487

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2003, 36, 487–505 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 2003)

DELAYED MATCHING TO TWO-PICTURE SAMPLES BYINDIVIDUALS WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES:

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF NAMING

STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

AND

ROBERT STROMER

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL,

SHRIVER CENTER

Delayed matching to complex, two-picture samples (e.g., cat–dog) may be improvedwhen the samples occasion differential verbal behavior. In Experiment 1, individuals withmental retardation matched picture comparisons to identical single-picture samples or totwo-picture samples, one of which was identical to a comparison. Accuracy scores weretypically high on single-picture trials under both simultaneous and delayed matchingconditions. Scores on two-picture trials were also high during the simultaneous conditionbut were lower during the delay condition. However, scores improved on delayed two-picture trials when each of the sample pictures was named aloud before comparisonresponding. Experiment 2 replicated these results with preschoolers with typical devel-opment and a youth with mental retardation. Sample naming also improved the pre-schoolers’ matching when the samples were pairs of spoken names and the correct com-parison picture matched one of the names. Collectively, the participants could producethe verbal behavior that might have improved performance, but typically did not do sounless the procedure required it. The success of the naming intervention recommends itfor improving the observing and remembering of multiple elements of complex instruc-tional stimuli.

DESCRIPTORS: matching to complex samples, naming, individuals with mentalretardation, children without disabilities

Special educators routinely use matching-to-sample procedures to teach componentsof language, academic, and other skills (e.g.,Leaf & McEachin, 1999; Sundberg & Par-tington, 1998; B. A. Taylor & McDonough,

This research received support from the NationalInstitute of Child Health and Human Development(Grants HD32506 and HD25995) and the Massa-chusetts Department of Mental Retardation (Contract100220023SC).

This report is based upon the doctoral dissertationsubmitted by Stanley Gutowski to the Department ofPsychology at Boston University. Some of the data ap-peared in a brief report by Gutowski, Geren, Stromer,and Mackay (1995). We thank Henry Marcucella andHarry Mackay for their input on the project.

Correspondence can be addressed to Robert Strom-er, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Shriv-er Center, 200 Trapelo Road, Waltham, Massachusetts02454 (e-mail: robert.stromer@umassmed.edu).

1996). Because of this, laboratory studies ofmatching to sample often provide informa-tion relevant to applied research and practice(e.g., Horne & Lowe, 1996; Stromer, Mack-ay, & Remington, 1996). For example,teachers may take advantage of laboratoryfindings that supplemental oral naming en-hances acquisition of matching (e.g., Eike-seth & Smith, 1992; Saunders & Spradlin,1990) and that naming facilitates remem-bering pictures on delayed matching tasks(Bonta & Watters, 1981; Constantine &Sidman, 1975; Geren, Stromer, & Mackay,1997). Delayed matching procedures used inlaboratory studies of observing and remem-bering complex stimuli (e.g., Stromer, Mc-Ilvane, Dube, & Mackay, 1993) also havebeen adapted for computer-assisted teaching

488 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

of reading and spelling (e.g., Lane & Critch-field, 1998; Stromer & Mackay, 1992).

When instructional stimuli are complex,difficulties may arise because only some ofthe relevant component stimuli exercise con-trol (Allen & Fuqua, 1985; Dube & Mc-Ilvane, 1999; Schreibman, Charlop, & Koe-gel, 1982; Schreibman, Kohlenberg, & Brit-ten, 1986; Stromer et al., 1993). Again, sup-plemental naming may be beneficial, as inan application to overcome difficulties teach-ing a student to write lists of picture names(Stromer, Mackay, McVay, & Fowler, 1998).Other interventions, like activity schedulesand textual scripts to improve social com-munication, rely on students being able tolearn to name selected components of com-plex stimuli (e.g., Krantz & McClannahan,1998). Analyses of the effects of naming ondelayed matching may contribute to refine-ments in interventions that hinge on positivefunctional relations among verbal and non-verbal behaviors (e.g., Duarte & Baer, 1994;Guevremont, Osnes, & Stokes, 1988; Risley& Hart, 1968).

Standard matching tasks arrange a seriesof sample or instructional stimuli that cuewhich of two or more comparison or choicestimuli are discriminative for reinforcement.In a typical procedure, the presentation of asample (e.g., a picture or dictated picturename) begins a trial and an observing re-sponse, like a touch to a computer screen,results in the display of a positive compari-son and one or more negative comparisons(e.g., two or more pictures). In simultaneousmatching, the samples are always present. Indelayed matching, the samples are removedat the time the observing response occurs;the comparisons then appear immediately (a0-s delay) or after a delay (e.g., 1 s, 5 s, or10 s). Delayed matching tasks are useful inanalyses of the effects of simply namingstimuli (e.g., pictures) to which one mustlater respond.

When touching is the observing response,

it is considered ‘‘nondifferential’’ because itstopography is the same for each sampleacross trials. Constantine and Sidman(1975) demonstrated that ‘‘differential’’ ob-serving—saying the name of the sample pic-tures—exercised control over delayed match-ing of identical pictures. The accuracy of de-layed identity matching improved when theparticipants with mental retardation were in-structed to name each picture sample aloud.Without the instructions, accuracy returnedto baseline levels. So, the participants couldproduce the differential verbal responses thatmight have resulted in correct delayed pic-ture–picture matching, but they did not doso unless instructed. These findings havebeen replicated using individuals with dis-abilities and names related to pictures thatwere spoken (Geren et al., 1997) and signed(Bonta & Watters, 1981).

To extend the preceding research, thepresent two experiments examined delayedmatching and the effects of sample namingwith individuals with mental retardation andpreschoolers without disabilities. Unlike pri-or studies on naming (Bonta & Watters,1981; Constantine & Sidman, 1975; Gerenet al., 1997), the present protocols includedmatching tasks with complex, two-elementsamples similar to those used by Stromer etal. (1993). Stromer et al. included 0-s delaymatching trials in which touching a two-el-ement (abstract forms) sample removed itfrom the display at the same time that a pairof single-element comparisons appeared.The positive comparison was identical toone of the sample elements. Even thoughreinforcement was maximized only if bothof the sample stimuli exerted discriminativecontrol, delayed matching was more accuratewith single-element samples than with two-element samples.

