Luke, Greer, Singer-Dudek, & Keohane 2011

The Emergence of Autoclitic Frames in Atypically andTypically Developing Children as a Function of Multiple

Exemplar Instruction

Nicole Luke, R. Douglas Greer, Jessica Singer-Dudek, and

Dolleen-Day Keohane, Teachers College Columbia University

In two experiments, we tested the effect of multiple exemplar instruction (MEI) for training sets on theemergence of autoclitic frames for spatial relations for novel tacts and mands. In Experiment 1, we useda replicated pre- and post-intervention probe design with four students with significant learningdisabilities to test for acquisition of four autoclitic frames with novel tacts and mands before and afterMEI. The untaught topographies emerged for all participants. In Experiment 2, we used a multiple probedesign to test the effects of the MEI procedures on the same responses in four typically developing,bilingual students. The novel usage emerged for all participants. In the latter experiment, the childrendemonstrated untaught usage of mand or tact frames regardless of whether they were taught to respond ineither listener or speaker functions alone or across listener and speaker functions. The findings arediscussed in terms of the role of MEI in the formation of abstractions.

Key words: verbal behavior, autoclitic frames, verbal developmental theory, relational frame theory,multiple exemplar instruction, naming

This paper describes two experiments thatwere conducted to investigate autocliticframes for spatial relations, how they mightbe induced, and what relationship the framesmight have to other forms of verbal phe-nomena (Luke, 2009). These experimentstest a way to teach autoclitic frames tostudents who do not have that functionalclass of responding. We examine both theteaching procedure itself and the applicationof it to new content as our two areas ofinterest. Autoclitic frames for spatial rela-tions are defined, in this research, as aspecific subset of autoclitics that have to dowith the relationships between objects and/orobjects and one’s self in physical space.

An autoclitic is described by Skinner asverbal behavior ‘‘which is based upon ordepends upon other verbal behavior’’ (1957,p. 315). It ‘‘clarif (ies) or alter(s) the effect ofverbal behavior upon the listener’’ (Skinner,1957, p. 332). The autoclitic is defined by itseffect on the listener, by its function as partof a verbal exchange, and, unlike grammat-ical classifications, depends on the entireexchange for its classification. For example,‘‘the box under the table,’’ functions as anautoclitic only if it changes the listener’sbehavior relative to a function for thespeaker. Similar to the functional indepen-dence of the mand and the tact operants

(Lamarre & Holland, 1985; Twyman, 1996),Skinner conceived of the autoclitic as adistinct verbal operant within the context of afunctional communicative exchange.

Spatial relations are defined as a demon-strated ‘‘comprehension’’ (Sidman, 1994) ofthe relationship of oneself in space to otherobjects or people by the use of languageidentifying the relationship between objectsand/or self in dimensions of physical space. Itcan be expressed in verbal terms whensomeone says, ‘‘The car is in the garage,’’or when they say, ‘‘I am under the table,hiding,’’ or ‘‘Please give me the picture onthe left,’’ and has an autoclitic function whenit affects the behavior of the listener. Thisterm is defined in this paper to encompassspecific types of both spatial relations anddeictic relations as they are defined byrelational frame theory (RFT; Hayes,Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001).

RFT proposed ‘‘families’’ of relationalframes. Hayes et al. (2001) identified framesof coordination as the most fundamental typeof relational frame and included the namingphenomenon (Horne & Lowe, 1996; Lowe &Horne, 1996) as an example of a simpleframe of coordination. Additional relationalframe families included opposition, distinc-tion, comparison, hierarchical, temporal,spatial, conditionality and causality, and

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 2011, 27, 141–156

141

deictic. Two relational frame families aresignificant in the context of autoclitic framesas they are addressed in this paper; spatialrelations and deictic relations. Spatial rela-tions deal with the ‘‘arrangement of objectsor aspects of objects in space, relative to eachother’’ (Hayes, et. al., 2001, p. 38). Examplesof spatial relations as they are defined in RFTinclude in-out and over-under. Deictic rela-tions are those that specify a relation in‘‘terms of the perspective of the speaker’’(Hayes et. al., 2001, p. 38). Examples ofdeictic relations include left-right and I-you.

There is, however, an acknowledged lack ofinformation about how these frames relatewith one another and what the effects oflearning to respond in accordance with onetype of frame might have on responding toother frame types. ‘‘For the time being, …such issues will have to await systematicempirical investigation’’ (Hayes, et. al., 2001,p. 39). The difficulty with most research inthis area has been its distance from the appliedfield and the use of subjects who quickly andeasily demonstrate the behaviors of interest.Applied researchers needed an applicationfrom this empirical, laboratory-restrictedwork (such as that reported in Berens &Hayes, 2007) that could be applied in the fieldof education, right in the schools wherechildren live and learn.

Our interest in this research has been inidentifying ways to induce this type of verbalbehavior in individuals who do not alreadydemonstrate its use. One approach that hasbeen successful in inducing novel verbalbehavior is multiple exemplar instruction(MEI). MEI consists of arranging instructionalpresentations in such a way as to mimicnaturally occurring rotation across exposure tostimuli and the expectation of differentresponses to those stimuli. MEI has been usedto induce naming (Horne & Lowe, 1996; Lowe& Horne, 1996), novel dictation, verb tenseformation, novel metaphors, novel mands ortacts, oral and written spelling, word suffixes,and more (Gilic, 2005; Greer & Ross, 2008;Greer & Yuan, 2008; Greer, Stolfi, Chavez-Brown, & Rivera-Valdez, 2005; Greer, Yuan,& Gautreaux, 2005; Lee-Park, 2005; Mariano-Lapidus, 2005; Matthews, 2005; Murphy &Barnes-Holmes, 2009; Nirgudkar, 2005; Nuz-zolo-Gomez & Greer, 2004). Multiple exem-plar instruction can be conducted across sets of

stimuli, across response types, and acrossestablishing operations.

