Dickes 2015

Behavioral Interventions
Behav. Intervent. 30: 169–190 (2015)

Published online 4 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bin.1412
EVALUATING THE EMERGENCE OF REVERSE

INTRAVERBALS FOLLOWING INTRAVERBAL
TRAINING IN YOUNG CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
SPECTRUM DISORDER
Nitasha R. Dickes1 and Tiffany Kodak2*

1
University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA
2
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA
The purpose of the proposed study was to replicate and extend prior research on intraverbal training
by evaluating whether teaching sets of original and reverse intraverbals from the same category
(e.g., animal sounds) would result in the emergence of novel, reverse intraverbals. Three children
with autism spectrum disorder participated in the study. We used a multiple baseline across catego-
ries design with a constant-series control to evaluate the effects of training original and reverse
intraverbals on subsequent trained and untrained reverse intraverbals. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.
Behavior-based language interventions are often grounded in Skinner’s (1957)

analysis of verbal behavior. Skinner’s unit of analysis is the verbal operant, and he
proposed seven verbal operants (e.g., echoics, mands, and intraverbals) that are
defined by distinct antecedents and consequences. Skinner (1957) defined the
intraverbal as the verbal operant that is controlled by a verbal stimulus that lacks
point-to-point correspondence between the stimulus and the response. An example
of an intraverbal response includes saying, ‘I’m seven’, following the antecedent
verbal stimulus ‘How old are you?’ Correct intraverbal responses are typically
maintained by socially mediated reinforcement (e.g., praise) for early language
learners, which may lead to additional opportunities for social interactions across
various settings.
Intraverbal behavior plays an important role in conversational skills and early
social interactions. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often fail to
acquire an intraverbal repertoire; therefore, they do not have the prerequisite verbal
*Correspondence to: Tiffany Kodak, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Garland Hall
210, 2441 East Hartford Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA. E-mail: kodak@uwm.edu
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

170 N. R. Dickes and T. Kodak
behavior to develop meaningful social relationships (Sundberg & Michael, 2001).

Thus, it is important to emphasize the acquisition and generalization of intraverbal
responding when teaching individuals with autism so that they can build social
relationships with peers and function in typical social settings.
Results of previous investigations showed that transfer-of-stimulus-control
procedures are effective in establishing intraverbal repertoires in individuals with
developmental disabilities as well as typically developing children (e.g., Braam &
Poling, 1983). For example, Braam and Poling evaluated a transfer-of-stimulus-
control procedure in which stimulus control was transferred from a tact to an
intraverbal by teaching signs to individuals with mental retardation.
Although previous studies show that intraverbals can be taught using transfer-
of-stimulus-control procedures, the extant literature is limited on the types of
training procedures that will result in reversibility or bidirectionality of intraverbals
(Perez-Gonzalez et al., 2007). In the natural environment, people ask similar
questions in a variety of different ways. For example, it is possible to inquire
about the function of an item by asking ‘What do you do with a hammer?’ or
‘What do you use to pound nails into a wall?’ Typically developing individuals
can answer these types of questions regardless of the manner in which the
question is asked. However, variations in antecedent verbal stimuli pose a
potential problem when teaching intraverbals to individuals with ASD, because
training the child to respond to antecedent verbal stimuli presented in a number
of different ways could be extremely time-consuming. Thus, it is important to
identify intraverbal training procedures that may result in the reversibility of
intraverbals without requiring direct training.
Recent research has begun to investigate procedures for teaching intraverbal
behavior that results in untrained reverse intraverbals. For example, Petursdottir,
Carr, Lechago, and Almason (2008) evaluated the effects of two types of training
on the emergence of listener and intraverbal relations. The authors also assessed
the emergence of additional, novel operant relations such as reverse intraverbals.
During the category-name listener training, the participant selected a visual exemplar
when given its spoken category name (e.g., given the auditory stimulus ‘north’, the
participant learned to select the picture of ‘Rocco’). Intraverbal training involved
the therapist delivering the auditory stimulus, which was the spoken exemplar
name (e.g., ‘Rocco’), and the participant responded with the name of the category
(e.g., ‘north’). To assess for the emergence of reverse intraverbals, the
experimenters conducted pretests before category-name listener and intraverbal
baselines and posttests at the completion of category-name intraverbal and listener
testing for each set. Results indicated that reverse intraverbals did not emerge with
either type of training, with the exception of one set of reverse intraverbals with
one participant. These results are consistent with previous research demonstrating
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 30: 169–190 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Evaluating emergence of reverse intraverbals 171
that intraverbal training may not produce the emergence of reverse intraverbals
without direct training (Perez-Gonzalez et al., 2007).
Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2007) investigated a procedure designed to teach
bidirectional intraverbal relations to children with ASD. During training, the
experimenters taught sets of intraverbals that were composed of two unrelated
intraverbals (e.g., ‘Name the opposite of less’ and ‘Name the opposite of small’)
and two reverse intraverbals (e.g., ‘Name the opposite of more’ and ‘Name the oppo-
site of large’). Two participants learned the original intraverbals, and the
experimenters tested for the emergence of reverse intraverbal relations. For example,
if participants learned the response ‘large’ when asked to ‘Name the opposite of
small’, participants demonstrated the emergence of a reverse intraverbal if
theyprovided the response ‘small’ when the therapist asked ‘Name the opposite of
large’. The results indicated that participants did not initially show emergence of
untrained reverse intraverbal relations; however, extended intraverbal and reverse
intraverbal training facilitated the acquisition of untrained reverse intraverbals.
Despite the encouraging results of Perez-Gonzalez et al. on the emergence of
bidirectional intraverbals with individuals with ASD, additional research on this topic
is necessary before drawing conclusions regarding ideal training procedures. The
authors evaluated only one type of intraverbal relation (e.g., opposites). Teaching
multiple types of intraverbals simultaneously (e.g., opposites, functions, and animal
sounds) and training reverse intraverbals for select categories of intraverbals (e.g., oppo-
sites and functions) may result in generalization of correct responding to other
categories of untrained reverse intraverbals (e.g., animal sounds). The literature on
generalization training indicates that training as few as two exemplars may result in
generalization (Garcia, 1974; Stokes, Baer, & Jackson, 1974). Thus, future studies
should evaluate whether training two or more categories of intraverbals and reverse
intraverbals will result in generalization to other categories of untrained reverse
intraverbals.
Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2007) did not show or describe data on the acquisition of
original or reverse intraverbal targets. Thus, the duration of training necessary for
participants to acquire each set of reverse intraverbals and to what extent the results
of the investigation will generalize to other individuals with ASD remain unknown.
Also, the authors did not provide information regarding prior tact training of
responses related to original intraverbals. For example, teaching the individual to tact
hot or cold items may aid in the acquisition of intraverbal relations including these
stimuli (e.g., ‘What’s the opposite of hot?’).
Because of the paucity of research on teaching reverse intraverbals, additional
research is warranted to evaluate efficient training procedures. This line of research
is a critical next step in the verbal behavior literature, because efficient training
procedures are necessary to allow children with ASD to rapidly acquire bidirectional
DOI: 10.1002/bin
intraverbals. Unless efficient training procedures that result in generalization to

