A comparison of two teaching procedures to establish generalizedintraverbal-tacting in children with autism
Francesca degli EspinosaQueen’s University, United Kingdom and ABA Clinic, United Kingdom
Kate Wolff and Sophie HewettQueen’s University, United Kingdom
Previous research has investigated generalized intraverbal-tacting by teaching children withautism to respond using autoclitic frames. The present study compared the effectiveness andefficiency of a Frame and a No Frame procedure across counterbalanced stimulus sets with4 children with autism. In the Frame condition, children were taught to respond using autocliticframes (e.g., “Shape square,” “Number two,” “Color green,” “It’s mummy,” “S/he is drinking”)corresponding to the verbal antecedent (“What shape?”, “What number?”, “What color?”,“Who is it?”, “What is s/he doing?”). In the No Frame condition, intraverbal-tacting wasestablished without the autoclitic frame. Irrespective of stimuli employed, 2 children acquiredintraverbal-tacting only in the Frame condition. The other 2 children acquired intraverbal-tacting in both conditions, with the Frame procedure requiring fewer teaching trials for 1 childand producing greater generalization for the other. Implications for clinical practice and the roleof additive intraverbal stimulus control of autoclitic frames are discussed.Key words: autoclitic frames, intraverbal-tacting, multiple verbal control, question
discrimination
Responding to questions is a fundamentalskill that emerges early in children. Before theage of two, neurotypically developing toddlersshow differential accurate responding to yes andno, and what and where questions (Goodwinet al., 2012; Seidl et al., 2003) in the presenceof visual stimuli. By the age of three and a half,they comprehend a variety of questions framedwith who, what, where, when, why and how inthe context of social play and shared book-reading (Ervin-Tripp, 1970; Rhyner, 2007;Rowe et al., 2017). A consistent and growingbody of evidence suggests that parental use ofquestions, particularly Wh-questions, is posi-tively associated with children’s vocabulary
acquisition (Goodwin et al., 2012; Hoff-Ginsberg, 1985, 1986; Rowe et al., 2017).Take, for example, a parent and 2-year-old
child looking at a book on trains. When theparent says, “Look at the train” the child ori-ents to the picture, points to it, says, “Train”and then looks at the parent for social approvaland to continue the interaction. The parentsays, “That’s right, it’s a train, what is it?”, towhich the child replies, “Train.” The parentthen says, “Choo choo,” to which the childlaughs while repeating “Choo choo.” The par-ent says, “Yes, the train goes choo. What sounddoes the train make?”, to which the childrepeats, “Choo choo.” Similarly, the parentmay say, “Look, the train is blue.” Whilelooking at the picture, the child (who by thisage can echo short phrases) repeats “Train isblue,” which the parent follows with the ques-tion, “Yes! What color is it?”, to which thechild answers, “Blue.” Through these socialinteractions, occurring multiple times daily
We have no conflicts of interest relevant to this articleto disclose.
Address correspondence to: Francesca degli Espinosa,ABA Clinic, 40a Burgess Road, Southampton, Hamp-shire, SO16 7AH, UK; Email: degliespinosa@gmail.com
doi: 10.1002/jaba.869
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2021, 54, 1468–1487 NUMBER 4 (FALL)
© 2021 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (SEAB).
1468
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
across many contexts, the parent not onlyteaches new words and concepts (e.g., identitynames, colors, object and animal sounds), butalso teaches the child to produce these newwords and concepts in response to the relevantcorresponding question.In behavior-analytic terms, through frequent
social interactions involving verbal and nonver-bal stimuli across multiple exemplars, parentsnot only establish novel topographies as tactsbut also bring the emission of these responsesunder the multiple control of both verbal(i.e., questions and comments) and nonverbalstimuli (e.g., colored trains). Bondyet al. (2004) use the term intraverbal-tacting todescribe responding differentially to questionsregarding some dimension of objects and peo-ple (e.g., “Who’s this?”, “What is he doing?”).Intraverbal-tacting is an example of multiplycontrolled verbal behavior that involves theconvergent control of verbal stimuli and someaspect of the nonverbal physical environment(Michael et al., 2011).In typical development, intraverbal-tacting
develops without specialized instruction duringday-to-day social interactions. However, thisskill can be delayed (Goodwin et al., 2012) orimpaired (Howlin, 1982) in children withautism spectrum disorders (ASD). A problemcommonly encountered in clinical practice isthe child who, despite having been taught thecomponent tacts (e.g., the names of items andcolors), when shown a colored object, such as ablue train, and asked, “What color?” responds“Train.” Although children with ASD showclear deficits in responding differentially toquestions regarding visual stimuli, proceduresto establish intraverbal-tacting have not beenextensively investigated. Applied research hasmainly focused on establishing specificintraverbal responses with respect to the fea-ture, function, and class of items (DeSouzaet al., 2019; Ingvarsson et al., 2016;Jahr, 2001) and to two-component questions(e.g., “What’s an animal that’s red?”; Aguirre
et al., 2019; Kisamore et al., 2016) using arange of strategies, such as echoic to intraverbalor tact to intraverbal transfer procedures, multi-ple exemplar training, blocked trials, and dis-crimination training (see DeSouza et al., 2017;Stauch et al., 2017 for reviews). A number ofstudies have shown that an echoic DifferentialObserving Response (DOR) procedure,whereby children echo the critical part of theverbal antecedent prior to the target response,can facilitate differential intraverbal responding(Jahr, 2001; Kisamore et al., 2013, 2016). Forexample, Kisamore et al. (2016) taught childrenwith ASD to respond to two-component ques-tions such as “What’s an animal that’s red?” or“What’s a yellow vehicle?” by repeating “Ani-mal red” before saying “Parrot” or “Yellowvehicle” before saying “Dump truck”.
