Transcript Language Acquisition Barriers: Analyses and Intervention

Verbal Behavior and
Autism Intervention
Mark L. Sundberg, Ph.D., BCBA
[email protected]
Introduction
•
•
It was suggested by Dr. Gina Green (2005) at last year’s
ABA convention that language training procedures for
children with autism that are based on Skinner’s (1957)
analysis of verbal behavior should not be disseminated
until data supporting those procedures are obtained
The current presentation is a response to Dr. Green’s
concerns about the use of Skinner’s analysis of verbal
behavior for language assessment and intervention for
children with autism
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Behavioral interventions in general have been quite successful
for children with autism
With this success comes good news and bad news
The good news...
Increase in the demand for behavioral services
Increase in the recognition of behavior analysis
Increase in the demand for BCABAs & BCBAs
Increase in the demand for training and university courses
Increase in the demand for teachers of behavior analysis
Increase in research opportunities
Increase in ABA:International membership
Membership in ABA: International
Membership in ABA: International
5000
ABA Members
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Years
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
However, with this success there is some bad news
Everybody is now an expert in behavior analysis
Widespread dissemination of behavioral techniques and
services, often by unqualified people
Simplifying the concepts and procedures beyond recognition
Common to see procedures promoted without the analysis
Parallels to B-mod and education in the 60s?
“What happened to the promise of behavior modification?”
Similar concerns for the current popularity of the use of
behavior analysis for the treatment of children with autism
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What constitutes a “behavioral approach” to treatment of children with autism?
Consumers must be confused. There are many models out there, often quite
different from each other, but all claiming to be a “behavioral approach”
DTT
Lovaas model
CARD model
ABA
Pivotal response training
VB approach
CABAS
Competent learner model
Natural language paradigm
Milieu language training
Incidental teaching
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In addition, there are many
other approaches and treatments
such as...
Floortime
RDI
Son-Rise
Holding therapy
TEACCH
Secretion
Auditory training
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sensory integration
Weighted jackets
Deep pressure
Special diets
Vitamins
Medications
Swimming with dolphins
Decompression chambers
Chelation
Facilitated communication
Introduction
•
•
•
•
Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Gina Green and others, many of these
“pseudoscientific” approaches have been identified and consumers have been
warned about their ineffectiveness and even potential danger to children
However, at least year’s ABA convention Dr. Green added the “Verbal
Behavior Approach” to her list of pseudoscientific approaches and suggested
that it had similarities to facilitated communication
In her recent presentation at the NY-ABA titled “Verbal Behavior;” An
evidence-based technology for autism intervention?” Dr. Green (2005)
concluded “the ‘VB’ approach to autism intervention does not appear to meet
accepted criteria for evidence-based practice or transferable behavioral
technology”
Others have expresses concern about the dissemination of verbal behavior
procedures. Carr and Firth (2005) stated “little research exists to support such
widespread dissemination (of the VB approach)”
Introduction
•
•
The purpose of the current presentation is to address the concerns
raised by Dr. Green, Carr and Firth, and others about the
“unwarranted dissemination of the verbal behavior approach” to
language training for children with autism
The goal is to clarify what constitutes a “verbal behavior
approach,” while demonstrating its empirical foundation, ongoing research agenda, its value to children with autism, and
hopefully, to get Dr. Green to remove verbal behavior from her list
of pseudosciences
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
First, I share Dr. Green’s concern for the need for additional
verbal behavior research. I believe this point is uncontroversial.
(Sundberg, 1991: “301 Research topics from Skinner’s book
Verbal Behavior”)
Verbal behavior research was the primary purpose for starting
the journal The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, now in its 22nd
Volume, and published by ABA: International
Second, I strongly share Dr. Green’s concern about the
improper dissemination of behavioral concepts and procedures
And, her concerns about the ubiquitous dissemination of
pseudoscientific treatments for children with autism
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The basic teaching procedures consist of the standard
methodology found in applied behavior analysis (e.g., Cooper,
Heron, & Heward, 1987)
Prompting
Fading
Pairing
Modeling
Shaping
Chaining
Differential reinforcement procedures (e.g., DRO, DRI, DRL)
Intermittent reinforcement procedures (e.g., FR, VR, FI, VI)
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extinction procedures (e.g., planned ignoring)
Punishment procedures (e.g., reprimands)
Generalization
Discrimination training
Errorless learning
Transfer of stimulus control
Task analysis
Fluency procedures
Contingency contracting
Token economies
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Additional procedural elements include, for example....
