7/25/2012
Objectives
To describe how the derived stimulus
relations research program can be
implemented to promote “generative”
behavior in teaching skills ranging from
basic to more complex academic skills.
 More importantly, to inspire YOU to do this!

Ruth Anne Rehfeldt, PhD, BCBA-D
Southern Illinois University
Rehfeldt & Barnes-Holmes, Eds. (2009)
What is “Generative” Instruction?






Alessi, G. Generative Strategies & Teaching for Generalization.
TAVB, 5, 15-27.
Criticisms of ABA: emphasis on rote learning and failure to
promote generalization
“Children know much more than they have been taught directly”
(p. 15), so how can we program for this?
Need teaching procedures that generate a maximum novel
repertoire after teaching only a minimum number of skills.
Johnson, K. R., & Lang, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the
Structuralist Barrier, American Psychologist, 47, 1475-1490:
“Generative instruction focuses on effective teaching to establish
key component skills and their underlying tool elements to
fluency”
*Programming for stimulus equivalence & derived stimulus
relations will result in much more than was directly taught.
Sidman (1994) Account of
Stimulus Equivalence:
B
Pictures
BD
Picture names
dictated TO
subject
CB
A
BC
AB
Programming for
Emergent Basic Reading Repertoires:
Stimulus Equivalence, or Frames of
Coordination
AC
Picture printed
names
Picture names
spoken BY
subject
D
CD
C
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence Relations and
Behavior: A Research Story. Cambridge, MA:
1
7/25/2012
A Behavior Analytic Account of Reading:

2 Components of Reading (De Souza, De
Rose, Domeniconi, 2009)
 Textual Behavior (verbal responses under precise
ctrl. of print or Braille stimuli)
 Comprehension (see Snow, 2007)
Both components may be established in the
absence of direct instruction
 Means by which stimuli come to be
symbolic for, or refer to, one another

Train A-B (match dictated names to pictures);
Train A-C (match dictated names to text)
When mastered, test B-A (picture naming); C-A (text
reading), B-C and C-B matching (reading
comprehension) – under EXT
Why Might this be a Worthwhile
Curricular Approach?
Another Picture:
The U. S. Department of Health and
Human Services Interagency Autism
Coordinating Committee’s (IACC)
encourages research that explores the
mode of delivery, intensity, and duration
of effective behavioral interventions.
 An approach that targets change in one
verbal repertoire and produces change
in another verbal repertoire would seem
to satisfy this objective.

BUT……..Where IS the Applied Research on
Derived Stimulus Relations?!
JABA’S PUBLICATION TRENDS ON THE
TOPIC
Prerequisites for the Equivalence
Relation Outcome?
Identity Matching (letters, pictures, etc.)
Oddity Matching (rft is contingent on which one
DOESN’T match)
 Nonrelational MTS (described previously)
 Is this a worthwhile finding IN THE ABSENCE of
oral naming and reading (i.e., learners with little
speech)


 YES! Emergent relations for comprehension can occur in the
absence of oral naming/reading
 This means textual prompts, activity schedules, instructions,
etc., can be built into behavioral programming!
2
7/25/2012
Training Strategies for Facilitating this Outcome:
Matching auditory sample to pictures and text are nonrelational
auditory-visual MTS tasks (already discussed)
 Train in this Sequence:
 Train A-B (dictated names to pictures) in 9-12 trial blocks (go
for at least 90% accuracy for 3 consecutive block)
 Train A-C (dictated names to text) in 9-12 trial blocks (go for
at least 90% accuracy for 3 consecutive blocks) (3
presentations of ea/ sample per block)
 Now do a mixed block of A-B and A-C in 18-24 trial blocks
(go for at least 90% accuracy for 3 consecutive blocks)
 Then test B-A (naming pictures); C-A (reading words), B-C
and C-B (word-text vis-vis matching) with no feedback in 9
trial blocks (ea/ stimulus presented 3 times each)
Training strategies, cont.