While these studies on intraverbalresponding focused on teaching specificresponses to specific questions, two recent stud-ies (degli Espinosa et al., 2020; Meleshkevichet al., 2020) have focused on establishing gen-eralized discrimination of specific questions(i.e., “What is it?” vs. “What color?”) as testedon novel visual stimuli. In degli Espinosaet al. (2020) two children with ASD were tau-ght to say the verbal frames “It’s a” and “Itsays” when responding to the verbal anteced-ents “What is it?” and “What does it say?”when shown pictures of animals. They werealso taught to say the verbal frames “Color,”“Number,” and “It’s a” when responding tothe verbal antecedents “What color?”, “Whatnumber?”, and “What is it?” when shown col-ored numbers and objects.A series of steps were conducted to teach the
participants to use these verbal frames. The firststep involved teaching echoics of the verbalframes and the corresponding variable terms(e.g., “Say color red.” “Say color blue,” “Saynumber four,” “Say number two”) in theabsence of any visual stimuli. The second stepemployed simultaneous simple-discriminationprocedures to teach tacts of component visual
1469Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
stimuli using a verbal frame (e.g., “It’s a car,”“Color red”) when presented with the anteced-ent verbal stimuli (“What it is?”, “Whatcolor?”). The same question was asked acrossmultiple exemplars of the same stimulus class(e.g., “What is it?” for objects, “What color?”for colored swatches). The third step involvedthe consecutive presentation of both verbalantecedents (e.g., “What is it?”, “What color?”)in the presence of the compound stimuli(e.g., a red car, a blue spoon, a green bag, a yel-low hat) in a conditional-only arrangement(Grow et al., 2011). Children were promptedto use the frame when errors occurred, but theactual intraverbal-tact was not directlyprompted. Following mastery of this final step,near errorless intraverbal-tacting and general-ized use of the frame to novel exemplars withinand across stimulus classes was demonstratedfor both children.Meleshkevich et al. (2020) established gener-
alized intraverbal-tacting in response to the ver-bal antecedents “What shape?” and “Whatnumber?” and pictures of shapes with numberswritten inside them, and in response to “Whatis it?” and “What color?” and pictures of col-ored objects with three young children withASD. The first two training steps from thedegli Espinosa et al. (2020) procedure (echoic,simultaneous simple discrimination) were rep-laced with fully prompting the use of the targetframe and the intraverbal tact through aconditional-only method of discriminationtraining. For two children, the conditional-onlymethod was not immediately effective, andsimilar to degli Espinosa et al., brief exposureto a simultaneous simple-discrimination proce-dure to teach tacts with the verbal frame(e.g., “color yellow” in response to coloredswatches) was implemented before a return tothe conditional-only procedure. This proce-dural change produced accurate intraverbal-tacting. An additional variation was presentingone visual stimulus at a time, in isolation, androtating the verbal antecedents, rather than
presenting visual stimuli in an array androtating the verbal antecedents. Despite theseprocedural differences, similar results wereobtained: improved levels of intraverbal-tactingon the teaching stimuli and within and acrossstimulus class generalization. In addition, chil-dren responded to novel visual stimuli by usingthe learned verbal frames. The observed gener-alized intraverbal-tacting to novel untaughtcompound stimuli may have resulted from theadditive, multiple, and generalizable verbal con-trol exerted by teaching children to echo theconditional critical term within an autocliticframe (e.g., “It’s a [cat], “It says [meow],“Color [brown]”) in response to the verbalantecedent (degli Espinosa et al., 2020;Meleshkevich et al., 2020).Autoclitic frames are verbal frames in which
the terms are organized in orderly sequences ofintraverbally related fixed and variable terms(Palmer, 2007, 2016; Skinner, 1957). In thepresence of a compound visual stimulus (e.g., abrown cat), the verbal antecedent, for example“What color?”, sets the occasion for the emis-sion of an echoic (the first term of an autocliticframe) that, in turn, exerts additionalintraverbal control over a class of variableresponses (i.e., color names), of which the spe-cific member (i.e., the color tact) is the sampleat hand. The resultant intraverbal-tacting thenreflects a summation of control from the vari-ous verbal sources: the verbal antecedent, theechoic, and the intraverbal relation betweenframe elements.However, because the frame procedure was
the sole procedure used in the only two publi-shed studies on intraverbal-tacting (degliEspinosa et al., 2020; Meleshkevich et al., 2020),it is not possible to conclusively determinewhether the frame was necessary for producinggeneralized responding, or whether more tradi-tional conditional discrimination training proce-dures would be sufficient to establish conditionalcontrol of the verbal antecedent over the relevantdiscriminative nonverbal property, irrespective of
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1470
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
the verbal frame. Therefore, the present studysought to delineate the effect of autoclitic framesin generalized intraverbal-tacting by comparingframe procedures such as those previouslydescribed (degli Espinosa et al., 2020;Meleshkevich et al., 2020) to otherwise similarconditional-discrimination procedures withoutverbal frame training.
Method
Participants and PreassessmentFour children from the UK participated in
the study: Adam (15 years), Alice (8 years),Jake (6 years), and Fred (5 years). All childrenhad received a diagnosis of ASD from a multi-disciplinary team, could produce at least two-word echoics, could mand with spoken wordsfor favorite items and activities, and possessed arepertoire of at least 200 spoken tacts thatincluded the names of common nouns, shapes,numbers, colors, familiar people, and actions.They could all sit at a table receiving instruc-tions for at least 10 min and were regularly tau-ght using a token economy system to accesstangible reinforcers in their day-to-day ABAsessions. None of the children displayed chal-lenging behavior. All children received ABA-based instruction from ABA instructors athome and/or school.Adam’s score on the VB-MAPP was
116, Alice’s was 112, Jake’s was 96, and Fred’swas 108. All children demonstrated skillswithin the mand, tact, listener, echoic, andintraverbal milestones of Level 2, and someLevel 3 skills within the academic domains. Nochild could answer different questions in mixedorder regarding visual stimuli (T11 milestone).Adam and Jake demonstrated intraverbal-tacting to the verbal antecedents “What color?”and “What is it?” regarding colored objects butdid not show accurate discrimination of anyother verbal antecedent and the correspondingvisual stimulus. Alice and Fred had nointraverbal-tacting skills. Alice had received no
instruction in these. Although Fred hadreceived some intraverbal-tact teaching on col-ored objects in response to the antecedents“What is it? and “What color is it?”, this wasterminated 6 weeks before his participation inthe study because it had not been effective.A preassessment of the children’s tact reper-
toire was carried out to evaluate whether theycould accurately tact the stimuli that would bepresented in the experiment. Only stimuli fromthe component sets were used. Each stimuluscard was presented once, in isolation, with thecorresponding verbal antecedent. For example,the instructor held up the picture of a familiarperson and asked “Who is it?” or a numbercard and asked “What number?” These verbalantecedents were typically used when childrenwere asked to tact those items. All children cor-rectly tacted all presented stimuli; no stimulusreplacement was necessary. There were noprogrammed consequences for either correct orincorrect responding.To ensure cooperation, maintenance tasks
were interspersed every one, two, or three con-secutive target trials. Tokens were delivered formaintenance tasks only on a variable ratio(VR) 3 token production (three responses, onaverage, to produce a token) and fixed ratio(FR) 5 exchange production (five tokens toproduce exchange opportunities). When Alice,Fred, and Jake’s responding met the exchangeproduction schedule, the exchange periodoccurred, during which experimental stimuliwere removed and a tray or a box containingtheir personal reinforcers was presented. Thechildren then manded or picked up their pre-ferred item and consumed the reinforcer. If atoy or iPad was chosen, consumption wasroughly 30 s. Food was placed in a smallTupperware box, which the children couldopen. Once the food was consumed, the boxwas replenished and replaced on the tray.Before each set of trials, Adam was given apretask choice (Piazza et al., 1996) betweenfavorite items. He manded for the item either
1471Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
spontaneously or when the adult asked “Whatshall we work for?” The chosen toy was thenplaced on the table in sight and Adam receivedit upon meeting the exchange productionschedule. This was the method of preferenceassessment used regularly by Adam’s teachers.
