically, immediately after AB/BC intraverbal training, P9 and P10
were exposed to MTS and intraverbal posttests (see Figure 17).
Figure 17. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P9 and P10.
Results and Discussion
P9 and P10
Figure 18 depicts the percentage of correct responses across MTS pre- and
posttests, listener tests, and intraverbal tests for P9 (top panel) and P10 (bottom panel).
P9 performed below chance level for all MTS pretests, AB/BC (17%), BA/CB (28%),
and AC/CA (17%). She reached the mastery criterion for tact training after two blocks
(54 trials) and continued on to pass the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials).
Subsequently, she met the mastery criterion for intraverbal training after four blocks (72
trials). In the posttest phase, she met passing or emergence criterion on the first block for
the AB/BC MTS (100%), BA/CB intraverbal testing (94%), BA/CB MTS (100%),
AC/CA intraverbal testing (100%), and AC/CA MTS (100%), in this order. Additionally,
62
Figure 18. Results for P9 on top panel and P10 on bottom panel. The solid diamond,
square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS tests, respectively.
The solid circle refers to the listener test. The “X” stands for the BA/CB intraverbal test
and the asterisk for the AC/CA intraverbal test.
63
she passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest (100%) and correctly tacted stimuli or emitted
an intraverbal relation relevant to the stimuli presented for seven out of 18 trials (39%).
Cross MTS posttest data showed a notably longer response latency for the first AC/CA
trial (2.60 s) when compared to the first AB/BC trial (1.80 s) and not the first BA/CB trial
(2.32 s). There were no significant differences in latency for AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests in terms of (1) averages for each test (M = 1.94 s, M = 1.85 s, and
M = 2.16 s, respectively), and (2) across trials within the first block (see Figure 19).
Figure 19. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P9. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
P10 also failed the AB/BC (M = 33% across two blocks), BA/CB (M = 11.5%
across two blocks), and AC/CA (M = 33% across two blocks) MTS pretests. Upon
64
completing three blocks (81 trials) of tact training, she met mastery criterion and
subsequently passed the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials). After she
achieved mastery criterion for intraverbal training with four blocks (72 trials), she went
on to pass the AB/BC (100%), BA/CB (100%), and AC/CA (100%) MTS posttests and
met emergence criterion for BA/CB (100%), and AC/CA (94%) intraverbal tests.
Furthermore, P10 passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest (100%) while emitting the
experimentally defined tact or intraverbal relations in 18 out of 18 trials (100%). Cross
MTS posttest first trial data showed a noticeable longer response latency for the AB/BC
posttest (4.85 s) than the BA/CB posttest (3.45 s) and even more so for the AC/CA
posttest (2.67 s). Latency data for P10’s AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests
were negligible with regards to (1) first block averages (M = 3.35 s, M = 2.68 s, and M =
2.67 s, respectively), and (2) across trials within the block (see Figure 20).
65
Figure 20. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P10. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
Vocal Posttest and Post-Experimental Interview
Neither P9 nor P10 emitted spontaneous tacts or intraverbals while completing the
MTS posttests until instructed to do so for the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest. For each tact,
P9 added the color of the stimulus to form an intraverbal (e.g., “Pink camellia goes with
yellowhammer”) for the first eight trials which evolved into intraverbals composed of
colors only (e.g., “Pink goes with yellow”) for the remaining 10 trials. P10 produced
two-word intraverbals consisting of the tacts for the sample and correct comparison
stimuli (e.g., “Cardinal, dogwood”) for all 18 trials.
66
When asked to describe her strategy during the post-experimental interview for
relating birds (A) to flowers (C), the transitivity relation, P9 reported that she was
matching “mostly just by color.” However, direct observation of her vocalizations and
selection responses shows that she was not matching by the physical colors of the stimuli,
but according to the colors of her self-generated intraverbals. For instance, if she was
matching by physical color, she should have put cardinal (red; A1) and camellia (pink;
C2) together. Yet in the presence of a cardinal (A1), P9 said, “Red goes with white,”
with ‘white’ being a physical characteristic of dogwood (C3), the correct comparison
stimulus. Likewise, P10 also reported using a verbal mediation strategy, to solve
posttests. She stated, “I’d say the state, the flower, and the bird to myself when
[experimenters] were doing stuff…Texas, bluebonnet, mockingbird. Texas, bluebonnet,
mockingbird.” This account of covert verbal behavior aligns closely with the notion that
self-echoic repetition (Skinner, 1957) may be sufficient to facilitate the emergence of
novel intraverbal relations (Lowe & Beasty, 1987) which in turn, can be applied to
situations in which intraverbal naming may be used as a mediation strategy (Horne &
Lowe, 1996).
Summary
Similar to the eight participants in Experiment 1, symmetry (BA/CB) and
transitivity (AC/CA) intraverbal relations, as well as stimulus-stimulus classes emerged
following tact training, listener testing, and AB/BC intraverbal training for the two
participants in Experiment 2. Prior to training, both participants failed MTS pretests for
67
all relations (i.e., AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA). Neither of the participants required
more than one posttest block for each of the MTS tasks to meet the passing criteria and
hence did not need remedial training. Results from the three MTS posttests further
support the notion that the training package was effective in teaching participants to
match pictures that were arbitrarily related and sufficient in establishing equivalence
classes. Additionally, both participants met the emergence criteria for both BA/CB and
AC/CA intraverbal tests on the first block, indicating that the training package was
effective in teaching participants to formulate symmetry (BA/CB) and transitivity
(AC/CA) intraverbal relations.
For the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest, P10 produced a novel performance pattern.
She initially passed the AC/CA MTS posttest with 100% accuracy, but when instructed to
talk in the subsequent AC/CA MTS vocal posttest, response accuracy declined to 89%.
Such performance is inconsistent with that of P1, P5, and P8, as well as participants in
previous studies implementing requirements for vocalizations as a remedial strategy for
failure on categorization tasks (Lowe et al., 2002; Miguel & Kobari-Wright, 2013).
Response latency across the AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests were
mixed across the two participants, yet similar to what was obtained in Experiment 1. P9
required noticeably more time for the first AC/CA trial (2.60 s) than the first AB/BC trial
(1.80 s), but not the first BA/CB trial (2.32 s). On the contrary, P10 had a longer
response latency for the first AB/BC trial (4.85 s) when compared to the first BA/CB trial
(3.45 s), and more so for the first AC/CA trial (2.67 s). Therefore, only one of the two
68
participants’ latency data is consistent with previous findings showing a longer latency
for transitivity relations than baseline and symmetry relations (Bentall et al., 1993; Carp,
2012).
Overall results indicated that the review included in Experiment 1 was a
superfluous training component because the absence of it did not affect participants’
ability to meet passing or emergence criteria on all MTS and intraverbal posttests.
However, contrary to the hypothesis that extra exposure to visual stimuli in the review
(i.e., tact and listener tasks,) may have allowed participants to relate stimuli using
alternative mediation strategies (e.g., visual imaging) prior to MTS posttests and hence
influencing latency, the elimination of the review did not provide any clearer response
latency patterns across baseline, symmetry, and transitivity MTS posttests, than those
obtained in Experiment 1.
Aside from the review exposing participants to visual experimental stimuli prior
to posttests, the sequence of posttests may have also facilitated the passing of MTS
posttests or emergence of novel intraverbals in the same manner. In Experiment 1, a
MTS posttest was always presented immediately before or after an intraverbal test so that
the first condition may have served as a prompt for the second condition. For example,
when a MTS posttest was presented before its respective intraverbal test (i.e., BA/CB
MTS posttest then BA/CB intraverbal test), the exposure to visual stimuli pairings during
the MTS posttest may have inadvertently served as a type of visual prompt to facilitate
the emergence of intraverbal relations that corresponded with the subsequent intraverbal
69
test. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of picture prompts in
establishing intraverbals (Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2011). However, tact and visualvisual MTS alone have inconsistently produced novel intraverbal and equivalence classes
(Bentall et al., 1993; Carp, 2012). While unlikely, the possibility that the visual-visual
stimuli pairings during MTS trials served as prompts for participants to engage in covert
intraverbals that matched the tested relations in the subsequent intraverbal posttest still
exists. The same potential confound happens when an intraverbal test was presented
immediately prior to its MTS counterpart (i.e., AC/CA intraverbal test before AC/CA
MTS posttest). Auditory presentation of stimulus pairs during intraverbal testing may
have evoked visual images (Skinner, 1974) of the stimuli, allowing participants to relate
them on a covert level that facilitated quicker responding on subsequent MTS posttests
assessing the same relations. As a result, the alternating sequences of posttests can
unintentionally function as a formal prompt, which is often used to strengthen weak
intraverbal behaviors (Skinner, 1957). Thus, the purpose of Experiment 3 was to
evaluate whether the juxtaposition of MTS and intraverbal posttests was affecting the
emergence of derived intraverbal relations and equivalence classes, as well as response
latency by administering all MTS posttests prior to intraverbal tests and vice versa
following tact training, listener testing, and intraverbal training only.
70
Chapter 4
EXPERIMENT 3
Method
Participants, Setting and Materials
Participants included one male (P12) and three female (P11, P13, and P14)
undergraduate students from CSUS, between the ages of 23 and 31 (see Table 1), and
were recruited based on the same criteria as specified in Experiment 1. All participants
were given extra credit for an upper-division psychology course upon completion of the
study. Settings and materials were identical to those described in Experiment 1.
Dependent Measures and Experimental Design
A two-tier non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants (Watson &
Workman, 1981) was used to evaluate the emergence of derived relations. Mastery,
passing, and emergence criteria for each condition were the same as Experiment 1 (see
Table 3).
Interobserver agreement (IOA) and treatment integrity (TI) data were also
collected as detailed in Experiment 1. Each participant’s IOA percentage and range as
well as TI mean and range are shown in Table 4.
71
Procedures
All procedures were conducted as described in Experiment 1 with the exception
of the order of posttests. For P11 and P12, all MTS posttests were presented before
intraverbal tests (see Figure 21).
Figure 21. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P11 and P12.