 Once mastery criteria is achieved, provide
reinforcement on FR 2, FR 4, FR 6, etc. so learner
will be accustomed to responding under EXT during
test trials
Applications to Reading: (de
Souza et al., 2009)
Training Strategies for Facilitating this Outcome
Intersperse reinforced baseline trials (i.e., A-B and A-C) during
test phase
 If you don’t immediately get the emergent naming, reading, and
comprehension skills, do multiple exemplar training with a few
of the stimuli (i.e., RFT, Naming Hypothesis):
 i.e., directly train learner to match spoken word cat to picture
and text, then directly train learner to name the picture cat (BA) and text cat (C-A)
 Now, go back and reinforce A-B and A-C relations with the
OTHER stimuli, and test B-A and C-A: It might be there!
 You could directly train up A-B, A-C, B-A, C-A, B-C, and CB with an additional set of stimuli, then simply train A-B and
A-C with a new set – you might get the emergent relations
with that new set.

Teaching by Exclusion:

A-C training (matching dictated names to text)
most challenging part of teaching sequence
See prompting strategies discussed for
Nonrelational MTS (especially for matching
dictated names to text)
May begin with 2, but work up to 3 or more
comparison stimuli for A-C relations (or accuracy
is 50/50!)
Gradually “thin out” reinforcement during mixed
block

How to Expand the Reading Vocabulary and
go beyond the 20 words targeted in early
Sidman studies?
 Use words taught in the first unit as a baseline
for teaching new words in the second unit (teach
by exclusion; McIlvane & Stoddard, 1981)
 Use training words from which recombinations
of the within-syllable units are likely to combine
into novel words (program for recombinative
generalization; Mueller, Olmi, & Saunders,
2000)
Exclusion Trial:
(bus is mastered)
Learner has already mastered:
“Bus”
“Hat”
 Matching Spoken Name “Hat” to Text “Hat”
 So, when teaching a novel A-C conditional
discrimination, or one that is difficult (i.e.,
matching Spoken Name “Bug” to Text “Bug”,
include “Hat” as the other comparison stimulus
option
 Can include additional previously mastered
comparison stimuli
 Learner will make correct selection by
“excluding” those that he or she mastered
Control Trial:
Hat
Bus
Bus
Toe
(de Souza et al., 2009, p. 181)
3
7/25/2012
Programming for Recombinative Generalization:
This means including words in training for which the smaller
units can recombine into novel words.
Training Words:
Onsets & Rimes
Generalization Test
Words:
pat
pop
pug
mat
mop
mug
Mueller et al., (2000)
So, once you get emergent performances, now test for oral
reading of novel words that include recombinations of onsets
and rimes of the training words
Rehfeldt, R.A., & Root, S. L. (2005).
Establishing derived requesting skills in
adults with severe developmental
disabilities.
38, 101-105.
 Will a historyJABA,
of reinforced
conditional
discriminations (names-pictures; names-text)
establish derived manding/requesting skills in
adults with severe communication deficits?
 If individuals are taught to request desired items
via picture exchange, and then are taught to relate
those pictures to dictated names and dictated
names to text, will they then use text to request
desired items? (Functionality of text exchange for
adults)
 Will other verbal skills emerge from this history?
Method
Participants: three adults with severe MR &
little or no functional communication (IQs ≤ 30)
 Request training procedure: Picture Exchange
Communication System (PECS) (Frost & Bondy,
1994), Phases 1-3.
 Selection of desired items: multiple stimulus
preference assessment w/out replacement
 Stimuli: desired items; dictated names (“A”
stimuli), corresponding pictures (“B” stimuli),
corresponding printed words (“C” stimuli)
 Design: multiple probe design (Horner & Baer,
1978) across participants

“puzzle”
puzzle
Used to mand for actual puzzle
Preferred Items:
Sam
Participant
Kenny
Carl
Trace
Pizza
Candy
Tape
Sandwich
Mint
Puzzle
Markers
Trace
(Efforts made to ensure
similarity in word length)
4
7/25/2012


Procedure
Preliminary Testing
Test Probes:
 Derived relations: B-A – names pictures; C-A – reads words; B-C/C-B
matches words & pictures;
 Derived Mand (uses “C” stimuli – printed words – to request desired
items).