Setting and MaterialsThe procedures for all children were conducted
in a quiet room at home or school. The instruc-tor and the child sat opposite one another at atable. Three sets of stimuli were created for each
stage of both procedures using a matrix to ensurethat all components were combined to derivecompound stimuli: Shape/Number, Number/Color, and Agent/Action. Figures 1 and 2 illus-trate the Shape/Number and Agent/Action stimu-lus sets. All visual stimuli were laminated andmeasured 13.3 cm x 10 cm. Each stimulus classcontained two component sets (Component), ateaching compound set (Teaching), and threegeneralization compound sets (g1, g2, and G).For Shape/Number, the component sets wereeight black outlined shapes printed on a whitecard and eight black numbers (1 to 8) printed on
Figure 1Teaching and Generalization Stimuli for Shape/Number
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1472
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
a white card (Number component and Shapecomponent set). Four stimuli from each typewere selected to make up sixteen compoundteaching stimuli (Teaching set). The remainingstimuli were divided into three generalizationgroups (g1, g2, and G). The g1 group includedone untaught number and one taught shape, g2one taught number and one untaught shape, andG (Generalization group) combined twountaught components (see Figure 1). The Num-ber/Color stimuli were similarly constructed bycombining eight colors (yellow, red, blue, pink,purple, orange, and brown) and 1-8 numbers.
The Agent component stimulus set comprisedeight headshot photographs, each depicting afemale (F1 to F4) or a male (M1 to M4) familiarto the child which s/he could tact (e.g., mummy,daddy, uncle’s name, sister’s name, female/maleinstructor’s name). The Action component setincluded eight photographs of unfamiliar peopleengaging in the target actions. The remaining setswere created by taking photographs of each ofthe familiar agents performing each of the targetactions. Each group contained two pictures offemale and two pictures of male agents (SeeFigure 2).
Figure 2Teaching and Generalization Stimuli for Agent/Action
1473Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
Experimental Design and DependentVariablesAn adapted alternating-treatments design
(Sindelar et al., 1985) was used in which twointervention conditions (Frame and No Frameprocedure) were provided concurrently withrespect to two related response classes: Shape/Number and Agent/Action discriminations forAdam and Jake, and Number/Color and Agent/Action discriminations for Fred and Alice. Base-line and postintervention generalization measureswere identical for all children across all stimulusclasses, except that in postintervention generaliza-tion, teaching stimuli employed during the inter-vention phase were excluded. During theintervention phase, the two conditions (Frameand No Frame) were counterbalanced across chil-dren and stimulus classes. Adam received theFrame procedure for Shape/Number and the NoFrame procedure for Agent/Action. Jake receivedthe Frame procedure for Agent/Action and theNo Frame procedure for Shape/Number. Alicereceived the Frame procedure for Number/Colorand the No Frame procedure for Agent/Action.Fred received the Frame procedure for Agent/Action and the No Frame procedure forNumber/Color.The primary dependent variable was percent-
age of correct unprompted intraverbal tacts,defined as (a) verbal responses that cor-responded to both the verbal antecedent andthe visual stimulus, (b) occurring within 2 s ofinstruction delivery, and (c) irrespective of theuse of the autoclitic frame. Additional datawere also taken on the independent use of mat-ched autoclitic frames at baseline and in post-intervention generalization. This was defined asthe child independently saying, “Shape [shapename]” to the verbal antecedent “What shape?”and “Number [number name]” to “Whatnumber?” when presented with the Shape/Number visual stimuli, “Color [color name]”to “What color?” and “Number [numbername]” to “What number?” with the Number/Color visual stimuli, and “It’s [agent name]”
and “S/he is [actioning] to “Who is it?” and“What is s/he doing?” with the Agent/Actionvisual stimuli. Use of the autoclitic frame wasrecorded on each trial in baseline and post-intervention generalization, whether respondingon the primary dependent variable (theintraverbal tact) was correct or incorrect in bothconditions. Table 1 shows examples of correctand incorrect responses across the three stimu-lus sets (Agent/Action, Shape/Number, Color/Number).
ProceduresBaseline SessionsBaseline procedures and stimulus presenta-
tion were identical to those reported by degliEspinosa et al. (2020). A sequence generatorcomputerized program provided the randomiza-tion for the visual stimuli positions and theorder of verbal antecedents to be presented ineach trial in each session. Two sessions per daywere conducted: one baseline session for eachstimulus set consisting of 20 trials (40 trials intotal). Each session consisted of targets belong-ing to only one set of compound stimuli(e.g., Agent/Action only or Color/Numberonly). Trials across stimulus sets were not inter-spersed in each session. The instructor laid outfour visual stimuli in a horizontal array. Fivetrials in which a different verbal antecedent forthe four visual stimuli were presented. Afterfive trials, the array was removed and a differentarray of four visual stimuli was presented andthe next five trials commenced. This continueduntil all 20 trials were conducted and the ses-sion for that stimulus set ended (for Adam,Jake, and Alice). Each of Fred’s baseline ses-sions were conducted in the same manner, withthe exception that he received 30 baseline trialsper set in the first two sessions, and 20 baselinetrials per set in the third session. Thus, thetotal number of baseline trials (160) wasthe same for all four children. In each session,both verbal antecedents related to the
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1474
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
compound stimuli were presented an equalnumber of times. Figure 3 provides an exampleof five randomized trials in a four-stimuli array foreach stimulus set. After laying out the four visualstimuli, the instructor presented one of the targetverbal antecedents while pointing to the visualstimulus, about 1 cm from the top edge of thecard. The instructor did not point on the actualcard surface to avoid inadvertently pointing to aspecific feature of the compound visual stimulus(e.g., the number or the shape, the face of the
person, or the hands performing the action). Thechild was given 2 s to respond. The response wasrecorded and the instructor moved to the nextvisual stimulus and verbal antecedent until all fivetrials for that array had been completed, at whichpoint a new array of stimuli within the same set ofcompound stimuli was presented. As in the pre-assessment, programmed consequences for eithercorrect or incorrect responding were not delivered.To ensure children’s cooperation, maintenancetasks were interspersed every one, two, or three
Table 1
Definitions of Correct and Incorrect Responses to Verbal Antecedents (VA) and Visual Stimuli (VS) Across Classes
Agent/Action Response type Who is it? What is she doing?