untrained intraverbal relations (e.g., reverse intraverbals) are identified, teaching
children with ASD many of the potential intraverbal responses relevant to social
language will be prohibitive.
The purpose of the current evaluation was to expand on the findings of
Perez-Gonzalez et al. (2007) by evaluating the following: (a) whether acquisition
of novel reverse intraverbals emerged by teaching sets of unrelated intraverbals
and reverse intraverbals from the same category and (b) whether training of
one or two categories of reverse intraverbals (e.g., opposites and functions)
resulted in acquisition of untrained reverse intraverbals from a third category
(e.g., animal sounds).
METHOD
Participants and Settings

Three children diagnosed with ASD participated in the study. Participants ranged
in age from 4 to 6 years old, and all participants were currently receiving
hospital-based early intervention services based on the principles of applied behavior
analysis for a minimum of 5 h/week.
Pete and Patrick were both 6-year-old boys, and Georgia was a 4-year-old girl. All
three participants followed multiple-step instructions (e.g., ‘Pick up the toys and put
them in the tub’), displayed generalized vocal and motor imitation, and had acquired
at least 300 mands and tacts prior to participating in the investigation. All participants
acquired more than 50 intraverbals prior to participating in the study. Most of the pre-
viously acquired intraverbals were associations (e.g., bat and ___), which are simple
intraverbals because the response is under the control of a single stimulus.
Trained bachelor-level and master-level therapists conducted all sessions in a small
session room regularly used for therapy. Each room was equipped with materials
necessary for sessions, including a table, chairs, and stimuli relevant to the study
(e.g., data sheets and reinforcers).
Response Measurement
The dependent variables were the participant’s correct or incorrect responses. We
defined a correct response as providing a predetermined one-word or three-word
response to an antecedent verbal stimulus. Correct responses were scored as either
a correct unprompted or prompted response. Correct unprompted responses consisted
of the participant emitting the target response to the antecedent verbal stimulus within
DOI: 10.1002/bin
the allotted period for each condition (i.e., baseline, training, and probes). We defined
correct prompted responding as the participant engaging in the correct response after
the therapist vocally modeled the response. An incorrect response was defined as any
vocal response that was not identical to the predetermined response.
We measured correct responding during probes to evaluate whether emergent
reverse intraverbals are produced by training the following: (a) original intraverbals
and (b) original intraverbals and reverse intraverbals. We defined emergence of
reverse intraverbals as one or more instances of correct responding during reverse
intraverbals probes. Although it is possible to define emergence in a variety of ways,
our definition captures behavior that is starting to emerge. Because we only
conducted a single set of probes for each stimulus set, following training of original
intraverbals, a definition that is sensitive enough to capture behavior that is starting to
emerge seemed ideal.
The data collectors used trial-by-trial data collection to measure the effects of the
independent variable on the dependent variables. We presented original intraverbals
as sets. One set included two unrelated intraverbals (e.g., ‘The cow says_ [child says
moo]’ and ‘The sheep says_ [child says baa]’). The second set included the reverse
intraverbals. Training the reverse of the original intraverbal frames involved
presenting the stimulus and response associated with each original intraverbal in a
different order (e.g., ‘Moo says the_[child says cow]’, and ‘Baaa says the _ [child
says sheep]’).
The therapist collected data on the number of correct and incorrect responses
emitted by the participant during sessions. During the baseline and probe conditions,
the participants had 5 s to respond.
Interobserver Agreement and Procedural Integrity