On the contrary, P13 and P14 were exposed to intraverbal tests before MTS
posttests (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Sequence of training and testing conditions for P13 and P14.
Results and Discussion
P11 and P12
Figure 23 depicts the percentage of correct responses across MTS pre- and
posttests, listener tests, and intraverbal tests for P11 (top panel) and P12 (bottom panel).
P11 performed below chance level for all MTS pretests, AB/BC (6%), BA/CB (17%),
72
and AC/CA (33%). She reached the mastery criterion for tact training after three blocks
(81 trials) and continued on to pass the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials).
Subsequently, she met the mastery criterion for intraverbal training after three blocks (54
trials). In the posttest phase, she met passing or emergence criterion on the first block for
the AB/BC MTS (100%), BA/CB MTS (94%), AC/CA MTS (100%), BA/CB intraverbal
testing (100%), AC/CA intraverbal testing (100%), in this order. Additionally, she
passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest (100%) and correctly tacted stimuli or emitted an
intraverbal relation relevant to the stimuli presented for each trial, 100% of the time.
Cross MTS posttest data indicated a noticeably longer response latency for the first
AB/BC trial (5.27 s) when compared to the first BA/CB trial (2.65 s) and AC/CA trial
(2.28 s). There were no significant differences in latency for AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests in terms of (1) averages for each test (M = 2.12 s, M = 2.19 s, and
M = 1.67 s, respectively), and (2) across trials within the first block (see Figure 24).
73
Figure 23. Results for P11 on top panel and P12 on bottom panel. The solid diamond,
square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS tests, respectively.
The solid circle refers to the listener test. The “X” stands for the BA/CB intraverbal test
and the asterisk for the AC/CA intraverbal test.
74
Figure 24. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P11. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
Similarly, P12 also failed the AB/BC (M = 30.5% across two blocks), BA/CB (M
= 27.5% across two blocks), and AC/CA (M = 0% across two blocks) MTS pretests.
Upon completing two blocks (54 trials) of tact training, he met mastery criterion and
subsequently passed the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials). He achieved
mastery criterion for intraverbal training with three blocks (54 trials). He went on to pass
the AB/BC (100%), BA/CB (89%), and AC/CA (100%) MTS posttests and met
emergence criterion for BA/CB (89%), and AC/CA (94%) intraverbal tests. Furthermore,
P12 passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest and emitted experimentally defined tacts or
intraverbal relations in 18 out of 18 trials (100%). Cross MTS posttest first trial data
75
indicated a longer response latency for the first AC/CA trial (3.50 s) than the AB/BC trial
(2.67 s) and BA/CB trial (2.55 s). Differences in latency for P12’s AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests were negligible with regards to (1) first block averages (M = 2.52
s, M = 2.65 s, and M = 2.46 s, respectively), and (2) across trials within the block (see
Figure 25).
Figure 25. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P12. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
P13 and P14
Figure 26 depicts the percentage of correct responses across MTS pre- and
posttests, listener tests, and intraverbal tests for P13 (top panel) and P14 (bottom panel).
P13 performed below chance level for all MTS pretests, AB/BC (17%), BA/CB (39%),
76
and AC/CA (22%). She reached the mastery criterion for tact training after two blocks
(54 trials) and continued on to pass the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials).
Subsequently, she met the mastery criterion for intraverbal training after four blocks (72
trials). In the posttest phase, she met passing or emergence criterion on the first block for
BA/CB intraverbal testing (100%), AC/CA intraverbal testing (100%), AB/BC MTS
(100%), BA/CB MTS (94%), and AC/CA MTS (100%), in this order. Additionally, she
passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest (100%) and correctly tacted stimuli or emitted an
intraverbal relation relevant to the stimuli presented for each trial, 100% of the time.
Cross MTS posttest data showed a longer response latency for the first BA/CB (3.20 s)
and AC/CA (3.03 s) trials when compared with the first AB/BC (2.20 s) trial. There were
no significant differences in latency for AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests in
terms of (1) averages for each test (M = 2.20 s, M = 2.48 s, and M = 2.32 s, respectively),
and (2) across trials within the first block (see Figure 27).
77
Figure 26. Results for P13 on top panel and P14 on bottom panel. The solid diamond,
square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS tests, respectively.
The solid circle refers to the listener test. The “X” stands for the BA/CB intraverbal test
and the asterisk for the AC/CA intraverbal test.
78
Figure 27. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P13. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
P14 also failed the AB/BC (M = 5.5% across two blocks), BA/CB (M = 8.5%
across two blocks), and AC/CA (M = 0% across two blocks) MTS pretests. Upon
completing two blocks (54 trials) of tact training, she met mastery criterion and
subsequently passed the listener test (100%) on the first block (27 trials). She reached
mastery criterion for intraverbal training with 6 blocks (108 trials). On the following
posttests, she met emergence criterion for BA/CB (94%), and AC/CA (100%) intraverbal
tests and passed the AB/BC (94%), BA/CB (89%), and AC/CA (100%) MTS posttests.
Later on, P14 passed the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest and emitted the experimentally
defined tacts or intraverbal relations in 18 out of 18 trials (100%). Cross MTS posttest
79
data showed a longer response latency for the first AB/BC trial (8.15 s) when compared
with the first BA/CB (2.02 s) and AC/CA (2.92 s) trials. Latency data for P14’s AB/BC,
BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS posttests were negligible with regards to (1) first block
averages (M = 2.83 s, M = 2.49 s, and M = 1.93 s, respectively), and (2) across trials
within the block (see Figure 28).
Figure 28. Response latency in seconds across 18 trials of the first block of each MTS
posttest for P14. The diamond, square, and triangle represent the AB/BC, BA/CB, and
AC/CA MTS posttests, respectively.
Vocal Posttest and Post-Experimental Interview
Similar to Experiments 1A and 1B, none of the participants spontaneously tacted
or emitted intraverbal relations while completing the MTS posttests until instructed to do
so for the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest. P11 consistently produced two-word intraverbals
80
(e.g., “Bluebonnet, mockingbird; cardinal, dogwood”) that correlated with trial-by-trial
stimuli. P14 interspersed two-word intraverbals with lengthier self-generated links such
as, “Dogwood back to cardinal,” and “Mockingbird goes to bluebonnet.” Moreover, P14
shortened tacts so that what was supposedly, “Bluebonnet goes with mockingbird,” was
emitted as “Blue goes with mocking.” In three out of 18 trials, P12 produced intraverbals
that included the name of a state (B) when samples and comparisons were birds (A) or
flowers (C) (e.g., “Mockingbird goes to bluebonnet, as it does to Texas,” “Bluebonnet
goes to the Texas bird,” “Yellowhammer back to Alabama goes to camellia”). Likewise,
P13 generated three-word intraverbals composed of the bird (A) – state (B) – flower (C)
relation for the first five trials (e.g., “Bluebonnet, Texas, mockingbird”) which later
evolved into two-word intraverbals with tacts that corresponded with the sample and
comparison stimuli only (e.g., “Bluebonnet, mockingbird”).
All four participants reported using some form of verbal mediation during MTS
conditions in the post-experimental interview. P11 stated that she matched birds (A) and
flowers (C) by “trying to match them with colors and their names. For example, Virginia
is red and white, which is dogwood and cardinal.” P12, P13, and P14 implemented a
different strategy, they reported linking the sample with the state (B) to determine the
correct comparison (e.g., “I had more trouble pairing the bird (A) and the plant (C)
without the state as kind of a tie…I was trying to think of [the sample and comparison]
and associate them with a state,” “I brought [the bluebonnet] [C3] back to the state of
Texas [B3] and I thought of Texas having the blue flower [C3] and then the grey
81
mockingbird [A3]”). P13’s description of her strategy, “When I saw a bird, I said the
state, and then I would pick the flower. And after a few times, I would just pick the
[flower] because I remembered,” is indicative of why response latencies may be mixed
across participants throughout the study (see General Discussion).
Summary
Regardless of completing all the MTS posttests before intraverbal testing (P11
and P12) or vice versa (P13 and P14), all four participants met the passing criteria for all
three MTS posttests and the emergence criteria for both of the intraverbal tests. None of
the participants needed more than one block of the AB/BC, BA/CB, or AC/CA MTS
posttests to pass and therefore, remedial training was again, not required. Before tact
training, listener testing, and intraverbal training, all of the participants failed the AB/BC,
BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS pretests. Similar to Experiments 1A and 1B, the training
package alone was sufficient for participants to successfully match stimuli that were only
intraverbally (i.e., arbitrarily) related and derive novel intraverbal relations amongst
them.
There was no variability in participants’ performance on the AC/CA MTS posttest
and AC/CA MTS vocal posttest. All participants demonstrated 100% correct responding
on the first block of both posttests while emitting experimentally specified tacts or
intraverbal relations 100% of the time for the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest. Such results
indicate that requiring participants to produce vocalizations did not alter performance
(i.e., no improvement or deterioration). Again, like in Experiments 1A and 1B, response
82
latency across the three MTS posttests were mixed for the four participants. P11 and P14
had longer response latencies for the first trial of the AB/BC MTS posttest (5.27 s and
8.15 s) when compared to the BA/CB MTS posttest (2.65 s and 2.02 s) and AC/CA MTS
posttests (2.28 s and 2.92 s). Conversely, P12 was the only participant who spent more
time answering the first trial of the AC/CA MTS posttest (3.50 s) than the AB/BC MTS
posttest (2.67 s) and BA/CB MTS posttest (2.55 s). P13 had longer first trials latencies
for BA/CB (3.20 s) and AC/CA (3.03 s) posttests than AB/BC (2.20 s).
In Experiment 1, MTS posttests were presented in alternating fashion with
intraverbal tests (see Figures 2 and 3) and in Experiment 3, all MTS posttests were
presented before or after all intraverbal tests. The consistent lack of differentiation in
response latencies across the two studies suggests that the procedural variations did not
influence performance, refuting the previous hypothesis that presenting one task prior to
the other (e.g., a MTS posttest before intraverbal test) may have functioned as a prompt
for participants to respond correctly. Although response latency is one indicator of
whether participants may be using verbal mediation strategies, it is not an absolute datum
nor is it only a measure of covert verbal behavior (Tomanari, Sidman, Rubio, & Dube,
2006; see General Discussion).
