Comparison of a Stimulus Equivalence Protocol and Traditional Lecture for Teaching Single-Subject Designs

Abstract

This study compared the effects of a computer-based stimulus equivalence protocol to a traditional lecture format in teaching single-subject experimental design concepts to undergraduate students. Participants were assigned to either an equivalence or a lecture group, and performance on a paper-and-pencil test that targeted relations among the names of experimental designs, design definitions, design graphs, and clinical vignettes was compared. Generalization of responding to novel graphs and novel clinical vignettes, as well as the emergence of a topography-based tact response after selection-based training, were evaluated for the equivalence group. Performance on the paper-and-pencil test following teaching was comparable for participants in the equivalence and lecture groups. All participants in the equivalence group showed generalization to novel graphs, and 6 participants showed generalization to novel clinical vignettes. Three of the 4 participants demonstrated the emergence of a topography-based tact response following training on the stimulus equivalence protocol.

Selection-Based Instruction and the Emergence of Topography-Based Responses to Interview Questions

“…These researchers found that participants engaged in consistent vocal-verbal responding (i.e., problem-solving) during both selection-based tasks and selection-based tasks with a topography-based component. This finding was seen as support for the notion that some selection-based conditional discriminations, and emergent equivalence relations (see Walker et al 2010;Lovett et al 2011;Walker and Rehfeldt 2012), are promoted by topography-based vocal-verbal responding in individuals with extensive verbal repertoires. Indeed, it is likely that typically functioning adults engage in covert topography-based responses during selection-based tasks (e.g., multiple-choice examinations).…”

Learning Skinner’s Verbal Operants: Comparing an Online Stimulus Equivalence Procedure to an Assigned Reading

“…Neither the Although the equivalence group scored higher on all but one test (TB generative posttest), performance was comparable to that of the reading group. These results are similar to Lovett et al (2011) and suggest that an online stimulus equivalence procedure may be as effective as methods that may be associated with assigned readings (e.g., massed practice, mnemonic devices, and acronyms). Between-group differences are therefore discussed in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.…”

Teaching generatively: Learning about disorders and disabilities

“…However, with a small amount of remedial training (i.e., one or two training blocks), most of the students were able to regain criterion performance. In addition, other studies that found equivalence procedures to be effective to teach complex stimulus classes in higher education tested response maintenance only 1 to 2 weeks after training, which may have considerably influenced maintenance results (e.g., Fienup & Critchfield, 2011; Lovett et al, ).…”

“…Some of the stimuli were complicated and contained multiple words (e.g., the definition for cystic fibrosis was taught as, “abnormal secretions leading to mucus accumulation in the lungs”). Other stimulus equivalence research with university students has also trained relations among complex stimuli but did not assess the long‐term maintenance of these complex relations after training (Lovett et al, ). Research on stimulus equivalence procedures with different populations (e.g., persons with intellectual disabilities) has involved training simple stimulus relations using single words and pictures and found that these relations were maintained long term in the absence of training (e.g., Saunders et al, ).…”