Two independent observers collected data during a minimum of 35% of the
sessions via direct observation or video recording. We scored an agreement when both
observers recorded the occurrence or nonoccurrence of target behavior during a trial in
the 12-trial session. The therapist working with the participant served as the primary
observer and recorded data during all sessions. We calculated interobserver agreement
(IOA) using a trial-by-trial method in which we compared scores in each trial and
divided the number of trials with an agreement by the number of trials with an agree-
ment or disagreement, multiplied by 100. We collected IOA during at least 44% of
each participant’s sessions. Trial-by-trial IOA was 99.4% (range, 91.7–100%) for
Pete, 100% for Patrick, and 99.2% (range, 91.7–100%) for Georgia.
An observer collected data on procedural integrity during a minimum of 42% of
sessions across all conditions. We scored procedural integrity if the therapist
completed each step in the trial correctly. Procedural integrity was defined as
DOI: 10.1002/bin
correctly presenting the target stimulus, delivering the correct prompt (if necessary),
and delivering the correct reinforcement. We collected integrity data on each of the
treatment components described earlier during sessions and converted these data to
a percentage by dividing the number of trials with integrity by the total number of tri-
als in a session and multiplying by 100. We calculated mean procedural integrity by
adding the percentage of integrity for each session and dividing by the total number
of sessions in which integrity data were collected. The mean procedural integrity for
correctly presenting the target stimulus and delivering reinforcement was 100% for
Pete, Patrick, and Georgia. The mean integrity for presenting a prompt was 99.3%
for Pete, 99.3% for Patrick, and 99.2% for Georgia.
Experimental Design
We evaluated the effects of training original intraverbals or original intraverbals
plus reverse intraverbals on correct responses to untrained or trained reverse
intraverbals within a multiple baseline across categories design with a constant-series
control. During the constant-series control, one category of intraverbals remained in
baseline and did not move into treatment (Hayes, Barlow, & Nelson-Gray, 1999) to
measure generalization of training to stimulus sets not exposed to the independent
variable (i.e., training of reverse intraverbals).
Preference Assessment
The therapist conducted a multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) prefer-
ence assessment before each treatment session using procedures similar to those
described by Carr, Nicolson, and Higbee (2000). Items chosen for the MSWO were
based on previous parent report and results from a paired-stimulus preference assess-
ment (Fisher et al., 1996).
Pretests
We conducted a pretest to identify original and reverse intraverbals for inclusion in
the study. We selected specific intraverbals to include in pretests for each participant
based on criteria in the Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills (ABLLS;
Partington and Sundberg, 1998). The ABLLS is a curriculum guide and skill-tracking
system for children with autism or other developmental disabilities.
The therapist presented four trials of each original and reverse intraverbal in a
random order during pretest sessions. No consequences were provided for correct
or incorrect responding. Stimuli were excluded from the evaluation if participants
correctly responded during 25% (1 out of 4) or more of the pretest trials for each
DOI: 10.1002/bin
original or reverse intraverbal. Refer to Tables 1–3 for a list of targets included in
stimulus sets across all categories.
Prior to including stimuli in the pretest, the therapist ensured that each participant
could tact objects that belonged to the same stimulus class as the antecedent verbal
stimulus. For example, if the target antecedent verbal stimulus and response were
‘What do you kick’ and ‘ball’, respectively, the therapist evaluated whether the par-
ticipant could tact a picture of a ball and the action (e.g., kick) prior to including this
target in the pretest. Participants could also respond as a listener to pictures of the
item and action (e.g., they correctly touched the picture of a ball in an array of stimuli
following the sample stimulus ‘ball’). This portion of the pretest identified whether
the stimuli included in the investigation were part of stimulus classes (e.g., picture
Table 1. Original and reverse intraverbal stimulus sets for Pete.

Sets Opposites Functions Features
Trained original
What is the opposite of__? What do you__? What does a __ have?
Set 1 Together/apart Drive in/car Fish/gills
Straight/curly Watch/TV Bird/beak
Set 2 Frozen/melted Listen to/radio Jacket/hood
Fix/broken Wash with/hands Glasses/lenses
Set 3 Thick/thin Bounce/ball Zebra/stripes
Under/over Smell with/nose Eyes/lashes
Set 4 Huge/tiny Cook with/oven Cat/whiskers
Open/closed Hear with/ears Tree/trunk
Set 5 Still/windy Scrub with/sponge Computer/mouse
Bent/straight Taste with/tongue Mouth/teeth
Set 6 Tall/short Sweep with/broom Book/pages
Day/night Touch with/hands Door/handle
Set 7 Full/empty See with/eyes Car/wheels
Top/bottom Play with/puzzle Jeans/zipper
Set 8 Sunny/cloudy Pet/dog Elephant/trunk
Fast/slow Tell time/clock Finger/nail
Set 9 Narrow/wide Check the date/calendar Bear/fur
On/off Read/book Foot/toes
Reverse
What is the opposite of__? What do you do with__?
Set 6 Windy/still
Straight/bent
Set 7 Empty/full Puzzle/play
Bottom/top Eyes/see
Set 8 Cloudy/sunny Dog/pet
Top/bottom Clock/time
Set 9 Wide/narrow Calendar/check the date
Off/on Book/read
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Table 2. Original and reverse intraverbal stimulus sets for Patrick.

Sets Opposites Functions Animal Sounds
Trained Original
What is the opposite of __? What do you__? A __ says?
Set 1 Rough/smooth Eat with/fork Lion/roar
Up/down Wash with/hands Bird/tweet-tweet
Set 2 Hot/cold Write with/pen Snake/sssh
Thick/thin Drive in/car Pig/oink
Set 3 Top/bottom Sweep with/broom Rooster/cock-a-doodle-doo
Light/dark Watch/TV Sheep/baaa
Set 4 Straight/curly Listen to/radio Donkey/hee-haw
Tall/short Smell with/nose Owl/whoo
Set 5 On/off Hear with/ear Chicken/bock-bock
Huge/tiny Touch with/hand Coyote/yawhooo
Set 6 Old/new Taste with/tongue Tiger/grrrrr
Fixed/broken See with/eyes Mouse/squeak
Set 7 Fast/slow Cook with/oven Hyena/hee-hee
Soft/hard Scrub with/sponge Crab/snap-snap
Set 8 Narrow/wide Comb hair/comb Goose/honk-honk
Still/windy Tell time with/clock Crow/caw-caw
Set 9 Sad/happy Check the date/calendar Octopus/blub-blub
Different/same Tree/shade Goat/eeehhh
Reverse
What is the opposite of? What do you do with__?
Set 2 Cold/hot
Thin/thick
Set 3 Bottom/top
Dark/light
Set 4 Curly/straight Radio/listen to
Short/tall Nose/smell with
Set 5 Off/on Ear/hear with
Tiny/huge Hand/touch with
Set 6 New/old Tongue/taste with
Broken/fixed Eyes/see with
Set 7 Slow/fast Oven/cook with
Hard/soft Sponge/scrub with
Set 8 Wide/narrow Comb/comb hair
Windy/still Clock/tell time
of ball, tact ‘ball’, and auditory stimulus ‘ball’), which may enhance the effects of
intraverbal training on untrained relations (Perez-Gonzalez, Herszlikowicz, &
Williams, 2008).
Procedure
Each set of original and reverse intraverbals followed a sequence of procedural
steps. First, we conducted baseline with both sets. Thereafter, the original intraverbals
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Table 3. Original and reverse intraverbal stimulus sets for Georgia.