Several studies found that naming emergedas a function of MEI across speaker and listenertraining sets (Fiorile, 2005; Gilic, 2005; Greeret al., 2005; Greer, Stolfi, Pistoljevic, et al.,2007; Pistoljevic, 2008). The participants, bothtypically and atypically developing preschool-ers, in these studies acquired speaker andlistener functions for novel stimuli withoutdirect instruction (i.e., learning word-objectrelations incidentally). The experiment byGreer et al. (2007) compared training sets ofstimuli using massed instruction (training thespeaker functions and listener functions sepa-rately) for each response to the MEI procedureof rotating training all responses. The numbersof instructional presentations were constant foreach type of training and the design includedboth an experimental and control componentand a multiple probe design component.Naming did not emerge when responses weretrained separately, but did emerge whenresponses were rotated across speaker andlistener functions.

Speckman-Collins, in three experiments,tested the effects of MEI across speaker andlistener functions on the untaught use ofsuffixes such as ‘‘-er’’ and ‘‘-s’’ as autocliticframes (2004). Each of these experimentsdemonstrated that multiple exemplar instruc-tion across response types (listener andspeaker) was required before the participantsaccurately used the suffix endings ‘‘-er’’ and‘‘-s’’ when presented with opportunities totact pictures of people engaged in activities(i.e., bikers, skaters) or opportunities to tactattributes of a picture when compared toanother picture (i.e., wetter, bigger). Greerand Yuan (2008) found that MEI across tactsof pictures of actions with visual contexts fortense resulted in the induction of untaughtregular and irregular verb tense formation,which is another type of autoclitic frame.Only after instruction was rotated acrosspresent and past tense exemplars did theparticipants demonstrate novel use of pasttense verb formation.

Limited research or conceptual analysesexist on the various iterations of autoclitics,and even less information exists on strategiesthat may be successful in inducing autocliticuse in spatial relations across response formsand functions, for those learners who had not

142 NICOLE LUKE et al.

acquired their use incidentally. Often, researchincluding autoclitic frames does not evenidentify itself as such (for some examples seeLamarre & Holland, 1985; Lee, 1981; Nuz-zolo-Gomez & Greer, 2004; Wynn & Smith,2003). Autoclitic frames for spatial relationspresent as an important verbal phenomenon,but very little is known about them. In addition,little is known about the relation of autocliticsto other forms of verbal behavior such as themand or tact or to phenomena such as namingor relational operants (Berens & Hayes, 2007)other than the studies cited above.

The research questions in the present seriesof experiments were: Can MEI successfullyinduce the acquisition and abstraction ofautoclitic frames for spatial relations? And,what type of MEI is required to achieve thiseffect? We used multiple probes, and the MEIteaching procedure, with eight children, rang-ing in age from 3 to 7 years, who were eitherlearning disabled or typically developing. Ourmethod and some of our findings are describedbelow, followed by a discussion of the findings.

GENERAL METHOD

Dependent Variables

The dependent variable in both experi-ments was the novel use of the autoclitic

frames as either a listener or a speaker. Noveluse was measured through both an acquisi-tion probe and an abstraction test. Theacquisition probe assessed the accurate useof the autoclitic frames with familiar two-dimensional pictures (probe with known tactsfor acquisition tests); for example, ‘‘Where isthe banana?’’ or ‘‘Put the horse above thecat.’’ The abstraction test assessed theaccurate use of the autoclitic frames ingeneralized mand and tact functional settingswith familiar three-dimensional objects aseither a listener or a speaker (abstraction test/functional mand and tact test); for example:‘‘Where is the bear?’’ or ‘‘You can have thesticker that is to the right of the box.’’ Theparticipant was not required to accurately tactthe ground picture or the object but becausethese were known objects, most of theparticipants did so as a matter of course.Data were only collected on the use of theautoclitic frame. See Figures 1 and 2 for anoutline of the steps taken in each experimentand the order in which they were completed.

Procedure

Probes for the acquisition of autocliticframes. The spatial relations that were tested inautoclitic functions were: on/on top/above,under/below, left, and right. Speaker and

Figure 1. Procedural steps for Experiment 1.

AUTOCLITIC FRAMES 143

listener topographies of tact functions wereassessed in pre- and post-MEI interventionprobes that tested for the presence or absenceof autoclitic frames. In these probes, theexperimenters used two-dimensional stimuli(20 3 30 color photos) that were familiar toeach participant. To test the listener response,the experimenters presented a picture to theparticipant and asked her to place the picture ina specific relation to the ‘‘ground’’ picturewhich was placed on the table (e.g., ‘‘Put thesandwich under the girl.’’). To test the speakerresponse, the experimenters presented theground picture, placed a second picture, andasked the participant to say where the secondpicture was in relation to the first (e.g., ‘‘Whereis the flower?’’). No correction or reinforce-ment for responses to the probe trials wasprovided. We considered 80% correct respond-ing in one session, consisting of a block of 40probe trials, to be evidence of the acquisition ofautoclitic frames for spatial relations. Materialsused in the probes for the presence or absenceof autoclitic frames were not used during anyother phase of the experiments.

