Assessing Stimulus Equivalences

Step 1: Assess Auditory-Visual Matching-to-Sample Repertoire

  1. Administer standard Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) using modeling, prompting, etc.
  2. If unsuccessful, assess auditory-visual MTS with familiar 3-dimensional objects, and, if successful, re-administer PPVT-III
  3. If still unsuccessful, use auditory-visual delayed S+ procedure (McIlvane et al., 1990)
  4. Computer-presented word-picture matching to sample (MTS) using stimuli similar to PPVT-III
  5. Survey auditory-visual MTS with selected teaching stimuli (e.g., dictated letter name:letter; dictated number name:number; dictated word:printed word, etc.)


Step 2: Assess Arbitrary Visual-Visual Matching-to-Sample

  1. Survey visual-visual arbitrary matching to sample with selected teaching stimuli (e.g., printed number:quantity, printed word:picture, etc.; Stromer & Mackay, 1992a, 1992b, 1993; Green, 1993)
  2. If needed, develop initial visual-visual arbitrary matching baseline via stimulus control shaping procedures (e.g., by transforming identity matching to arbitrary matching; Zygmont et al., 1992)
  3. Repeat visual-visual arbitrary matching survey in context of established baseline

Step 3: Verify Stimulus Equivalence

  1. Develop interconnected auditory-visual and visual-visual baselines, as appropriate, with discriminations verified in auditory-visual and visual-visual assessments
  2. Test for emergent MTS (symmetry, transitivity)
  3. If equivalence relations not demonstrated, review (overtrain) prerequisite discriminations, and re-test equivalence relations
  4. If equivalence relations still not demonstrated, use blank-comparison MTS procedure to test for sample-S+ and sample-S- control in baseline relations (Serna, Wilkinson,& McIlvane, in press)
  5. As needed, teach sample-S+ and sample-S- relations via stimulus control shaping program (Serna et al., in press)
  6. Re-test equivalence relations
  7. If equivalence relations still not demonstrated, teach the tested performances directly, and proceed to the next set of discriminations

Previous curriculum unit: Establishing Basic Discriminations

Next curriculum unit: Expanding Equivalence Baseline

References

Green, G. (1993). Stimulus control technology for teaching number/quantity equivalences. Proceedings of the 1992 National Autism Conference (Australia). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Victorian Autistic Children's and Adults' Association.

McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Stoddard, L.T., & Dube, W. V. (1990). Delayed sample presentation in MTS: Some possible advantages for teaching individuals with developmental limitations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 8, 31-33.

Serna, R. W., Wilkinson, K. M., & McIlvane, W. J. (in press). Blank comparison assessment of stimulus-stimulus relations in individuals with mental retardation: A methodological note. American Journal on Mental Retardation.

Stromer, R & Mackay, HA. (1992a). Delayed constructed-response matching improves the spelling performances of participants with mental retardation.Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 139-156.

Stromer R & Mackay, HA. (1992b). Spelling and emergent picture-printed word relations established with delayed identity matching to complex samples. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 893-904.

Stromer, R & Mackay, HA. (1993). Delayed identity matching to complex samples: Teaching participants with mental retardation spelling and the prerequisites for equivalence classes. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 14, 19-38.

Zygmont, D. M., Lazar, R. M., Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1992). Teaching arbitrary matching via sample stimulus-control shaping to young children and mentally retarded individuals: A methodological note. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 109-117.