The procedures in Experiment 1 weresimilar to those in Stromer et al. (1993), butthe stimuli were common pictures that theparticipants with mental retardation could

489NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

name rather than abstract forms (see belowfor an exception). Errors on trials with two-picture samples provided a baseline for as-sessing the effects of a sample-naming inter-vention. Experiment 2 expanded the analysiswith preschoolers without disabilities and anew participant with mental retardation. Wealso included trials with pairs of dictatednames as samples. Errors on trials with two-name samples provided a baseline for assess-ing any collateral effects of a naming inter-vention applied on trials with two-picturesamples: Repeating dictated sample namesmay improve matching pictures to them (cf.Glat, Gould, Stoddard, & Sidman, 1994).We also recorded the occurrence of un-prompted spontaneous naming in both ex-periments to evaluate its potential relation tomatching performance when the naming in-tervention was not in effect.

EXPERIMENT 1

Phase 1 sought to replicate and extend thedemonstration by Stromer et al. (1993) thatparticipants with mental retardation mayshow decrements in delayed matching totwo-element samples. Phase 2 examined theeffects of naming each of the pictures of atwo-picture sample before selecting a com-parison picture during delayed matching.Phase 3 examined longer delays with newpictures and the effects of sample naming onperformance.

METHOD

ParticipantsThe participants were Cathy (age 53

years) and Bill (age 32 years), 2 individualswith moderate mental retardation. Mentalage-equivalent scores from the Peabody Pic-ture Vocabulary Test were 4 years 8 monthsfor Cathy and 7 years 9 months for Bill.Both had previous experience with the com-puterized matching tasks using differentstimuli.

Apparatus and Setting

A Macintosht computer with a touch-sensitive screen presented stimuli and re-corded data. The screen displayed five whitekeys (4.5 cm by 4.5 cm) on a gray back-ground. Sample pictures appeared on thecenter key, and comparison pictures ap-peared on two of the four outer keys. Oneor two sessions occurred 2 or 3 days perweek in a quiet area at a school or residence;each lasted 10 to 15 min. Names spoken bythe participants and verbal instructions givenby the experimenter were tape-recorded.

Procedure

Phase 1: Assessment of simultaneous and de-layed matching. In Phase 1, simultaneous and0-s delayed matching were examined withthe three stimuli in Set 1 (Figure 1). Eachsession consisted of 24 trials with single-pic-ture samples and 24 trials with two-picturesamples. The type and location of the com-parison stimuli changed unsystematicallyfrom trial to trial. The simultaneous and de-layed matching conditions alternated inblocks of six sessions in a reversal design.

Trials began with the presentation of asingle-picture (cat, dog, bee) or two-picturesample (top–bottom pictures: cat–dog, cat–bee, dog–bee, dog–cat, bee–cat, and bee–dog). The participant then had to touch thesample in order to display two comparisons,each a single picture. One of the compari-sons (the correct comparison) was identicalto one of the two pictures that served as thesample. A flashing screen, a pleasant audi-tory tone, and the delivery of a penny fol-lowed a touch to the correct comparison. Af-ter each session, the pennies were exchangedfor coins to be used in nearby vending ma-chines. Touching the nonidentical compari-son was an error and resulted in a darkscreen for 3.5 s. The keys were blank for 1.5s between trials. Figure 1 (upper two panels)illustrates trials with two-picture samples. In

490 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

Figure 1. Top panels illustrate trials with two-pic-ture samples: In simultaneous matching, the sampleremained displayed after it was touched and a com-parison picture was selected. In delayed matching, thesample disappeared after it was touched. Bottom pan-els illustrate trials with two-name samples: In simul-taneous matching, after the dark key was touched, thecomparisons appeared and pairs of dictated nameswere repeated until a comparison was touched. In de-layed matching, a pair of names occurred once. Stim-ulus sets used are shown at the bottom.

simultaneous matching (left), the sample re-mained on the screen when the comparisonsappeared. In delayed matching (right), thesample disappeared after it was touched andthe comparisons appeared immediately (a 0-s delay).

Phase 2: Delayed matching and prompts toname. In Phase 2, matching performanceswere examined during conditions with andwithout naming prompts. The stimuli in Set1 were used. Each session consisted of 48trials of 0-s delayed matching with two-pic-ture samples. Participants were exposed to(a) a no-prompt condition, in which the ses-sions were conducted as in Phase 1, and (b)a prompt condition, in which the experi-menter verbally instructed the participant oneach trial (by saying ‘‘name’’) to name thepictures of the sample before touching thesample area of the screen. If the pictureswere named correctly, the participant waspermitted to touch the sample and completethe trial. If an error occurred (no responsewithin 3 s of the prompt, or one or bothpictures named incorrectly), the experiment-er modeled the correct response andprompted naming again. To counterbalancefor order, Cathy was exposed to the no-prompt condition first and Bill was exposedto the prompt condition first.

Phase 3: Delayed matching with longer de-lays and new pictures. Phase 3 examined theeffects of naming on delays of 0 s, 5 s, and10 s. Each session consisted of 12 trials with0-s delays, followed by 24 trials with 5-s or10-s delays, followed by 12 trials with 0-sdelays. An equal number of trials with sin-gle-picture and two-picture samples wereused under each delay. Set 1 pictures wereused first to examine matching in sessionswith 0-s, 5-s, and 10-s delays.

Cathy (after Sessions 76 and 77) and Bill(after Sessions 71 and 72) then received apicture-naming test with Sets 2 and 3 toconfirm that they could name the pictures.Sessions with these pictures under 0-s and

491NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

10-s delays then followed to examine thegenerality of the effects obtained with Set 1.Each of the six pictures was randomly pre-sented three times in each of three test ses-sions. On each trial, a picture was displayedon the computer screen, and the participantwas verbally instructed to name the picture.The experimenter recorded responses bypressing the K computer key when the namewas correct and the J key when the namewas incorrect. All responses were followed bya 1.5-s intertrial interval; no other conse-quences were scheduled.