To test for the presence or absence of theautoclitic frames, pictures of common itemsthe participants could tact and either point toor match were used (i.e., cat, dog, bicycle,pear, orange, apple, bed, sandwich, cup,chair, lion, car, shoes, girl, boy, flower, andfish). These pictures were presented to each

participant until ten known pictures wereidentified. These 10 items were used ran-domly across the 40 trials (10 trials for eachof the four autoclitic frames; 20 trials forspeaker and 20 trials for listener responses;four instances of exposure to each of the 10items).

Test for abstraction across mand and tact.The abstraction test included three-dimen-sional objects across listener and speakerresponses: (a) tact trials, (b) mand trials, (c)standard listener trials, and (d) listener trialswith preferred items. The abstraction test wasconducted across the four autoclitic framesthat were taught during intervention. Theabstraction test was conducted at the begin-ning and end of the experiment. Materialsused in the abstraction test were not usedduring any other element of the experimentsbut their familiarity to the participants wasestablished prior to the experiment. Six pairsof identical objects were used for eachparticipant; 2 identical small bears/pigs, 2identical transparent cups, 2 identical nap-kins, 2 identical small cars/trains, 2 identicaltransparent, small boxes, and 2 identical,preferred reinforcers specific for the partic-ipant (2 identical M&Ms, 2 identical stickers,etc.). Preferred stimuli were identified usingthe direct, approach-based method of prefer-ence assessment (Hagopian, Long, & Rush,2004). Mastery for abstraction measures was

Figure 2. Procedural steps for Experiment 2.


defined as 80% correct responding in onesession. The abstraction test consisted of 40probe trials: 20 mand-function trials and 20tact-function trials. Trials were rotated even-ly across mand and tact functions, acrossautoclitic frames, and across listener orspeaker responses. See Table 1 for examplesof these trials.

The instructor presented the antecedent tothe participant and scored the participant’sresponse as correct or incorrect. Mandfunction trials were only presented whenmotivation for the object was established (theparticipant reached for it or asked for it).After mand function trials, the experimenterdelivered the preferred stimulus to theparticipant if the participant manded accu-rately, according to the antecedent (i.e.reached for the correct item or used theautoclitic frame of location to identify thepreferred item) and the experimenter provid-ed generalized reinforcement (praise)throughout each testing session withoutspecific reference to test responses or theaccuracy of the responses to test items. Nocorrection procedures were employed.Autoclitic frames for spatial relations assess-

ed in the abstraction test were: on/above,under/below, left, and right. A fifth autocliticframe was included in the abstraction test: inExperiment 1, in, and in Experiment 2,between.

Multiple exemplar instruction. The inde-pendent variable in this experiment was theuse of MEI across response types (listenerand speaker) and relational frames: spatialframes (on and under or above and below)and deictic frames (left and right; Hayes et.al., 2001). In this case, multiple responseswere taught across stimuli that were designedto evoke four autoclitic frames for spatialrelations: on/on top/above, under/below, left,and right. These were the same autocliticframes that were probed and tested, but thestimuli used during MEI were unfamiliar tothe participants.

Teaching of these autoclitic frames tookplace with a set of unfamiliar stimuli, as theparticipant was directed to ‘‘Put the __ (on/on top/above, under/below, to the left of, orto the right of) the ____,’’ when teaching thelistener response or directed to answer thequestion, ‘‘Where is the ___?’’ when teach-ing the speaker response. The four autoclitic

Table 1Examples of Trials Presented in Abstraction to 3D Functional Mand and Tact Test

Listener trial with preferred items Standard listener trial

Antecedent: Place one candy under cup andone candy on top of cup, andsay, ‘‘Your candy/You can havethe candy that is under the cup.’’

Place a cup and a napkin on the table,hand the student a bear, and say,‘‘Put the bear in the cup.’’

CorrectResponse:

Student lifts cup Student places bear in cup

IncorrectResponse:

Student reaches to take candy offtop of cup

Student does not place bear in cup

Mand trial Tact trial

Antecedent: Place one candy under cup andone candy on top of cup, andsay, ‘‘Which one do you want?’’

Place a cup and a napkin on the table,put a bear in the cup and ask,‘‘Where is the bear?’’

CorrectResponse:

Student responds vocal-verballywith the autoclitic frame tospecify location of preferredcandy (‘‘on top’’)

Student responds vocal-verbally withthe autoclitic frame to specifylocation of bear (‘‘in’’)

IncorrectResponse:

Student responds without autocliticframe to specify location ofpreferred candy

Student responds without autocliticframe to specify location of bear


frames specifying spatial relations weretaught with a single set of five unknownitems (Phoenician letters as two –dimension-al symbolic tacts: A [aleph], B [beth], E [he],H [heth], Q [qoph]). The experimenterrotated instructions by rotating the fourautoclitic frames and the five Phoenicianletters equally across 20 instructional trials ofspeaker responses and 20 instructional trialsof listener responses that met the criterion forlearn units for a single session of 40 learnunits. The order of learn units was arrangedto rotate across response type, frame, andletters, such that a response type, frame, orletter was not targeted for two or moreconsecutive learn units. For a correct listenerresponse, the participant was required to putthe picture in the correct location as directedby the teacher, who then responded as aconsequent speaker (e.g., ‘‘Put heth aboveqoph.’’ [observe response] ‘‘Good job, youput heth above qoph.’’). Participants wereallowed access to tangible reinforcement orbreaks to play on a variable schedule. For acorrect speaker response, the participant wasrequired to say the correct location aloud,using the correct autoclitic frame of location,after which the experimenter functioned as aconsequent listener and subsequent speaker(e.g., ‘‘Where is beth?’’ [Listen] ‘‘That’sright! Beth is under he.’’). The participantwas not required to accurately tact the letter,only its location, however, all of the childrendid learn the names of the letters through thecorrection procedure and were observed tosay the names of the letters as theyprogressed through the instructional sessions.The experimenter asked the question as soonas the pictures were in place and waited 3–5 seconds for an independent response. If theparticipant made an error or did not respond,the experimenter modeled the correct re-sponse, waited for the participant to place theletter or echo the correct response, andmoved to the next trial. Sessions continueduntil the participant met the criterion of 90%combined correct responses across twoconsecutive sessions. A session lasted from10 to 20 minutes.

Instructional trials that met the require-ments for learn units were used in MEI.Learn units are comprised of interlockingthree-term contingencies between experi-menter and participant, in which the partic-

ipant’s attention (participant oriented towardexperimenter) functions as an antecedent forthe experimenter, who presents an antecedentto the participant (i.e. ‘‘Point to the car in thecup’’), and for whom the participant’sresponse functions as both a consequencefor the experimenter and a second anteced-ent, prompting the experimenter to deliver aconsequence for the participant (either rein-forcement for a correct response or correc-tion for an incorrect response in which theparticipant must emit the corrected responsewhile viewing the stimulus). Several exper-iments have identified that providing instruc-tional presentations that include all of thecomponents of the learn unit is a strongpredictor for learning to occur (Albers &Greer, 1991; Bahadourian, Tam, Greer, &Rousseau, 2006; Emurian, Hu, Wang, &Durham, 2000; Greer & McDonough, 1999;Greer & Ross, 2008; Ingham & Greer, 1992;Selinski, Greer, & Lodhi, 1991).

The experimenter sat beside the partici-pant, while the participant was seated at achild-sized desk. The experimenter presentedlistener and speaker learn units, in rotatedorder, and provided either correction orreinforcement, depending on the participant’sresponse. Sessions occurred at least once perday and no more often than three times in asingle day. Sessions taught in the same daywere separated by at least two hours and avariety of regular classroom activities. Learnunits were presented and correct and incor-rect responses to learn units were recordedand graphed for immediate visual inspection.See Figures 1 and 2 for a display of theexperimental procedures for Experiments 1and 2.

EXPERIMENT 1

Participants

The participants in the first experimentwere four elementary-school age partici-pants, three males and one female. Partici-pant A was 7 years old, Participants B and Cwere both 6 years old, and Participant D was5 years old. All four were diagnosed withautism spectrum disorders (ASD). Partici-pants were selected for this study because oflow accurate responding to all pre-tests andpre-intervention probes on the use of autoc-


litic frames with known objects. They wereselected from 5 self-contained classrooms forKindergarten to Grade 5 students diagnosedwith a variety of developmental delays.Classes were taught using behavior analyticinstruction and curricula. Participants wereassessed according to the New York StateCurricular Standards (www.emsc.nysed.gov),the Preschool Inventory of Repertoires forKindergarten (Greer & McCorkle, 2003;Reed, Osborne, & Corness, 2006; Wadding-ton & Reed, 2009) and the Verbal Capabil-ities Checklist (Greer & Ross, 2008). In-structional objectives were selected based onthese assessments as well as each partici-pant’s IEP goals.

The participants were selected from self-contained classrooms in several school dis-tricts that employed the ComprehensiveApplication of Behavior Analysis to School-ing (CABASH) (Greer, Keohane, & Healy,2002; Lamm & Greer, 1991; Selinski, Greer,& Lodhi, 1991; Reed et al., 2006) model.CABASH is a behavioral approach to school-ing that employs a tested systems-wideanalysis of the effects on student perfor-mance as the variable driving relationshipswithin the schooling system, and amongstudents, parents, teachers, supervisors, andthe university training program. Tactics andstrategies from the applied, basic, andexperimental branches of behavior analysisare used based on the responses of individualstudents.

Setting

The study took place in the classroom,with the instructor and participant seated at atable or desk, both in child-sized chairs. Theinstructor and the participant sat side by side,at any table that was free of other student andteacher groups. Instructional materials werekept together in a box and placed beside theinstructor, either on the floor or on the table.The other students in the classroom contin-ued their work with other teachers as theexperimenter worked with the participant.

Design

A single-case, simultaneous replicated pre-and post-intervention probe design acrossparticipants was used for this experiment

(Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Johnston &Pennypacker, 1993). All participants wereassessed with abstraction tests and acquisi-tion probes before and after meeting criterionon the MEI intervention. Criterion formastery of the MEI intervention conditionwas set at 90% correct responding across twoconsecutive sessions.