Correct Matched VA & VS “Mummy” “Drinking”“It’s mummy” “She is drinking”
Incorrect 1 Discrimination error (UnmatchedVA & matched VS)
“Drinking” “Mummy”
2 Tact error (MatchedVA & unmatched VS)
“Auntie” “It’s auntie” “Eating”
“She is eating”3 Combined response “Mummy is drinking” “Mummy is drinking”
“Mummy drinking” “Mummy drinking”“Drinking mummy” “Drinking mummy”
4 Anticipatory response Any responding priorto VA
Any respondingprior to VA
Shape/Number Response type What shape? What number?
Correct Matched VA & VS “Triangle” “Four”“Shape triangle” “Number four”
Incorrect 1 Discrimination error(Unmatched VA& matched VS)
“Four” “Triangle”
2 Tact error (MatchedVA & unmatched VS)
“Square” “Three”
“Shape square” “Number three”3 Combined response “Four triangle “Four triangle
“Triangle four” “Triangle font”4 Anticipatory response Any responding prior
to VAAny respondingprior to VA
Number/Color Response type What number? What color?
Correct Matched VA & VS “Three” “Red”“Number three” “Color red”
Incorrect 1 Discrimination error(Unmatched VA& matched VS)
“Red” “Three”
2 Tact error (MatchedVA & unmatched VS)
“Five” “Green”
“Number five” “Color green”3 Combined response “Three red” “Red three”
“Red three” “Three red”4 Anticipatory response Any responding
prior to VAAny respondingprior to VA
1475Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
consecutive target trials, as previously described.The baseline trials were never the final reinforcedtrial and were therefore never immediatelyfollowed by reinforcement.
Echoic SessionAfter the last baseline session had been com-
pleted, one session of echoic training was con-ducted for each response that would be targetedin both intervention conditions, to ensure thatparticipants could produce and accurately articu-late all responses. This was particularly relevantfor the Frame procedure, as these word combina-tions were novel to all participants. Sixteenechoic trials were conducted (eight for each dis-crimination), once only. The instructor and thechild sat opposite each other. The instructor said,“We are going to repeat some words” and thendelivered the instruction (e.g., “Say ‘It’smummy’” or “mummy”) depending on the con-dition to which that stimulus class had beenassigned. Echoic trials of Frame targets (e.g., “Its’a [agent name] and “She is [actioning]”) and NoFrame targets were presented in separate andcounterbalanced trial sessions, rather than inter-spersed with one another. There were noprogrammed consequences for a correct echoic;maintenance targets were interspersed, as previ-ously described, to maintain cooperation withthe task. All children echoed the relevant verbalstimuli and no additional teaching procedure toshape clear articulation was necessary.
Intervention SessionsEach teaching day was divided into two ses-
sions, with one condition presented in the firstsession and the other in the second session on thesame day. The two conditions were discriminationtraining with an autoclitic frame requirement(Frame procedure) and discrimination trainingwithout an autoclitic frame requirement(No Frame procedure). In both conditions, proce-dures employed a conditional-only (Grow et al.,2011) teaching method, 0-s prompt delay on theinitial session only, and a 2-s prompt delay in each
session thereafter. Each condition was randomlyassigned to either the first or second session of theday. There were 20 trials in each session (40 trialsin total per day). Children received no more thantwo teaching sessions per day (one for each condi-tion), approximately five days per week. Whenone procedure led to skill mastery before the alter-native condition, teaching continued for five addi-tional sessions (100 trials) while postinterventiongeneralization commenced for the condition inwhich mastery criterion had been met. If, afterthe additional 100 trials, mastery criterion was stillnot met, rather than continuing to expose thechild to an unsuccessful intervention when itscounterpart had shown to be effective, the effec-tive procedure was applied to that stimulus set.For Alice, given significant time constraints, theFrame procedure was introduced after 60 trials(three sessions) without mastery in the No Framecondition, rather than 100. Mastery criterion forboth conditions was 95% of teaching trials withcorrect responding for three consecutive sessions.Stimulus presentation and randomization were
the same as during the baseline sessions (see
Figure 3Examples of a Four-Stimuli Array
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1476
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
Figure 3). Unlike baseline, however, token rein-forcement for correct responding was provided.The token reinforcement schedules were FR1 (token production) and FR 5 (exchange produc-tion) for all children for all independent responses.Prompted responses were not reinforced, but werefollowed each time by an unprompted trial, which,if correct, was reinforced.Frame Procedure. The target correct
response was an intraverbal tact correspondingto the verbal antecedent and visual stimulus,produced within an autoclitic frame in whichthe fixed part (i.e., “Shape,” “Number,”“Color,” “It’s,” “S/he is”) matched the verbalantecedent (i.e., “What Shape?”, “What num-ber?”, “What color?”, “Who is it?”, “What iss/he doing?”). In the very first session only, theinstructor pointed to a card, gave the verbalantecedent (e.g., “Who is?” or “What is shedoing?”) and immediately provided a full 0-sprompt of the target response (e.g. “It’smummy,” “She is drinking”). If the child cor-rectly echoed, a 2-s prompt delay trial was
immediately conducted with that visual stimulusin which the instructor delivered the verbal ante-cedent again and waited 2 s. If a correct responsewas made within 2 s, a token was delivered andthe instructor moved on to the next trial. If acorrect response did not occur, the instructor ret-urned to a 0-s prompt delay on the followingtrial. With Adam, on the Shape/Number trials inthe Frame condition, when he did not respondwithin 2 s, the instructor gave a partial verbalprompt (e.g., “Sh” for “shape” or “Nu” for“number”) to facilitate the emission of the targetresponse. When he responded correctly, theinstructor immediately presented the same verbalantecedent and visual stimulus and waited 2 s foran independent response to occur. A token wasdelivered upon correct responding.The 0-s prompt delay and 2-s prompt delay
trial sequence continued until the childresponded to the full verbal prompt correctlyand responded correctly on each subsequenttrial within 2 s for 10 consecutive trials. Thiscriterion was met for all children in the first
Figure 4Flowchart of Error Correction Procedures for the “Frame” Condition
1477Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
intervention session. In all subsequent sessions,all trials were presented with a 2-s prompt delayto allow the child to respond correctly andindependently within 2 s (see Figure 4). Theinstructor presented the four cards and deliveredthe verbal antecedent while pointing to the rele-vant compound visual stimulus, allowing 2 s forthe child to respond. If the child emitted the cor-rect response within 2 s, a token was delivered. Ifa discrimination error (e.g., saying, “She isdrinking,” “Drinking,” or “It’s drinking” whenthe verbal antecedent was “Who is it?”) or a com-bined response error (e.g., saying, “Mummy isdrinking”) occurred, the trial was re-presented witha 0-s prompt delay. If the child responded accu-rately to the 0-s prompt delay, a 2-s prompt delaytrial followed. If the child omitted the frame fromthe response (frame omission) but demonstratedaccurate discrimination (e.g., saying, “Drinking”to the verbal antecedent “What is she doing?”),the instructor presented the verbal antecedentagain and immediately provided a “frameprompt.” This entailed re-presenting the verbalantecedent and saying the fixed term of the frame(e.g., “She is”) but not the target intraverbal-tact.If the child emitted the target response (e.g., “Sheis drinking”) after the frame prompt, a 2-s promptdelay trial was presented. If, on this trial, the childdid not emit the target response and again omittedthe frame, the instructor re-presented the verbalantecedent, followed by a full verbal prompt(e.g., “She is drinking”) and another 2-s promptdelay trial. If the child responded before the verbalantecedent (anticipatory response) was delivered,the instructor presented the verbal antecedentwhile pointing to the visual stimulus and waited2 s for the response to occur. If any error occurred,depending on which error (discrimination, frameomission, combined response), the previouslydescribed relevant error correction proceduresfollowed; if the response was correct, a token wasgiven. Regardless of the error, any response thathad been immediately preceded by a frameprompt or a full verbal prompt did not receivereinforcement and was always immediately