PECS Training (Phases 1-3)
Conditional Discrimination Training
 A-B (matches dictated name to correct picture)
 A-C (matches dictated name to correct text)

Test Probes

Training & testing conducted in 9 trial blocks; mastery criterion = 8/9
correct per block; probes presented after ea/ display of mastery
Matches
Pictures
to Words
1
Matches
Words to
Pictures
Derived
Request
1
.89
0.9
Sam
.89
0.8
First Pre-Test Probes
0.7
0.6
0.5
Names
Pictures
0.4
.33
0.3
Final Post-Test Probes
Reads
Words
.33
.22
.22
0.2
0.1
0
Proportion of Correct Responses
0
0
Matches
Pictures
to Words
Names
Pictures
1
1
Reads
Words
1
.89
0.9
Matches
Words to
Pictures
Rosales, R., & Rehfeldt, R.A. (2007).
Contriving transitive conditioned
establishing operations to establish derived
manding skills in adults with severe
developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied
 Will a history
of reinforced
conditional
Behavior
Analysis,
40, 105-121.
Derived
Request
.89
Kenny
.89
0.8
0.7
.67
Pretest
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

.22
0.2
.11
0.1
0
0
0
Matches
Pictues
to Words
1
Matches
Words to
Pictures
1
Carl
.89
0.9
Derived
Request
0.8
.67
0.7
0.6
Pretest
Posttest


0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Names
Pictures
Reads
Words
0
0
.22
.11
0
0
Probes
Chained Tasks:









Pick up CD player
Open face of CD player
Select CD
Open CD case
Insert CD into CD player
Close CD player
Pick up headphones
Plug headphones into CD
player
Push “play” button on CD
player.
“Playing Music”
















Pick up pitcher
Pick up Kool-Aid® packet
Open packet completely
Empty packet into pitcher
Pick up water jug
Open water jug
Pour water into pitcher at least ½ full
Place jug back on table
Select spoon from table
Put spoon in pitcher of water
Stir until powder completely dissolves
Remove spoon from pitcher
Pick up lid
Place lid tightly on pitcher
Pick up cup
Pour Kool-Aid® into cup at least ½ full.
“Making Kool-Aid”

discrimination learning result in derived “pure”
mands (under transitive CEO control) for items
needed to complete a chained task?
(Learned EO in which one stimulus increases
reinforcing value of 2nd stimulus – Michael,
1993)
Will other verbal skills emerge?
Participants: 3 individuals with severe or
profound MR; IQ ≤ 36
PECS phases 1-3 (functionality of text exchange
for adults)
Stimuli A1A2A3
“HEADPHONES”
Stimuli
A1B1C1
Stimuli B1B2B3
“SPOON”
Stimuli
A2B2C2
Stimuli C1C2C3
“CUP”
Stimuli
A3B3C3
see also LeBlanc & Dillon, 2009 for
capturing and contriving MOs
5
7/25/2012
1
1
Post-Test
Probes
Preference Assessment :
RAISD and MSWO
Lucy
.89
0.9
0.8
P.E.C.S Training
& Chained Task
.89
.89
.89
.89
.78
.78
0.7
.67
0.6
.67
.56
0.5
.45
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Maintenance
0.4
0.3
Percentage of Correct Responses per Trial Block
.22
Method
Pre-Test
Probes
Mixed A-B
and A-C
Vocal
Requesting
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
1
1
1
Tony
1
.89
0.9
.89
.89
.78
0.8
.89
.78
0.7
0.6
.56
.56
Vocal
Requesting
0.5
.45
0.4
.33
0.3
A-C Training
Conditional Discrimination
Training : A-B
.23
Mand Training within
Chained Task
0.2
0.1
0
0
B-A
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, 703-709.
Similar procedure using
activity schedules
 Use this procedure to
establish emergent
picture-text relations,
and then substitute text
in an activity schedule
 Facilitates reading;
appears more “grownup”; approximates adult
schedules and to-do lists

C-A
B-C
C-B
Derived Mands
Miguel et al. (2009)
Participants: 2 6-year old children with
autism who spoke in prompted phases
 Participants were first taught to use a picture
activity schedule during classroom activities
 Conditional discrimination instruction:

 Conditionally relate a vocal stimulus to pictures;
then text
 Would participants show emergent picture
labeling, reading, and reading comprehension?
6
7/25/2012
Use Constructed Response Matching
Include trials where text is presented as sample,
and learner is to “construct” a stimulus that
matches the sample stimulus
 i.e., sample is “bus”
 Learner assembles “b-u-s” when given the 3
letter tiles to assemble
 Why? Facilitates stimulus control by smaller
units of words.