Sets Animal sounds Functions
Trained original
A __ says? What do you__?
Set 1 Lion/roar Play with/doll
Rooster/cock-a-doodle-doo Cut with/scissors
Set 2 Monkey/ooo-aaahh Take a picture with/camera
Owl/whooo Brush teeth with/toothbrush
Set 3 Donkey/hee-haw Build with/blocks
Goat/eeehhh Taste with/tongue
Set 4 Chicken/bock-bock Cook with/oven
Mouse/squeak Scrub with/sponge
Set 5 Bird/tweet-tweet Comb with/comb
Octopus/blub-blub Sweep with/broom
Set 6 Crab/snap-snap Touch with/hands
Dolphin/eeee-eee Tell time with/clock
Set 7 Hyena/hee-hee Gives shade/tree
Goose/honk-honk Gives light/sun
Set 8 Coyote/yawhooo Ride/bike
Turkey/goble-goble Wash/hands
Set 9 Crow/caw-caw Lock doors/key
Bear/grrrrr Check the date/calendar
Set 10 Alligator/chomp Read/book
Bee/buzzzz Pet/cat
Set 11 Seal/arrfffff Mow/lawn mower
Duck/quack-quack Blow nose/tissue
Reverse
What do you do with__?
Set 6 Hands/touch
Clock/tell time
Set 7 Sun/gives light
Tree/gives shade
Set 8
Set 9 Key/lock doors

Calendar/check the date
Set 10 Book/read
Cat/pet
were exposed to a prompt delay procedure (described in more detail under the Train-
ing section). Following mastery of an original intraverbal set during training, the
therapist conducted probes of the trained original intraverbals and the not-yet-trained
set of reverse intraverbals. After training several sets of original intraverbals and ob-
serving variable and low levels of correct responding to untrained reverse intraverbals
during probes, we moved to training of reverse intraverbals. That is, the final step in
the sequence described earlier (i.e., baseline, training, and probe) involved training
DOI: 10.1002/bin
reverse intraverbals (i.e., baseline, training, probe, and training reverse intraverbals),
unless the probe showed correct responding at mastery level.
Sessions consisted of 12 trials with two sets of intraverbals (two unrelated
intraverbals; e.g., ‘The opposite of hot is ___’ and ‘The opposite of up is ___’). Thus,
the therapist presented each intraverbal six times per session in each category. There
were two (Georgia) or three categories of intraverbals (Pete and Patrick), which are
displayed across panels in our figures (e.g., opposites, functions, and animal sounds).
Baseline
The therapist presented the antecedent verbal stimulus for the trial and provided 5 s
for the participant to respond. After 5 s had elapsed or the participant responded, the
therapist initiated the next trial. Therefore, we did not provide any differential
consequences for correct or incorrect responding. The therapist provided reinforce-
ment for nontarget behavior (e.g., looking at the therapist or sitting quietly) on a
variable ratio 2 schedule during the brief intertrial interval to maintain responding
during the session. Once a set of original intraverbals was mastered in each category,
the therapist conducted baseline sessions of the reverse intraverbals prior to training.
The therapist conducted at least two baseline sessions with no correct responses or
three sessions with correct responding below 50% (with a downward trend) before
providing training for a set of reverse intraverbals.
Training
We taught all original intraverbals and reverse intraverbals using a progressive prompt
delay procedure (Walker, 2008). Training began with one session at a 0-s prompt delay.
The therapist presented the antecedent verbal stimulus (e.g., ‘A cow says__’) and
immediately provided a vocal model of the correct response (e.g., ‘Moo’). The therapist
waited 5 s for the participant to echo the vocal model. Correct responses resulted in
brief praise (e.g., ‘Good job’) and a preferred edible or tangible item. Incorrect
responses or no response within 5 s resulted in the delivery of the next trial. The criterion
for increasing the prompt delay (i.e., moving from a 0-s delay to a longer delay) was one
session with correct responding at or above 90%.
After the criterion was met at the 0-s prompt delay, the delay to a prompt increased to
2 s. The therapist presented the antecedent verbal stimulus and waited 2 s for the partic-
ipant to respond. If the participant did not respond within 2 s or responded incorrectly,
the therapist provided a vocal model of the correct response and allowed 5 s for the par-
ticipant to respond. The delay increased by 2-s intervals up to 10 s if the participant had
no response to the antecedent verbal stimulus during at least 50% of trials.
DOI: 10.1002/bin
We included an error correction procedure during training with participants for

whom this procedure was a frequent component of prior training or if 50% or more
of the participant’s responses were errors for three consecutive sessions during
training. During error correction, the therapist repeated the trial until the participant
engaged in a correct unprompted response. On most error correction trials, only
one trial re-presentation was necessary for the participant to engage in a correct
unprompted response. The mastery criterion for intraverbal training was two
consecutive sessions with correct unprompted responding at or above 90%. The
training procedures for the reverse intraverbals were identical to those described for
the original intraverbals, and the same mastery criterion was applied to the training
of reverse intraverbals.
Probes
We conducted probes to determine whether previous training of original or reverse
intraverbals resulted in mastery-level responding for untrained reverse intraverbals.
Probe sessions consisted of one set of trained original intraverbals (e.g., ‘A cow
says ___’ and ‘A dog says ___’) and one corresponding set of reverse intraverbals
(e.g., ‘Moo says the ___’ and ‘Woof woof says the ___’). The therapist conducted
probes in each condition by randomly alternating between sessions of trained original
intraverbals or reverse intraverbal targets. For example, we conducted a probe of one
previously mastered set of intraverbals in a session and conducted a probe of the
corresponding set of untrained reverse intraverbals in the next session. The therapist
conducted sessions in a semi-random order with no more than two consecutive
sessions of any one condition. The mastery criterion for previously trained original
intraverbals was two consecutive sessions with correct unprompted responding at or
above 80%. The procedures for the probe sessions matched those of the baseline condition.
If the reverse intraverbal targets met the mastery criterion (i.e., two consecutive
sessions at or above 80%) during the probe, we did not conduct additional training
with the mastered set. That is, probes of reverse intraverbals always preceded training
of reverse intraverbals, and training was only conducted if correct responding during
reverse intraverbal probes did not meet the mastery criterion.
RESULTS
All of the participants mastered sets of original intraverbals in a relatively small