Individualized assessment and intervention program
Frequent opportunities to respond
Use of discrete trial teaching procedures
Incidental & natural environment teaching procedures
Data collection
Interspersel techniques
Behavioral momentum techniques
Peer and social interaction
Functional analyses
On-going analyses of performance by formally trained behavior analysts
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
These procedures are (to varying degrees) common to most
behavioral intervention programs for children with autism
(e.g., Greer & Keohane, 2006: Howard, Sparkman, Cohen,
Green, & Stanislaw, 2005; Koegel & Koegel, 1996; Leaf &
McEachin, 1999; Lovaas, 2003; Maurice, Green, & Luce,
1996: Sundberg & Partington, 1998), and thus all benefit from
the same empirical foundation found in applied behavior
analysis
However, these programs vary substantially in terms their
treatment of language
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
The major difference between the verbal behavior programs and the
majority of discrete trial (DTT) and ABA programs available in the
literature is the conceptual analysis of language that underlies the
assessment and curriculum used in each program
How is language measured, classified, and assessed? What is the unit
of analysis? What causes the emission of words and sentences? How
is language acquired? What causes language errors and deficits?
Most DTT/ABA programs are based on the traditional linguistic
classification system of expressive and receptive language, and the
associated vernacular, concepts, and theoretical constructs related to
language, which has its roots in cognitive psychology
The verbal behavior approach employs Skinner’s (1957) functional
analysis of language, which has its roots in radical behaviorism
Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
Language is learned behavior under the functional control of
environmental contingencies
“What happens when a man speaks or responds to speech is clearly
a question about human behavior and hence a question to be
answered with the concepts and techniques of psychology as an
experimental science of behavior” (Skinner, 1957, p. 5)
The analysis of verbal behavior involves the same behavioral
principles and concepts that make up the analysis of nonverbal
behavior. No new principles of behavior are required
Chapter 1 of Verbal Behavior is titled “A Functional Analysis of
Verbal Behavior”
In Chapter 2 Skinner identifies the dependent and independent
variables for a functional analysis of verbal behavior
A Functional Analysis of Verbal Behavior:
The Basic Principles of Operant Behavior
Stimulus Control (SD)
Motivating Operation (MO/EO)
Response
Reinforcement
Punishment
Extinction
Conditioned reinforcement
Conditioned punishment
Intermittent reinforcement
Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
The traditional linguistic classification of words, sentences, and
phrases as expressive and receptive language blends important
functional distinctions between types of operant behavior, and
appeals to cognitive explanations for the causes of language
behavior (Skinner, 1957, Chapter 1)
Thus, in Chapter 1 of VB Skinner recommends against what has
become the linguistic foundation of most DTT and ABA programs
While there are many conceptual and practical distinctions between
a cognitive and behavior analysis of language, this presentation
will focus on:
Research on the distinction between the mand, tact, and intraverbal
A functional analysis of verbal assessment and intervention
Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
At the core of Skinner’s analysis of language is the distinction
between the mand, tact, and intraverbal (traditionally all classified as
“expressive language”)
Is there conceptual and empirical support for this distinction?
Skinner identified three separate sources of antecedent control for
these verbal operants
EO/MO control------->Mand
Nonverbal SD--------->Tact
Verbal SD-------------->Intraverbal
In cognitive analyses of language these three sources are commonly
grouped together under the rubric of “referent or meaning”
Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
•
•
The empirical question is: Are these three antecedent
variables functionally separate, or is there no value in
making this distinction?
