The Psychological Record, 2000, 50, 49-62

The Psychological Record, 2000, 50, 49-62

GENERALIZATION OF SUPERMARKET SHOPPING SKILLS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MILD INTELLECTUAL

DISABILITIES USING STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE TRAINING

IAN TAYLOR The Queen's University of Belfast

MARK F. O'REILLY Utah State University

We developed an intervention to promote generalization in an applied community setting. The intervention was derived primarily from experimental research examining stimulus equivalence classes and natural categories. Six young adults with intellectual disabilities were taught using (a) stimulus equivalence training, (b) multiple exemplar training, or (c) single instance training to complete a supermarket shopping task analysis. Results indicated that stimulus equivalence and multiple exemplar training were equally effective in promoting generalization with single instance training being the least effective.

A number of behavioral researchers have argued for greater interaction between experimental and applied research (e.g. , Deitz, 1978; Hayes, Rincover, & Solnick, 1980; Mace & Wacker, 1994). One area where basic research may enhance applied practice is the teaching of individuals with intellectual disabilities to perform newly acquired skills outside the training setting using stimulus equivalence techniques. In stimulus equivalence training it is unnecessary to explicitly teach all behavioral relations (Sidman & Tailby, 1982). Through equivalence relations it has been shown that relationships not previously taught can emerge which may increase the efficiency of training. This is important for individuals with intellectual disabilities given that such individuals often do not learn spontaneously. Each new skill often requires a considerable amount of training time. Stimulus equivalence training may be one solution to this ongoing difficulty.

Recent developments in the stimulus equivalence research suggest that the equivalence paradigm may provide an efficient training protocol to teach individuals with intellectual disabilities important stimulus-

We thank the staff and trainees at the Kare Vocational Training Centre, Newbridge, Co. Kildare for their willingness to participate in the study.

Preparation of this manuscript was funded in part by a research grant from the Faculty of Arts, University College, Dublin. However, opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and no endorsement by supporting agencies should be inferred.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Mark F. O'Reilly, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, College of Education, Utah State University, 2865 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-2865.

50 TAYLOR AND O'REILLY

response relationships necessary for generalization of newly acquired skills (Adams, Fields, & Verhave, 1993; Fields, Adams, Brown, & Verhave, 1993; Fields, Adams, Buffington, Yang, & Verhave, 1996; Fields, Reeve, Adams, Brown, & Verhave, 1996; Fields, Reeve, Adams, & Verhave, 1991). The potential of stimulus equivalence training to facilitate the acquisition and generalization of new behavior in applied settings has been demonstrated by Cowley, Green, and Braunling-McMorrow (1992). Stimulus equivalence training was used to teach individuals with head injuries to match dictated or written names to photos, produce correct names in response to photos, locate offices given written names, and name therapists on sight.

One innovative adaptation of the experimental equivalence paradigm which may lend itself to application in applied settings is the natural category model proposed by Fields et al. (1991) . Two 3-member equivalence classes were formed by training AB and BC stimulus relations using a conditional discrimination procedure. The A and B stimuli were nonsense syllables and the C stimuli were sets of "short" or "long" lines. To test for equivalence, C1 or C2 was presented as a sample with A 1 and A2 as comparisons. Once the class-related comparison was chosen consistently, different lengths were substituted for the training lines in the CA tests. In general, the likelihood of choosing a given comparison was an inverse function of the difference in the length of the test line from the training line. Stimuli in an equivalence class became functionally related not only to each other but also to novel stimuli that resembled a member of the equivalence class. Fields et al. (1991) argued that the combination of primary generalization (Le., generalization based on physical dimensions) and equivalence class formation can serve as a model to account for the development of naturally occurring categories.

The implications of these findings may be important for individuals with intellectual disabilities. One characteristic of adaptive behavior is the ability to categorize or classify stimuli in a given situation. Indeed, the ability to perceive relations between different stimuli and to respond appropriately to new situations on the basis of what has been learned from previous experience is central to the demonstration of adaptive behavior (Green, 1990). The model developed by Fields et al. (1991) in the experimental literature may provide a training framework to assist individuals with intellectual disabilities to categorize stimuli and respond in an appropriate way. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of stimulus equivalence procedures to promote generalization for individuals with intellectual disabilities. A methodology using the natural category model was developed to facilitate the generalization of supermarket shopping skills. A comparison was made between generalization levels produced by stimulus equivalence, multiple exemplar, and single instance training.

STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE 51

Method

Participants Six participants with mild intellectual disabilities as assessed on the

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984) took part in the study. They were Peter, a 29-year-old male with an overall Vineland score of 60 and a communications subscore of 46; Anne, a 23-year-old female with an overall Vineland score of 62 and a communications subscore of 48; Mike, a 25-year-old male with an overall Vineland score of 63 and a communications subscore of 52; Linda, a 33-year-old female with an overall Vineland score of 59 and a communications subscore of 42; Pauline, a 34-year-old female with an overall Vineland score 60 and a communications subscore of 50; and Nuala, a 19-year-old female with an overall Vineland score of 62 and a communications subscore of 50. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (a) stimUlUS equivalence training, (b) multiple exemplar training, and (c) single instance training. All participants were attending an adult vocational training center.

Sessions Training sessions were conducted 4 days per week (Monday to

Thursday) over a 2-month period. Each training session consisted of group classroom training followed by training on an individual basis in a designated supermarket setting. The designated supermarket was determined by the experimental group which a participant belonged to. Classroom training sessions involving all six participants were conducted in the morning and lasted approximately 90 minutes. Individual supermarket training sessions took place in the afternoon and lasted approximately 45 minutes per participant (this inCluded car travel to the supermarket setting, completion of all steps of the task analysis, and return to the vocational training center). Each experimental group spent the same amount of time in supermarket training. What differed was that single instance and stimulus equivalence training groups received training in only one supermarket setting whereas the multiple exemplar group received training in this supermarket setting and two other supermarket settings.

Settings Classroom training was conducted in a classroom located in the adult

vocational training center. The classroom contained desks and chairs and measured 30 ft by 25 ft. The chairs and desks were pushed back at the start of each training session to provide room for the role-play and modeling activities involved in the training package. No attempt was made to simulate conditions in a supermarket by including stimuli (e.g., basket, food items, etc.) commonly found in such settings.

Supermarket training took place in three locally based supermarket stores. The single instance and stimulus equivalence groups received supermarket training in only one of the three supermarket settings. The


chosen supermarket was the same for both experimental groups. The multiple exemplar group received supermarket training in the supermarket setting used for the single instance and stimulus equivalence groups. Additionally, multiple exemplar participants received supermarket training in two other supermarket settings located near the vocational training center. The three supermarkets were selected to represent the range of stimulus and response variations of all supermarket settings in the local community. Training supermarket settings were sequentially selected from the pool of three for use during each training session in the multiple exemplar training condition.

Three supermarkets similar to those used during training were used to assess generalization across the three experimental conditions. These were located in a town approximately 6 miles from the vocational training center. As with training settings, generalization supermarket settings were sequentially selected from the pool of three for use during each generalization session.

Materials. Participants used a two-item pictorial shopping list during each training and generalization session. The two-item pictorial shopping lists used throughout the study were derived from written shopping lists brought in each morning by the participants from their parents or guardians. It was anticipated that getting the parents and guardians to provide shopping lists of groceries required at home would make the training procedure functional. The trainer instructed parents and guardians to vary the items they requested on the shopping lists to provide participants with the opportunity to shop for a range of items. In addition to a two-item pictorial shopping list, participants were given three pound coins each time they went shopping (these were provided by the parents or guardians of the participants).

Dependent variables. The dependent measures were (a) number of correct responses in supermarket training settings and (b) number of correct responses- in generalization supermarket settings. Participants were taught 21 steps of a supermarket shopping task analysis (see Table 1). The task analysis was based on a comprehensive review of the literature and on consultation with staff at the vocational training center. Of the 21 steps, 17 were considered essential. The remaining steps (i.e., 3, 10, 11 , 15) were considered nonessential but were included at the request of the vocational training staff.

Stimulus equivalence training Steps of the supermarket shopping task analysis were taught in the

classroom and one supermarket training setting (see below). In addition, the natural category of a supermarket was established in the classroom setting using the modified stimulus equivalence training procedures proposed by Fields et al. (1991). A stimulus equivalence training session was conducted prior to each supermarket training session until criterion was reached.