followed by a 2-s prompt delay trial. If the childresponded correctly within 2 s prior to the promptbeing given, a token was given.No Frame Procedure. The target correct
response was an intraverbal tact corresponding tothe verbal antecedent stimulus (i.e., “WhatShape?”, “What number?”, “What color?”, “Whois it?”, “What is s/he doing?”) and the visual stim-ulus (e.g., “Triangle,” “Four,” “Red,” “Mummy,”“Drinking”). In this condition, responses to thetarget stimuli were taught without the framerequirement. As shown in Figure 5, besides theresponse requirement, criterion to transition to the2-s prompt delay trial, correction procedures fordiscrimination errors, combined response errors,anticipatory responses, and reinforcement schedulewere identical to the Frame Procedure, with theone exception that no frame omission error waspossible. In the very first session at the beginningof intervention, the instructor pointed to a card(e.g., a 4 within a triangle, a photograph ofmummy drinking, or a red 4), stated the verbalantecedent (e.g., “What shape?”, “What is shedoing?”, or “What color?”) and immediately pro-vided a 0-s delay full verbal prompt of the targetresponse (e.g., “Triangle”, “Cutting”, “Red”). Ifthe child correctly produced the target promptedresponse, a 2-s prompt delay trial was conductedin which the instructor delivered the verbal ante-cedent again and waited 2 s for the child torespond independently. If a correct response wasgiven within 2 s, the instructor delivered a tokenand moved on to the next trial.
Postintervention Generalization SessionsStimuli tested during baseline but not used
during the teaching interventions were pres-ented. This phase was otherwise identical tothe baseline sessions.
Interobserver Agreement (IOA) andTreatment IntegrityA second independent observer was present
in the room or watched a video of the session
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1478
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
for all baseline trials and no less than 40% ofteaching sessions for all the children (range,40%-73%) to calculate IOA and treatmentintegrity. On each trial, the experimenter andobserver noted if the response was correct,incorrect, or prompted, and a matched verbalframe had been emitted. IOA was 99.61% forAdam (range, 93%-100%), 99.71% for Alice(range, 93.75%-100%), 96% for Jake (range,92%-100%), and 99.43% for Fred(range, 93.75%-100%).All six instructors (two of whom were the
second and third authors) conducting the inter-vention were taught to implement proceduresusing a Behavioral Skills Training package thatconsisted of explanation, modeling, and role-playing implemented until each instructor met100% procedural fidelity. To calculate
treatment integrity, a second observer watchedvideos of the sessions and marked whether theinstructor had performed all the steps for thetrial, depending on the phase. A trial was cor-rect if the instructor engaged in all of the fol-lowing steps: (a) presented verbal andnonverbal stimuli following the datasheet,(b) provided the correct time delay before giv-ing a prompt, (c) used the specified promptingstrategy when an error occurred, (d) presenteda transfer trial after any prompted trial,(e) delivered tokens only after a correct transferor initial unprompted trial, (f) provided tokenboard exchange on a FR 5 schedule, and(g) did not provide feedback during baselineand generalization phases. A trial was scored asincorrect if an error was made in any of thesteps. The number of correct trials was divided
Figure 5Flowchart of Error Correction Procedures for the “No Frame” Condition
1479Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
by the total number of trials and the result wasconverted to a percentage for each session.Treatment integrity across instructors was97.5% (range, 87.5%-100%).
Results
Figures 6 to 9 display the percentage of correctresponding with respect to teaching and generali-zation sets across the different phases of the study(baseline, intervention, and postintervention gen-eralization). Table 2 displays the mean percentageof errors by component during baseline. Duringbaseline, Adam, Alice, and Jake responded almostexclusively with the number tact, irrespective ofwhether the verbal antecedent was “What color?”for the Number/Color set or “What shape?” forthe Shape/Number set. Fred was the exception,switching between the two responses. The errorwith respect to Agent/Action was similar for allchildren: a combined response. For example, say-ing the name of the agent and the action such as“mummy drinking” or “mummy is drinking,”regardless of the verbal antecedent, hence the nearzero scores for all children.During intervention, Adam (Figure 6) and
Fred (Figure 7) acquired intraverbal-tacting on
the teaching stimulus sets and showed generalizedresponding to novel sets in both conditions. Bothchildren extended the use of the frames that hadbeen taught in the intervention phase of theFrame condition to novel stimuli in the post-intervention generalization phase of the Framecondition. Adam required 140 trials to achievemastery in the Shape/Number Frame condition(7 sessions) and 220 trials in the Agent/ActionNo Frame condition (11 sessions). Fred met themastery criterion in 120 trials in the Agent/Action Frame condition (6 sessions), and in100 trials in the Number/Color in the No Framecondition (5 sessions).Jake (Figure 8) and Alice (Figure 9) met
mastery criterion in the Frame condition forthe teaching stimuli but not in the No Framecondition. When the Frame procedure wasemployed on the unmastered stimulus set, bothparticipants mastered intraverbal tacts. Jake metmastery criterion for Agent/Action in theFrame condition in eight sessions (i.e., 160 tri-als) and showed generalized frame use andintraverbal-tacting to novel Agent/Action stim-uli. The No Frame condition with the Shape/Number stimulus set was conducted for anadditional five sessions with no progress. Thus,
Figure 6Mean Percentage of Correct Responding for Adam Across Conditions
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1480
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
the Frame procedure was introduced on theunmastered Shape/Number teaching set andmastery criterion was subsequently met inseven sessions (i.e., 140 trials). Alice met mas-tery criterion for Number/Color in the Framecondition in seven sessions (i.e., 140 trials) andshowed generalized frame use and intraverbal-tacting to novel Number/Color stimuli. TheNo Frame condition with the Agent/Action
stimulus set was conducted for an additionalthree sessions with no progress. Thus, the Framecondition was introduced. This modificationresulted in an immediate increase in accurateintraverbal-tacting on the Agent/Action teachingstimuli, reaching 100% correct discrimination inthe fifth session. Unfortunately, generalizedresponding to novel Agent/Action stimuli couldnot be tested due to time constraints.