83
Chapter 5
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current study was to assess whether training unidirectional
intraverbal relations in a statement format would be sufficient for the emergence of
symmetry and transitivity intraverbal relations and stimulus-stimulus classes. All 14
participants across the two studies demonstrated emergent target relations (i.e., BA/CB
and AC/CA) following tact training, listener testing, and AB/BC intraverbal training.
Participants only needed one block each of the three MTS posttests and intraverbal tests
to meet the passing or emergence criteria, and hence remedial training procedures were
never implemented or evaluated. More importantly, all of the participants emitted
experimentally defined or self-generated tacts or intraverbally named the correct samplecomparison pairs at some point during the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest.
These results are consistent with Horne and Lowe’s (1996) intraverbal naming
account in that participants who passed MTS posttests also demonstrated emergence of
corresponding intraverbal relations or vice versa depending on the order of posttests.
Tact training and listener testing ensured that participants had the speaker (i.e., tact the
stimulus) and listener (i.e., select a stimulus when given its dictated name) repertoires
necessary for naming. Since experimental stimuli shared no physical similarities (e.g.,
shape, size, and color) and had very different names (e.g., bluebonnet and mockingbird),
participants could only correctly match stimuli based on the intraverbal relations taught
84
during training albeit the use of different mediation strategies. With intraverbal naming,
the participant should have tacted the sample upon presentation, the response product
which evoked the corresponding intraverbal relation from training, whose response
product evoked the behavior of selecting the correct comparison stimulus. For example,
the presence of A1 should have evoked the tact, “cardinal,” and the presence of states as
comparisons should have evoked the intraverbal, “The state for cardinal (A1) is Virginia
(B1),” due to training, or simply “Virginia” (B1) due to contiguous usage (Skinner,
1957), and the selection of B1 from the comparison array.
Alternatively, exposure to visual stimuli during MTS pretests, tact training, and
listener testing may have facilitated the use of visual imaging as a mediation strategy.
Skinner (1974) reasoned that “[w]e may…see a thing in its absence, not because we are
immediately reinforced when we do so, but because we are then able to engage in
behavior which is subsequently reinforced” (p. 92). For example, a study by Kisamore et
al. (2011) found that when prompted to use visual imaging as a mediation strategy for an
intraverbal categorization task, 4 to 5 year old children were able to respond to questions
such as, “What are some animals?” more accurately than without the strategy. With
regards to the current study, intraverbal training consisted of repeated verbal pairings of
stimuli which may have established compound visual images (e.g., A1B1) that mediated
responding. Exposure to pretests may have primed participants to learn the relations and
hence practicing visual imaging would produce delayed reinforcement during posttests.
Reinforcement following a correct intraverbal response may have also reinforced any
85
concurrent use of visual imaging strategies, strengthening it as a mediation strategy. For
instance, the intraverbal relation, “The flower for Virginia (B1) is ___,” evoked an image
of B1C1 and “seeing” C1 (i.e., dogwood) led to participants correctly responding with,
“dogwood.” Praise provided for the correct intraverbal response would have thus
inadvertently reinforced engaging in visual imaging simultaneously. Therefore, while
initial performance was produced via verbal behavior training alone, participants did not
necessarily have to utilize a verbal mediation strategy to pass posttests.
The undifferentiated response latencies across AB/BC, BA/CB, and AC/CA MTS
posttests are potentially inconsistent with previous studies examining the emergence of
intraverbal relations following MTS training (e.g., Bentall et al., 1993; Carp, 2012). Six
participants (P2, P6, P8, P10, P11, and P14) had longer latencies for the first trial of the
AB/BC MTS posttest. Four other participants (P3, P5, P9, and P12) spent noticeably
more time on the first trial of the AC/CA MTS posttest. P13 was the only participant
who had longer latencies for the first trials for BA/CB and AC/CA posttests when
compared to the AB/BC posttest. The remaining three participants (P1, P4, and P7) had
similar latencies on the first trial across the three MTS posttests. Findings from
Experiment 2 indicated that replacing the review prior to posttests with verbal
instructions specifying the experimental conditions of posttests (i.e., no programmed
consequences until the end of five different posttests) was sufficient for participants to
maintain accuracy in responding and meet passing or emergence criterion. However, it
did not prevent conflicting response latencies across participants. Furthermore,
86
Experiment 3 results demonstrated that alternating MTS and corresponding intraverbal
posttests did not influence response latency on MTS posttests.
Although previous studies have found that response latencies for derived relations
(i.e., symmetry and transitivity) are longer than baseline relations (i.e., taught relations;
e.g., Bentall et al., 1993), it is only inferred that the difference is due to covert verbal
behavior (Bentall, Jones, & Dickins, 1998). Alternatively, latency may be an indicator of
how substitutable stimuli are for each other and a measure of how similar stimuli are to
each other within a class (Fields, Adams, Verhave, & Newman, 1990; Fields, LandonJimenez, Buffington, & Adams, 1995). Therefore, while only four (P3, P5, P9, and P12)
of 14 participants (29%) in the current study reproduced shorter latencies for baseline
relations and longer ones for derived relations, it does not conclusively refute the
possibility that participants utilized some form of verbal mediation to pass posttests. Six
(P2, P6, P8, P10, P11, and P14) of 14 participants (43%) spent more time matching
stimuli in accordance with baseline relations (AB/BC) than derived relations (BA/CB and
AC/CA) on the first trials and thus suggests that verbal mediation may have been
necessary in the beginning, but exposure to experimental conditions in the AB/BC MTS
posttest may have facilitated the use of more time-effective mediation strategies (e.g.,
visual imaging) for BA/CB and AC/CA MTS posttests.
Verbal Mediation
None of the participants spontaneously emitted experimental tacts or intraverbals
during any of the MTS posttests until given specific instructions to do so for the AC/CA
87
vocal MTS posttest. Yet it is important to take into account the timing of the AC/CA
vocal MTS posttest in relation to exposure to the experimental conditions. Since all
participants passed all the MTS posttests with the first block, it would mean that they
were all exposed to a minimum of 54 MTS trials. It is possible that the selection
response was initially under the control of verbal behavior, but after numerous trials, it
eventually came under the control of other contextual stimuli (e.g., physical
characteristics; Hayes, White, & Bissett, 1998). Latency data from P2, P6, P8, P10, P11,
and P14 seems to support this speculation. Hence the verbal mediation strategy used
during the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest may not have aligned with performance for that
particular block, but for initial blocks. For example, following the researcher presenting
the instruction to “think out loud,” P5 stated, “If I do that, I can’t think,” suggesting that
verbal mediation may have receded in magnitude (Skinner, 1957) to the point where the
selection response may be considered “unconscious” behavior (Skinner, 1971).
Moreover, P9 initially emitted experimentally specified tacts and intraverbals for the first
7 trials and then produced self-generated tacts and intraverbals such as, “Red goes with
white,” indicating that the selection response, while initially under the control of the
experimentally defined intraverbal relations, evolved over trials to be under the control of
physical characteristics of stimuli. Similarly, P13 reported that, “In the beginning when I
saw a bird, I said the state. Then I would pick the flower for that state. And then after a
few times, I would just pick the [flower] because I remembered,” in the postexperimental interview. Given that the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest occurred after 18-
88
trials of the standard block of AC/CA MTS posttest (i.e., no instruction to vocalize), it is
very likely that participants no longer needed to engage in verbal mediation to meet the
passing criteria, but emitted vocalizations due to the instruction.
Nonetheless, the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest allowed researchers to potentially
access covert verbal mediation strategies, such as intraverbal naming. For example,
during the AC/CA MTS posttest without instructions to vocalize, the presence of A3 may
have evoked the covert tact, “mockingbird,” the product of which evoked the covert
intraverbal, “bluebonnet,” and the subsequent selection the correct corresponding
stimulus, C3. The following AC/CA MTS vocal posttest made this covert verbal
mediation process overt and measureable.
To ensure that test performance was
governed or controlled by verbal behavior and not other factors (e.g., reactivity), the
AC/CA vocal posttest was strategically designed to adhere to one of three control
measures for verbal reports in accordance with the silent dog method (Hayes et al., 1998).
Aside from P10, the other 13 participants who passed the AC/CA MTS posttest without
vocalizations went on to pass the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest with the same, if not better
scores. Such results are consistent with the silent dog methodology (Hayes et al., 1998)
in which performance on the same task under specific instructions to vocalize or not to
vocalize should produce identical results because the experimental contingencies are the
same. Vocal posttest data, when contrasted with post-experimental interview data, is
more accurate because responses in the latter are under the control of different variables
(Lima & Abreu-Rodrigues, 2010). Therefore, participants’ concurrent vocalizations
89
during the terminal AC/CA MTS vocal posttest can be considered an accurate reflection
of their covert verbal mediation strategy at some point during MTS posttests.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations that warrant attention and provide guidance for
future research.
First, the way pre-training was conducted may have primed participants to utilize
intraverbal relations on MTS tests. During pre-training, participants were trained to tact,
select stimuli upon hearing a dictated name, recite intraverbal relations, and complete a
MTS condition for two 3-member classes, animals (A) and fruits (B) (see Figure 4). The
intraverbal relations were arbitrary in that they put together an animal and fruit that
shared no physical similarities such as, “The fruit for pig is orange” (see Table 5). The
subsequent MTS condition presented animals (A) as samples across trials and fruits (B)
as comparisons. In order to meet the mastery criterion, participants had to match
according to the trained intraverbal relations, which all participants did without explicit
instruction. To avoid the possibility of prematurely exposing participants to experimental
variables, but still provide an opportunity to familiarize them with the different training
and testing procedures, future replications should consider using various stimuli for each
of the pre-training conditions (e.g., animals for tact, vehicles for listener, colors for
intraverbal, and food groups for MTS).