Stimuli. The following stimuli were used to establish the natural category of a "supermarkef': (a) spoken word "Supermarkef' (A1); (b)


Table 1

Steps of the Supermarket Shopping Task Analysis

Step Description

1 Walks from car to supermarket' 2 Enters the supermarket through the correct door' 3 Lifts a basket 4 Looks at shopping list' 5 Looks on shelves for item' 6 Puts item in basket or picks up item' 7 Looks at list for next item' 8 Looks on shelves for item' 9 Puts item in basket or picks up item' 10 Checks list to see both items are in the basket 11 Goes to correct checkout i.e. , express- less than 12 items 12 Takes place in line' 13 Behaves appropriately in line (i.e., moves forward when line moves)' 14 Puts contents of basket on counter' 15 Replaces basket 16 Pays for items using next pound strategy' 17 Waits for change' 18 Packs bag' 19 Picks up bag' 20 Exits store through correct door' 21 Returns to car'

'essential steps

written word SUPERMARKET (B1); (c) photograph of the inside of the supermarket training setting (C1); and (d) two photographs of the inside of nontraining supermarket settings (C1 variants).

Visual stimuli (Le. photographs of supermarkets and the written word SUPERMARKET) were mounted on cards (30 cm x 50 cm). The spoken word "Supermarkef' was verbally repeated every 5 s until a response was made. Two other natural categories (shop and restaurant) were established simultaneously with the supermarket natural category (see Figure 1). They were chosen to represent maximum and minimum difference categories. The following stimuli were used to establish the shop natural category (minimum difference): (a) dictated word "Shop" (A2); (b) written word SHOP (B2); and (c) picture of the inside of a local shop (C2). The following stimuli were used to establish the restaurant natural category (maximum difference): (a) dictated word "Restauranf' (A3); (b) written word RESTAURANT (B3); and (c) picture of the inside of a local restaurant (C3).

Training. Pretesting (each of the conditional relations were presented 10 times in a matching-to-sample without reinforcement format) indicated that both participants assigned to the stimulus equivalence training group could make the A-C relation (e.g., spoken word "Supermarkef' and picture of the supermarket). Accordingly, the A-B (spoken word-written word) relation was taught by trial and error matching-to-sample training. Training sessions consisted of 30 trials (Le., 10 x [A1-B1]; 10 x [A2-B2;] 10 x [A3-B3]; see Figure 2). The following set of instructions were used prior to training of


''Supermarket'' (spoken word)

SUPERMARKET (written word)

/1\

"Shop" (spoken word)

SHOP (written word)

1 I P~ture I

"Restaurant" (spoken word)

RESTAURANT (written word)

1 EJ

Figure 1. The natural categories of supermarket, shop, and restaurant

relations: "I am going to say a word. Please listen to the word and then point to the word that goes with it:' Verbal feedback of "good" and "try again" served as the differential consequence. Only the first response was recorded to determine if criterion had been reached. Criterion was not more than one error on any conditional A-8 relation during the training session. Order of trials within each session were randomized (this randomization procedure was maintained during testing) with the restriction that the same sample did not appear on more than three consecutive occasions. Also, the position

A 1 ("Supermarket") (spoken word)

81 (SUPERMARKEn (written word)

A2 ("Shop") (spoken word)

82 (SHOP) (written word)

A3 ("Restaurant") (spoken word)

83 (RESTAURANT) (written word)

Figure 2. The behavioral relations explicitly taught during equivalence training


(e.g., left, center, right) of the designated correct comparison was randomized from trial to trial. Order of presentation was prerecorded on a data sheet and trials presented accordingly.

81 (SUPERMARKET) (written word)

I p~ure I I p~ure I I p~~ure I

C1 and Variants (pictures)

C1 and Variants (pictures)

Ip~ure I Ip~ure I Ip~~~e I

81 (SUPERMARKET) (written word)


Ip~ture I

C2 (picture)

C2 (picture)

Ip~ture I



I P~ture I

C3 (picture)

C3 (picture)

I P~ture I


Figure 3. The behavioral relations used to test for equivalence formation

Testing. Following the establishment of the A-8 relations (A 1-8 1, A2-82, A3-83), randomized testing for equivalence without differential reinforcement was conducted. This involved presentation of 81-C1 and 2 variants, 82-C2, 83-C3, C1 and 2 variants-81, C2-82, C3-83 tests (see Figure 3) . C1 and its two variants were used the same number of times in a sequential order (Le., C1 was used in the first trial involving C stimuli,


then the first variant was used in the next trial, followed by the second variant in the following trial, and so on). Criterion to determine that the supermarket natural category had been established was not more than one error on any conditional B-C, C-B relation during the testing session.

Maintenance. Probes were conducted after every third supermarket training session. These consisted of 30 trial equivalence tests (Le., B-C and C-B tests). Criterion to determine the maintenance of the natural categories was no more than one error on any conditional relation during the testing session.