Additional sessions involved slightly dif-ferent conditions. For Cathy, the use of thestimuli in Set 3 continued in additional un-prompted sessions (Sessions 54 to 101) butprompts to name the two-picture samples(as in Phase 2) were added at the end (Ses-sions 102 to 107). This condition evaluatedwhether prompted naming might improveperformance on trials with both 0-s and 10-s delays. For Bill, naming two-picture sam-ples was not prompted in Sessions 53 to 90while matching performance was examined.

Bill also received sessions to examine de-layed matching with abstract forms (Set 4,Figure 1). These stimuli had no standardnames, so Bill had to supply any names ac-tually used. Improvements in performancethat followed the introduction of namingwould extend the relevance of the interven-tion to conditions in which an individualmust invent new names for stimuli to beremembered. Before Sessions 91 and 92, anassessment of form naming was conductedin which 10 forms were presented threetimes per session over three sessions. Eachform was presented individually on the cen-ter key, and Bill was asked to name it. Basedon these data, Set 4 was constructed of threeforms that Bill never named consistently. Us-ing Set 4, matching was examined under theno-prompt (Sessions 91 to 108) and prompt(Sessions 109 to 114) conditions. (Duringthe prompt condition, Bill was merely told

to ‘‘name.’’ A correction procedure was notused because there were no incorrect re-sponses.) As described previously, each ses-sion consisted of 24 trials with single-picturesamples and 24 trials with two-picture sam-ples. Half of the trials with each type of sam-ple contained 0-s delays, and the other halfcontained 10-s delays.

Tape recordings began in Phase 2, in Ses-sions 25 and 36 for Cathy and Bill, respec-tively, and continued through Phase 3. Weanalyzed naming responses that occurred,with or without prompts, and that corre-sponded to the picture or pictures that ap-peared on the sample for a particular trial.The unprompted spontaneous naming in-cluded all of those uttered from sample on-set to comparison offset. When abstractforms were used with Bill (Sessions 91 to114), naming responses were those utteredduring the naming testing prior to Sessions91 and 92.

Reliability. To assess reliability, two ob-servers scored tape recordings made duringthe picture-naming testing and the matchingsessions. The observers scored the tapes for(a) names among the experimental stimulithat were spoken by the participant duringthe direct tests of naming and during thesessions or blocks of trials of matching, (b)the recording performed by the experiment-er, and (c) the instructions provided by theexperimenter. Approximately 37% of thesesessions for Cathy and Bill were scored forreliability. The observers usually agreed that(a) the names spoken by the participants onthe naming tests and matching trials werethe names of the pictures presented (M 594% agreement), (b) the experimenter ac-curately recorded correct and incorrect trials(100%), and (c) the experimenter providedthe instructions described above (M 5 94%)where appropriate.

RESULTS

Figure 2 shows Cathy’s matching perfor-mances across the three phases and naming

492 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

Figure 2. Results for Cathy across simultaneous, delay, prompt, and no-prompt conditions: Open and solidsquares reflect percentages of correct matching. Shaded bars reflect the number of names spoken. Bars withextended tic marks on the abscissa indicate that the number of names exceeded 100 (Phase 2) or 36 (Phase3). Asterisks at Sessions 48 and 49 indicate that names were not recorded. In Phase 3, sessions involved trialswith both 0-s delays and either 5-s or 10-s delays. Phase 3 data are plotted in two-session blocks. The arrowat Sessions 102 and 103 indicates that prompts to name were only given on the first five trials.

493NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

(both prompted and spontaneous) that oc-curred in Phases 2 and 3. In Phase 1 (Ses-sions 1 to 24), accuracy was typically highin simultaneous matching with both single-and two-picture samples. Accuracy was alsohigh in the 0-s delayed matching with singlepictures. Delayed matching with two-picturesamples was typically the least accurate.

In Phase 2 (Sessions 25 to 53), Cathy al-ways named the sample pictures correctlywhen prompted (shaded bars in Figure 2).The minimum number of spoken names re-quired during a session with prompts was96, two on each of the 48 trials. Note thatself-corrections, repeated names, or namesspoken in the presence of the comparisonstimuli increased the number of names spo-ken during some sessions. The accuracy ofmatching was lower during the first and sec-ond no-prompt conditions when correctnaming was infrequent than during the twoprompt conditions when correct naming al-ways occurred. Accuracy remained high dur-ing the final no-prompt condition when cor-rect naming remained fairly high.

In Phase 3 (Sessions 54 to 107), Cathyalways named the pictures correctly duringthe naming tests with Sets 2 and 3. Eachshaded bar in Figure 2 reflects the meannumber of names spoken for a block of twosessions and for naming that occurred on tri-als with both single- and two-picture sam-ples. During 0-s delayed matching with thesingle- and two-picture samples from Set 1,matching accuracy remained nearly perfect.Cathy’s accuracy with Set 1 also remainedabove 90% on both trial types under the 5-s delay. Under the 10-s delay, accuracy re-mained high on single-picture trials (M 591%) but declined on trials with two-picturesamples (M 5 85%). Unprompted namingdeclined and appeared to be unrelated tomatching accuracy. With Sets 2 and 3 (noprompts) at the 0-s delay, accuracy remainedalmost perfect on trials with single-picturesamples, but decreased to a mean of 88%

(Set 2) and 86% (Set 3) on trials with two-picture samples. The relation between ac-curacy and naming remained weak acrosssessions with Sets 2 and 3. With Set 2, ac-curacy on trials with two-picture samples de-creased and became variable across sessionswhile naming increased. For Set 3, accuracyremained variable and declined slightly butunprompted naming decreased, particularlyover the last three sessions. Under the 10-sdelay, accuracy on trials with single-picture(M 5 86%) and two-picture (M 5 77%)samples was lower for Set 2 than for Set 1.However, naming increased across the ses-sions. With Set 3, accuracy on trials withsingle- and two-picture samples varied wide-ly (M 5 90% and 76%, respectively), andnaming decreased over the last few sessions.

The last prompt condition of Phase 3 (Set3) required a minimum of 24 spoken names(two for each of the 12 two-picture samples)on 0-s delayed trials and 24 names on 5-sor 10-s delayed trials. Cathy not only namedcorrectly on all of the targeted two-picturetrials but she also named accurately on thesingle-picture trials. On 0-s delayed match-ing trials, accuracy remained nearly perfecton trials with single-picture samples, and er-rors became less frequent on trials with two-picture samples. With 10-s delays, accuracyon trials with single-picture samples was typ-ically higher (above 90%) than on trials withtwo-picture samples (near 80%). The effectof the naming on matching accuracy with10-s delays was unclear.