Second, the current study failed to replicate response latency patterns found in
previous research on intraverbal naming, but this may be in part attributable to the
90
training procedure, structure, or paradigm. Intraverbal training was conducted in blocks
with mixed AB and BC relations. While not frequent, adjacent intraverbal relations
exposed the bird (A) – flower (B) – state (C) relation (e.g., The state for cardinal is
Virginia. The flower for Virginia is dogwood). In version 1 of the AB/BC Intraverbal
Training (see Appendix D), the following relations were presented in sequential order
once: (1) B1C1, A1B1, and (2) B2C2, A2B2. For version 2 (see Appendix D), (1) B2C2,
A2B2, (2) B2C2, A2B2, B2C2, (3) B3C3, A3B3, (4) A3B3, B3C3, (5) B1C1, A1B1, and
(6) A1B1, B1C1, appeared in conjunction with each other once. It is possible that these
consecutive presentations of AB and BC relations facilitated the formation of equivalence
classes due to direct reinforcement contingencies rather than intraverbal naming.
Accordingly, Sidman (2000) proposed that stimuli (i.e., SDs, responses, and
reinforcement) not shared between two otherwise identical contingencies may enter the
same equivalence class. For instance, given the intraverbal relations “The state for
cardinal (A1) is Virginia (B1)” and “The flower for Virginia (B1) is dogwood (C1),” and
praise during training, all stimuli “drop out of the equivalence relation” (p. 132) with the
exception of cardinal (A1) and dogwood (C1). At this point, both cardinal (A1) and
dogwood (C1), the two stimuli in the transitivity relation, can interchangeably function as
an SD or response and hence response latencies would be undifferentiated across baseline,
symmetry, and transitivity relations.
A similar confound exists for the AC/CA intraverbal test (see Appendix F), where
same member AC and CA relations (e.g., A1C1 and C1A1) were presented adjacent to
91
each other (twice in version 1 and three times in version 2). The rationale for using a
linear series training structure (i.e., AB and BC) was that it allowed for the separation and
hence evaluation of pure transitivity and pure equivalence relations (Carp, 2012). Given
AB and BC as baseline relations, transitivity consists of deriving the AC relation and an
equivalence relation is the combined product of transitivity and symmetry (i.e., CA;
Fields & Verhave, 1987). Administering an equivalence trial immediately following a
transitivity trial with same class members is problematic because it becomes unclear
whether the prior trial prompted the subsequent trial, or if symmetry or equivalence was
tested, with the prior producing shorter latencies than the latter. Thus, future research
should control for these two potential extraneous variables by (1) segregating baseline
relations (i.e., AB and BC) during training by conducting AB training blocks, then BC
training blocks, instead of mixed AB/BC training blocks, (2) conducting mixed training,
but assigning topographically dissimilar reinforcement for different relations (e.g., praise
for AB relations and tokens for BA relations; Johnson, 2012), and (3) conducting
separate tests for transitivity and equivalence relations or mixing BA/CB with AC/CA
relations in the same block to see if it would affect response latency.
Perhaps a more pertinent consideration is that previous research measuring
response latency trained baseline relations with a MTS paradigm and then assessed for
the emergence of intraverbal relations (e.g., Bentall et al., 1993; Carp, 2012), whereas the
current study trained baseline intraverbal relations and then tested for the derivation of
novel intraverbal and stimulus-stimulus relations. Consequently, it is possible that
92
differentiated response latency patterns were not replicated due to the training paradigm.
For example, Bentall et al. (1998) utilized a MTS paradigm with a LS training structure
to teach 20 undergraduate students six arbitrary five-member classes. Data from
symmetry and transitivity MTS tests indicated that latency decreased as the tests
progressed. If latency is indeed an indirect measure of covert verbal mediation, as the
authors suggested, this would mean that the need to engage in verbal behavior as a
problem solving strategy may be drastically reduced after numerous repetitions, either
due to a transfer of stimulus control to physical aspects of experimental stimuli or other
factors. If this speculation is valid, it may help explain the lack of response latency
differentiation in the current study. Participants were instructed to emit target intraverbal
relations, which later potentially served as a verbal mediation strategy for MTS tests,
multiple times during the training (M = 86 trials, range 36 to 198 trials across
participants). This repetition and prior exposure to experimental stimuli during tact
training and listener testing made it possible for participants to engage in other covert
mediation strategies, such as visual imaging, that may have facilitated a transfer of
stimulus control to aspects such as physical characteristics of experimental stimuli,
allowing participants to complete MTS tests without engaging in verbal mediation. The
elimination of verbal mediation would account for similar response latencies across
baseline, symmetry, and transitivity MTS trials. Five (P2, P5, P6, P9, and P11) of the 14
participants’ vocalizations in the AC/CA MTS vocal posttest and post-experimental
interview showed that their responses may have been under the control of color.
93
Correspondingly, future studies should conduct tact training with multiple exemplars
(e.g., color vs. black and white pictures, single vs. multiple flowers, various perspectives,
line drawings, etc.), and use novel same-class exemplars (e.g., a mockingbird that was
not included in training) during posttests so that it would be more difficult for a specific
characteristic (e.g., color) to acquire control over responding, making it less effortful to
engage in intraverbal naming.
Also, it may be worthwhile to examine the potential of implementing a limited
hold on response latency. Tomanari, Sidman, Rubio, and Dube (2006) utilized a MTS
paradigm to teach five participants (ages 19-32 years) baseline relations (AB and AC)
with an OTM training structure. Derived relations MTS test conditions included a 0.40.5 s limited hold for samples and 1.2-1.3 s for comparisons. Despite this time limitation,
three participants met emergence criteria and mean latencies were differentiated for
baseline (shortest), symmetry, and transitivity (longest) relations. With such a short
limited hold, it would be fairly impossible to engage in any form of verbal mediation, and
such findings weaken the notion of verbal mediation as a problem solving strategy.
Artnzen and Haugland (2012) conducted a similar study, manipulating the limited hold
for five participants (ages 24 to 63 years). After meeting mastery criteria for baseline
relations in a MTS format with a 1.2 s limited hold, four participants failed to reach the
emergence criteria on derived relations tests with a 2.5 s limited hold, while maintaining
undifferentiated latencies across tested relations. These results replicate a previous study
conducted by Holth and Arntzen (2000), where all participants failed to demonstrate the
94
emergence of equivalence when a 2 s limited hold on reaction time was specified.
Collaboratively, the results of these two studies strengthen the notion of verbal mediation
because the failures indicate that the limited hold may have restricted the occurrence of
precurrent behaviors (Holth & Arntzen, 2000), such as intraverbal naming, that would
have mediated correct responding. If the behavior of selecting the correct comparison
stimulus was completely under the control of the sample stimulus, then more participants
should have demonstrated the emergence of novel relations, regardless of the limited
hold. However, because these two studies trained baseline relations using a MTS
paradigm, it is unclear whether participants engaged in any form of verbal behavior, and
if so, whether latency was an indicator of it. The current study taught baseline relations
with intraverbals, a potential verbal mediation strategy, hence a replication of the training
procedure with an added limited hold for MTS tests may provide another avenue for
measuring covert verbal behavior.
Lastly, response latency has been found to be directly related to nodal distance
such that the more nodes there are between stimuli, the longer the latency (Bentall et al.,
1998; Dymond & Rehfeldt, 2000; Fields et al., 2012). A potential explanation for this
phenomenon is that nodes are separated by verbal links (Bentall et al., 1993), so that for a
3-member relation, two links (i.e., AB and BC) are required to determine transitive
relations (i.e., AC) and these verbal links are what makes up for differences in latency.
Previous research demonstrating response latency differentiations have utilized arbitrary
stimuli (Arntzen & Nikolaisen, 2011) forming more than three classes with three
95
members each (e.g., Bentall et al., 1998; Fields et al., 2012; Wulfert & Hayes, 1988) and
studies using arbitrary three 3-member classes have found minimal to no differences
(e.g., Arntzen & Haugland, 2012). Accordingly, future research on teaching intraverbal
relations to establish equivalence classes should include expanded members and hence
nodal distances (e.g., five-member classes result in three-node equivalence classes) with
arbitrary stimuli to detect more robust differences in response latency.
Third, the purpose of Experiment 2 was to eliminate extraneous exposure to
visual stimuli by removing the review phase following training. Future studies can
further decrease exposing participants to experimental stimuli during training by omitting
listener testing. If participants fail any of the posttests following tact and intraverbal
training, listener testing can be implemented to determine if participants have naming.
Fourth, the training package included AB/BC intraverbal training only. To better
understand how intraverbal relations exert control over responding, future research can
train one relation across same members of different classes (e.g., A1B1 and B1C1), test
for performance on relevant intraverbal and MTS posttests, and then train another
relation across different members of different classes (e.g., A1B2, B1C2), to assess how
participants perform on the subsequent posttest. If responding is controlled by
intraverbal relations and not by extraneous factors (e.g., physical similarity), then
responses on subsequent MTS and intraverbal posttests should change according to the
most recently trained intraverbal relations.
96
Fifth, similar to the study conducted by Santos et al. (2013), intraverbal naming
was not evaluated as a remedial intervention because all participants passed or met
emergence criterion on posttests following initial training. Perhaps future research
assessing intraverbal naming with other populations (e.g., children) may find it necessary
to implement and empirically validate it as an independent teaching strategy.
Clinical Implications
The current study provided preliminary evidence supporting the efficiency of
teaching unidirectional intraverbal relations to promote the emergence of novel
intraverbal relations and stimulus-stimulus equivalence classes. Although the debate of
whether verbal behavior is necessary for the formation of equivalence classes persists
(e.g., Sidman, 2000; Hayes, 1996; Horne & Lowe, 1996), if empirical evidence
demonstrates that verbal behavior as a supplemental strategy for teaching conditional
discrimination can accelerate acquisition rates and generate novel relations, then it may
be an efficient technology to use, especially with individuals with limited repertoires.