number of training sessions (training data are not included but are available from
the second author upon request). We did not observe any trends in the data in relation
DOI: 10.1002/bin
to the number of sessions required to master sets of original intraverbals for each
participant. Pete mastered a total of 10 sets of original intraverbals and seven sets
of reverse intraverbals during training. The mean number of training sessions across
categories was six sessions for functions, seven sessions for opposites, and eight
sessions for features. Patrick acquired a total of 9 sets of original intraverbals and
12 sets of reverse intraverbals during training. The mean number of sessions to reach
the mastery criterion across categories was seven, six, and seven sessions for animal
sounds, opposites, and features, respectively. Georgia mastered each set of trained
intraverbals across categories in approximately three sessions for animal sounds
and seven sessions for functions. She mastered a total of 11 sets of original
intraverbals and 5 sets of reverse intraverbals during training.
Despite acquiring all of the trained original intraverbals and conducting training
with a portion of the reverse intraverbals, levels of correct responding to untrained
reverse intraverbals were inconsistent across participants. Figures 1–3 show the
percentage of correct responding during probes across categories. Baseline data show
Figure 1. Pete’s percentage of correct responding to original and reverse intraverbals across categories.
Correct responses for original and reverse intraverbals are displayed as stimulus sets across categories of
opposites, functions, and features. The phase line in the top and middle panels indicates the introduction
of direct training of reverse intraverbals following probes of the last set of stimuli in baseline and every
set thereafter that did not meet the mastery criterion of two sessions at or above 80%.
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Figure 2. Patrick’s percentage of correct responding to original and reverse intraverbals across catego-
ries. Correct responses for original and reverse intraverbals are displayed as stimulus sets across catego-
ries of opposites, functions, and features. The phase line in the top and middle panels indicates the
introduction of direct training of reverse intraverbals following probes of the last set of stimuli in base-
line and every set thereafter that did not meet the mastery criterion of two sessions at or above 80%.
probes of original and reverse intraverbal sets conducted immediately following

training of original intraverbals. Treatment data show correct responding to probes
of original and reverse intraverbal sets conducted immediately following training of
original intraverbals and before training of each set of reverse intraverbals.
Pete’s probe data are displayed in Figure 1. Pete emitted variable levels of correct
responses to reverse intraverbals during baseline (Figure 1). Pete had consistent and
higher levels of correct responding to probes of reverse intraverbals following
training of original intraverbal functions (Figure 1, middle panel, baseline phase).
After training two sets of original intraverbals, we observed some correct
responding to reverse relations without direct training. However, Pete’s responding
during the reverse probes did not meet the mastery criterion; thus, we implemented
treatment after Set 5. The phase line indicates that direct training was introduced
for reverse intraverbal relations with Set 5 and every set thereafter that did not meet
the mastery criterion (i.e., two consecutive sessions at or above 80%). Immediately
following the introduction of treatment for reverse intraverbals, we observed an
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Figure 3. Georgia’s percentage of correct responding to original and reverse intraverbals across catego-
ries. Correct responses for original and reverse intraverbals are displayed as stimulus sets across catego-
ries of functions (top panel) and animal sounds (bottom panel). The phase line in the top and middle
panels indicates the introduction of direct training of reverse intraverbals following probes of the last
set of stimuli in baseline and every set thereafter that did not meet the mastery criterion of two sessions
at or above 80%.
increase in correct responding to 100% for the sixth set of reverse intraverbal stimuli.
However, Pete displayed variable levels of correct responding during subsequent
reverse intraverbal probes.
Pete engaged in higher and consistent levels of correct responses during reverse
intraverbal probes in the functions category in baseline (Figure 1, middle panel).
However, his correct responding did not meet the mastery criterion. The therapist
implemented direct training for reverse intraverbals with Set 6 and every set
thereafter that was not associated with mastery-level responding. Despite the
introduction of treatment, Pete’s levels of correct responses during reverse intraverbal
probes were consistent with baseline. Thus, it did not appear that training of reverse
intraverbals (the primary IV) impacted correct responding during reverse intraverbal
probes.
In contrast, Pete’s correct responding steadily increased across stimulus sets of
reverse intraverbals in the features category (Figure 1, bottom panel). These sets of
original intraverbals were designated as generalization stimuli, which were included
DOI: 10.1002/bin
in the evaluation to determine whether the introduction of training of reverse