Figure 3 shows Bill’s matching and nam-ing performances. In Phase 1 (Sessions 1 to24), accuracy was typically high in simulta-neous matching to both single- and two-pic-ture samples. Accuracy was also high in the0-s delayed matching to single pictures. De-layed matching to two-picture samples wastypically the least accurate. In Phase 2 (Ses-sions 25 to 52), Bill always named the sam-ple pictures (Set 1) correctly when prompt-ed. Matching accuracy increased during the

494 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

Figure 3. Results for Bill across simultaneous, delay, prompt, and no-prompt conditions: Open and solidsquares reflect percentages of correct matching. Shaded bars reflect the number of names spoken. Bars withextended tic marks on the abscissa indicate that the number of names exceeded 100 (Phase 2) or 36 (Phase3). The arrow at Session 36 indicates when recordings of names began. In Phase 3, sessions involved trials withboth 0-s delays and either 5-s or 10-s delays. Phase 3 data are plotted in two-session blocks. An asterisk atSessions 63 and 64 indicates that naming was not recorded.

495NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

first prompt condition. This was followed byvariable performance during the subsequentno-prompt condition and the resumption ofreliably accurate matching when the promptcondition was reinstated. As with Cathy,high accuracy persisted during the final no-prompt condition.

In Phase 3, Bill always named the picturescorrectly during the naming tests with Sets2 and 3. Matching accuracy on 0-s delayedtrials with single- and two-picture samplesgenerally stayed high across the sessions withSets 1 to 3. Under a 5-s delay, accuracy re-mained above 90% for both trial types, andunprompted naming occurred frequentlyduring these sessions. Under the 10-s delaywith Set 1, matching accuracy and namingdeclined but, as with Cathy, the data showedlittle relation between matching accuracyand naming. Under the 10-s delay with Sets2 and 3, Bill’s accuracy was somewhat higheron both the single- and two-picture trials.Naming was variable and unrelated tomatching.

With the abstract forms in Set 4, accuracyon single-form 0-s delayed matching was vir-tually perfect, even without prompts toname the samples. In contrast, errors oc-curred reliably on the trials with two-formsamples (M 5 87%). Under the 10-s delay,accuracy on the trials with single- and two-form samples declined over the last five ses-sions. Naming was infrequent and eventuallystopped. In response to naming prompts,Bill invented a different name for each ofthe forms in Set 4 (‘‘shower,’’ ‘‘sink,’’ and‘‘rocket,’’ from left to right, respectively, inFigure 1) and used them consistentlythroughout the prompt condition. Matchingaccuracy on all trials became nearly perfectand remained so during the rest of this con-dition.

Because of the variability of both partici-pants’ spontaneous naming during the no-prompt conditions of Phase 3, we examinedhow naming was distributed across trials

with single- versus two-picture samples. Theanalysis suggested that the lack of an appar-ent relation between naming and matchingaccuracy was not attributable to differencesin naming on the two trial types. Whennaming occurred, it happened on trials withsingle-picture samples as well as on trialswith two-picture samples.

To summarize, participants with mentalretardation matched pictures to single-pic-ture or two-picture samples. Under both si-multaneous and delayed matching condi-tions, accuracy was typically high on single-picture trials. Scores on two-picture trialswere also high during simultaneous match-ing but lower during delayed matching.However, scores improved on delayed two-picture trials when each of the sample pic-tures was named aloud. With new partici-pants, the aim of Experiment 2 was to ex-amine further the effects of oral naming onmatching with a protocol that (a) providedongoing verification of participants’ namingrepertoires and (b) permitted assessment ofcollateral effects of oral naming applied ontrials with two-picture samples on receptivematching trials presenting pairs of dictatedpicture names.

EXPERIMENT 2

Matching with two-picture samples wascompared to matching with samples thatwere two dictated picture names. On the tri-als with two-name samples, the correct com-parison picture (e.g., a bee) corresponded toone of two dictated names (e.g., in succes-sion, ‘‘bee’’ and ‘‘cat’’). In the context of anongoing baseline of trials with two-nameand two-picture samples, the interventioninvolved prompts to name the two picturesappearing as sample stimuli. Because errorssometimes occurred on both of these trialtypes, the effects of the prompts to namepictures were examined on the trials withtwo-name samples as well. Generalization

496 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

tests were also conducted using new sets ofstimuli. To encourage unprompted sponta-neous naming, blocks of imitation and pic-ture-naming trials were conducted immedi-ately before blocks of trials that assessedmatching with two-name and two-picturesample stimuli.

METHOD

ParticipantsOlivia and Dan were 5-year-old pre-

schoolers without disabilities, and Ken wasa 13-year-old student with mental retarda-tion (mental age of 6 years 1 month).

Apparatus and SettingThe apparatus was the same as described

above. Dictated samples and an auditory in-struction to name the samples (‘‘name’’) werepresented through a speaker attached to thecomputer. Observing responses were madeto a dark center key on trials with dictatednames, and comparison pictures appeared ontwo of the four outer keys. One or two 15-min sessions occurred two or three times perweek in a school or residence.

ProcedureWith a few exceptions, all procedures

were the same as in Experiment 1. Whenmatching to dictated samples (e.g., ‘‘cat’’ or‘‘cat’’ and ‘‘dog’’), a trial began with a darksample key. Touching the sample key turnedit white and produced the comparisons (seebottom panels in Figure 1). Olivia and Danreceived tokens that were exchanged for toysafter each session. The consequences for Kenwere the same as those described in Experi-ment 1. For all participants, the computerproduced a buzzing sound after an error.This was done so that an observer listeningto an audio recording of spontaneous nam-ing could readily detect the end of an in-correct trial.