Figure 7Mean Percentage of Correct Responding for Fred Across Conditions
Figure 8Mean Percentage of Correct Responding for Jake Across Conditions
1481Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
Discussion
This study aimed to explore the potentialeffectiveness of two procedures (Frame and NoFrame) on the emergence of generalizedintraverbal-tacting for four children with ASD.At baseline, no differential responding to differ-ent verbal antecedents was observed. In theFrame condition, children were taught to emitthe target response within a verbal frame. Inthe No Frame condition, the same procedureswere employed, but the target response wastaught without the verbal frame requirement.Following intervention with one set of stimuli,responding to novel exemplars of the taughtstimulus class was assessed. By the end of the
study, generalized intraverbal-tacting wasobserved in all four children, but the effects ofverbal frame teaching varied across the children.For two children, intraverbal-tacting and subse-quent generalized responding was observed onlyin the Frame condition. For the other two chil-dren, both procedures were effective, but theFrame procedure was more efficient than the NoFrame procedure for one child. Thus, the Frameprocedure facilitated acquisition in three of thefour children.The study builds on prior research using
similar procedures to establish question dis-crimination with verbal frames (degli Espinosaet al., 2020; Meleshkevich et al., 2020), but is
Figure 9Mean Percentage of Correct Responding for Alice Across Conditions
Table 2
Mean Percentages of Correct Responding Across Baseline Sessions
Baseline mean percentages by verbal antecedentStimulus sets
Agent/Action Shape/Number Number/Color
Child Who isit?
What is s/hedoing?
Combinedresponse
Whatshape?
Whatnumber?
Combinedresponse
Whatnumber?
Whatcolor?
Combinedresponse
Adam 0 0 100 100 0 0Jake 0 2.5 97.5 100 0 0Fred 0 0 100 43 56 0Alice 0 0 100 100 0 0
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1482
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
the first to include a No Frame condition,enabling direct within-subject comparisons ofthe two procedures. Beneficial effects of theFrame procedure were observed with Jake,Alice, and Adam. Both Jake and Alice requiredthe use of the Frame procedure to acquire dis-criminated intraverbal tacts. Although Adamacquired intraverbal-tacting in both conditions,he required more teaching trials in the NoFrame condition compared to the Frame condi-tion, suggesting that while both procedureswere effective, the Frame procedure was moreefficient. However, for one child (Fred), theFrame and No Frame procedures were similarlyeffective and efficient. It may be worth notingthat Fred was also the only child for whom base-line was slightly above chance level with theNumber/Color stimuli. These were the stimulithat had been randomly selected for the NoFrame condition, but Fred had a history of priorteaching of this type of discrimination, albeitunsuccessful. Although a 6-week teaching breakhad been imposed on this skill immediately priorto the study, the effects of this prior teaching his-tory may not have been completely overcome.While the Frame procedure did not facilitatelearning the target intraverbal tacts relative to theNo Frame procedure, accurate responding tonovel stimuli was slightly greater in the Framecondition. This suggests that even when bothprocedures are similarly effective in the trainingphase, the Frame procedure may produce greatergeneralization.For all children, usage of the relevant verbal
frame acquired in one context (Frame interven-tion) was observed in novel but similar contexts(same response class and same verbal antecedent,but different exemplars). When effective frameusage did occur, it was likely due to multiple,converging, and additive intraverbal sources ofcontrol generated by the production of theframe. In the case of the stimulus sets involvingNumber/Color and Shape/Number, the frameresponse also entailed an echoic. Echoing the lastword, which was also the critical conditional
term, may have exerted intraverbal control overthe subsequent terms of the frame and the rele-vant visual dimension. This may have narrowedthe control of one element of the nonverbalstimulus over incompatible responses, those thatdid not match the verbal antecedent and the his-tory of the fixed frame elements (i.e., color andcolor names rather than color and numbernames). In the stimulus set involving Agent/Action, similar intraverbal relations were evident.Hearing “Who is it?” intraverbally evoked “It’s”and hearing “What is s/he doing?” evoked “S/heis verbing” that, in turn, exerted control over thesubsequent variable terms of the agent and actionresponse class. That no explicit point-to-pointcorrespondence was involved, however, showsthat effective frame-based teaching proceduresinclude, but are not limited to, echoic-basedtraining methods.The current procedures bear some resem-
blance to DOR procedures, in which partici-pants are prompted to repeat the verbalantecedent, which has been shown to facilitatelistener (see Grow & LeBlanc, 2013 for areview) and intraverbal conditional discrimina-tions (Kisamore et al., 2016). In DORaccounts, repeating the verbal antecedent facili-tates contact with a given stimulus dimension,and this in turn results in accurate responding.While this is undoubtedly true at a descriptivelevel, an account that explains the DOR interms of its controlling relations may providefurther insight into how the product of theresponse (e.g., saying an aspect of the verbalantecedent aloud) exerts stimulus control oversubsequent behavior. In this study, it issuggested that teaching the children verbalframes that matched the verbal antecedentslikely generated two sources of intraverbal con-trol: (1) an intraverbal relation between the ver-bal antecedent (“What color?”, “What shape?”,“What number?”, “Who is it?”, “What is s/hedoing?”) and the fixed frame element (“Color,”“Shape,” “Number,” “It’s,” “S/he is”), and(2) an intraverbal relation between the frame
1483Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
elements and the response class matching theframe, determined by both word order (i.e., theword “Color” before the word “Green”) andwhich terms followed which frame. In otherwords, saying “It’s,” “Number,” and “Shape”had a history of contiguous usage with identitynames only. Saying “She is” and “He is” had ahistory of contiguous usage with verbs only inthe presence of visual stimuli of people per-forming actions. Similarly, “Color” had a his-tory of contiguous usage with color names onlyin the presence of such stimuli. Irrespective ofthe stimuli employed, the frame taught, andwhether or not it entailed a strictly definedechoic, the Frame procedure was likely effectivebecause of these additional sources of stimuluscontrol generated by producing additional ver-bal stimuli.Moreover, additional sources of stimulus con-
trol were revealed by the error patterns. The dom-inant error in the Number/Color and Shape/Number sets for three children (excepting Fred)during baseline was saying the number. In con-trast, all children produced a combined responseerror for the Agent/Action set (e.g., saying“mummy drinking” or “mummy is drinking”).This specific error suggests that although verbalframes containing multiple tacts of a compoundstimulus had been established, each tact was notemitted under the sources of control (verbal andvisual) that typically evoke these responses in lan-guage acquisition. In typical development, toddlerslearn new tacts in social contexts in which verbaland nonverbal stimuli are simultaneously pres-ented (Rowe et al., 2017). At the same time, astheir echoic ability increases, they also learn tomand (“want ball”) and tact their environmentusing multiple terms arranged in structural order(“daddy eating”) by echoing their caregivers inthose contexts (Brown, 1973). Becauseintraverbal-tacting and multiple-word combina-tions appear to occur in a similar developmentaltime frame, it is unclear how best to assess,sequence, and incorporate these two potentiallyrelated skills in ABA-based language intervention.