Interobserver Agreement (IOA) andProcedural Integrity

IOA was collected during abstraction tests,acquisition probes, and MEI intervention.IOA was collected using the Teacher Perfor-mance Rate and Accuracy Scale (TPRA;Greer, 2002; Greer, McCorkle, & Williams,1989; Ingham & Greer, 1992). The totalnumber of agreed items (both correct andincorrect responses) was divided by the totalnumber of items and multiplied by 100. Thistype of IOA can be called Trial-by-Trial IOA(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). TheTPRA assesses procedural integrity as wellas the accuracy of recording participantresponses by measuring the accuracy of theexperimenter’s presentation of unambiguousantecedents, the student’s response, and theexperimenter’s delivery of consequences forstudent responding. Two trained teachers andfour teaching assistants served as observersand experimenters. They were all trained bythe primary researcher in procedures for theexperiment and all achieved 100% agreementscores on unrelated instructional sessionswith the primary researcher a minimum offive times prior to collecting data for thisexperiment.

IOA was collected for 65% of all pre- andpost-MEI probes and tests, with a range forindividual sessions of 97%–100% agreementand a mean agreement of 99% for all sessionswith all participants for which IOA data werecollected. IOA was collected for 72% of allteaching sessions, with a range of 98%–100% agreement and a mean agreement of99%. Procedural integrity ranged from 93%–100% with a mean of 97%.

Results and Discussion

Participants A, B, C, and D met criterionfor intervention in 10, 12, 11, and 8 sessions,respectively, over 3–7 days. Figures 3 and 4


show that all four participants achievedcriterion-level responding after intervention,on both the acquisition probe for theautoclitic frame with known, two-dimension-al stimuli, across listener and speaker re-sponses (ranging from 34 to 40 correctresponses, with a mean of 37.75 correctresponses), and on the test for abstraction tomand and tact functions with different,known, three-dimensional stimuli (rangingfrom 33 to 36 correct responses, with a meanof 34.00 correct responses). MEI was fol-lowed by the acquisition and abstraction of

autoclitic frames for four specific spatialrelationships across two response types(listener and speaker) and two relationalframe types (spatial and deictic) for all fourparticipants. But the lack of a true experi-mental design was identified as a limitationand as a result, a second experiment wasconducted.

In the second experiment, we testedtypically developing bilingual 4- and 5-year-old children using a multiple probe,time lagged, design to control for instruc-tional experience. We also tested the gener-

Figure 3. Pre- and post-MEI probe responses combining listener and speaker responses testing for theacquisition of autoclitic frames for the four participants in Experiment 1.


ality of our procedure by selecting typicallydeveloping children drawn from a differenttype of classroom that employed a differentteaching methodology for our participants inthe second experiment. The second experi-ment used the same pre- and post-MEIprobes and tests and the same MEI interven-tion. It differed from Experiment 1 in termsof the participant population and the exper-imental design. In addition, Experiment 2included an assessment of the namingcapability that was conducted before andafter the experiment in order to investigate

the relationship between this capability andthe autoclitic frame for spatial relations.

EXPERIMENT 2

Special Procedural Modifications

Assessment of the naming capability. Theparticipants in the second experiment weretested for the naming capability by teachingthem to match a set of five 20330 colorphotos of unknown items (dog breeds:Dalmatian, Rottweiler, Pomeranian, Poodle,

Figure 4. Pre- and post-MEI listener and speaker responses for abstraction across mands and tacts andlistener trials with and without preferred items for the four participants in Experiment 1.


Bassett hound) to 90% accuracy over twoconsecutive sessions of 20 learn units each,and then testing for point, tact, and intraver-bal responses to the same stimuli, over a totalof 60 test trials, 20 trials of each responsetype. This procedure is described in detail inthe literature (Greer & Ross, 2008). Thenaming capability was assessed before theparticipant began the experimental proce-dures and was assessed a second time whenthe experiment was completed. Results fromthis assessment are shown in Figure 7.

Speaker-only MEI. Two of the fourparticipants (Participants B and D) in Exper-iment 2 were selected to receive speaker-onlyMEI. They were selected based on theirscores in the pre-probes and pre-tests—oneparticipant of the two lowest scoring partic-ipants and one participant of the two highestscoring participants. Speaker-only MEI con-sisted of teaching only the speaker half of theresponses taught in MEI (‘‘Where is the__?’’). A speaker-only MEI teaching sessionconsisted of 20 instructional trials, allspeaker responses, rotated across the fivePhoenician letters and the four autocliticframes. See Figure 2 for a diagram of thisprocedure.

Participants

The participants in the second experimentwere four preschool-age students, two malesand two females. Participants A and C wereboth three years old, Participant B was fouryears old, and Participant D was five years old.All four were identified as typically developingand were bilingual. These children were allmembers of a group of children defined as duallanguage learners (Genesee, Paradis, & Crago,2004). Participants were included in this studybecause of their low accurate responding to allpre-tests and pre-probes on the use of autocliticframes with known objects.

The participants were selected from stu-dents who attended a private preschool. Thepreschool was located in a suburban area,outside a major metropolitan city. Therewere 170 students enrolled in the preschooland 220 students enrolled in the elementaryschool. The school offered a bilingualFrench-American curriculum and the pre-school followed the French ecole maternellemodel (Ministere de l’Education nationale,

2006–2009). The primary language of in-struction in all grades was French. Theclassroom ratio of students to teachers toteaching assistants was 15:1:1. Students wereassessed quarterly according to the ecolematernelle model and, in addition, partici-pants in this study were assessed using theVerbal Developmental Capabilities Checklist(Greer, & Ross, 2008).