intraverbals in other categories resulted in increased correct responding to reverse
intraverbals in an untrained category. Therefore, we did not introduce the indepen-
dent variable (i.e., training of reverse intraverbals) in the features category. Despite
the absence of direct training of reverse intraverbals, correct responding generalized
across stimulus sets. That is, we observed a steady increase in the percentage of
correct responses across sets of reverse intraverbals in the features category.
Figure 2 shows Patrick’s percentage of correct responding during probes across
three categories (i.e., animal sounds, opposites, and functions). The top panel of
Figure 2 displays stimulus sets of original and reverse intraverbals in the opposites
category. After training two sets of original intraverbals, we only observed one
instance of a correct response during a reverse intraverbal probe without direct
training. Thus, we implemented treatment with reverse intraverbals after Set 2. The
phase line indicates that we introduced direct training for reverse intraverbal relations
with Set 2 and every set thereafter that did not meet the mastery criterion. We
observed some generalization of novel reverse relations after Set 6, following direct
training with several sets of reverse intraverbals. However, Patrick displayed low and
variable levels of correct responding during subsequent reverse intraverbal probes.
Patrick also displayed variable levels of correct responding during original
intraverbal probes (i.e., Stimulus Sets 5, 7, 8, and 9). This decrement in correct
responding to previously trained stimuli may be related to the removal of direct
reinforcement for correct responding during probe sessions.
We observed similar patterns of responding to trained and reverse intraverbal tar-
gets included in the functions category (Figure 2, middle panel). Patrick displayed
minimal generalization of reverse relations after the implementation of training of re-
verse intraverbals. He also engaged in lower levels of correct responding during
original intraverbal probes for stimulus sets conducted toward the end of the phase.
Consistent with responding in the other categories, Patrick also displayed low and
variable levels of correct responding for reverse intraverbal probes in the animal
sounds category (Figure 2, bottom panel). We designated the animal sounds category
as a generalization condition. Therefore, we did not introduce the independent
variable (i.e., training of reverse intraverbals) in this category. Overall, Patrick’s
results indicated that the independent variable did not have an effect on the
emergence of the reverse intraverbals across categories. That is, consistent increases
in correct responses to reverse intraverbal probes were not observed after training
numerous sets of original intraverbals or after the implementation of direct training
for reverse intraverbals.
Figure 3 displays Georgia’s percentage of correct responding during probes across
two categories (i.e., functions and animal sounds). The top panel of Figure 3 displays
the stimulus sets of original and reverse intraverbals in the functions category. After
DOI: 10.1002/bin
training one set of original intraverbals, we observed high and variable levels of
correct responding during reverse intraverbal probes. For example, Georgia
responded correctly during 8% and 100% of trials in the reverse intraverbal probe
sessions of Stimulus Set 3. Georgia’s high levels of correct responding in one session
(i.e., 100% correct unprompted responses) suggested that reverse intraverbals
emerged following training of original intraverbals, despite variability in her
responding across sessions. Similar to Patrick, Georgia’s variable levels of correct
responding may be related to noncompliance during trials in which direct reinforce-
ment was not provided contingent on correct responding. In fact, Georgia’s response
was frequently ‘no’ during reverse intraverbal probes. Because Georgia’s correct
responding during the reverse intraverbal probe sessions did not meet the mastery
criterion, we implemented treatment after Set 6. After the implementation of
treatment for reverse intraverbals, we observed high levels of correct responding
during reverse intraverbal probes for one set of stimuli only (i.e., Stimulus Set 8).
Consistent with her responding in baseline, Georgia engaged in variable and low
levels of correct responses during the majority of reverse intraverbal probes of stim-
ulus sets following the introduction of treatment.
Georgia’s correct responding during reverse intraverbal probes was initially high
during baseline of the animal sounds category (Figure 3, bottom panel). However,
her correct responding in the remainder of the reverse intraverbal probes was
relatively low. Correct responding reduced to zero in the probe of Stimulus Set 6
and maintained at zero for the remainder of the reverse intraverbal stimulus sets con-
ducted in this category. It is important to note that we did not introduce training of
reverse intraverbals with animal sounds, because treatment did not increase levels
of correct responding for reverse intraverbal probes in the functions category.
Overall, Georgia’s results suggest that some reverse intraverbals emerged following
training of original intraverbals, and training of reverse intraverbals during the treat-
ment phase did not improve performance on pre-training reverse intraverbal probes.
DISCUSSION
Participants acquired sets of original intraverbals targeted during training, and they
continued to engage in relatively high levels of correct responding during most of the
original intraverbal probes. However, correct responding during reverse intraverbal
probes (conducted prior to any training of reverse intraverbals) was variable across
stimulus sets and participants. Our findings suggest that teaching original intraverbals
was sufficient to produce emergence of reverse intraverbals. Training reverse
intraverbals was not necessary and did not appear to confer any advantage over train-
ing of original intraverbals only.
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Our results can be classified into two general outcomes. First, participants
demonstrated differentially high levels of correct responding during probes of reverse
intraverbals across stimulus sets and categories (Pete and Georgia). Second, our
results suggest that implementation of treatment for reverse intraverbals did not pro-
duce generalization to untrained reverse intraverbals with any of the participants. We
will describe each of these outcomes in relation to previous research, provide
hypotheses for these findings, and describe how future studies can modify aspects
of our procedures to more adequately evaluate the effects of training sets of reverse
intraverbals on the emergence of reverse intraverbals.
Previous research has not consistently shown that typically developing children, or
those with ASD, acquire reverse intraverbals following training of original
intraverbals (Petursdottir et al., 2008; Petursdottir, Olafsdottir, & Arasdottir, 2008).
The results of the current investigation are inconsistent with previous research
because reverse intraverbals emerged following original intraverbal training for Pete
and Georgia. However, unlike those of Perez-Gonzalez and colleagues (2007), the
current findings do not suggest that acquisition of untrained reverse intraverbals
occurred after training sets of reverse intraverbals. Although participants displayed
some correct responding during reverse intraverbal probes, direct training of reverse
intraverbals did not appear to change the levels of correct responding during reverse
intraverbal probes. Georgia had high but variable levels of reverse intraverbals prior
to the introduction of training of reverse intraverbals. It appeared that training the
original intraverbals alone led to the emergence of reverse intraverbals. Pete
showed higher and increasing levels of correct responding during reverse
intraverbal probes, although these increases occurred in the absence of training of
reverse intraverbals. The variables influencing the emergence of reverse intraverbals
within and across participants remain unclear, although it appears that training orig-
inal intraverbals was sufficient to produce emergent reverse intraverbals for Georgia
and Pete.
Our findings highlight the need to assess participant’s prior histories with verbal
conditional discriminations. In a verbal conditional discrimination, two verbal
discriminative stimuli collectively evoke a verbal response (Axe, 2008; Cooper, Heron,
& Heward, 2007; Sundberg, 2006; Sundberg and Sundberg 2011). For example, during
intraverbal training, an adult might ask ‘What is the opposite of hot?’ and ‘What is the
opposite of cold?’ The verbal conditional stimuli in the aforementioned examples are
‘hot’ or ‘cold’, because these stimuli specify the responses that will produce reinforce-
ment. If a child has not yet acquired all of the components of the antecedent verbal
stimulus, then errors may occur. Errors are likely, because the source of control is not
from the collective antecedent verbal stimuli but from an individual stimulus. For
example, when asked ‘What do you eat with?’, the child’s response may be ‘cookie’.
These types of errors occur because the source of control is the one component of
DOI: 10.1002/bin
the antecedent verbal stimulus (i.e., ‘eat’) instead of a combination of verbal stimuli
(e.g., ‘eat’ and ‘with’; Sundberg and Sundberg, 2011).
Prior to the present investigation, we assessed participants’ tact repertoire to ensure
that participants could tact all relevant stimuli and responses associated with the
intraverbal responses; however, we failed to assess all components of all of the
antecedent verbal stimuli (i.e., verbal conditional discriminations). For example, we
assessed whether the participant could tact the action eat and the stimulus spoon,
but we did not evaluate whether participants had acquired prepositional tacts such
as with, in, or on. Future research should assess the degree to which participants have
acquired all components of the antecedent verbal stimulus (i.e., verbal conditional
discriminations) that may be necessary to emit the relevant response.
Inconsistency in previous outcomes also may be related to the types of
interventions used to train intraverbal relations. Multiple exemplar instruction
(MEI) teaches multiple exemplars of a particular category of stimuli and evaluates
whether novel exemplars emerge without direct training (e.g., Greer, Yaun, &
Gautreaux, 2005). For example, an experimenter may teach a child that a dog is an
animal and a shirt is clothing and evaluate whether the participant acquires the
category name of other untrained exemplars from the same category. Perez-Gonzalez
and colleagues (2007) conducted intraverbal training in a manner that is consistent
with MEI. That is, the experimenters trained sets of reverse intraverbals from one cat-
egory (i.e., opposites) and evaluated whether additional reverse intraverbals emerged
without direct training.
In the current investigation, we utilized procedures similar to those of MEI and
Perez-Gonzalez and colleagues (2007). However, we conducted treatment across
several categories. It is possible that the effects of MEI training across categories
could result in more rapid emergence of untrained relations the more participants
are exposed to MEI (Greer et al., 2005). Pete’s data show an increase in correct
responding across sets of reverse intraverbals in the opposites and features categories,
regardless of the implementation of treatment for reverse intraverbals. However, our
participants’ results did not suggest that our intervention (i.e., training of reverse
intraverbals), which was the same intervention evaluated by Perez-Gonzales et al.,
was responsible for increases in correct responding during reverse intraverbal probes
in any of the categories. Nevertheless, teaching original intraverbals in an MEI format
leads to some correct responding during intraverbal probes for two participants. Thus,
it remains unclear whether combining MEI with intraverbal training produced an in-
crease in correct responding to untrained reverse intraverbals or if intraverbal training
alone would have produced the same outcome.
Finally, the differentially high levels of responding across categories or stimulus
sets may be related to the reinforcement contingencies present in probe sessions
(i.e., the absence of reinforcement). Previous studies evaluated the emergence of
DOI: 10.1002/bin
untrained relations under three different types of reinforcement contingencies