Preteaching imitation, naming, and match-ing. These sessions familiarized the partici-

pants with the session format, the dictatedand pictured stimuli presented individually,and the consequences for correct and incor-rect trials. Each session began with a six-trialblock of imitation and picture-naming trialswith one of the three-item sets of stimuli(Sets 1, 2, or 3). Each block consisted ofthree imitation trials and three picture-nam-ing trials (e.g., dog, cat, bee). On imitationtrials, a dark box appeared in the center ofa white computer screen, and the computerpresented digitized spoken names. Partici-pants were instructed to repeat the dictatedname. On naming trials, the picture to benamed appeared on the center key, and thecomputer presented the prompt ‘‘name.’’The experimenter entered correct and incor-rect responses into the computer as de-scribed in Experiment 1. The stimulus setused was the one to be used during a sub-sequent block of matching trials.

These sessions were followed by 24matching trials (12 with single-name sam-ples and 12 with single-picture samples). ForOlivia and Dan, performance was examinedfirst during simultaneous matching with Set1 and then in 0-s delayed matching withSets 1, 2, and 3. With each set of three stim-uli, each stimulus appeared as the samplefour times per session. The comparisonswere always a pair of single pictures. As inExperiment 1, the sample type and locationsof the comparisons changed unsystematicallyfrom trial to trial. For Olivia and Dan, newstimulus sets were introduced following twoconsecutive sessions of at least 92% correct(11 of 12 trials) on trials with single-namesamples and 92% correct on trials with sin-gle-picture samples. For Ken, only Set 1 wasused during preteaching because of timeconstraints.

Delayed matching and prompts to name.Procedures resembled those in preteaching.Each session began with a 12-trial block ofvocal imitation and picture-naming trials:Six of the trials required imitating pairs of

497NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

names dictated by the computer, and six tri-als required naming pairs of pictures (e.g.,for Set 1, cat–dog, cat–bee, dog–bee, dog–cat, bee–cat, and bee–dog). This gave par-ticipants an immediate and ongoing historyof saying the names of the stimuli to appearas samples during the matching trials. A 24-trial block of matching trials followed: 12with two-name samples and 12 with two-picture samples. Each of the six sample typesin a stimulus set (e.g., cat–dog in Set 1) ap-peared twice per session. Simultaneousmatching was evaluated first. The plan calledfor at least two sessions of 92% accuracy orbetter on each trial type—those with two-name samples and two-picture samples—be-fore delayed matching trials were intro-duced. The plan changed for Ken becausehe did not meet the criteria for simultaneousmatching. During the delayed trials, the ob-jective was to identify a delay value that en-gendered errors on both two-name and two-picture trials.

Initially, sessions were conducted underthe no-prompt condition. Then, the no-prompt condition was alternated with aprompt condition under which the partici-pants were required to name the pictures inthe sample before completing a delayedmatching trial. The prompt condition in-volved only the two-picture samples. Delayvalues of 1 s and 0 s were used with Oliviaand Dan, respectively, because errors reliablyoccurred on both trial types (two-name andtwo-picture samples) with these values. Mostof Olivia’s sessions involved Set 1, except forthe final no-prompt sessions using Sets 2and 3. Most of Dan’s sessions involved Set3, except for the final no-prompt sessionswith Sets 2 and 1. Because of time con-straints, a 0-s delay and Set 1 were used withKen throughout.

As described previously, we recordednames spoken by the participants during theprompt and no-prompt conditions; this in-cluded naming on trials with the dictated

two-name samples, which was always un-prompted. Because there were 12 trials withtwo-picture samples, the minimum numberof names required during each prompt ses-sion was 24.

Reliability. Tape recordings were made ofall vocalizations that (a) occurred during thedirect tests of vocal imitation and picturenaming and (b) occurred under prompt andno-prompt conditions during the matchingtrials. Two observers conducted trial-by-trialanalyses of about a third of all sessions foreach participant. The two observers were al-ways within 90% to 100% agreement that(a) the participant repeated the name pre-sented by the computer on imitation trials,(b) the name spoken by the participant onpicture-naming trials corresponded with thepicture displayed on the screen, (c) the ex-perimenter provided the appropriate instruc-tions and consequences on each trial, and(d) an unprompted name of an experimentalpicture either did or did not occur on a par-ticular trial.

RESULTS

Olivia, Dan, and Ken met the preteachingcriteria in 18, 10, and 23 sessions, respec-tively (not shown graphically). Preteachingestablished that participants (a) reliably im-itated the computerized dictated names andnamed the computer pictures presented in-dividually, and (b) on 0-s delay trials, theyreliably matched pictures to single picturesand to single dictated names. On the blocksof imitation and picture-naming trials con-ducted at the start of each delayed matchingsession, Olivia and Dan were always correctand Ken rarely made an error when imitat-ing the pairs of dictated names and namingpairs of pictures (not shown graphically).

Figure 4 (top two panels) depicts Olivia’smatching performance and spoken namesthat occurred either spontaneously withoutprompts or followed prompts to name thepicture samples. Striped and solid bars in

498 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

Figure 4. Results for Olivia and Dan across simultaneous, delay, prompt, and no-prompt conditions: Opencircles and solid squares reflect percentages of correct matching. Striped bars and shaded bars reflect the numberof names spoken on trials with two-name and two-picture samples, respectively. Bars with extended tic markson the abscissa indicate that the number of names exceeded 25.

499NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

Figure 4 reflect names spoken on trials withtwo-name samples (repeating names) and ontrials with two-picture samples (naming pic-tures), respectively. On trials with two-pic-ture samples, accuracy was high under si-multaneous and 0-s delayed matching.However, accuracy declined under 0-s de-layed matching with two dictated name sam-ples. Accuracy with both sample types de-clined under the 1-s delay. Spontaneousnaming was infrequent, variable, and mostlikely to occur on trials with the dictatednames as samples.

Next, matching with two-picture samplesand two-name samples was assessed under a1-s delay with and without the namingprompts. Matching accuracy on trials withboth picture and name samples improvedgradually across the first prompt condition.Little spontaneous naming occurred withdictated names as samples until Session 24.After the naming prompts were withdrawn,spontaneous naming rarely occurred. Match-ing accuracy was high for one session andthen declined for both sample types. Accu-racy again increased during the secondprompt condition, although spontaneousnaming rarely occurred when dictated nameswere the samples. Performance initially de-teriorated when prompts were removed butthen improved with both picture and dic-tated samples. This increase in accuracy wasassociated with an increase in spontaneousnaming with both sample types. Matchingperformance and spontaneous naming alsoappeared to generalize to Sets 2 and 3, whichwere presented without prompts.