Setting

The study took place in the classroom, withthe experimenter and participant seated at achild-sized table, both on child-sized stools,adjacent to one another. The experimenter andthe participant were not screened off orseparated from the rest of the class and therest of the class continued their typical routines.Data were collected each morning or afternoon,during the classroom’s 30-minute free playtime. A video camera was positioned on atripod and overlooked the table from beside theexperimenter. The video camera was trained onthe table and the participant and was presentduring all sessions. This allowed the experi-menter and independent observers to repeated-ly observe the stimuli and the experimentalprocedures as well as the accuracy of theparticipants’ responses.

Design

A single-case, time-lagged, multiple probedesign across participants was used for thisexperiment (Greer & Ross, 2008; Greer,Stolfi, et al., 2005; Greer, Yuan, & Gau-treaux, 2005; Johnston & Pennypacker,1993). Two participants (Participant A andParticipant C) received listener and speakerMEI and two participants (Participant B andParticipant D) received speaker-only MEI.Participants C and D received two pre-probesand pre-tests before intervention while Par-ticipants A and B received one pre-probe andpre-test before intervention.

Interobserver Agreement (IOA) andProcedural Integrity

A trained observer, naıve to the proceduresbeing used in intervention and naıve to pre-and post-intervention status of the probes,was taught to review videotapes of teaching,


probe, and intervention sessions and tocomplete TPRA forms for each observedsession. Completed TPRA forms were com-pared to data collected by the experimenter.Before beginning to collect data for IOA, theobserver practiced observing direct instruc-tion in other academic areas with a non-participant until she reached 100% agree-ment with the experimenter on the TPRAform (Ingham & Greer, 1992) in threeconsecutive sessions.

The trial-by-trial method of IOA was used(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). IOA wascollected for 85% of all pre- and post-probes

and tests; with a range for individual sessionsof 83%–100% agreement and a mean agree-ment of 95% for all sessions for allindividuals for which IOA data were col-lected. IOA data were collected for 100% ofall teaching sessions, with a range of 85%–100% agreement and a mean agreement of94%. Procedural integrity ranged from 97%–100% with a mean of 99%.

Results and Discussion

Participants A, B, C, and D met criterionfor intervention in 6, 5, 6, and 5 sessions

Figure 5. Pre- and post-MEI listener and speaker responses testing the acquisition of autoclitic frames forthe four participants in Experiment 2.


respectively, over 4–6 days. Figure 5 showsthe four participants’ responses to the probesfor autoclitic frames before and after the MEIintervention. Figure 6 shows the responses totests of abstractions across mand and tactfunctions. After intervention, all four partic-ipants achieved criterion-level responding onthe acquisition of autoclitic frames withknown stimuli (ranging from 36–40, with amean of 37.25). Three participants achievedcriterion on the test for abstraction to mandand tact functions (ranging from 32–35, with

a mean of 33.33). A functional relation wasdemonstrated between the acquisition ofautoclitic frames for four specific spatialrelations and the use of multiple exemplarinstruction across relational frame types forall four participants.

The limitation of this experiment was thatParticipants C and D performed slightly betteron the second pre-probes and pre-tests, yet noadditional pre-measures were conducted. As aresult, it cannot be ruled out that furtherimprovement would have been observed in

Figure 6. Pre- and post-MEI listener and speaker responses for abstraction across mands and tacts andlistener trials with and without preferred items for the four participants in Experiment 2.


the absence of MEI. Future research in thisarea might attempt to repeat baseline probes tostability. In the case of typically developingchildren, they may, over time, acquire the useof these autoclitic frames without interven-tion. Traditional instructional models teachsome of this type of language use (left/right,for example) in the fourth, fifth, or even sixthgrades, when children are between nine andeleven years old. Participant C was three yearsold and took six sessions to meet criterion. Shewas the only participant from both of theexperiments to fail to meet criterion on theabstraction test. She routinely confused thespatial relations across two dimensions andthree dimensions, placing a 3D bear, forexample, on the far side of the box, whenasked to put it ‘‘on top.’’ This would havebeen a correct response if the materials were2D. Participant D was five years old and ittook him five sessions to meet criterion duringintervention. An equal amount of time elapsedbetween each of the pre-probes and the post-probe—about 3 weeks.

Participants in Experiment 2 were probedfor the naming capability for two-dimension-al objects (2D naming) before and after theirparticipation in the experiment. Namingprobes were comprised of 80 possibleresponses to trials; 40 trials were the listenerhalf of naming (20 match and 20 point trials)and 40 trials were the speaker half of naming

(20 tact and 20 intraverbal trials) (see Greer& Ross, 2008, for a description of thisprocedure). The intervention used in thisexperiment did not appear to have an effecton the 2D-naming capability of any of theparticipants. See Figure 7 for a display ofthese results.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

As behavior analysts, we always seek toimprove the teaching strategies that we usewith students and find new strategies thathelp us to improve student outcomes. Theintervention used in these two experimentswas successful at teaching the participants touse autoclitic frames for spatial relations withuntaught, two-dimensional materials. Sevenof the eight participants further demonstratedabstracted use of those autoclitic frames withuntaught, three-dimensional materials. Thissuggests that MEI, as a teaching strategy, canhave a powerful effect on student learning.