(LeBlanc, Miguel, Cummings, Goldsmith, & Carr, 2003). For example, LeBlanc
et al. (2003) evaluated the following: (a) extinction, (b) interspersal of reinforcement
for mastered tasks, and (c) a fixed ratio 1 (FR 1) schedule of reinforcement regardless
of correct or incorrect responding. Their results showed that correct responding did
not differ across conditions. However, it is possible that individuals with lengthy
histories of FR 1 schedules of reinforcement may not continue to engage in
accurate responding without gradually fading schedules of reinforcement (Freeland
& Noell, 1999).
Our results highlight the importance of considering different ways to evaluate
emergent relations with individuals who display variable responding under
conditions of extinction or thin schedules of reinforcement. The reinforcement
contingencies in the probe condition of the present investigation may have influenced
at least one participant’s (Georgia) levels of correct responding. We observed a
decrease in Georgia’s correct responding and an increase in problem behavior
(e.g., Georgia screamed, said ‘no’, or engaged in other negative vocalizations)
across sets of reverse intraverbal probes. We probed sets of reverse intraverbals under
different reinforcement contingencies (i.e., those described by LeBlanc et al., 2003;
data are not included in the figure but are available from the second author upon
request) at the completion of the evaluation. However, we did not identify a reinforce-
ment contingency that was effective for increasing correct responding during
intraverbal probes. It is possible that a history of extinction during earlier probes
influenced the subsequent effectiveness of different reinforcement contingencies for
correct responding in these brief probes. More research is needed to identify ideal
procedures for testing the emergence of relations with children who may be sensitive
to changes in reinforcement parameters.
Overall, the results of the current investigation suggest that teaching original
intraverbal produced the emergence of reverse intraverbals and teaching reverse
intraverbals was unnecessary. However, our results should be interpreted with
caution because we were unable to consistently demonstrate experimental control.
Other experimenters have noted difficulties in demonstrating experimental control
in evaluations in which the independent variable may not have an effect on the
dependent variable (Esch, Carr, & Michael, 2005; Miguel, Carr, & Michael, 2002).
The current study replicated the experimental design of Perez-Gonzalez et al.
(2007); however, we included additional categories in the evaluation to measure
generalization (i.e., whether the introduction of training of the reverse intraverbals
in one or more categories resulted in increased responding of novel, reverse
intraverbal relations in another condition). As such, we did not introduce the indepen-
dent variable in all categories. The addition of categories in which the independent
variable was not introduced highlights some potential limitations of interpreting the
DOI: 10.1002/bin
results obtained by Perez-Gonzalez and colleagues. It is possible that other variables