However, further analyses with the aforementioned recommendations for future research
and with different populations (e.g., children with and without developmental disorders)
are necessary to verify the efficacy of the intraverbal training procedure and whether it is
premature to assume that teaching a prerequisite skill is sufficient for the formation of
novel verbal behaviors and establishment of equivalence classes.
97
APPENDIX A: MTS Testing and Training Datasheets
AB/BC MTS Pre/Post (circle one)
Coding:
Mastery:
V1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Pretest = 1 or 2 18-trial block(s) at <50%
Posttest = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18) [2 attempts]
S
Alabama
Cardinal
Texas
Alabama
Mockingbird
Virginia
Texas
Yellowhammer
Mockingbird
Virginia
Cardinal
Mockingbird
Virginia
Alabama
Yellowhammer
Cardinal
Texas
Yellowhammer
B2
A1
B3
B2
A3
B1
B3
A2
A3
B1
A1
A3
B1
B2
A2
A1
B3
A2
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
L
C1
B1
C3
C2
B2
C2
C1
B1
B3
C3
B2
B1
C1
C3
B3
B3
C2
B2
M
C2
B2
C1
C3
B3
C3
C2
B2
B1
C1
B3
B2
C2
C1
B1
B1
C3
B3
1
R
C3
B3
C2
C1
B1
C1
C3
B3
B2
C2
B1
B3
C3
C2
B2
B2
C1
B1
T
I
L
C1
B1
C3
C2
B2
C2
C1
B1
B3
C3
B2
B1
C1
C3
B3
B3
C2
B2
M
C2
B2
C1
C3
B3
C3
C2
B2
B1
C1
B3
B2
C2
C1
B1
B1
C3
B3
3
R
C3
B3
C2
C1
B1
C1
C3
B3
B2
C2
B1
B3
C3
C2
B2
B2
C1
B1
T
I
98
AB/BC MTS Pre/Post (circle one)
Coding:
Mastery:
V2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Pretest = 1 or 2 18-trial block(s) at <50%
Posttest = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18) [2 attempts]
S
Alabama
Yellowhammer
Cardinal
Texas
Mockingbird
Virginia
Cardinal
Texas
Virginia
Yellowhammer
Mockingbird
Alabama
Yellowhammer
Alabama
Mockingbird
Texas
Cardinal
Virginia
B2
A2
A1
B3
A3
B1
A1
B3
B1
A2
A3
B2
A2
B2
A3
B3
A1
B1
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
L
C1
B2
B3
C3
B1
C2
B1
C1
C3
B3
B2
C2
B1
C3
B3
C2
B2
C1
M
C2
B3
B1
C1
B2
C3
B2
C2
C1
B1
B3
C3
B2
C1
B1
C3
B3
C2
2
R
C3
B1
B2
C2
B3
C1
B3
C3
C2
B2
B1
C1
B3
C2
B2
C1
B1
C3
T
I
L
C1
B2
B3
C3
B1
C2
B1
C1
C3
B3
B2
C2
B1
C3
B3
C2
B2
C1
M
C2
B3
B1
C1
B2
C3
B2
C2
C1
B1
B3
C3
B2
C1
B1
C3
B3
C2
4
R
C3
B1
B2
C2
B3
C1
B3
C3
C2
B2
B1
C1
B3
C2
B2
C1
B1
C3
T
I
99
BA/CB MTS Pre/Post (circle one)
Coding:
Mastery:
V1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Pretest = 1 or 2 18-trial block(s) at <50%
Posttest = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18) [2 attempts]
S
Alabama
Dogwood
Bluebonnet
Texas
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Texas
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Dogwood
Alabama
Camellia
Alabama
Texas
Dogwood
Virginia
Camellia
B2
C1
C3
B3
B1
C3
B3
C2
B1
C3
C1
B2
C2
B2
B3
C1
B1
C2
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
L
A1
B2
B2
A3
A2
B1
A1
B1
A3
B3
B3
A2
B2
A3
A2
B1
A1
B3
M
A2
B3
B3
A1
A3
B2
A2
B2
A1
B1
B1
A3
B3
A1
A3
B2
A2
B1
1
R
A3
B1
B1
A2
A1
B3
A3
B3
A2
B2
B2
A1
B1
A2
A1
B3
A3
B2
T
I
L
A1
B2
B2
A3
A2
B1
A1
B1
A3
B3
B3
A2
B2
A3
A2
B1
A1
B3
M
A2
B3
B3
A1
A3
B2
A2
B2
A1
B1
B1
A3
B3
A1
A3
B2
A2
B1
3
R
A3
B1
B1
A2
A1
B3
A3
B3
A2
B2
B2
A1
B1
A2
A1
B3
A3
B2
T
I
100
BA/CB MTS Pre/Post (circle one)
Coding:
Mastery:
V2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Pretest = 1 or 2 18-trial block(s) at <50%
Posttest = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18) [2 attempts]
S
Bluebonnet
Alabama
Texas
Alabama
Dogwood
Camellia
Virginia
Texas
Dogwood
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Alabama
Texas
Dogwood
C3
B2
B3
B2
C1
C2
B1
B3
C1
C2
B1
C3
C2
B1
C3
B2
B3
C1
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
L
B1
A1
A3
A2
B3
B2
A2
A1
B1
B3
A3
B2
B1
A1
B3
A3
A2
B2
M
B2
A2
A1
A3
B1
B3
A3
A2
B2
B1
A1
B3
B2
A2
B1
A1
A3
B3
2
R
B3
A3
A2
A1
B2
B1
A1
A3
B3
B2
A2
B1
B3
A3
B2
A2
A1
B1
T
I
L
B1
A1
A3
A2
B3
B2
A2
A1
B1
B3
A3
B2
B1
A1
B3
A3
A2
B2
M
B2
A2
A1
A3
B1
B3
A3
A2
B2
B1
A1
B3
B2
A2
B1
A1
A3
B3
4
R
B3
A3
A2
A1
B2
B1
A1
A3
B3
B2
A2
B1
B3
A3
B2
A2
A1
B1
T
I
101
AC/CA MTS Pre/Post (circle one)
Coding:
Mastery:
V1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Pretest = 1 or 2 18-trial block(s) at <50%
Posttest = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18) [2 attempts]
S
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Camellia
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Camellia
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Mockingbird
Camellia
Bluebonnet
Yellowhammer
Cardinal
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
C3
A1
C1
A3
C2
A2
C1
A3
C2
C3
A1
A3
C2
C3
A2
A1
A2
C1
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
L
A1
C1
A3
C2
A2
C1
A1
C3
A3
A2
C2
C1
A1
A3
C3
C3
C2
A2
M
A2
C2
A1
C3
A3
C2
A2
C1
A1
A3
C3
C2
A2
A1
C1
C1
C3
A3
1
R
A3
C3
A2
C1
A1
C3
A3
C2
A2
A1
C1
C3
A3
A2
C2
C2
C1
A1
T
I
L
A1
C1
A3
C2
A2
C1
A1
C3
A3
A2
C2
C1
A1
A3
C3
C3
C2
A2
M
A2
C2
A1
C3
A3
C2
A2
C1
A1
A3
C3
C2
A2
A1
C1
C1
C3
A3
3
R
A3
C3
A2
C1
A1
C3
A3
C2
A2
A1
C1
C3
A3
A2
C2
C2
C1
A1
T
I
102
AC/CA MTS Pre/Post (circle one)
Coding:
Mastery:
V2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Pretest = 1 or 2 18-trial block(s) at <50%
Posttest = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18) [2 attempts]
S
Dogwood
Yellowhammer
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Mockingbird
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Camellia
Bluebonnet
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Camellia
Yellowhammer
Mockingbird
Dogwood
Cardinal
Camellia
C1
A2
C3
A1
A3
C3
A1
C2
C3
A2
C1
A3
C2
A2
A3
C1
A1
C2
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
L
A2
C2
A2
C3
C1
A1
C1
A1
A3
C3
A3
C2
A2
C1
C3
A1
C2
A3
M
A3
C3
A3
C1
C2
A2
C2
A2
A1
C1
A1
C3
A3
C2
C1
A2
C3
A1
2
R
A1
C1
A1
C2
C3
A3
C3
A3
A2
C2
A2
C1
A1
C3
C2
A3
C1
A2
T
I
L
A2
C2
A2
C3
C1
A1
C1
A1
A3
C3
A3
C2
A2
C1
C3
A1
C2
A3
M
A3
C3
A3
C1
C2
A2
C2
A2
A1
C1
A1
C3
A3
C2
C1
A2
C3
A1
4
R
A1
C1
A1
C2
C3
A3
C3
A3
A2
C2
A2
C1
A1
C3
C2
A3
C1
A2
T
I
103
APPENDIX B: Tact Training and Review Datasheets
Tact Training/Review (circle one)
Participant:___ Date: __/__/2013
Coding: [+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Mastery: Training = 1 27-trial block at 100%
Review = 1 27-trial block at 100%
V1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
S
Alabama
Dogwood
Yellowhammer
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Texas
Mockingbird
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Texas
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Alabama
Camellia
Yellowhammer
Alabama
Mockingbird
Texas
Dogwood
Cardinal
Virginia
Camellia
1
B2
C1
A2
C3
A1
B3
A3
B1
C3
A1
B3
C2
B1
C3
A2
C1
A3
B2
C2
A2
B2
A3
B3
C1
A1
B1
C2
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
3
5
7
9
104
Tact Training/Review (circle one)
Participant:___ Date: __/__/2013
Coding: [+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Mastery: Training = 1 27-trial block at 100%
Review = 1 27-trial block at 100%
V2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
S
Bluebonnet
Alabama
Cardinal
Texas
Alabama
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Camellia
Virginia
Texas
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Mockingbird
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Alabama
Yellowhammer
Cardinal
Texas
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
C3
B2
A1
B3
B2
C1
A3
C2
B1
B3
A2
C1
A3
C2
B1
C3
A1
A3
C2
B1
C3
B2
A2
A1
B3
A2
C1
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
2
4
6
8
10
105
APPENDIX C: Listener Testing, Training, and Review Datasheets
Listener Testing/Training/Review (circle one)
Coding:
Mastery:
V1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Testing = 1 27-trial block at 100% [2 attempts]