The combined response error shown by all partici-pants seems to indicate that introducing the skillof responding differentially to relevant verbal ante-cedents before teaching multiple tacts of a com-pound stimulus (e.g., adjective–nouncombinations as in “red ball” or agent–action asin “mummy is drinking”) may be advantageous.Research on both the development of an assess-ment and teaching sequences of intraverbal-tactingwould help practitioners program in a develop-mentally sensitive way, in which each subsequentskill builds on prerequisite repertoires. This, inturn, may reduce rote responding and therestricted stimulus control errors observed at base-line in the children in this and previous studies.Since the present methods involved several
interrelated components, future research shouldseek to better isolate those most effective. Forexample, it would be important to compare therelative efficacy of different discrimination trainingprocedures (e.g., simple-conditionalvs. conditional-only). degli Espinosa et al. (2020)used a simple-conditional procedure, whereasMeleshkevich et al. (2020) and this study usedconditional-only procedures. While all proceduresresulted in generalized skills, a systematic within-study comparison of the different trainingmethods would be useful in determining methodswith maximum efficacy.It would also be useful to explore the role of
different methods of stimulus presentation.Like degli Espinosa et al. (2020), but unlikeMeleshkevich et al. (2020), stimuli were pres-ented in an array rather than one at the time.Although both presentation methods wereeffective, our rationale for presenting the stim-uli in an array was informed by previousresearch on the topic and by practical consider-ations. During intervention, FR 1 token pro-duction and FR 5 exchange productionschedules were applied to expedite acquisition.Presenting the stimuli in an array providedstimuli correlated with proximity to reinforce-ment. Furthermore, this arrangement reducedintertrial intervals, as the instructor did not
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1484
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
have to handle or replace new stimuli in eachtrial of the array, but instead replaced the entirearray during reinforcement consumption.Finally, while more complex, the array arrange-ment may more closely resemble the conditionsin which these types of questions are asked intypical language environments. For example,while looking at picture books, the young childshifts attention toward the visual stimulus towhich the adult points, before answering thequestion. This more closely resembles the pre-sent stimulus-array method than presenting onevisual stimulus at a time. These variations andcombinations may be worth investigating infuture research to identify the most efficient,effective, and preferred procedural arrange-ments to establish intraverbal-tacting in chil-dren with ASD. As more procedures areexplored and become available, client prefer-ences could be evaluated through a concurrent-chains preference assessment (e.g., Geigeret al., 2012) as a measure of social validity.In future research, it may also prove benefi-
cial to explore structural properties of the stim-ulus sets used. In both the Number/Color andthe Agent/Action stimuli the identity, adjective,or action dimensions were embedded within asingle stimulus. In the Shape/Number set, eachcard depicted two visually distinct stimuli,rather than one compound stimulus. TheShape/Number stimuli consisted of two com-posite visual stimuli (and identity tacts) on thesame card with each question matching onedistinct and separate stimulus, and may havebeen inherently easier to learn than the otherstimulus sets. If so, then differences in stimuluscomplexity may have interacted with the mainindependent variable (Frame vs. No Frame). Pre-vious research suggests that differences in stimuluscomplexity may play a role in the acquisition ofintraverbal conditional discriminations. For exam-ple, Aguirre et al. (2019) taught intraverbalresponding to verbal antecedents containing over-lapping (e.g., “What vehicle is small?”, “Whattoy is small?”) and nonoverlapping (e.g., “What
do you brush your teeth with?”, “What food iscold?”) stimuli, and found that it was advanta-geous to first establish responding in relation tononoverlapping verbal antecedents priorto teaching responding to verbal antecedents withoverlapping components. Similarly, Meleshkevichet al. (2020) found it took longer to teach object/color intraverbal-tacting than it did to establishshape/number, despite the fact that the Frameprocedure was used with both sets of stimuli.This may have occurred because of structural dif-ferences between the (overlappingvs. nonoverlapping visual elements) shape/num-ber and the object/color stimulus sets, as well as adifference in the learning history. Children mayhave had to overcome a longer reinforcement his-tory for saying the identity name of a coloredobject rather than the color, compared to seeingnumbers embedded in shapes—a less familiarcombination. Structural properties of teachingstimuli may be important for practitioners to con-sider when choosing the initial stimulus sets toestablish intraverbal-tacting.Future research should also consider inter-
spersing generalization probes on untaught stim-uli during the intervention phase rather than atthe end of the intervention. Such procedureswould more accurately pinpoint the establish-ment or expansion of a response class. Futureresearch might also profitably explore whetherframe usage acquired with respect to one class ofverbal antecedents generalizes to novel verbalantecedents with progressively fewer subsequenttrials or no intervention. Such work would haveimportant applied implications, perhaps reducingthe need for prolonged structured discriminationtraining trials in favor of a transition to more nat-ural teaching contingencies.As with previous research of this kind, the
specific trained response topographies may raiseconcerns about generalization to the naturalenvironment, because some of the establishedframes (“Color green” or “Shape triangle”) aregrammatically uncommon. Whether specificprocedures should be introduced either to fade
1485Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
these frames or to replace them with more con-ventional ones (e.g., “The color is green,” “Theshape is a triangle”) should be addressed byfuture investigations. In our clinical experience,these frames fade over time, potentially becausethey require more effort and do not producemore reinforcement. Therefore, we would notrecommend that specific procedures beemployed to teach children to omit the lessconventional frames, given their observed facili-tative function in remediating a fundamentallyimportant skill deficit in many children withASD. Regarding the teaching of a moreextended frame, we would tentatively suggestthat this may depend on the child’s echoic abil-ity. The children in this study could accuratelyecho two to three consecutive words at mostand thus additional echoic shaping trials mayhave been necessary.In sum, this study adds to the emerging body
of evidence on methods to establish generalizedintraverbal-tacting in children with ASD and toremediate restricted stimulus control errors.Applied research of this kind requires a shift infocus from elementary verbal relations (specifictopographies under simple stimulus control) tomultiply controlled verbal behavior (generalizedresponse classes under complex stimulus control).In clinical practice, as was the case in this study,different children will likely require different pro-cedural adaptations depending on their existingverbal repertoire and response pattern. The morethat is learned about the controlling variables forcomplex verbal behavior (including but not lim-ited to intraverbal-tacting), the more effective willbe the tools available to ABA practitioners toestablish generative verbal behavior in childrenwho would not otherwise acquire it.