Multiple Exemplar Training Steps of the supermarket shopping task analysis were taught in the

classroom and three supermarket training settings (see below).

Single Instance Training Steps of the supermarket shopping task analysis were taught in the

classroom and one of the supermarket training settings (see below).

Experimental Design A multiple baseline across participants design was used to

demonstrate experimental control (Kazdin, 1982). Probes were inserted throughout all phases of the design to assess for generalization. One generalization probe (sequentially selected from the pool of three) was conducted every third session.

Baseline. No instructional feedback was given during the baseline phase. In each baseline session, a participant was provided with a two-item pictorial shopping list and three pound coins. The participant was instructed to go with the trainer to the selected (determined by the experimental group to which the participant was assigned) supermarket setting and purchase the two items on the shopping list. The participant was accompanied into the supermarket setting by the trainer. If a task analysis step was not performed correctly, the conditions necessary for the next step of the task analysis were set up (e.g., the trainer lifted the shopping items from the basket and put them on the checkout counter). This procedure was repeated until all 21 task analysis steps were completed.

Classroom Training Each session began with the trainer providing an explanation of the

training procedure to the group of participants. The trainer then modeled the first step of the task analysis. Each participant then performed the task analysis step. This training sequence was repeated until all steps of the task analysis had been performed by each participant. If a task analysis response did not occur, a least-to-most prompting strategy was used by the trainer to prompt participants to perform the task analysis step appropriately. The least-to-most prompting strategy involved an indirect verbal prompt (Le., "What do you do next?"), a direct verbal prompt (e.g., "Go to the checkout"), or modeling (Le., the trainer demonstrated the step of the task analysis).


Next pound strategy. All 6 participants in the study had difficulty counting money. This presented a major problem given that payment for shopping items was an essential step of the task analysis. Thirty minutes (i.e., 5 minutes per participant) was set aside during each 90-minute classroom training session for participants to practice the next pound strategy. Training involved verbal instruction from the trainer (i.e. , provision of rationale and an explanation of how the next pound strategy worked) and 10 discrete training trials per participant (e.g. , the trainer would say that will be £1 . 56 and the participant would give the trainer a number of pound coins [i.e., one, two, or three pound coins]; if the participant gave the trainer two pound coins the trainer would provide feedback in the form of verbal praise, alternatively, if the participant gave the trainer one or three pound coins, the trainer would indicate that the response was incorrect and then provide corrective feedback) .

Supermarket Training A participant was given a shopping list (brought in by the participant

from their parent or guardian) and three pound coins. The participant was taken to the selected supermarket in the trainer's car to buy the two items on the shopping list. The least-to-most prompting strategy was used if a participant did not perform a task analysis step properly. For example, the trainer would verbally prompt the correct response using an indirect question (e.g. , "What do you do now that you have all the items in the basket ?"). If the correct response did not occur, a direct verbal prompt was used (i.e. , verbal description of the correct behavior; e.g., ''Walk to the cash register."). If this failed to produce the correct response, the behavior was modeled by the trainer. If modeling did not produce the desired behavior, the participant was physically guided through the correct response. Criterion for task analysis responding was 80% correct responses (i.e., independent performance of the 17 essential task analysis steps) on five consecutive supermarket training sessions.

Interobserver Agreement Interobserver agreement on task analysis responding in training

settings and generalization settings was conducted during 30% of all sessions across all phases. One reliability observer accompanied the trainer to the supermarket settings and simultaneously, but independently, scored the dependent variables. The point-by-point agreement method was used to assess percentage agreement. Agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements for each response by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. The mean agreement for correct task analysis responding in training and generalization settings was 96% (range, 92% to 100%).

Results

The data for correctly performed steps of the supermarket shopping task analysis in training and generalization settings are presented in Figure

58

c o

= U) c 8. U) CD a:

~ ... ... o o '0 ... B E = z

TAYLOR AND O'REILLY

Stimulus Equivalence Training 1 ••• lIn. Intervention

2.

,. ?n--

2.

Partlolpant 2

Multiple Exemplar Training

Inl.,..entlon

2.

,. ~

-2. ,. ro~

'ertlelpant 2

Single Instance Training Intervention ..

,. 'artiGlpant 1

2.

,.~

,. 11

Sessions

T .. lnlnll Supermarket(a) -- • Generellzatlon -0 Supermarkete

2.