Training = 1 27-trial block at 100% Review = 1 27-trial block at 100%
S
Bluebonnet
Alabama
Cardinal
Texas
Alabama
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Camellia
Virginia
Texas
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Mockingbird
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Alabama
Yellowhammer
Cardinal
Texas
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
C3
B2
A1
B3
B2
C1
A3
C2
B1
B3
A2
C1
A3
C2
B1
C3
A1
A3
C2
B1
C3
B2
A2
A1
B3
A2
C1
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
L
C1
B1
A1
B3
B2
C3
A2
C2
B2
B1
A1
C1
A3
C3
B3
C2
A2
A1
C1
B1
C3
B3
A3
A3
B2
A2
C2
1
M
C2
B2
A2
B1
B3
C1
A3
C3
B3
B2
A2
C2
A1
C1
B1
C3
A3
A2
C2
B2
C1
B1
A1
A1
B3
A3
C3
R
C3
B3
A3
B2
B1
C2
A1
C1
B1
B3
A3
C3
A2
C2
B2
C1
A1
A3
C3
B3
C2
B2
A2
A2
B1
A1
C1
L
C1
B1
A1
B3
B2
C3
A2
C2
B2
B1
A1
C1
A3
C3
B3
C2
A2
A1
C1
B1
C3
B3
A3
A3
B2
A2
C2
3
M
C2
B2
A2
B1
B3
C1
A3
C3
B3
B2
A2
C2
A1
C1
B1
C3
A3
A2
C2
B2
C1
B1
A1
A1
B3
A3
C3
R
C3
B3
A3
B2
B1
C2
A1
C1
B1
B3
A3
C3
A2
C2
B2
C1
A1
A3
C3
B3
C2
B2
A2
A2
B1
A1
C1
L
C1
B1
A1
B3
B2
C3
A2
C2
B2
B1
A1
C1
A3
C3
B3
C2
A2
A1
C1
B1
C3
B3
A3
A3
B2
A2
C2
5
M
C2
B2
A2
B1
B3
C1
A3
C3
B3
B2
A2
C2
A1
C1
B1
C3
A3
A2
C2
B2
C1
B1
A1
A1
B3
A3
C3
R
C3
B3
A3
B2
B1
C2
A1
C1
B1
B3
A3
C3
A2
C2
B2
C1
A1
A3
C3
B3
C2
B2
A2
A2
B1
A1
C1
106
Listener Testing/Training/Review (circle one)
Coding:
Mastery:
V2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Testing = 1 27-trial block at 100% [2 attempts]
Training = 1 27-trial block at 100% Review = 1 27-trial block at 100%
S
Alabama
Dogwood
Yellowhammer
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Texas
Mockingbird
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Cardinal
Texas
Camellia
Virginia
Bluebonnet
Yellowhammer
Dogwood
Mockingbird
Alabama
Camellia
Yellowhammer
Alabama
Mockingbird
Texas
Dogwood
Cardinal
Virginia
Camellia
B2
C1
A2
C3
A1
B3
A3
B1
C3
A1
B3
C2
B1
C3
A2
C1
A3
B2
C2
A2
B2
A3
B3
C1
A1
B1
C2
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
L
B1
C2
A2
C2
A3
B3
A1
B2
C1
A1
B1
C1
B3
C3
A3
C3
A2
B2
C2
A1
B3
A3
B2
C1
A2
B1
C3
2
M
B2
C3
A3
C3
A1
B1
A2
B3
C2
A2
B2
C2
B1
C1
A1
C1
A3
B3
C3
A2
B1
A1
B3
C2
A3
B2
C1
R
B3
C1
A1
C1
A2
B2
A3
B1
C3
A3
B3
C3
B2
C2
A2
C2
A1
B1
C1
A3
B2
A2
B1
C3
A1
B3
C2
L
B1
C2
A2
C2
A3
B3
A1
B2
C1
A1
B1
C1
B3
C3
A3
C3
A2
B2
C2
A1
B3
A3
B2
C1
A2
B1
C3
4
M
B2
C3
A3
C3
A1
B1
A2
B3
C2
A2
B2
C2
B1
C1
A1
C1
A3
B3
C3
A2
B1
A1
B3
C2
A3
B2
C1
R
B3
C1
A1
C1
A2
B2
A3
B1
C3
A3
B3
C3
B2
C2
A2
C2
A1
B1
C1
A3
B2
A2
B1
C3
A1
B3
C2
L
B1
C2
A2
C2
A3
B3
A1
B2
C1
A1
B1
C1
B3
C3
A3
C3
A2
B2
C2
A1
B3
A3
B2
C1
A2
B1
C3
6
M
B2
C3
A3
C3
A1
B1
A2
B3
C2
A2
B2
C2
B1
C1
A1
C1
A3
B3
C3
A2
B1
A1
B3
C2
A3
B2
C1
R
B3
C1
A1
C1
A2
B2
A3
B1
C3
A3
B3
C3
B2
C2
A2
C2
A1
B1
C1
A3
B2
A2
B1
C3
A1
B3
C2
107
APPENDIX D: AB/BC Intraverbal Training Datasheets
AB/BC Intraverbal Training/Review (circle one) Participant#:___ Date: __/__/2013
Coding: [+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Mastery:
Training = 1 18-trial block at 100% Review = 1 18-trial block at 100%
Testing = 1 18-trial block > 89% (16 out of 18)
V1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
S
The flower for Alabama is camellia.
B2C2
The state for cardinal is Virginia.
A1B1
The flower for Texas is bluebonnet.
B3C3
The flower for Alabama is camellia.
B2C2
The state for mockingbird is Texas.
A3B3
The flower for Virginia is dogwood.
B1C1
The flower for Texas is bluebonnet.
B3C3
The state for yellowhammer is Alabama.
A2B2
The state for mockingbird is Texas.
A3B3
The flower for Virginia is dogwood.
B1C1
The state for cardinal is Virginia.
A1B1
The state for mockingbird is Texas.
A3B3
The flower for Virginia is dogwood.
B1C1
The flower for Alabama is camellia.
B2C2
The state for yellowhammer is Alabama.
A2B2
The state for cardinal is Virginia.
A1B1
The flower for Texas is bluebonnet.
B3C3
The state for yellowhammer is Alabama.
A2B2
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
1
3
5
108
AB/BC Intraverbal Training/Review (circle one) Participant#:___ Date: __/__/2013
Coding: [+] correct unprompted
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Mastery:
Training = 1 18-trial block at 100% Review = 1 18-trial block at 100%
Testing = 1 18-trial block > 89% (16 out of 18)
V2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
S
The flower for Alabama is camellia.
B2C2
The state for yellowhammer is Alabama.
A2B2
The state for cardinal is Virginia.
A1B1
The flower for Texas is bluebonnet.
B3C3
The state for mockingbird is Texas.
A3B3
The flower for Virginia is dogwood.
B1C1
The state for cardinal is Virginia.
A1B1
The flower for Texas is bluebonnet.
B3C3
The flower for Virginia is dogwood.
B1C1
The state for yellowhammer is Alabama.
A2B2
The state for mockingbird is Texas.
A3B3
The flower for Alabama is camellia.
B2C2
The state for yellowhammer is Alabama.
A2B2
The flower for Alabama is camellia.
B2C2
The state for mockingbird is Texas.
A3B3
The flower for Texas is bluebonnet.
B3C3
The state for cardinal is Virginia.
A1B1
The flower for Virginia is dogwood.
B1C1
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
2
4
6
109
APPENDIX E: BA/CB Intraverbal Testing Datasheets
BA/CB Intraverbal Testing
Coding:
Mastery:
V1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Training = 1 18-trial block at 100% Review = 1 18-trial block at 100%
Testing = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18)
S
The bird for Alabama is yellowhammer.
B2A2
The state for dogwood is Virginia.
C1B1
The state for bluebonnet is Texas.
C3B3
The bird for Texas is mockingbird.
B3A3
The bird for Virginia is cardinal.
B1A1
The state for bluebonnet is Texas.
C3B3
The bird for Texas is mockingbird.
B3A3
The state for camellia is Alabama.
C2B2
The bird for Virginia is cardinal.
B1A1
The state for bluebonnet is Texas.
C3B3
The state for dogwood is Virginia.
C1B1
The bird for Alabama is yellowhammer.
B2A2
The state for camellia is Alabama.
C2B2
The bird for Alabama is yellowhammer.
B2A2
The bird for Texas is mockingbird.
B3A3
The state for dogwood is Virginia.
C1B1
The bird for Virginia is cardinal.
B1A1
The state for camellia is Alabama.
C2B2
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
1
3
5
110
BA/CB Intraverbal Testing
Coding:
Mastery:
V2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Training = 1 18-trial block at 100% Review = 1 18-trial block at 100%
Testing = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18)
S
The state for bluebonnet is Texas.
C3B3
The bird for Alabama is yellowhammer.
B2A2
The bird for Texas is mockingbird.
B3A3
The bird for Alabama is yellowhammer.
B2A2
The state for dogwood is Virginia.
C1B1
The state for camellia is Alabama.
C2B2
The bird for Virginia is cardinal.
B1A1
The bird for Texas is mockingbird.
B3A3
The state for dogwood is Virginia.
C1B1
The state for camellia is Alabama.
C2B2
The bird for Virginia is cardinal.
B1A1
The state for bluebonnet is Texas.
C3B3
The state for camellia is Alabama.
C2B2
The bird for Virginia is cardinal.
B1A1
The state for bluebonnet is Texas.
C3B3
The bird for Alabama is yellowhammer.
B2A2
The bird for Texas is mockingbird.
B3A3
The state for dogwood is Virginia.
C1B1
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
2
4
6
111
APPENDIX F: AC/CA Intraverbal Testing Datasheets
AC/CA Intraverbal Testing
Coding:
Mastery:
V1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Training = 1 18-trial block at 100% Review = 1 18-trial block at 100%
Testing = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18)
S
The bird for bluebonnet is mockingbird.
C3A3
The flower for cardinal is dogwood.