REFERENCES
Aguirre, A. A., LeBlanc, L. A., Reavis, A., Shillingsburg, A. M.,Delfs, C. H., Miltenberger, C. A., & Symer, K. B.(2019). Evaluating the effects of similar and distinct dis-criminative stimuli during auditory conditional
discrimination training with children with autism. TheAnalysis of Verbal Behavior, 35(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-019-00111-3
Bondy, A., Tincani, M., & Frost, L. (2004). Multiplycontrolled verbal operants: An analysis and extensionto the picture exchange communication system.Behavior Analyst, 27(2), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393184.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Har-vard University Press.
degli Espinosa, F., Gerosa, F., & Brocchin-Swales, V.(2020). Teaching multiply-controlled tacting tochildren with autism. European Journal of BehaviorAnalysis, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2020.1737407
DeSouza, A. A., Akers, J. S., & Fisher, W. W. (2017).Empirical application of Skinner’s verbal behavior tointerventions for children with autism: A review. TheAnalysis of Verbal Behavior, 33(2), 229–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-017-0093-7
DeSouza, A. A., Fisher, W. W., & Rodriguez, N. M.(2019). Facilitating the emergence of convergentintraverbals in children with autism. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 52(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.520
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1970). Discourse agreement: How chil-dren answer questions. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cogni-tion and the development of language (pp.79-107).Wiley.
Geiger, K. B., Carr, J. E., LeBlanc, L. A.,Hanney, N. M., Polick, A. S., & Heinicke, M. R.(2012). Teaching receptive discriminations to chil-dren with autism: A comparison of traditional andembedded discrete trial teaching. Behavior Analysis inPractice, 5(2), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03391823
Goodwin, A., Fein, D., & Naigles, L. R. (2012). Com-prehension of wh-questions precedes their productionin typical development and autism spectrum disor-ders. Autism Research, 5(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1220
Grow, L. L., Carr, J. E., Kodak, T. M., Jostad, C. M., &Kisamore, A. N. (2011). A comparison of methodsfor teaching receptive labeling to children with autismspectrum disorders. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 44(3), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-475
Grow, L., & LeBlanc, L. (2013). Teaching receptive lan-guage skills. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 6(1), 56–75.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391791
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1985). Some contributions ofmothers’ speech to their children’s syntactic growth.Journal of Child Language, 12(2), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900006486
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1986). Function and structure inmaternal speech: Their relation to the child’s develop-ment of syntax. Developmental Psychology, 22(2),
Francesca degli Espinosa et al.1486
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
155–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.2.155
Howlin, P. (1982). Echolalic and spontaneous phrasespeech in autistic children. Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 23(3), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1982.tb00073.x
Ingvarsson, E. T., Kramer, R. L., Carp, C. L.,Pétursd�ottir, A. I., & Macias, H. (2016). Evaluationof a blocked-trials procedure to establish complexstimulus control over intraverbal responses in chil-dren with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0071-5
Jahr, E. (2001). Teaching children with autism to answernovel wh-questions by utilizing a multiple exemplarstrategy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22(5),407–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(01)00081-6
Kisamore, A. N., Karsten, A. M., & Mann, C. C. (2016).Teaching multiply controlled intraverbals to childrenand adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(4), 826–847.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.344
Kisamore, A. N., Karsten, A. M., Mann, C. C., &Conde, K. A. (2013). Effects of a differential observ-ing response on intraverbal performance of preschoolchildren: A preliminary investigation. The Analysis ofVerbal Behavior, 29(1), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393127
Meleshkevich, O., Axe, J. B., & degli Espinosa, F.(2020). Effects of time delay and requiring echoicson answering questions about visual stimuli. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(2), 725-743. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.790
Michael, J., Palmer, D. C., & Sundberg, M. L. (2011).The multiple control of verbal behavior. The Analysisof Verbal Behavior, 27(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393089
Palmer, D. C. (2007). Verbal behavior: What is the func-tion of structure? European Journal of Behavior
Analysis, 8(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2007.11434280
Palmer, D. C. (2016). On intraverbal control and the def-inition of the intraverbal. The Analysis of VerbalBehavior, 32(2), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0061-7
Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P.,Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choiceassessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1
Rhyner, P. M. (2007). An analysis of child caregivers’ lan-guage during book sharing with toddler-age children.Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28(3), 167–178.https://doi.org/10.1177/15257401070280030601
Rowe, M. L., Leech, K. A., & Cabrera, N. (2017). Goingbeyond input quantity: Wh-questions matter for tod-dlers’ language and cognitive development. CognitiveScience, 41(1), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12349
Seidl, A., Hollich, G., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2003). Earlyunderstanding of subject and object Wh-questions.Infancy, 4(3), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0403_06
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J.(1985). An adapted alternating treatments design forinstructional research. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 8(1), 67–76.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Cen-tury-Crofts.
Stauch, T., LaLonde, K., Plavnick, J. B., SavanaBak, M. Y., & Gatewood, K. (2017). Intraverbaltraining for individuals with autism: The currentstatus of multiple control. The Analysis of VerbalBehavior, 33(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-017-0079-5
Received August 23, 2020Final acceptance June 30, 2021Action Editor, Alice Shillingsburg
1487Comparison of Intraverbal-Tacting Procedures
19383703, 2021, 4, Dow
nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.869 by B
ehavior Analyst C
ertification Board, W
iley Online L
ibrary on [13/01/2023]. See the Term
s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/term
s-and-conditions) on Wiley O
nline Library for rules of use; O
A articles are governed by the applicable C
reative Com
mons L
icense
- A comparison of two teaching procedures to establish generalized intraverbal-tacting in children with autism
- Method
- Participants and Preassessment
- Setting and Materials
- Experimental Design and Dependent Variables
- Procedures
- Baseline Sessions
- Echoic Session
- Intervention Sessions
- Frame Procedure
- No Frame Procedure
- Postintervention Generalization Sessions
- Interobserver Agreement (IOA) and Treatment Integrity
- Results
- Discussion
- REFERENCES
