An Interaction of Instructions and Training Design on Stimulus Class Formation: Extending The Analysis of Equivalence

Saunders, Kathryn J.; Saunders, Richard; Williams, Dean C.; Spradlin, Joseph E.

doi:10.1007/bf03395909

Cited by 76 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies that have indicated differential probabilities of an equivalence outcome following different training structures have done so on the basis of comparing different subjects or different groups of subjects that have been exposed to training in accord with either one of those training structures (Arntzen & Holth, 1997;Barnes, 1992as cited in Barnes, 1994Saunders et aI., 1988;1993;Spradlin & Saunders, 1986). The purpose of the present study was to explore whether differential probabilities of equivalence outcome could be replicated with single subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Experiments that have used only two comparisons have found MTO to be superior to OTM (Barnes, 1992 as cited in Barnes, 1994;Saunders et aI., 1988;1993;Spradlin & Saunders, 1986). A diverging result was found in Arntzen and Holth's study (1997), using a three-choice training structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In a "one-to-many" training structure, each sample is related to more than one comparison and in a "many-to-one" training structure, more than one sample is related to each comparison (Sidman, 1994). Differential probabilities of an equivalence outco~e as a function of training design has been reported (Arntzen & Haith, 1997;Barnes, 1992 as cited in Barnes, 1994;Saunders, Saunders, Williams, & Spradlin, 1993;Saunders, Drake, & Spradlin, 1999;Saunders, Wachter, & Spradlin, 1988;Spradlin & Saunders, 1986). One difference between the training structures that may contribute to a difference in the probability of an equivalence outcome is the type of discriminations required during training versus those required during the test.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Equivalence Outcome in Single Subjects as a Function of Training Structure

Arntzen

Holth

2000

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies comparing groups of subjects have indicated differential probabilities of stimulus equivalence oute,ome as a function of training structure. Both one-to-many (OTM) and manyto-one (MTO) training structures seem to produce stimulus equivalence more often than a linear series training structure. The purpose of the present study was to explore whether or not corresponding differential probabilities of equivalence outcome as a function of training structure can be demonstrated in the performances ' of single subjects. In Experiment 1, equivalence outcome was tested successively following training according to each of the three training structures. All subjects responded in accord with equivalence following the OTM training structure independent of the training order, except for 1· subject who did not respond in accord with equivalence following neither of the three training structures. Furthermore, 2 subjects demonstrated individual success following both one-to-many and many-to-one training even when they did not demonstrate success following linear series training, while the reverse never happened. In Experiment 2, equivalence outcome was tested successively following training according to a many-to-one and a one-to-many training structure with both 2 and 3 classes of stimuli. The results showed that all subjects responded in accord with equivalence following the OTM training structure, while 2 subjects did not respond in accord with equivalence following the MTO training structure. In Experiment 3, equivalence outcome was tested successively following training according to a many-to-one training structure and one-to-many training structure with both 3 and 4 members in each class. In accord with the results of Arntzen and Holth (1997) the present results indicated a superiority of the oneto-many over alternative training structures as regards the . probability of an equivalence outcome. There was no difference in the probability of an equivalence outcome following one-to-many

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Equivalence Outcome in Single Subjects as a Function of Training Structure

Arntzen

Holth

2000

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, consistent selections of comparison A1 in the presence of sample F1 and of comparison A2 in the presence of sample F2 could also arise from sources other than equivalence. Saunders et al (1993) showed that persons with a history of conditional discrimination would show generalized conditional responding to new stimuli, arbitrarily assigning each comparison to a particular sample. if stimulus equivalence had not emerged for a particular student, he or she could still show generalized conditional responding, arbitrarily assigning each A comparison to one of the F samples.…”

Section: Effects Of Response Topographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…it is therefore impossible to attribute differences in class formation to the differences in response topography, since they could also be due to the differences in the sets of stimuli used (cf. Saunders, Saunders, Williams, & Spradlin, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Topography of Responses in Conditional Discrimination Influences Formation of Equivalence Classes

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparing two equivalence‐based instruction protocols and self‐study for teaching logical fallacies to college students

Gallant

Reeve

et al. 2021

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study compared two equivalence-based instruction (EBI) protocols to each other and to a self-study control group to teach classes of logical fallacies to college students. The two different EBI protocols were stimuluspairing yes-no (SPYN) responding and match-to-sample (MTS). Four three-member logical fallacy classes were taught (i.e., ad hominem, circular argument, faulty analogy, and slippery slope). Class members consisted of the fallacy definition, fallacy name, and multiple examples of vignettes of each fallacy. Three vignette exemplars per class were used to program for generalization across vignettes, and two more were reserved to assess generalization. Written and computerized tests were completed before training, immediately following training, and at a 1-week follow-up session. The results showed that both MTS and SPYN EBI procedures were superior to self-study procedures with respect to computerized test outcomes, but not written test outcomes. In addition, the effects of MTS and SPYN were similar to one another regarding equivalence class formation, computerized tests, and written tests. These results increase the range of procedures that may be used to establish equivalence classes.

show abstract

An Interaction of Instructions and Training Design on Stimulus Class Formation: Extending The Analysis of Equivalence

Cited by 76 publications

References 42 publications

Equivalence Outcome in Single Subjects as a Function of Training Structure

Equivalence Outcome in Single Subjects as a Function of Training Structure

Topography of Responses in Conditional Discrimination Influences Formation of Equivalence Classes

Comparing two equivalence‐based instruction protocols and self‐study for teaching logical fallacies to college students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About