Figure 4. Number of correct steps on the supermarket shopping task analysis across stimulus equivalence training, multiple exemplar training, and single instance training.


4. All participants reached criterion responding in supermarket training settings (M = 19.5 correct steps per session across all participants; range 15 to 21). There was little difference in the level of correct responding in training settings between experimental conditions (stimulus equivalence, Peter, M = 19.5; Anne, M = 19.2; multiple exemplar, Mike, M = 20.3; Linda, M = 19.1; single instance, Pauline, M = 19.8; Nuala, M = 19.3). Generalization probes indicated that stimulus equivalence and multiple exemplar training produced similar levels of generalized task analysis responding whereas single instance training resulted in lower levels of generalized task analysis responding (stimulus equivalence, Peter, M= 19.2; Anne, M= 19.7; multiple exemplar, Mike, M = 20.7; Linda, M = 20.0; single instance, Pauline, M = 15.0; Nuala, M= 17.0).

Discussion

The above results demonstrate that similar levels of correct task analysis responding in training settings occurred across experimental conditions. More importantly perhaps, the data indicate that stimulus equivalence training produced similar levels of generalization to that of multiple exemplar training and greater levels of generalization than that produced by single instance training. The relative success of the stimulus equivalence training procedure suggests that equivalence training may be an effective way to promote generalization of community-referenced skills.

The finding that stimulus equivalence training produced similar levels of generalization to those produced by multiple exemplar training has important implications for applied behavior analysis and intellectual disability. Previous research has shown multiple exemplar training to be an effective way to facilitate generalization of newly acquired skills outside the training setting for individuals with intellectual disabilities (Berg, Wacker, & Flynn, 1990). Although effective, multiple exemplar training can be time consuming when teaching independent community living skills given that travel is necessary between settings and that multiple training examples must be provided (Haring, Kennedy, Adams, & Pitts-Conway, 1987). The arduous nature of multiple exemplar training may result in it being impractical for educational and training purposes in some cases. An important consideration for the applied behavior analyst when designing instructional protocol is the efficiency of the training procedure, the ease with which the intervention can be implemented by training staff, and the cost involved. The burdensome nature of any training protocol can make an effective intervention ineffective (Taylor, O'Reilly, & Lancioni, 1996). In the present study the same number of training sessions occurred across experimental conditions. Stimulus equivalence training, however, involved much less travel time given that training occurred in only one supermarket training setting. The stimulus equivalence training procedure provided an instructional strategy to promote generalization without the cost and inconvenience of teaching in multiple community settings.

In addition to the practical implications of the study, the technological


development proposed may have important theoretical implications for applied behavior analysis. The emergence of untrained relations from established equivalence classes and from the addition of new members to these classes expands the present theoretical base on generalization. To date, the technology of generalization in the applied literature has focused on two areas: response generalization and stimulus generalization. These types of generalization depend upon the physical similarities of the relevant characteristics of the stimuli. As such, they do not address situations in which responses are under the control of untrained, arbitrary stimuli. These relations are not explained by typical stimulus or response generalization concepts. Equivalence relations expand the field's conceptualization and understanding of generalization and as such this study represents a potentially important theoretical development in the applied behavioral literature.

The current study has a number of limitations. With experimental groups with N=2 per group, it is difficult to rule out threats to internal validity such as intersubject differences. It is quite possible that the differences shown between the experimental groups were simply a function of choice assignment and not treatment effects.

A second limitation is that the current research implies that the procedure established an equivalence class consisting of physically unrelated stimuli and stimuli involved in natural categories. This characterization is probably not quite accurate. During pretest, the two participants who received equivalence training could already select the picture of the supermarket in response to the spoken word "supermarket:' This finding strongly suggests that participants came into the study with an equivalence class consisting of the spoken word and a variety of pictures and actual supermarkets. The printed word may have been added to an already existing stimulus class. It is possible that the generalization shown by the participants of this study was simply the result of the existing class. Alternatively, it is possible that generalization was the result of adding the new member to the class or the result of intermixing class tasks with supermarket shopping training tasks. Unfortunately, our experimental design doesn't really allow us to determine which, if any, of these factors were important. Future research should clarify these issues.