Programming for
Emergent Spelling Repertoires
 i.e., “flips” and “slips” are always read as “dips”
Materials:
Programming for
Emergent Spelling Repertoires:
Merging Derived Stimulus Relations
with Skinner’s (1957) Verbal Behavior
Inspirational Words

 it
would be a mistake to assume that
there is nothing of merit to be found in
(Skinner’s 1957) account from an RFT
(Relational Frame Theory)
perspective…combining Skinner’s work
with RFT will help us to develop a clear
and useful research agenda for the
behavior analytic study of human
language and cognition” (BarnesHolmes et al., 2000, p. 69).
 Needed are economic & efficient
instructional strategies that promote
generative, flexible responding across
contexts






De Souza, A., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (submitted).
Effects of Dictation-Taking and Match-to-Sample
on Spelling and Listing in Adults with Intellectual
Conditions can be arranged
to facilitate the emergence of
Disability.
untrained operants following the training of a different
operant topography (Barbera & Kubina, 2005; Petursdottir,
Carr, & Michael, 2005)
Joint control over spelling (if train written, will vocal
spelling emerge?)
Skinner (1957): Writing and speaking are separately
acquired and conditioned; a change in one repertoire may
produce changes in the other repertoire – what “bridges
the gap” between spoken and written behavior?
Greer et al. (2005) demonstrated the emergence of
untrained vocal and writing spelling responses following
instruction in one area only after MEI
Lee & Pegler (1982): instruction in overt reading facilitated
correct spelling of words – allude to interventions allowing
individuals to “translate” between repertoires for “indirect
induction”
Mann et al. (2010): teaching children to sound out words
as they spelled them facilitated accurate spelling.
Does overt or covert verbal behavior “bridge the gap”
between writing and speaking repertoires?
7
7/25/2012
Purpose of Experiment 1:
 Evaluate
whether instruction in
written dictation or spelling would
facilitate oral spelling (Greer et al.
2005)
 Would MEI be necessary, or would
vocal spelling occur in the absence
of instruction?
 Would corollary indicators of
mediating verbal behavior be
displayed for participants who
showed written and vocal
spelling/joint control?
Instructional Stimuli (from SAT
prep book)
Procedure:
 Materials and Stimuli
 Ballpoint pen and strips of blank
paper
 Nine 6-11 letter words
 Independent and Dependent Measures
 IV
dictation instruction
 DV  % of correct vocal spelling
responses on pre and posttests

Participants
 4 young adults with intellectual disability
 Ages 18 – 20 years old
 Residents at a developmental center
 Followed instructions without difficulties,
participated in conversations with others,
and could identify and name letters
 Had participated in special education in
high school and had graduated within the
last 1-2 years
 Used multiple probe design across
participants
Experiment 1 - Dictation
Instruction
Procedure, cont.:
 Pretests/Posttests
 Evaluated nontarget vocal spelling
responses  3 x each word
 “Spell ___”
 No reinforcement and no error correction
 Dictation Instruction
 “Write ___”
 Correct response  verbal praise
 Incorrect response  error correction
 Remedial Instruction
 Same as dictation instruction
8
7/25/2012
Implications:
 MEI
not necessary (adult learners who
had graduated from HS, vs. Greer et
al. 2005), so well established
repertoires of joint control over written
and vocal spelling
 One participant traced letters during
posttests; all repeated experimenter’s
dictation of word on vocal spelling test
trials = mediating verbal behavior
“bridging the gap” between speaking
and writing repertoires?
Experiment 2:
Stimuli
 With same
participants from Exp. 1,
would learning derived stimulus
relations between printed words that
were synonyms facilitate 2 forms of
emergent intraverbals:
 Vocal spelling of words ( when
asked, “Spell a synonym for
______”
 Listing of synonyms (when asked
“List 2 words that mean the same as
____ “ )
Experiment 2:
Visual-visual conditional
discriminations
Procedure:

Materials
 laptop Toshiba (13.5 x 8 in. screen size)
○ Program written in Visual Basic 2010

Stimuli
 Three sets of three synonyms
 Independent and Dependent Measures
 IV  conditional discrimination training
 DV  % of correct
derived relation
responses
listing and spelling
intraverbal responses
on pre and posttests
9
7/25/2012
Procedure, cont.:

Procedure, cont.:
Pretests/Posttests
○ B – A and C – A  symmetry
○ B – C and C – B  equivalence
○ Set 1, 2, and 3 of synonyms  3 x
each
 Derived relations


Conditional Discrimination Training
 Trained to conditionally relate A to B and A to C
 3 phases:
○ A – B training
○ A – C training
○ Mixed A – B and A – C training

Within-Stimulus Prompting
 Made the relevant part of the stimulus
more salient via a larger font-size
(i.e., “prove), and then gradually
reducing the size of the font across
subsequent trials.
match-to-sample
format
 Listing and Spelling Responses
○ “List two words that mean the same as
___.”
○ “Spell two words that mean the same
as ___.”
Remedial
Instruction
Implications:
 Emergent
intraverbals in the form
of listing stimuli that were
synonyms was observed;
intraverbal spelling of synonyms
observed for one participant but
close to criterion for the other two
 A repertoire of relating stimuli
may facilitate “indirect induction”
of intraverbals (Lee & Pegler,
1982; Grannan & Rehfeldt, in
press)
 Complexity of grammatical skills
Summary:
 Much
can be learned about basic
& complex verbal behavior via a
synthesis of derived stimulus
relations with a Verbal Behavior
approach
 RFT, Naming, & Sidman
equivalence all have important
contributions to this area of study
 Need more focus on more
complex repertoires
A Teaching Technology Based Upon
Relational Frame Theory
10
7/25/2012
Relational Frame Theory
(Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche,
2001)
 Relating is operant behavior
Generalized, overarching, or higher order,
operant class, similar to generalized imitation
 Relating: responding to one event in terms of
another (bigger, smaller, rounder, etc.) =
nonarbitrary relations
 Arbitrarily applicable: a relation brought to
bear on any stimuli encountered in the
appropriate relational context: occurs over the
course of childhood (#s, money, time, etc.)

Educationally Relevant Example:
We teach: A TEASPOON is larger than ½
TEASPOON and a TEASPOON is smaller
than a TABLESPOON:
 We test, in the absence of prompting or
reinforcement:

Example of a Relational Operant:
We teach: A is larger than B and A is smaller
than C:
 We test, in the absence of prompting or
reinforcement:

 What is Larger, B or A? (A)
 What is Smaller, C or A (A)
 What is Larger, B or C? (C)
 What is Smaller, B or C? (B)
What sort of learning history gives
rise to relating?




 What is Larger, ½ ts or a ts? (A)
 What is Smaller, a TB or a ts (A)

 What is Larger, ½ ts or a TB? (C)
 What is Smaller, ½ ts or a TB? (B)
Stimuli are not only related in
terms of equivalence




A wide variety of relational responses are possible if
relating can be brought under contextual control
Mutual entailment: responding to one event in terms
of the other (if A is larger than B, B is smaller than A)
Combinatorial entailment: 2 or more relations train
mutually combine (if A is related to B, B to C, then A
and C are related in that context)
Transformation of Functions: a function trained to
one member of a relational network will be
transformed with respect to the other stimuli in
accordance with the relation between the stimuli (see
Whelan et al., 2006)
Exposure to multiple exemplars across a variety of
contexts
Caregiver differentially reinforces identification of
AND naming of objects (“say car,” “show me
car”) IN A NUMBER OF CONTEXTS
Bidirectional responding is directly reinforced
Symmetrical responding may then emerge w/ novel
stimuli in the right context (“is the same as,”
“Matches,” “which is bigger than,” etc.)
Frame: the relation; the contextually controlled
response; particular kinds of relational responding
(Hayes et al. 2001)
Example of a Relational Operant:
We teach: A is larger than B and A is smaller
than C:
 We test, in the absence of prompting or
reinforcement:

 What is Larger, B or A? (A)
 What is Smaller, C or A (A)
 What is Larger, B or C? (C)
 What is Smaller, B or C? (B)
11
7/25/2012
Evidence for Relating as Higher
Order Operant






*all of the previous studies discussed today are
examples of frames of coordination.
Luciano et al. (2007): showed that MET in
receptive symmetry relations (object/sound)
facilitated emergence of visual-visual equivalence
relations in child 15-23 mos. Of age.
Receptive symmetry emerged at 16 mos.
Visual-visual equivalence emerged following MET
at 19 mos
Naming emerged following MET at 22-23 mos.
see also (Berens & Hayes, 2007)
Results of Berens & Hayes (2009):
Strong Evidence for Relating as a HigherOrder Operant in which Comparative
Relations were Targeted:





Berens & Hayes (2007): Established comparative
relations between 3-4 year old typically developing
children
Instructions: “We are going to play a game. Your job is to
pick the picture that will buy you the most candy.”
Nonarbitrary pretrials: a. “Which pile of pennies has
more?” b. “Which pile of pennies has less?”
Arbitrary training: “This (pointing to picture A) is more
than that (pointing to Picture B).” Mixed nonlinear trials:
“This (pointing to A) is more than that (pointing to B) and
this (pointing to C) is less than that (pointing to B). Which
would you use to buy candy?”
Stickers and small candy were used as tokens.
Illinois Early Learning
Standards
(K-1)
Math

Multiple exemplar training facilitated the
development of arbitrary comparative
relations
 Lengthy and complex instructional history.
 Suggests that relating is an overarching
generalized operant class

 Understand relationships of items and numbers (more
than, less than, the same as)
 Nonstandard measurements (bigger than, smaller than,
the same as)
 Construct a daily schedule (before, after, now, later)

Science
 Describe items based on senses (smoother than,
rougher than / hotter than, colder than / bigger than,
smaller than, sweeter than)
 Understand weather patterns (warmer than, colder than)
 Understand season patterns (before, after)

Social Sciences
 Understanding money (more than, less than, the same
as)
 Understand past, present, future (before, after, now)
 Become aware of holidays (before, after)
 Awareness about geographical locations (closer than,
farther than)
12
7/25/2012
Applying Relational Frame Theory
to Recognition of Coin Values:

Frame of Comparison
A
Demonstrate derived relational responding on
comparative trials with 3 coins
 Teach that a dime is more than a nickel (A>B) & a
nickel is more than a penny (B>C)
>
 Test for mutual entailment: a nickel is less than a
dime (B<A) & a penny is less than a nickel (C<B)
 Test for combinatorial entailment: a dime is more
than a penny (A>C) & a penny is less than a dime
(C<A)

Test for derived intraverbal responding
<
B
C
<
the more/less relationship between the coins
Experimental Design
Participants

Multiple probe design across 3 participants
 2 children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
(Alex & Jake) & 1 typically developing
child (Claire)
Participants

Jake
 Age: 6 years, 8 months
 Language age equivalence of 4 years, 10
<
>
 Answering questions regarding the value of coins and

>
Alex
 Age: 7 years, 8 months
 Language age equivalence of 4 years, 5 months
according to the Preschool Language Scale-5th
Edition (PLS-5)
 Developed tact and mand repertoire
 Largest deficit in intraverbals and pragmatic use
of language
Stimuli
•Tokens earned to be exchanged for a small prize
at the end of the session
months according to PLS-5
 Developed tact and mand repertoire
 Largest deficit in intraverbals and pragmatic
use of language

Claire
 Age: 4 years, 10 months
 Age appropriate language skills
13
7/25/2012
Order of Test Probes and
Instruction Phases
Stimuli