Results for Dan are shown in Figure 4(lower panels). For both sample types (Set3), accuracy was above 90% under simulta-neous matching but deteriorated under 0-sdelayed matching. Spontaneous naming alsodeclined across these sessions. The introduc-tion of prompts on trials with picture sam-ples was immediately associated with near-perfect performance for both sample types.

Naming occurred on the trials with spokenname samples as well as on the promptedtrials with picture samples. When theprompts were withdrawn, Dan’s accuracy re-mained above 90% on trials with dictatedsamples but decreased on trials with picturesamples. Spontaneous naming almost neveroccurred on the trials with two-picture sam-ples during this condition, but naming washigh on trials with spoken name samples.

Reexposure to prompts on trials with pic-ture samples was again associated with highlevels of accurate matching. Although nam-ing occurred as expected on the trials withprompts, naming declined on the trials withdictated samples. When the namingprompts were again withdrawn (Sessions 29to 37), mean accuracy on the picture trialsdecreased to 80%, and little naming oc-curred on those trials. Scores remained highon the trials with dictated name samples,even though naming was relatively infre-quent. Matching accuracy and naming in-creased when prompts were provided for athird time. In the final no-prompt conditionwith Set 3, accuracy on the picture trials de-creased to about 80%. On the trials withdictated samples, performance was more var-iable. Naming occurred on the trials withdictated samples but was variable across ses-sions (M 5 18 per session). Matching ac-curacy on trials with both sample types washigh with Set 2 stimuli, but naming pri-marily occurred on trials with dictated sam-ples. With the stimuli in Set 1, however,matching was low for picture trials and re-mained high for dictated name trials.

Figure 5 shows that Ken’s accuracy wasvariable under simultaneous matching ontrials with two-name samples but averaged90%. However, on trials with two-picturesamples, accuracy was much lower (M 575%). Accuracy with both sample types de-clined even further under 0-s delayed match-ing. During the first exposure to prompts toname the picture samples (Sessions 24 to

500 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

Figure 5. Results for Ken across simultaneous, delay, prompt, and no-prompt conditions: Open circles andsolid squares reflect percentages of correct matching. Striped bars and shaded bars reflect the number of namesspoken on trials with two-name and two-picture samples, respectively. Bars with extended tic marks on theabscissa indicate that the number of names exceeded 25. Asterisks at Sessions 1, 5, 23, 24, 33, and 37 indicatethat naming was not recorded.

28), accuracy improved for both sampletypes. Without prompts (Sessions 29 to 33),accuracy remained high on trials with dic-tated samples (M 5 90%) but declined ontrials with picture samples (M 5 65%).These findings were replicated under subse-quent prompt and no-prompt conditions.Little spontaneous naming occurred duringany of the no-prompt conditions. Duringthe prompt conditions, increases in namingon trials with two-picture samples were ac-companied by increases in unpromptednaming on trials with two-name samples.

DISCUSSIONThese results extended prior research on

matching in several ways. First, delayedmatching to two-picture samples resulted inerrors (e.g., Stromer et al., 1993), eventhough (a) the contingencies of reinforce-

ment encouraged observing and remember-ing both of the sample stimuli, (b) partici-pants matched single-picture samples, and(c) they named the individual pictures. Sec-ond, delayed matching improved when theparticipants were prompted to name thetwo-picture samples, an outcome consistentwith past research with single-picture sam-ples (Bonta & Watters, 1981; Constantine& Sidman, 1975; Geren et al., 1997). Thus,participants possessed expressive languageskills that might have improved delayedmatching but, at least initially, typically didnot do so unless the procedure required it.However, some participants’ improvementsin delayed matching persisted when promptsto name the samples were withdrawn andwhen new stimuli were presented. The latterfinding has not been reported previously.

In Experiment 1, participants with mentalretardation (Cathy and Bill) matched picture

501NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

comparisons to identical single-picture sam-ples or to two-picture samples in which onewas identical to the correct comparison. InPhase 1, Cathy and Bill made more errorson 0-s delayed matching to two picturesthan either simultaneous matching withsuch samples or 0-s delayed matching to sin-gle pictures. In Phase 2, prompts to namethe pictures improved 0-s delayed matchingto two pictures. Afterwards, accuracy initial-ly declined when the prompts to name werewithdrawn, but further exposure to namingprompts resulted in improved matching un-der the no-prompt condition; these out-comes were accompanied by spontaneousnaming.

In Phase 3, performance was assessed us-ing 0-s, 5-s, and 10-s delays and trials withsingle- and two-picture samples. Accuracystayed high on 0-s delayed matching but de-clined at 5-s and 10-s delays. It is unclearwhether the decrements in matching at lon-ger delays would have occurred had spon-taneous naming been more frequent. Accu-rate matching with 0-s delays did not seemto require high and sustained overt oralnaming, but the possibility of covert namingcannot be ruled out (I. Taylor & O’Reilly,1997). However, 0-s delayed matching be-gan to differ when new pictures were pre-sented: Cathy made errors on trials with newtwo-picture samples, but Bill’s accuracystayed high. Bill’s high scores with the newpictures may reflect a generalized improve-ment with two-picture samples. In contrast,Cathy’s decline in 0-s delayed matching sug-gested a lack of such generalization.

In the final prompt condition of Phase 3,Cathy’s matching with 0-s delays improved,suggesting again that naming and matchingwere functionally related. However, herprompted naming did not appear to enhancematching with 10-s delays. In contrast, Bill’sdelayed matching with the abstract formsimproved under both 0-s and 10-s delayswhen he was prompted to name the forms.

It is noteworthy that Bill’s names were theones he supplied during the naming testwith abstract forms. Such differential nam-ing of these forms was absent during the ini-tial screening. Research is needed to clarifythe learning history that enabled Bill to de-rive (invent) names for the pictures of ab-stract forms, and whether continued analysiswould have resulted in his use of the nameswithout prompting.