From a clinical standpoint, the two most common
language problems demonstrated by children with autism
that I have encountered over the past 32 years is a
defective mand repertoire and/or a defective
intraverbal repertoire, despite often having strong tact
and listener discrimination repertoires
ita
tio
Vo
n
c
al
Vo
Pl
ca
ay
lI
m
ita
tio
n
M
at
ch
in
R
g
ec
ep
tiv
e
La
be
lin
g
Te
xt
ua
In
l
tr
av
er
ba
l
Im
an
ds
M
tio
n
pe
ra
oo
C
Charlie: Quick Assessment
4
3
2
1
0
al
l
ua
av
er
b
tr
In
xt
g
e
lin
be
Te
La
in
g
tiv
ep
ec
R
ch
n
y
la
tio
ita
s
n
tio
lP
at
M
lI
m
ca
Vo
ca
Vo
ita
Im
an
d
n
ra
tio
M
pe
oo
C
Nathan: Quick Assessment
4
3
2
1
0
al
l
ua
av
er
b
tr
In
xt
g
e
lin
be
Te
La
in
g
tiv
ep
ec
R
ch
n
y
la
tio
ita
s
n
tio
lP
at
M
lI
m
ca
Vo
ca
Vo
ita
Im
an
d
n
ra
tio
M
pe
oo
C
Matt: Quick Assessment
4
3
2
1
0
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
•
Based on the distinction between the establishing operation
(EO/MO) and stimulus control (SD) as separate sources of control
Skinnerian psychology (“radical behaviorism,” see Skinner, 1974)
has always maintained that motivational control is different from
stimulus control
In Behavior of Organisms (Skinner, 1938) Skinner devoted two
chapters to the treatment of motivation; Chapter 9 titled “Drive”
and Chapter 10 titled “Drive and Conditioning: The Interaction of
Two Variables”
Skinner also made it clear in the section titled “Drive (is) Not a
Stimulus” (pp. 374-376) that motivation is not the same as
discriminative, unconditioned, or conditioned stimuli
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
Keller and Schoenfeld (1950) titled Chapter 9 “Motivation” and
further developed Skinner’s point, “A drive is not a stimulus” (p.
276), and suggested “a new descriptive term... ‘establishing
operation’” (p. 271)
In Science and Human Behavior (1953) Skinner devoted three
chapters to motivation: Chapter 9: “Deprivation and Satiation,”
Chapter 10: “Emotion,” and Chapter 11: “Aversion, Avoidance,
Anxiety”
In Verbal Behavior (1957) Skinner had a full chapter on motivation
and language (The Mand), and throughout the book provided many
elaborations on motivational control -- as an antecedent variable
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
Holland and Skinner’s (1961) book contained four chapters on
motivation; Chapters 7: “Deprivation,” 8: “Emotion I,” 9:
“Avoidance and Escape Behavior,” and 10: “Emotion II”
Millenson (1968) contained four chapters on motivation and
presented an excellent summary of the relevant empirical research
(p. 364-384); Chapters 15: “Motivation I,” 16: “Motivation II,”17:
“Aversive Contingencies,” and 18: “Emotional Behavior”
However, the topic of motivation was for the most part dropped
from the first generation of Applied Behavior Analysis/Behavior
Modification textbooks that followed Millenson’s book (e.g.,
Fantino & Logan, 1979; Kazden, 1975; Martin & Pear, 1978;
Powers & Osborne, 1976; Whaley & Malott, 1971)
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
•
In explaining what happen to the analysis of motivation in behavior analysis,
Michael (1993) pointed out, “In applied behavior analysis or behavior
modification, the concept of reinforcement seems to have taken over much of the
subject matter that was once considered a part of the topic of motivation” (p. 191)
There was a shift from the analysis of motivation as an antecedent variable to
motivation as a consequence
In addition, motivation as a topic of research was absent from the behavioral
journals. For example, The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis contained no
entries for “establishing operations” or “motivation” in the cumulative index
(1978) covering the first 10 years of publication
During the next 10 years (1979-1988) there were still no entries for “establishing
operation.” However, there were 5 entries for “motivation,” but they all involved
the use of motivation as a consequence, rather than as an antecedent variable
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
•
Motivation as an antecedent variable has returned to behavior
analysis textbooks and now is a common topic in JABA thanks to
Jack Michael, Brian Iwata, Wayne Fisher, and others
The JABA index for the years 1999-2005 contains 29 entries for
the EO, and 2 for the MO (motivating operations)
Malott, Whaley, & Malott (1997) contains a full chapter on the
EO. Catania (1998), Martin & Paer (2002), and Pierce & Epling
(1995) all contain analyses of motivation throughout their books
The 2nd Edition of the Cooper, Heron, & Heward book Applied
Behavior Analysis (In press) contains a full chapter on motivation
as well as a full chapter on Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior
Clinical Value of EO and the Mand to
Children with autism
•
•
•
•
Many children with autism have absent or defective mand
repertoires
Manding is a critical part of a typical child’s language development
Tact training does not typically produce manding in early learners
A functional analysis of the child’s verbal behavior often reveals
that the response called a mand or a request is not under EO
control, but rather SD control, thus not, by definition a mand
Defective Mand - Ally
EO
Does not evoke a mand
______________________________________________________
EO
Does not evoke a mand
Object