Pretest Probes (comparative relations with coins and
intraverbals)
Prerequisite skill instructional phases (1 through 3)
1. Listener responding: identify differing amounts of
dots as more/less
2. Tact coins
3. Match coins to amounts of dots representing the
coin’s value (e.g., dime matched to 10 dots)
Test for any effects of prerequisite skill training
Instructional phase 4: teach a dime is more than a
nickel (A>B) & a nickel is more than a penny (B>C)
Posttest Probes
Pretest Probes
Pretest Probes
No programmed consequences for
responding on test trials
 Tokens and behavior specific praise given
intermittently for responding to maintenance
tasks


Intraverbal comparison responses:
 “Which is more, a dime or a nickel?”
 “Which is less, a penny or a nickel?”

Intraverbal responses regarding coin value:
 “How much is a nickel worth?”
 “What coin is worth 10 cents?”
Pretest Probes for
Comparative Relations
Data Sheets
Trial
Instruction
Response
1
Which is less, a penny or a nickel?
+
−
NR
2
Which is more, a penny or a nickel?
+
−
NR
3
Which is less, a dime or a nickel?
+
−
4
Trial
Which is more, a nickel or a penny?
1
5
Which is less, a dime or a penny?
6
Which is less, a nickel or a penny?
2
5
6
Listener Responding by placing correct coin in
correct bank when coins are presented in an array
of 2:
NR
Instruction
+
−
NR
How much is a nickel worth?
+
−
NR
How much is a dime worth?
+
−
NR
How much is a penny worth?
3
4

What coin is worth 5 cents?
What coin is worth 10 cents?
What coin is worth 1 cent?
Response
+
−
NR
+
−
NR
+
−
NR
+
−
NR
+
−
NR
+
−
NR
“Put the coin
worth more/less in
the more/less
bank.”orth more (less) in
More
Less
the more (less)
14
7/25/2012
Data Sheets
Trial
Instruction (more/less)
Instruction Phases
Left Stimulus
Right Stimulus
Nickel
Penny*
NR
Nickel
Dime*
NR
Nickel*
Dime
NR
Relation
LESS
1
2
MORE
C-B
LESS
3
5
6
MORE
LESS
“A dime is more than a nickel! Awesome!”
“Yay! It is a penny!”
“A dime is worth 10 cents! Perfect!”
B-A
MORE
4
A-B
Tokens and behavior specific praise given
for correct responding
 Behavior specific praise:

A-C
Penny
Dime*
NR
Nickel*
Penny
NR
Penny*
NR
Dime
B-C
C-A

Prerequisite Instruction Phase 1

Listener responding: identifies quantities of
dots as more (less)
“Which is less (more)?”
Prerequisite Instruction Phase 3

Match coins to amount of dots
Mastery Criterion: 11 out of 12 correct on 2
consecutive trial blocks
Prerequisite Instruction Phase 2

Tact coins (nickel, dime, penny)
“What coin is this?”
Instruction Phase 4
• Teach a dime is more than a nickel (A>B) & a
nickel is more than a penny (B>C)
“ Match the nickel.”
“A dime is more than a nickel. Put the coin
worth more in the more bank.”
Less
More
15
7/25/2012
Example Data Sheet
Posttest Probes
PROMPT DELAY: ________ seconds PROMPT: Model Point
Left
Comparison
Left
Penny
Nickel*
+
P
--
Left
Nickel*
Penny
+
P
--
3
Left
Dime*
Nickel
+
P
--
4
Right
Nickel
Dime*
+
P
--
Left
Penny
Nickel*
+
P
--
Right
Nickel
Dime*
+
P
--
1
2
5
6
Right
Comparison
Instructional Phases have been conducted
with participant 1: Alex
 Posttest probes were conducted following
Instruction Phases 1 through3
 And following Instruction Phase 4
(Teaching A>B and B>C