A1C1
The bird for dogwood is cardinal.
C1A1
The flower for mockingbird is bluebonnet. A3C3
The bird for camellia is yellowhammer.
C2A2
The flower for yellowhammer is camellia.
A2C2
The bird for dogwood is cardinal.
C1A1
The flower for mockingbird is bluebonnet. A3C3
The bird for camellia is yellowhammer.
C2A2
The bird for bluebonnet is mockingbird.
C3A3
The flower for cardinal is dogwood.
A1C1
The flower for mockingbird is bluebonnet. A3C3
The bird for camellia is yellowhammer.
C2A2
The bird for bluebonnet is mockingbird.
C3A3
The flower for yellowhammer is camellia.
A2C2
The flower for cardinal is dogwood.
A1C1
The flower for yellowhammer is camellia.
A2C2
The bird for dogwood is cardinal.
C1A1
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
1
3
5
112
AC/CA Intraverbal Testing
Coding:
Mastery:
V2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Participant #:___ Date: __/__/2013
[+] correct
[P] prompted
[-] incorrect
Training = 1 18-trial block at 100% Review = 1 18-trial block at 100%
Testing = 1 18-trial block >89% (16 out of 18)
S
The bird for dogwood is cardinal.
C1A1
The flower for yellowhammer is camellia. A2C2
The bird for bluebonnet is mockingbird.
C3A3
The flower for cardinal is dogwood.
A1C1
The flower for mockingbird is bluebonnet. A3C3
The bird for bluebonnet is mockingbird.
C3A3
The flower for cardinal is dogwood.
A1C1
The bird for camellia is yellowhammer.
C2A2
The bird for bluebonnet is mockingbird.
C3A3
The flower for yellowhammer is camellia. A2C2
The bird for dogwood is cardinal.
C1A1
The flower for mockingbird is bluebonnet. A3C3
The bird for camellia is yellowhammer.
C2A2
The flower for yellowhammer is camellia. A2C2
The flower for mockingbird is bluebonnet. A3C3
The bird for dogwood is cardinal.
C1A1
The flower for cardinal is dogwood.
A1C1
The bird for camellia is yellowhammer.
C2A2
Correct/Incorrect
% Correct
2
4
6
113
APPENDIX G: Remedial Training
Listener Training
This condition was only administered if participants failed to meet the passing
criterion for the listener testing condition (above), and was conducted in the same manner
as listener testing with three modifications. First, the experimenter pointed to the correct
comparison stimulus as soon as the three comparisons appeared on the screen for the first
nine-trials of the first block, followed by a constant 5-second prompt delay for the
remaining 18-trials and subsequent blocks. Second, all correct responses were praised
and incorrect responses resulted in error correction (i.e., gesture prompt and repeating the
trial). Third, a differential reinforcement procedure following the first correct
unprompted response (Karsten & Carr, 2009) was implemented. Sessions were
conducted in 27-trial blocks in which each of nine sample stimuli were presented three
times with the corresponding comparison stimulus presented one time each in the left,
middle, and right positions. The mastery criterion for advancing to the next condition
was set at one 27-trial block with 27 out of 27 trials (100%) of correct responding.
MTS Remedial Training
Failure to meet passing criteria on any MTS test resulted in remedial training. For
each relation tested (i.e., symmetry and transitivity), remedial training was divided into
multiple phases. The mastery criteria for each remedial phase were set at one 9-trial
block at 9 out of 9 (100%) correct responses. After meeting the mastery criterion for one
of the remedial phases, participants returned to the relevant MTS test. If participants
114
passed the MTS test, they advanced to the next condition in the study. If participants
failed the MTS test, the experimenter implemented the next remedial phase.
Remedial AB/BC training. The following remedial phases were implemented if
participants failed the AB/BC MTS posttest.
Phase 1. The purpose of this phase was to teach participants to tact the sample
stimulus before selecting a comparison stimulus for each trial of the MTS test, the first
step in using intraverbal naming as a verbal mediation strategy. The tact should evoke
the intraverbal relation which in turn leads to the selection of the corresponding
comparison stimulus. Participants were instructed to say the name of the sample stimulus
before the comparison array was presented (Lowe et al., 2002).
Procedures were identical to those of the MTS posttest with the exception that the
experimenter prompted participants to tact the sample by asking, “What is it?” and giving
participants 5-seconds to respond. A differential reinforcement procedure (Karsten &
Carr, 2009) was implemented so that praise was provided for every prompted trial until
the first trial that participants responded correctly and before the prompt, after which only
correct unprompted responses were praised. Prompted responses were followed by
neutral feedback (e.g., “okay”) and incorrect responses resulted in the error correction
procedure specified for tact training. Additionally, the comparison array for the MTS
trial appeared following a correct tact response.
Phase 2. The purpose of this phase was to teach participants to overtly engage in
the intraverbal relation before making the selection response, the second step to using
115
intraverbal naming as a verbal mediation strategy. Procedures were identical to those of
the MTS test with the exception that the experimenter prompted participants to emit the
intraverbal relation by providing the fill-in-the-blank statement for participants after the
sample was presented. For example, in the presence of a cardinal (A1) as a sample, the
experimenter said, “The state for cardinal (A1) is…” and gave participants 5-seconds to
answer. A differential reinforcement procedure (Karsten & Carr, 2009) was implemented
so that praise was provided for every prompted response until the first trial in which
participants responded correctly and before the prompt, after which only correct
unprompted responses were praised. Prompted responses were followed by neutral
feedback (e.g., “okay”) and incorrect responses resulted in the error correction procedure
specified for intraverbal training. Also, following a correct response, the experimenter
presented a MTS trial for the given relation.
Phase 3. The purpose of this phase was to teach participants to engage in listener
behavior (i.e., selecting the comparison stimulus given the name of the stimulus) in
response to their own speaker behavior, the final step to using intraverbal naming as a
verbal mediation strategy. Prior to each MTS trial, the experimenter said the intraverbal
statement, presented the comparison stimuli, and vocally prompted participants to select
the comparison stimulus that corresponded with the last stimulus in the intraverbal
statement. For example, upon the experimenter saying, “The state for cardinal (A1) is
Virginia (B1),” three comparison stimuli appeared. Then the experimenter told
participants, “Touch Virginia (B1),” and waited 5-seconds for participants to respond
116
before prompting (i.e., pointing to the correct stimulus). A differential reinforcement
procedure (Karsten & Carr, 2009) was implemented so that praise was be provided for
each prompted correct response until the first trial that participants responded correctly
and before the prompt, after which only correct unprompted responses were praised.
Prompted responses were followed by neutral feedback (e.g., “okay”) and incorrect
responses resulted in the error correction specified for listener training.
Remedial BA/CB training. The following remedial phases were implemented if
participants failed the BA/CB MTS posttest.
Phase 1. Symmetry for the AB intraverbal relation was taught directly in this
phase. The purpose of only targeting AB/BA symmetry relations in this phase was to
assess if participants could derive the BC/CB symmetry relation (the other relation
targeted in the BA/CB MTS posttest) after being explicitly exposed to symmetry
intraverbal relation training procedures for the AB relation only. The autoclitic used
during this phrase was, “The state for [A] is [B], so the bird for [B] is…” At the
beginning of each trial, the experimenter stated a trained AB relation, immediately
followed by a fill-in-the-blank symmetry intraverbal with a 5-second constant time delay.
For example, the experimenter said, “The state for cardinal (A1) is Virginia (B1), so the
bird for Virginia (B1) is…” and gave participants 5-seconds to respond before prompting.
Correct unprompted responses resulted in praise and the onset of an MTS trial that
corresponded with the symmetry intraverbal relation. For incorrect responses, the
117
experimenter said, “Try again,” provided an echoic prompt, and repeated the trial
immediately.
Phase 2. Symmetry for the BC intraverbal relation was directly taught in this
phase. The procedure was identical to those used in phase 1 of remedial BA/CB training,
with the exception of the autoclitic phrase. Given the BC/CB relation, the autoclitic
phrase was, “The flower for [B] is [C], so the state for [C] is…” For example, the
experimenter presented, “The flower for Virginia (B1) is dogwood (C1), so the state for
dogwood (C1) is…”
Remedial AC/CA training. The following remedial phases were implemented if
participants failed the AC/CA MTS posttest.
Phase 1. In this condition, participants were directly taught the AC transitive
intraverbal relation. The purpose of only targeting the AC relation in this phase was to
assess if participants can derive the CA relation after being exposed to (1) reverse
intraverbal relations in the previous BA/CB conditions, and (2) training for combining
two intraverbals (i.e., AB and BC) to derive a new relation in the current phase. Training
consisted of using the autoclitic frame, “The state for [A] is [B] and the flower for [B] is
[C]. So the flower for [A] is [C].” Prior to the session, the experimenter told
participants:
I will first give you an example of a statement. Then I will tell you part of
another statement and I want you to fill-in-the blanks. I will give you feedback on
correct and incorrect answers to help you along the way. Do you have any
questions?
118
A trial began with the experimenter modeling a complete statement, such as “The
state for cardinal (A1) is Virginia (B1) and the flower for Virginia (B1) is dogwood (C1).
So the flower for cardinal (A1) is dogwood (C1).” Subsequently, the experimenter
presented a fill-in-the-blank statement for participants with a different set of stimuli using
the same autoclitic frame. For example, the experimenter said, “The state for
yellowhammer (A2) is…”, gave participants 5-seconds to respond with “Alabama (B2)”
as the correct answer, then the experimenter presented, “The flower for Alabama (B2)
is…” and allowed participants 5-seconds to respond. Following a correct response (i.e.,
“Camellia [C2]”), the experimenter stated, “So the flower for yellowhammer (A2) is…”
For the first three trials of the first block, the experimenter provided a 5-second constant
time delay for the completion of the first two intraverbal relations (i.e., AB/BC) and an
immediate echoic prompt for the last relation (i.e., AC), after which all intraverbal
relations within a trial were presented with a 5-second constant time delay. Correct
responses resulted in praise and incorrect responses were followed by the experimenter
providing an echoic prompt for the correct answer for that segment of the trial and
representing the entire trial. Additionally, correct responses were followed by a MTS
trial that corresponded with the intraverbal relation.