Experiment 2 extended the subject andprocedural generality of Experiment 1. Pre-schoolers without disabilities (Olivia andDan) and a student with mental retardation(Ken) matched pictures to two-picture sam-ples and to two-name samples, the latter areceptive matching task. Accuracy was rela-tively high under simultaneous matching butdeclined under delayed conditions. The de-cline usually was greater for two-picture thanfor two-name tasks. The higher accuracy fordelayed matching to two-name samples ex-tends prior research using single-name sam-ples (Bonta & Watters, 1981; Constantine& Sidman, 1975; Geren et al., 1997).

Olivia and Dan showed the same positiveeffects of the naming intervention even afterthe prompts to name were withdrawn andthe sessions involved new stimuli. Their dataare also interesting because the interventionthat required naming the two-picture sam-ples improved performance on those trials aswell as on the trials with the dictated two-name samples. However, Olivia and Dandiffered in their (a) rates of improvement af-ter the prompts to name were implemented,(b) rates of unprompted repetitions of thedictated name samples, and (c) generaliza-tion of naming to the no-prompt condition.

Before the naming prompts, Olivia andKen showed little spontaneous naming.Dan’s naming was typically on trials withtwo-name samples and was variable andseemingly unrelated to his matching perfor-mances. After exposure to the namingprompts, the patterns of spontaneous nam-

502 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

ing produced by Olivia and Ken appearedto be functionally related to accuracy onmatching tasks. In general, if accuracy washigh on a delayed matching task without thenaming prompts, the frequency of sponta-neous naming on that trial type was alsohigh. In contrast, if accuracy was low on adelayed matching task, spontaneous namingwas less frequent.

To explain how differential naming ofsample stimuli may improve delayed match-ing requires further research. First, namingmay have enhanced discriminative controlby the picture samples. Naming ensured ob-servation of the pictures before they disap-peared and comparison responding oc-curred. Merely touching the samples did notguarantee such discriminative control. Sec-ond, naming may have established oralnames as a basis of comparison selections,rather than or in addition to the sample pic-tures. In other words, names spoken by theparticipants may transform nonverbal pic-ture–picture matching into receptive tasks.Performance could improve because recep-tive matching is sometimes easier than pic-ture–picture matching (e.g., Constantine &Sidman, 1975; Geren et al., 1997; Kelly,Green, & Sidman, 1998). Picture–picturematching may be more difficult because eachtrial requires looking at least twice, once atthe sample and once at the comparisons;matching to dictation requires looking atonly comparisons (Michael, 1985). Thepresent data are consistent with either ofthese explanations.

Third, naming may have mediated the de-lay between sample offset and comparisononset. To serve as a mediator, a sample namemay have to be followed within the trial bythe production of the same name, and, inturn, provide a supplemental stimulus thatlinks the sample and correct comparison.Difficulties in matching with 5-s and 10-sdelays suggest that neither Cathy nor Billused naming as a mediator. Developing

methods that establish naming as a mediatormight enhance performance with long delaysbetween instructional and discriminativestimuli.

The present and past studies (Constantine& Sidman, 1975; Eikeseth & Smith, 1992;Geren et al., 1997; Glat et al., 1994; Saun-ders & Spradlin, 1990) recommend teachingmethods that integrate naming with the rel-evant visual and auditory instructional stim-uli, simple or complex. The benefits of nam-ing—improved accuracy—may be realizedwhenever matching and related procedures(e.g., sorting) are used in teaching (e.g., Leaf& McEachin, 1999; Sundberg & Parting-ton, 1998; B. A. Taylor & McDonough,1996). If the stimuli are complex, as in thepresent study, differential sample namingmight succeed in overcoming error patternsindicative of problems of stimulus overselec-tivity (Allen & Fuqua, 1985; Dube &McIlvane, 1999; Schreibman et al., 1982,1986; Stromer et al., 1993).

Interventions that encourage namingacross a number of exemplars of each trialtype might establish a generalized use ofnaming to solve nonverbal tasks, the pros-pects of which were demonstrated in thepresent study: Naming and accurate match-ing may have continued because the repeat-ed reversal design resulted in alternating pe-riods of high and low accuracy and, conse-quently, periods in which reinforcement oc-curred more and less frequently. Thus,participants were exposed to conditions fa-voring the development and maintenance ofthe sample naming related to the higher re-inforcement frequency (cf. Stromer et al.,1998). The findings have implications forsolving practical problems in which one’sgeneralized verbal skills may be involved(e.g., self-instruction).

Naming may also enhance learning out-side traditional discrete-trial formats. Activ-ity schedules, for instance, resemble a seriesof matching trials (e.g., Kinney, Vedora, &

503NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

Stromer, 2003; Krantz & McClannahan,1998; McClannahan & Krantz, 1999) dur-ing which naming may sharpen stimuluscontrol and also function communicatively.Krantz and McClannahan taught childrenwith autism to solicit attention by respond-ing differentially to complex notebook stim-uli. A page in the child’s notebook combineda photo of the activity to be performed anda written script, watch me or look. The scriptwas to be said aloud, and then said again toan adult either during the activity (‘‘watchme’’) or after performing it (‘‘look’’). Suchdifferential responding—doing somethingappropriate with the pictured activities andsaying the scripts—resembles the present ap-proach to improve delayed matching to two-picture samples.

Further bridge studies of naming and itsrelation to nonverbal behaviors could informefforts to improve methods of teaching func-tional communication skills (Kimball, Kin-ney, Taylor, & Stromer, 2003; Stromer, Kin-ney, Taylor, & Kimball, in press). Such re-search will help to identify further advantag-es of using differential observing thatinvolves topographically unique forms of re-sponding rather than topographically similarbehaviors like touching the stimuli presentedin matching tasks (e.g., Shafer, 1993). Dif-ferential behavior like naming (e.g., oral,signed, and written) may enhance learningand remembering, in part, because the stim-ulus control properties of names may be‘‘transported’’ from one situation to another(Stokes & Baer, 1977). Understanding thenature of the transportability of names indelayed matching may help to clarify rela-tions among verbal and nonverbal behaviorsthat are central to applied interventions likeself-instruction (e.g., Duarte & Baer, 1994;Guevremont et al., 1988) and correspon-dence training (Risley & Hart, 1968).