______________________________________________________
Intraverbal prompt
(e.g. “Sign cookie”)
Evokes a response
Imitative prompt
(not a mand)
(ASL sign)
____________________________________________________________________
A Sample of the Published Empirical Research on
the EO, and the Mand and Tact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hung (1980)
Simic & Bucher (1980)
Lamarre & Holland (1985)
Pierce, Epling, & Boer (1986)
Hall & Sundberg (1987)
Carroll & Hesse, (1987)
Stafford, Sundberg, & Braam (1988)
Yamamoto & Mochizuki (1988)
McPherson & Osborne (1988)
De Freitas & Ribeiro (1989)
Sigafoos, Doss, & Reichle (1989)
Sundberg, San Juan, Dawdy, & Arguelles (1990)
A Sample of the Published Empirical Research
on the EO, and the Mand and Tact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sigafoos, Reichle, Doss, Hall, & Pettitt (1990)
Baer & Detrich (1990)
Braam & Sundberg (1991)
Sprague & Horner (1992)
Williams & Greer (1993)
Twyman (1996)
Drasgow, Halle, & Ostrosky (1998)
Drash, High, & Tudor (1999)
Brown, Wacker, Derby, Peck, Richman, & Sasso (2000)
Knutson & Harding (2000)
Barnes-Holmes & Barnes-Holmes (2000)
Goh, Iwata, & DeLeon (2000)
A Sample of the Published Empirical Research
on the EO, and the Mand and Tact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, & Eigenheer (2002)
Arntzen & Almas (2002)
Ewing, Magee, & Ellis (2002)
Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier (2002)
Chambers & Rehfeldt (2003)
Ross & Greer (2003)
Nuzzolo-Gomez & Greer (2004)
Taylor, Hoch, Potter, Rodriguez, Spinnato, & Kalaigian (2005)
Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael (2005)
Hartman & Klatt (2005)
Wallace, Iwata, & Hanley (2006)
Sweeney, Carbone, O’Brien, Zecchin, & Janecky (2006)
A Sample of the Published Empirical Research
on the EO, and the Mand and Tact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Taylor, Hoch, Potter, Rodriguez, Spinnato, & Kalaigian (2005)
EO must be present to evoke mands (initiations to peers)
Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael (2005)
Mand training resulted in tacts, but tact training did not result in mands
There doesn’t appear to be a body of research that contradicts the separation of the
mand and tact at the time of initial acquisition, or manding without EOs
Empirical research reviews:
Greer, R. D., & Keohane D. (2005). The evolution of verbal behavior in children.
Behavioral Development, 1, 31-48.
Oah, S., & Dickinson, A.M. (1989). A review of empirical studies on verbal
behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 53-68.
Sautter, R., & LeBlanc, L. (2006). The empirical applications of Skinner’s analysis
of verbal behavior with humans. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior.
A Sample of the Published Empirical Research
on the EO, and the Mand and Tact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EO and Mand research across a variety of populations with similar effects
Children with autism (e.g., Ross & Greer, 2003)
Language delayed children (e.g., Twyman, 1996)
Typical children (e.g., Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2005)
Deaf/autistic teenagers e.g., (Hall & Sundberg, 1987)
Children with developmental disabilities (e.g., Sigafoos, Doss, & Reichle, 1989)
Adults with developmental disabilities (e.g., Chambers & Rehfeldt, 2003)
Adults with traumatic brain injury (e.g., Sundberg, San Juan, Dawdy, &
Arguelles, 1990)
Pigeons (e.g., Sundberg, 1985)
Rats (e.g., Pierce, Epling, & Boer, 1986)
Chimpanzees (e.g., Savage-Rumbaugh, 1984)
Parrots (e.g., Pepperberg, 1988)
A Sample of the Published Empirical Research
on the EO, and the Mand and Tact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EO and Mand research and reviews across a variety of behavioral journals
JEAB (e.g., Lamarre & Holland, 1985)
JABA (e.g., Wallace, Iwata, & Hanley, 2006)
TAVB (e.g., Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2005)
TBA (e.g., Michael, 1993)
Behavioral Development (e.g., Greer & Koehane, 2005)
Research in Developmental Disabilities (e.g., Taylor, Hoch, et al., 2005)
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities (e.g., Hung, 1980)
Behavior Modification (e.g., Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980)
Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention (e.g., Pistoljevic & Greer,
2006)
EO Antecedent Control and Mand Assessment
and Intervention
in DTT and ABA Programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lovaas, 1977, 1981, 2003 (clearly the most influential, outcome
data)
Expressive-receptive framework for language
Terminology and analysis derived from traditional linguistics
No mention of EO/motivation antecedent control
All language skills are presented as SD control
Closest mand training activity is the “I Want___” program found
late in the program (between the adjective and preposition
chapters). “Requesting” does not appear in the 2003 index
No focus on the fact that a single word, phrase, or sentence can be
strong in one repertoire and not another
No functional analysis of words as behavior
How ABA is perceived in the press:
Time Magazine, May 15, 2006
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Biased presentation of behavior analysis and an excellent behavioral program that
is clearly guided by behavioral principles, including the analysis of VB, EOs, etc.