Presentation
Trial
Response
Comparative Relations
Performance Across Instructional
Phases for Alex
Pretest
100
Test
Posttest
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Alex
20
10
0
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
100
100
90
Percent Correct
90
80
Percent Correct
1
70
60
80
70
60
50
40
30
50
20
40
10
Jake
0
30
100
20
90
10
80
70
0
60
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
50
40
Sessions
30
Claire
20
10
0
Test Probes
Intraverbals: Coin Values
Intraverbals: Comparisons
Pretest
100
Test
Pretest
Posttest
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
Posttest
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
Alex
10
Alex
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
100
Percent Correct
100
90
Percent Correct
Test
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Jake
10
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Jake
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
40
50
30
40
Claire
20
30
Claire
20
10
0
10
0
1
2
3
Test Probes
4
5
Test Probes
16
7/25/2012

A Final Study Illustrating Generative
Verbal Behavior



Pre/Posttest Intraverbal
Probes
Participants


•
Two 5-year old children with autism
(multiple probe design across 2
participants)
VB-MAPP goals derived from Level 3
curriculum (30 – 48 mos)
Treatment goals included: responding
intraverbally to WH questions,
following multi-step instructions,
following instructions including
prepositions, tacting
with complete sentences

Michael:






What are four body parts?
What are four things in the bathroom?
What are four musical instruments?
What are four things that take you places?
Richard:




Instructional Stimuli
Michael
Grannan, L., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (in press).
Emergent Intraverbal Responses via Tact and
Match-to-Sample Instruction. JABA.
Few investigations of the intraverbal relative to
the mand, tact, & echoic (Sautter & LeBlanc,
2006)
Practical relevance of Intraverbal Categorization
(i.e., answering questions about items from
categories)
Multiple tact instruction (“it’s a dog and an
animal) effective in promoting emergence of
intraverbals from tact instruction with transfer of
stimulus control procedures (Miguel et al., 2005)
Miguel & Petursdottir (2009): advise
instructional sequence of:
 Multiple tact instruction
 Visual-Visual Match-to-Sample of items
categorically related
What are four vehicles?
What are four body parts?
What are four kinds of furniture?
What are four kinds of clothing?
12 probe trials (1 question for each of the 4
categories presented 3 x)
Tact Instruction
Richard
Simple:
Each child tacts
pictures (9 for each
of 4 categories) on
34 out of 36 trials on
2 consecutive
sessions
 Instruction “What is
it?”
 Target Response:
correct name for the
picture depicted in
the card (e. g.,
“toothpaste”,
“airplane”, “feet”)

Multiple:



Tacts category name
for the 36 pictures (9
for each of 4
categories) 8 out of 9
trials on 2 consecutive
sessions
Instruction “What is a
(picture name)?”
Target Response:
correct category (i. e.,
“things that take you
places”, “body parts”,
“musical instruments”,
“things in the
bathroom”)
17
7/25/2012
Match-to-Sample Instruction
 Comparison
stimuli presented in an array
of 4
 Participant handed sample stimulus and
instructed to “match”
 Would MTS
instruction of
categorically related stimuli
facilitate emergence of
intraverbals (answering
questions about categories)
Richard:
Tact Training
7/25/2012
Free Template from www.brainybetty.com
103
Takes you places
Michael
Pretest
Posttest
Body Parts
Bathroom
Musical Instruments
6
Table 1
5
4
Trial Blocks to Criterion
3
Trial Blocks to Criterion
2
Michael
Richard
Table
1
Simple Tact
Instruction
7
25
Category Tact Instruction
18
105
MTS Instruction
2
2
Trial Blocks to Criterion
Total Training Trial Blocks
27
Number of Correct Intraverbal Responses
Training Phase
132
1
0
1
3
5
7
9
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
Vehicles
Body Parts
Richard
Furniture
Clothing
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
3
5
7
9
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
Intraverbal Probe Trials
Implications:
Multiple tact instruction plus MTS
facilitated untaught intraverbals
 Not clear which component of instruction
was necessary
 Previous studies showed that multiple tact
instruction was effective in producing
intraverbals only when transfer of control
procedures were used
 Currently isolating the facilitative effects of
MTS alone in producing intraverbals in
follow-up study

Conclusions:
Programming for emergence of derived
stimulus relations seems to be one means of
promoting generative responding
 Necessity of more research programming for
frames other than sameness
 More complex academic skills

18
7/25/2012
Ruth Anne Rehfeldt, PhD, BCBA-D
Southern Illinois University
19