REFERENCESAllen, K. D., & Fuqua, R. W. (1985). Eliminating

selective stimulus control: A comparison of two

procedures for teaching mentally retarded childrento respond to compound stimuli. Journal of Ex-perimental Child Psychology, 39, 55–71.

Bonta, J. L., & Watters, R. G. (1981). Use of manualsigns in delayed matching-to-sample with devel-opmentally disordered, speech deficient children.Behavior Research of Severe Developmental Disabil-ities, 2, 51–66.

Constantine, B., & Sidman, M. (1975). Role of nam-ing in delayed matching-to-sample. AmericanJournal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 680–689.

Duarte, A. M. M., & Baer, D. M. (1994). The effectsof self-instruction on preschool children’s sortingof generalized in-common tasks. Journal of Exper-imental Child Psychology, 57, 1–25.

Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1999). Reductionof stimulus selectivity with nonverbal differentialobserving responses. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 32, 25–34.

Eikeseth, S., & Smith, T. (1992). The developmentof functional and equivalence classes in high-func-tioning autistic children: The role of naming.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,58, 123–133.

Geren, M. A., Stromer, R., & Mackay, H. A. (1997).Picture naming, matching to sample, and headinjury: A stimulus control analysis. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 30, 339–342.

Glat, R., Gould, K., Stoddard, L. T., & Sidman, M.(1994). A note on transfer of stimulus control inthe delayed-cue procedure: Facilitation by an overtdifferential response. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 27, 699–704.

Guevremont, D. C., Osnes, P. G., & Stokes, T. F.(1988). The functional role of preschoolers’ ver-balizations in the generalization of self-instruc-tional training. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 21, 45–55.

Gutowski, S. J., Geren, M., Stromer, R., & Mackay,H. A. (1995). Restricted stimulus control in de-layed matching to complex samples: A preliminaryanalysis of the role of naming. Experimental Anal-ysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 13, 18–24.

Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the originsof naming and other symbolic behavior. Journalof the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.

Kelly, S., Green, G., & Sidman, M. (1998). Visualidentity matching and auditory-visual matching:A procedural note. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 31, 237–243.

Kimball, J. W., Kinney, E. M., Taylor, B. A., & Strom-er, R. (2003). Lights, camera, action! Computer-cued activity schedules for teaching children withautism and other special needs. Teaching Excep-tional Children, 36, 40–45.

Kinney, E. M., Vedora, J., & Stromer, R. (2003).Computer-presented video models to teach gen-erative spelling to a child with an autism spectrum

504 STANLEY J. GUTOWSKI and ROBERT STROMER

disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,5, 22–29.

Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1998). Socialinteraction skills for children with autism: Ascript-fading procedure for beginning readers.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 191–202.

Lane, S. D., & Critchfield, T. S. (1998). Classifica-tion of vowels and consonants by individuals withmoderate mental retardation: Development of ar-bitrary relations via match-to-sample training withcompound stimuli. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 31, 21–41.

Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (1999). A work in progress:Behavior management strategies and a curriculumfor intensive behavioral treatment of autism. NewYork: DRL Books.

McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (1999). Activityschedules for children with autism: Teaching inde-pendent behavior. Bethesda, MD: WoodbineHouse.

Michael, J. (1985). Two kinds of verbal behavior plusa possible third. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,3, 2–5.

Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. (1968). Developing corre-spondence between the nonverbal and verbal be-havior of preschool children. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 1, 267–281.

Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1990). Conditionaldiscrimination in mentally retarded adults: Thedevelopment of generalized skills. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 239–250.

Schreibman, L., Charlop, M. H., & Koegel, R. L.(1982). Teaching autistic children to use extra-stimulus prompts. Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 33, 475–491.

Schreibman, L., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Britten, K. R.(1986). Differential responding to content andintonation components of a complex auditorystimulus by nonverbal and echolalic autistic chil-dren. Analysis and Intervention in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 6, 109–125.

Shafer, E. (1993). Teaching topography-based and se-lection-based verbal behavior to developmentallydisabled individuals: Some considerations. TheAnalysis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 117–133.

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicittechnology of generalization. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

Stromer, R., Kinney, E. M., Taylor, B. A., & Kimball,J. W. (in press). Activity schedules, computertechnology, and teaching children with autismspectrum disorders. Behavior Modification.

Stromer, R., & Mackay, H. A. (1992). Spelling andemergent picture-printed word relations estab-lished with delayed identity matching to complexsamples. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,893–904.

Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., McVay, A. A., & Fowler,T. (1998). Written lists as mediating stimuli inthe matching-to-sample performances of individ-uals with mental retardation. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 31, 1–19.

Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., & Remington, B. (1996).Naming, the formation of stimulus classes, andapplied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 29, 409–431.

Stromer, R., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., & Mackay,H. A. (1993). Assessing control by elements ofcomplex stimuli in delayed matching to sample.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,59, 83–102.

Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teach-ing language to children with autism or other de-velopmental disabilities. Pleasant Hill, CA: Behav-ior Analysts.

Taylor, B. A., & McDonough, K. A. (1996). Select-ing teaching programs. In C. Maurice, G. Green,& S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention foryoung children with autism: A manual for parentsand professionals (pp. 63–177). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Taylor, I., & O’Reilly, M. F. (1997). Toward a func-tional analysis of private verbal self-regulation.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 43–58.

Received December 5, 2001Final acceptance August 12, 2003Action Editor, Dorothea Lerman

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Describe (a) single-picture and two-picture matching and (b) simultaneous and delayedpresentation.

2. Briefly summarize the results obtained under (a) single-picture and two-picture matchingand (b) simultaneous and delayed presentation conditions.

505NAMING IN DELAYED MATCHING TO SAMPLE

3. What were the effects of (a) prompting and (b) additional delays on Cathy’s and Bill’sresponding?

4. What did Bill do when prompted to name abstract forms in Phase 3?

5. Briefly summarize the results of each subject’s performance (naming and accuracy) in Study 2.

6. Provide a potential explanation for why, in some cases, naming was maintained after promptswere removed.

7. What is the apparent value of acquiring a differential observing response during match-to-sample instruction?

8. What did the authors suggest were the three functions of naming in improving delayedmatching?

Questions prepared by Jessica Thomason and Pamela Neidert, University of Florida