Phase 2. This condition was similar to phase 1. Two symmetry intraverbal
relations (i.e. CB and BA) were presented in conjunction to directly teach the equivalence
relation. The carrier phrase for this phase was, “The state for [C] is [B] and the bird for
[B] is [A]. So the bird for [C] is [A].” For instance, “The state for dogwood (C1) is
119
Virginia (B1) and the bird for Virginia (B1) is cardinal (A1). So the bird for dogwood
(C1) is cardinal (A1).”
120
REFERENCES
Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training
structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent
performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60(3),
437-462.
Arntzen, E., Halstadtro, L. B., Bjerke, E, & Halstadtro, M. (2010). Training and testing
theoretical music skills in a boy with autism using a matching-to-sample format.
Behavioral Interventions, 25, 129-143.
Arntzen, E., & Haugland, S. (2012). Titration of limited hold to comparison in
conditional discrimination training and stimulus equivalence testing. The
Psychological Record, 62(1), 243-262.
Arntzen, E., & Lian, T. (2010). Trained and derived relations with pictures versus
abstract stimuli as nodes. The Psychological Record, 60, 659-678.
Arntzen, E. & Nikolaisen, S. L. (2011). Establishing equivalence classes in children using
familiar and abstract stimuli and many-to-one and one-to-many training
structures. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 105-120.
Baum, W. M. (1993). Performances on ratio and interval schedules of reinforcement:
Data and theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59(2), 245264.
121
Bentall, R. P., Dickens, D. W., & Fox, S. R. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence:
Response latencies for emergent relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 46B(2), 187-214.
Bentall, R. P., Jones, R. M., & Dickins, D. W. (1998). Errors and response latencies as a
function of nodal distance in 5-member equivalence classes. The Psychological
Record, 48(1), 93-115.
Carp, C. L. (2012). Mediation by intraverbal naming in children’s equivalence test
performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Christian University,
Fort Worth, Texas.
de Rose, J. C., Hidalgo, M., & Vasconcellos, M. (2013). Controlling relations in baseline
conditional discriminations as determinants of stimulus equivalence. The
Psychological Record, 63(1), 85-98.
Delaney, P. F., & Austin, J. (1998). Memory as behavior: The importance of acquisition
and remembering. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15(1), 75-91.
Dickman, S., Miguel, C. F., Latanya, C. A., Quah, K., LaFrance, D. L., Elias, N. C., &
Fernand, J. K. (under review). The effects of tact training on the development of
analogies.
Doughty, A. H., Kastner, R. M., & Bismark, B. D. (2011). Resurgence of derived
stimulus relations: Replications and extensions. Behavioural Processes, 86(1),
152-155.
122
Dugdale, N. A., & Lowe, C. F. (1990). Naming and stimulus equivalence. In D. E.
Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behavior analysis in theory and practice:
Contributions and controversies (pp. 115-138). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Ltd.
Dymond, S. & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2000). Understanding complex behavior: The
transformation of stimulus functions. The Behavior Analyst, 23(2), 239-254.
Eikeseth, S., & Smith, T. (1992). The development of functional and equivalence classes
in high-functioning autistic children: The role of naming. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58(1), 123-133.
Elias, N. C., Goyos, C., Saunders, M., & Saunders, R. (2008). Teaching manual signs to
adults with mental retardation using matching-to-sample procedures and stimulus
equivalence. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24(1), 1-13.
Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Verhave, T., & Newman, S. (1990). The effects of nodality on
the formation of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 53(3), 345-358.
Fields, L., Arntzen, L., Nartey, R. K., & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a
discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97(2), 163-181.
Fields, L., Landon-Jimenez, D. V., Buffington, D. M., & Adams, B. J. (1995).
Maintained nodal-distance effects in equivalence classes. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64(2), 129-145.
123
Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48(2), 317-332.
Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in
stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disorders, 16(2), 72-85.
Haegele, K. M., McComas, J. J., Dixon, M., & Burns, M. K. (2011). Using a stimulus
equivalence paradigm to teach numerals, English words, and Native American
words to preschool-age children. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20(4), 283296.
Hall, S. S., DeBernardis, G. M., & Reiss, A. L. (2006). The acquisition of stimulus
equivalence in individuals with fragile X syndrome. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 50(9), 643-651.
Hayes, S. C. (1996). Developing a theory of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 309–311.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A
post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer
Academic/ Plenum.
Hayes, S. C., White, D., & Bissett, R. T. (1998). Protocol analysis and the “silent dog”
method of analyzing the impact of self-generated rules. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 15(1), 57-63.
124
Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of
stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record,
48, 81-110.
Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (2000). Reaction times and the emergence of class consistent
responding: A case for precurrent responding? The Psychological Record, 50(2),
305-337.
Horne, P. J., Hughes, J., & Lowe, C. F. (2006). Naming and categorization in young
children IV: Listener behavior training and transfer of function. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85(2), 247-273.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic
behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 65(1), 185-241.
Horne, P. J., Lowe, C., & Harris, F. A. (2007). Naming and categorization in young
children: V. Manual sign training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 87(3), 367-381.
Ingvarsson, E. T., & Hallobaugh, T. (2011). A comparison of prompting tactics to
establish intraverbals in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 44(3), 659-664.
Johnson, C. (2012). Merging separately established stimulus classes with outcomespecific reinforcement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western New
England University, Springfield, MA.
125
Karsten, A. M., & Carr, J. E. (2009). The effects of differential reinforcement of
unprompted responding on the skill acquisition of children with autism. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(2), 327-334.
Keintz, K. S., Miguel, C. F., Kao, B., & Finn, H. E. (2011). Using conditional
discrimination training to produce emergent relations between coins and their
values in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 909913.
Kisamore, A.N., Carr, J.E., LeBlanc, L.A. (2011). Training preschool children to use
visual imagining as a problem-solving strategy for complex categorization
tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 255-278.
Lantaya, C., Fernand, J., LaFrance, D., Dickman, S., & Miguel, C. F. (2013, February).
Developing analogical reasoning via common tact training of class-consistent
compounds. In C.F. Miguel (Chair), Research on verbal behavior and derived
stimulus relations. Symposium conducted at the 31st Annual Western Regional
Conference on Behavior Analysis, California Association for Behavior Analysis,
Los Angeles, CA.
LeBlanc, L. A., Miguel, C. F., Cummings, A. R., Goldsmith, T. R., & Carr, J. E. (2003).
The Effects of Three Stimulus-Equivalence Testing Conditions on Emergent US
Geography Relations of Children Diagnosed with Autism. Behavioral
Interventions, 18(4), 279-289.
126
Lima, E., & Abreu-Rodrigues, J. (2010). Verbal mediating responses: Effects on
generalization of say-do correspondence and noncorrespondence. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 411-424.
Lowe, C., Horne, P. J., Harris, F. A., & Randle, V. L. (2002). Naming and categorization
in young children: Vocal tact training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 78(3), 527-549.
Lowe, C., Horne, P. J., & Hughes, J. (2005). Naming and categorization in young
children: III. Vocal tact training and transfer of function. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83(1), 47-65.
Lowenkron, B. (2006). An introduction to joint control. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
22, 123-127.
Mahoney, A. M., Miguel, C. F., Ahearn, W. H., & Bell, J. The role of common motor
responses in stimulus categorization by preschool children. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95(2), 237-262.
McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory:
Foundations and extensions. The Behavior Analysts, 26(2), 195-213.
Miguel, C. F., & Kobari-Wright, V. (2013). The effects of tact training on the emergence
of categorization in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
Miguel, C. F., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2009). Naming and frames of coordination. In R. A.
Rehfeldt, & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational responding:
127
Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities (pp.
129-148). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
Miguel, C. F., Petursdottir, A. I., Carr, J. E., & Michael, J. (2008). The role of naming in
stimulus categorization by preschool children. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 89(3), 383-405.
Miguel, C. F., Yang, H. G., Finn, H. E., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). Establishing derived
textual control in activity schedules with children with autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 703-709.
Palmer, D. C. (1991). A behavioral interpretation of memory. In L. J. Hayes & P. N.
Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior: The first international institute on
verbal relations (pp. 261-279). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Quah, H. L, Latanya, C., Meyers, C., & Miguel, C. F. (2013). The effects of differential
tact training of stimulus components on the emergence of analogical reasoning.
Paper presented at the 2nd Annual California Nevada Conference, Reno, CA.
Santos, P., Ma, M. L., Jennings, A., Zias, D., & Miguel, C. (2013, April). The role of
intraverbal naming in arbitrary visual-visual matching-to-sample. Paper presented
at the 2nd Annual California Nevada Conference, Reno, CA.
Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training-structure
effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 72(1), 117-137.
128
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 14(1), 5-13.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston,
MA: Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M. (2009). Equivalence relations and behavior: An introductory tutorial. The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25(1), 5-17.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An
expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 37(1), 5-22.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Cambridge, MA: Prentice Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Knopf.
Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005a). Auditory-visual and visual-visual
equivalence relations in children. The Psychological Record, 55(3), 483-503.
Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005b). Establishing equivalence classes in
preschool children with one-to-many and many-to-one training protocols.
Behavioural Processes, 69(3), 281-293.
Sprinkle, E. C., & Miguel, C. F. (2012). The effects of listener and speaker training on
emergent relations in children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
28(1), 111-117.
129
Stromer, R., MacKay, H. A., & Remington, B. (1996). Naming, the formation of stimulus
classes, and applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
29(3), 409-431.
Tomanari, G. Y., Sidman, M., Rubio, A. R., & Dube, W. V. (2006). Equivalence classes
with requirements for short response latencies. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 85(3), 349-369.
Watson, P. J., & Worman, E. A. (1981). The non-concurrent multiple baseline acrossindividuals design: An extension of the traditional multiple baseline design.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12(3), 257-259.
Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66(3), 267-281.
Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through
conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 50(2), 125-144.