A final difficulty is that the experimental design does not allow us to determine precisely the effects the established natural category is supposed to have on generalization. For example, was generalization a result of enhanced discrimination of supermarket settings? If this is so, what mechanisms could be responsible? One possible explanation for generalization effects following the establishment of the supermarket natural category is primary generalization (i.e. , by linking a picture of one supermarket training setting to pictures of other supermarket settings, generalized responding in generalization settings may have been prompted by similar physical characteristics-see Adams et aI. , 1993; Fields et aI. , 1993). An alternative explanation is that by creating a natural


category involving the spoken word "supermarket," the written word supermarket, and pictures of three supermarket settings, the natural category acted as a verbal discriminative stimulus to prompt correct responding. Hayes and Hayes (1989) have argued that if a stimulus participates in a relational frame (an equivalence class is a special case of relational frame), it is functioning verbally. Future research should investigate the relationship between establishing a natural category, task analysis responding and generalization. Only then will it be possible to determine the mechanisms responsible for the generalized responding shown in the stimulus equivalence training condition.

Given the limitations outlined above, the current study should be considered as a preliminary investigation. The results, however, do demonstrate the potential of equivalence training for future education, training, and applied intervention development. Generalization of skills from training to nontraining settings continues to be a major difficulty for applied behavior analysts. Ultimately, the success of any training program is determined by the extent of generalization and maintenance of newly acquired skills (Whitman, 1990). There is a continual need to refine existing technologies of generalization and develop new technologies. We have demonstrated the potential of the equivalence model with the hope that it can be incorporated into a general taxonomy of strategies for promoting generalization and maintenance of behavior in applied settings (Stokes & 8aer, 1977). Whether this will be the case remains to be seen. As with all new developments our confidence in the robustness of these research findings must await systematic replication.

References

ADAMS, B. J ., FIELDS, L., & VERHAVE, T. (1993). Formation of generalized equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 43, 553-566.

BERG, W. K., WACKER, D. P , & FLYNN, T. H. (1990). Teaching generalization and maintenance of work behavior. In F. R. Rusch (Ed.) , Supported employment: Models, methods and issues (pp. 145-160). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

COWLEY, B. J., GREEN, G., & BRAUNLING-MCMORROW, D. (1992). Using stimulus equivalence procedures to teach name-face matching to adults with brain injuries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 461-475.

DEITZ, S. M. (1978). Current status of applied behavior analysis: Science versus technology. American Psychologist, 33, 805-814.

FIELDS, L. , ADAMS, B. J ., BROWN, J . B., & VERHAVE, T. (1993). The generalization of emergent relations in equivalence classes: Stimulus substitutability. The Psychological Record, 43, 235-254.

FIELDS, L. , ADAMS, B. J. , BUFFINGTON, D. M., YANG, w., & VERHAVE, T. (1996). Response transfer between stimuli in generalized equivalence classes: A model for the establishment of natural kind and fuzzy superordinate categories. The Psychological Record, 46, 665-684.


FIELDS, L. , REEVE, K. F. , ADAMS, B. J ., BROWN, J. L. , & VERHAVE, T. (1996). Predicting the extension of equivalence classes from primary generalization gradients: The merger of equivalence classes and perceptual classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 67-91 .

FIELDS, L. , REEVE, K. F. , ADAMS, B. J. , & VERHAVE, T. (1991). Stimulus generalization and equivalence classes: A model for natural categories. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 305-312.

GREEN, G. (1990 ). Differences in development of visual and auditory-visual equivalence relations. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 3, 260-270.

HARING, T. G., KENNEDY, C, H., ADAMS, M. J., & PITTS-CONWAY, V. (1987). Teaching generalization of purchasing skills across community settings to autistic youth using videotape modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 89-96.

HAYES, S. C., & HAYES, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the listener as the basis for rUle-governance. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.) , Rule-governed behavior, cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 153-190). New York: Plenum Press.

HAYES, S. C. , RINCOVER, A. , & SOLNICK, J. (1980). The technical drift of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 275-285.

KAZDIN, A. E. (1982). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.

MACE, F. C., & WACKER, D. P. (1994). Toward greater integration of basic and applied behavioral research: An introduction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 569-574.

SIDMAN, M., & TAILBY, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination versus matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5-22.

SPARROW, S. S., BALLA, D. A. , & CICCHETTI, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Minnesota: American Guidance Service Inc.

STOKES, T. F. , & BAER, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.

TAYLOR, I. , O'REILLY, M. F. , & LANCOINI, G. (1996). An evaluation of an ongoing consultation model to train teachers to treat challenging behaviour. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43, 203-218.

WHITMAN, T. L. (1990). Self-regulation and mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 94, 347-362.

Date post:	12-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

The Psychological Record, 2000, 50, 49-62

Documents