were responsible for the increase in correct responding to untrained reverse
intraverbals in the Perez-Gonzalez and colleagues evaluation. For example, repeated
exposure to training of original intraverbals could increase correct responding to
reverse intraverbal probes without any direct training. One participant (Pete) in the
present investigation engaged in correct responses during reverse intraverbal probes
despite the absence of direct training of reverse intraverbals (i.e., implementation of
the independent variable). It is possible that we would have demonstrated an effect
in the current evaluation by chance if we introduced the independent variable after
training only one or two sets of original intraverbals in certain conditions. In fact, cor-
rect responding to reverse intraverbal probes in the Perez-Gonzalez et al. study did
not increase until the experimenters completed training with several sets of reverse
intraverbals for the first participant. Thus, it remains unclear whether the independent
variable (i.e., treatment) was responsible for the observed effects during reverse
intraverbal probes.
To better demonstrate experimental control in future studies, experimenters could
modify the procedures of the current study by using an adapted alternating-treatments
design (Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1985) and including a control category in
which training is not provided for original or reverse intraverbal sets of stimuli. This
would allow for a demonstration of experimental control even if the implementation
of the independent variable does not result in changes in levels of correct responding
during reverse intraverbal probes. That is, the control category would be associated
with zero levels of correct responding in every set, while the experimental categories
may or may not be associated with a treatment effect.
Despite several limitations of the present investigation, the results highlight the
need for additional research on the emergence of reverse intraverbals. By identifying
efficient intraverbal training procedures that result in bidirectional intraverbals,
clinicians will be better prepared to conduct language training with individuals with
ASD, thereby helping to bridge the gap between the verbal repertoires of individuals
with ASD and their typically developing peers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Kari Adolf, Whitney Brancht, Elizabeth Bullington, Rashea Fuchtman, Amber
Paden, and Keri Walters for their assistance with data collection. This article is based on a
dissertation submitted by the first author, under the supervision of the second author, to the
graduate school at the University of Nebraska at Omaha in partial fulfillment for the
requirements of a master’s degree.
DOI: 10.1002/bin
REFERENCES
Axe, J. B. (2008). Conditional discrimination in the intraverbal relation: A review and recommendations
for future research. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24, 159–174.
Braam, S. J., & Poling, A. (1983). Development of intraverbal behavior in mentally retarded individuals
through transfer of stimulus control procedures: Classification of verbal responses. Applied Research
in Mental Retardation, 4, 279–302. DOI: 10.1016/0270-3092(83)90030-9
Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference
assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 353–357.
DOI:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-353.
Cooper¸ J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. I. (2007). Applied behavior analysis, (2nd edn). New Jersey:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Esch, B. E., Carr, J. E., & Michael, J. (2005). Evaluating stimulus–stimulus pairing and direct reinforce-
ment in the establishment of an echoic repertoire of children diagnosed with autism. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, 21, 43–58.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C., Hagopian, L., Bowman, L., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to
predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1–9. DOI:10.1901/
jaba.1996.29-1.
Freeland, J. T., & Noell, G. H. (1999). Maintaining accurate math responses in elementary school
students: The effects of delayed and intermittent reinforcement and programming common stimuli.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 211–215. DOI: 10.190/jaba.1999.32-211
Garcia, E. (1974). The training and generalization of a conversational speech form in nonverbal
retardates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 137–149. DOI:10.1901/jaba.1974.7-137.
Greer, R. D., Yaun, L., & Gautreaux, G. (2005). Novel dictation and intraverbal response as a function
of a multiple exemplar instructional history. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 99–116.
Hayes, S. C., Barlow, D. H., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (1999). The scientist practitioner: Research and
accountability in the age of managed care (2nd ed., pp. ). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
LeBlanc, L., Miguel, C. F., Cummings, A., Goldsmith, T., & Carr, J. E. (2003). The effects of three-
stimulus-equivalence testing conditions on emergent U.S. geography relations in children diagnosed
with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 18, 279–289. DOI:10.1002/bin.144.
Miguel, C. F., Carr, J. E., & Michael, J. (2002). The effects of a stimulus–stimulus pairing procedure
on the vocal behavior of children diagnosed with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18,
3–13.
Partington, J. W., & Sundberg, M. L. (1998). The assessment of basic language and learning skills (The
ABLLS). Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior Analysts, Inc.
Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., Garcia-Asenjo, L., Williams, G., & Carnerero, J. J. (2007). Emergence of
intraverbal antonyms in children with pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 40, 697–701. DOI:10.1901/jaba.2007.697-701.
Perez-Gonzalez, L. A., Herszlikowicz, K., & Williams, G. (2008). Stimulus relations analysis and the
emergence of novel intraverbals. Psychological Record, 58, 95–129.
Petursdottir, A. I., Olafsdottir, A. R., & Arasdottir, B. (2008). The effects of tact training and listener
training on the emergence of bidirectional intraverbal relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
41, 411–415. DOI:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-411.
Petursdottir, A., Carr, J. E., Lechago, S. A., & Almason, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of intraverbal
training for teaching categorization skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 53–68.
DOI:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-53.
DOI: 10.1002/bin
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for
instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stokes, T. F., Baer, D. M., & Jackson, R. L. (1974). Programming the generalization of a greeting
response in four retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 599–610.
DOI:10.1901/jaba.1974.7-599.
Sundberg, M. L. (2006). The analysis of complex human behavior: Teaching intraverbal behavior to
children with autism. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior
Analysis International, Atlanta, GA.
Sundberg, M. L., & Michael, J. (2001). The benefits of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior with
autism. Behavior Modification, 25, 698–724. DOI:10.1177/0145445501255003.
Sundberg, M. L., & Sundberg, C. A. (2011). Intraverbal behavior and verbal conditional discriminations
in typically developing children and children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27,
23–43.
Walker, G. (2008). Constant and progressive time delay procedures for teaching children with autism: A
literature review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 261–275. DOI:10.1007/
s10803-007-0390-4.
DOI: 10.1002/bin

Dickes 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dickes 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behavioral Interventions

Behav. Intervent. 30: 169–190 (2015)

EVALUATING THE EMERGENCE OF REVERSE

Nitasha R. Dickes1 and Tiffany Kodak2*

Behavior-based language interventions are often grounded in Skinner’s (1957)

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

behavior to develop meaningful social relationships (Sundberg & Michael, 2001).

intraverbals. Unless efﬁcient training procedures that result in generalization to

Participants and Settings

Interobserver Agreement and Procedural Integrity

Table 1. Original and reverse intraverbal stimulus sets for Pete.

Table 2. Original and reverse intraverbal stimulus sets for Patrick.

Table 3. Original and reverse intraverbal stimulus sets for Georgia.

Set 9 Key/lock doors

We included an error correction procedure during training with participants for

All of the participants mastered sets of original intraverbals in a relatively small

probes of original and reverse intraverbal sets conducted immediately following

in the evaluation to determine whether the introduction of training of reverse

untrained relations under three different types of reinforcement contingencies

results obtained by Perez-Gonzalez and colleagues. It is possible that other variables

You might also like