In the second experiment, the MEI inter-vention was tested using an MEI interventionacross listener and speaker responses for twoparticipants and compared to an instructionalsequence for speaker responses only for twoparticipants. There was no appreciable dif-ference in the outcomes for the four partic-ipants in Experiment 2. This suggests that theautoclitic frame, as identified in this study,

Figure 7. Total correct responses to trials probing the 2D naming repertoire for participants inExperiment 2.


could be acquired if taught only acrossspeaker responses instead of both listenerand speaker responses; at least for partici-pants like these. Replication of these resultsis needed as this finding could suggest waysto economize when teaching autocliticframes to students who need them.

The autoclitic frame investigated in thisresearch appears to possess the qualities ofoperant behavior (Hayes, et al., 2001). It canbe acquired as a function of experience. Itfunctions in a three-term contingency, show-ing sensitivity to both antecedent and conse-quent events.

The separation of the autoclitic frame andour measures of the naming capability beginsto suggest the possibility that the autocliticframe as identified in this study may be adistinct, independently acquired, phenomenonor unit of behavioral measure. This suggestionappears consistent with Skinner’s conceptionof the autoclitic frame (Skinner, 1957). Theautoclitic frame described in this researchdemonstrates a ‘‘unitary contingency ofreinforcement,’’ which Skinner suggestedindicates the ‘‘unitary function of a part ofverbal behavior’’ (Skinner, 1957, p. 335). Theautoclitic frame described in this research alsofits Skinner’s further description of an auto-clitic frame, where ‘‘relational aspects of thesituation strengthen a frame, and specificfeatures of the situation strengthen the re-sponses fitted into it’’ (Skinner, 1957, p. 336).Skinner’s definition of the autoclitic frame isconsistent with the parameters encountered inthe autoclitic frame described and studied inthese experiments.

The phenomenon observed in this workdoes appear to conform to Skinner’s descrip-tion and can be described in the followingways: the autoclitic frame for spatial rela-tions demonstrates its independence fromother verbal units in effect, it is dependent forits function on the interaction of the listenerand speaker (for example: ‘‘in’’ acquires anautoclitic function only in combination withother verbal behavior; it may be as simple asthe dependent interaction between listenerand speaker within a single individual thatoccasions this behavior), and, as studied here,it demonstrates a joining of listener andspeaker repertoires within the frame but doesnot affect this type of relationship forphenomena outside the frame (i.e., naming).

These experiments appear to provide somepreliminary evidence of the existence ofautoclitic frames as an empirical phenome-non. This is consistent with the findings ofother research in the area of relationaloperants (Berens & Hayes, 2007). Thefindings from these experiments are meantto encourage further investigation into thesetypes of complex, verbal phenomena, withthe hope that replication and extensions ofinquiry will lead us to a better understandingof the features of language that are capturedin the study of verbal behavior.

REFERENCES

Albers, A. E., & Greer, R. D. (1991). Is thethree-term contingency trial a predictor ofeffective instruction? Journal of Behav-ioral Education, 1, 337–354.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R.(1968). Some current dimensions ofapplied behavior analysis. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.

Bahadourian, A. J., Tam, B. K. Y., Greer, R.D., & Rousseau, M. K. (2006). The effectsof learn units on student performance intwo college courses. International Journalof Behavioral and Consultation Therapy,2(2), 246–265.

Berens, N. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2007).Arbitrarily applicable comparative rela-tions: experimental evidence for a rela-tional operant. Journal of Applied Behav-ior Analysis, 40, 45–71.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, H. L.(1987). Applied behavior analysis. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Emurian, H. H., Hu, X., Wang, J., &Durham, A. G. (2000). Learning Java: Aprogrammed instruction approach usingapplets. Computers in Human Behavior,16, 395–422.

Fiorile, C.A. (2005). An experimental anal-ysis of the transformation of stimulusfunction from speaker to listener andlistener to speaker repertoires. Disserta-tion Abstracts International (UMINo. 3159736).

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B.(2004). Dual language development anddisorders: A handbook on bilingualismand second language learning. In S. F.Warren, & M. E. Fey, (Eds.), Communi-


cation and Language Intervention Series,Vol. 11. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. BrookesPublishing.

Gilic, L. (2005). Development of naming intwo-year old children. Dissertation Ab-stracts International (UMI No.3188740).

Greer, R. D. (2002). Designing teachingstrategies: An applied behavior analysissystems approach. Amsterdam: AcademicPress.

Greer, R. D., Keohane, D. D., & Healy, O.(2002). Quality and applied behavioranalysis. Behavior Analyst Today, 3 (2),120–132. Retrieved from http://www.behavior-analyst-today.org

Greer, R. D., & McCorkle, N. P. (2003).CABASH curriculum and inventory ofrepertoires for children from pre-schoolthrough kindergarten (3rd ed.). Yonkers,NY: CABASH/Fred S. Keller School.(Publication for use in CABASH schoolsonly).

Greer, R. D., McCorkle, N., & Williams, G.(1989). A sustained analysis of thebehaviors of schooling. Behavioral Resi-dential Treatment, 4, 113–141.

Greer, R. D., & McDonough, S. (1999). Isthe learn unit the fundamental measure ofpedagogy? Behavior Analyst, 20, 5–16.

Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. (2008). Verbalbehavior analysis: inducing and expandingnew verbal capabilities in children withlanguage delays. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., Chavez-Brown, M.,& Rivera-Valdez, C. (2005). The emer-gence of the listener to speaker componentof naming in children as a function ofmultiple exemplar instruction. The Anal-ysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 5–26.

Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., & Pistoljevic, N.(2007). Emergence of naming in pre-schoolers: A comparison of multiple andsingle exemplar instruction. EuropeanJournal of Behavior Analysis, 8, 119–131.

Greer, R. D., & Yuan, L. (2008). How kidslearn to say the darnedest things: Theeffect of multiple exemplar instruction onthe emergence of novel verb usage. TheAnalysis of Verbal Behavior, 24, 103–121.

Greer, R. D., Yuan, L., & Gautreaux, G.(2005). Novel dictation and intraverbalresponses as a function of a multipleexemplar instructional history. The Anal-ysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 99–116.

Hagopian, L. P., Long, E. S., & Rush, K. S.(2004). Preference assessment proceduresfor individuals with developmental dis-abilities. Behavior Modification, 28(5),668–677.

Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche,B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frametheory: A post-Skinnerian account ofhuman language and cognition. NewYork: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publish-ers.

Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On theorigins of naming and other symbolicbehavior. Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.

Ingham, P., & Greer, R.D. (1992). Changesin student and teacher responses inobserved and generalized settings as afunction of supervisor observations ofteachers. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 25, 153–164.

Johnston, J., & Pennypacker, H. (1993).Strategies and tactics of human behavior-al research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. (1985). Thefunctional independence of mands andtacts. Journal of the Experimental Analy-sis of Behavior, 43, 5–19.

Lamm, N., & Greer, R. D. (1991). Asystematic replication of CABAS in Italy.Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 427–444.

Lee, V. L. (1981). Prepositional phrasesspoken and heard. Journal of the Exper-imental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 227–242.

Lee-Park, H. S. (2005). Multiple exemplarinstruction and transformation of stimulusfunction from auditory-visual matching tovisual-visual matching. Dissertation Ab-stracts International (UMI No. 3174834).

Lowe, C. F., & Horne, P. J. (1996).Reflections on naming and other symbolicbehavior. Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 65, 315–340.

Luke, N. M. (2009). The effects of multipleexemplar instruction on the acquisitionand abstraction of autoclitic frames forspatial relations in early verbal develop-ment. Dissertation Abstracts International(AAT No. 3373793).

Mariano-Lapidus, S. A. (2005). Transfer ofstimulus control across vocal and written


responses as a function of a multipleexemplar instructional history. Disserta-tion Abstracts International (UMI No.3174848).

Matthews, K.M. (2005). Induction of meta-phorical responses in middle school stu-dents as a function of multiple exemplarinstruction. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national (UMI No. 3174851).

Ministere de l’Education nationale (2006–2009). Votre enfant a l’ecole maternelle. Re-trieved February 15, 2009, from http://www.education.gouv.fr/pid35/ecole-maternelle.html

Murphy, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009).Establishing derived manding for specificamounts with three children: An attemptat synthesizing Skinner’s verbal behaviorwith relational frame theory. The Psycho-logical Record, 59, 75–92.

Nirgudkar, A. S. (2005). The relative effectsof the acquisition of naming and themultiple exemplar establishing opera-tion experience on the acquisition ofthe transformation of establishing opera-tions across mands and tacts. DissertationAbstracts International (UMI No.3159751).

Nuzzolo-Gomez, R., & Greer, R. D. (2004).Emergence of untaught mands or tacts ofnovel adjective-object pairs as a functionof instructional history. The Analysis ofVerbal Behavior, 20, 63–76.

Pistoljevic, N. (2008).The effects of multipleexemplar and intensive tact instruction onthe acquisition of naming in preschoolersdiagnosed with autism and other languagedelays. (Doctoral dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity). Abstract from UMI Proquest

Digital Dissertations. (Dissertations Ab-stract Item: AAT 3317598).

Reed, P., Osborne, L. A., & Corness, M.(2006, December 19). Brief report: Theeffectiveness of different home-basedbehavioral approaches to early teachingintervention. Journal of Autism and Devel-opmental Disorders. Retrieved November11, 2007, from www.springerlink.com/content/3q30031815t32534/fulltext.html

Selinski, J., Greer, R. D., & Lodhi, S. (1991).A functional analysis of the comprehen-sive application of behavior analysis toschooling. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 24, 108–118.

Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relationsand behavior: A research story. Boston,MA: Authors Cooperative.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior.Acton, MA: Copley Publishing.

Speckman-Collins, J. (2004). Multiple exem-plar instruction and the emergence ofgenerative production of suffixes asautoclitic frames. Dissertation AbstractsInternational (UMI No. 3159757).

Twyman, J. S. (1996). The functionalindependence of impure mands and tactsof abstract stimulus properties. The Anal-ysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 1–19.

Waddington, E. M., & Reed, P. (2009). Theimpact of using the Preschool Inventory ofRepertoires for Kindergarten (PIRKH ) onschool outcomes on children with autismspectrum disorders. Research in AutismDisorders, 3, 809–827.

Wynn, J. W., & Smith, T. (2003). General-ization between receptive and expressivelanguage in young children with autism.Behavioral Interventions, 18, 245–266.


Luke, Greer, Singer-Dudek, & Keohane 2011

Documents

Transcript of Luke, Greer, Singer-Dudek, & Keohane 2011