Floortime presented with a very favorable bias, despite the acknowledged lack of
data. “Greenspan…is responding with a series of studies just getting under way”
What does Floortime have that the reporter seemed so impressed with?
“David, 6, goes down a slide again and again. A teacher playfully blocks his way,
She wants him to...say “Move.” She's got an agenda; he doesn't know it. He keeps
going back for more because it's fun....Knowing to ask...is part of learning to
regulate oneself.”
Manding!!!
We have the analysis and data. Floortime gets the credit
How about natural environment teaching, making learning fun, and pairing? Again,
we have the analysis and data, Floortime gets the credit
DTT/ABA cannot afford to wait any longer, or it will go the route of education in
the 60s
The Distinction Between the
the Tact and the Intraverbal
•
•
•
A substantial number of children with autism have extensive tact
and RD repertoires, but a weak, absent, or defective intraverbal
repertoire
The existing body of research supports the conceptual analysis that
a response acquired under nonverbal stimulus control may not
automatically transfer to verbal stimulus control
For example, a child may be able to say Pool when he sees a
swimming pool (Nonverbal SD), but not say Pool when asked
Where do you go swimming? (Verbal SD)
Empirical Research on the Distinction
Between the Tact and Intraverbal
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Braam & Poling (1983)
Chase, Johnson, & Sulzer-Azaroff (1985)
Luciano (1986)
Daly (1987)
Lodhi & Greer (1989)
Tenenbaum & Wolking (1989)
Watkins, Pack-Teixeira, & Howard (1989)
Sundberg, San Juan, Dawdy, & Arguelles (1990)
Partington & Bailey (1993)
Sundberg, Endicott, & Eigenheer (2000)
Finkel & Williams (2001)
Miguel, Petursdottir, & Carr (2005)
Empirical Research on the Distinction
Between the Tact and Intraverbal
•
•
•
•
Two examples of research
Braam & Poling (1983) found that children with autism who could emit
specific responses under tact control could not emit the same response forms
under intraverbal control. Transfer of stimulus control between nonverbal SDs
and verbal stimuli were successful
Miguel, Petursdottir, & Carr (2005) replicated the basic procedures from
Braam and Poling (1983) and concluded “ while participants were able to
tact…and point to the pictures…they were not necessarily able to reliably
produce thematically related intraverbal responses…(until) intraverbal training
was used”
No body of research has emerged to show the tact and intraverbal are the same
Clinical Value of Verbal Stimulus Control
and the Intraverbal to Children with Autism
•
•
•
•
•
Many children with autism have absent or defective intraverbal repertoires
Verbal behavior evoked by verbal discriminative stimuli constitute a significant element
of human verbal interaction
A functional analysis of the child with autism’s verbal behavior often reveals that the
response called intraverbal or conversational is not under verbal stimulus control, but
rather under nonverbal stimulus control, or EO control, thus by definition, not an
intraverbal
Many common verbal errors by children with autism are related to defective verbal
stimulus control
Verbal stimulus control is extremely complicated, usually involving verbal conditional
discriminations where one verbal stimulus alters the evocative effect of another verbal
stimulus (e.g., What do you wear to the beach? vs. What do you take to the beach?)
Verbal Stimulus Control and Verbal
Conditional Discriminations in ABA
•
•
•
•
Research on verbal stimulus control, conditional discriminations,
and especially verbal conditional discriminations is absent from the
applied journals
A review of the JABA indexes from 1968 to 2005 shows only 5
entries for conditional discriminations, and none for verbal
conditional discriminations
Thus, like the EO and the mand, the antecedent variables that
evoke intraverbal behavior have not been a focus of behavioral
research
However, there is no argument that much of our verbal behavior is
controlled by verbal SDs (e.g., answering questions)
Verbal Stimulus Control and Intraverbal
Assessment and Intervention
in DTT and ABA Programs
•
•
•
•
•
Lovaas (1977, 1981, 2003)
No sections on answering questions, fill-in’s, verbal
categories, etc. or what could be identified as intraverbal
training
No mention of verbal antecedent control of verbal
behavior (all under receptive language)
No mention of verbal conditional discriminations
Cognitive theory of words, referents, and meanings
drives the language curriculum
Summary of the Empirical Research
Supporting Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sautter & LeBlanc (2006)
“The volume of empirical support for Skinner’s (1957) analysis of verbal
behavior has increased three fold over the past 15 years.”
“To date, empirical investigations have provided initial support for...
Skinner’s notion of functional independence,
the importance of the mand as the preliminary focus of language training,
the utility of transfer of stimulus control procedures
the benefits of multiply controlled language in the acquisition
and development of more complex verbal behavior
the notion of the establishing operation as a critical controlling variable
for the mand”
Summary of the Empirical Research
Supporting Verbal Behavior
•
•
Greer & Koehane (2005)
“While a large portion of the literature on verbal behavior has
been theoretical, we have identified over 88 experiments devoted
to testing the theory. In our program of research we have
completed approximately 44 experiments and a number of
replications” (Greer & Koehane, 2005, p. 32).
Summary of the Empirical Research
Supporting Verbal Behavior
•
•
Horne & Lowe (1996) “Naming”
Horne, Hughes, & Lowe (2006) conclude that a “route for future
research may be to concentrate directly on the extraordinary
behavioral repertoires that we term language or verbal behavior
and the issue of how it transforms human learning. Skinner
(1957) had clearly recognized the importance of this behavior
and had begun to establish a theoretical framework for language
research....The naming account...in conjunction with the present
series of experimental tests, is an attempt to advance this theory
and to establish a coherent empirical base for its further
development” (p. 271)
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
There is a rapidly growing body of empirical research supporting
various aspects of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior
This conference has contained many excellent examples of verbal
behavior research on a wide range of topics (including pick-up lines)
There are no contradictory lines of research on the distinction between
the mand, tact, and intraverbal
The VB approach is just behavior analysis
The “VB approach” shares the same procedures and methods as the
other behavioral approaches, but is based on a functional rather than
structural analysis of language
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Should we continue to disseminate verbal behavior procedures?
Sundberg & Michael (2001) suggested five major contributions that
Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior could make to the existing
DTT/ABA programs for children with autism:
Mand training
Motivation (EO) as an independent variable in language training
Intraverbal training
Automatic reinforcement
A functional analysis of verbal responses, verbal errors, language
assessment, and curriculum development
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is there enough empirical support for the dissemination of these
suggestions?
Mand training
Yes
Motivation (EO) as an independent variable
Yes
Intraverbal training
Yes
Automatic reinforcement
No (but, see Tim Vollmer’s presentation at 11am this morning)
A functional analysis of verbal responses, verbal errors, language
assessment, and curriculum development
Yes
Conclusion
•
“The ‘VB approach’ is simply normative applied behavior
analysis with a few refinements. That is, it incorporates all of
the standard methodology of applied behavior analysis, but it
explicitly adopts Skinner's interpretive framework for analyzing
verbal contingencies. In other words, it is a small variation on a
methodology that has an enormous empirical foundation. The
worst-case scenario is that the added framework doesn't help.
But even in that case the child is still getting a full-fledged
program of applied behavior analysis procedures. It is simply
hard to believe that a set of procedures guided only by a
distinction between receptive and expressive language can be as
sharp as one that respects all of the various types of
contingencies analyzed by Skinner” (Palmer, 2005)
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
Recommendations
Continue to conduct experimental and applied
research on verbal behavior (Carr & Firth, 2005;
Sautter & LeBlanc, 2006; Sundberg, 1991)
Conduct case histories
Obtain more VB outcome data
Conclusion
•
•
•
In 1978 B.F. Skinner wrote …
“Verbal Behavior…will, I believe, prove to
be my most important work” (p. 122)
Let’s get on with the proving!
Thank You!
For an electronic version of this
presentation email:
[email protected]