The use of matrix training to promote generative language with children with autism

Abstract

Matrix training consists of planning instruction by arranging components of desired skills across 2 axes. After training with diagonal targets that each combine 2 unique skill components, responses to nondiagonal targets, consisting of novel combinations of the components, may emerge. A multiple-probe design across participants was used to evaluate matrix training with known nouns (e.g., cat) and verbs (e.g., jumping) with 5 children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Following baseline of Matrix 1 and a generalization matrix, diagonal targets within Matrix 1 were trained as noun-verb combinations (e.g., cat jumping). Posttests showed recombinative generalization within Matrix 1 and the generalization matrix for 4 participants. For 1 participant, diagonal training across multiple matrices was provided until correct responding was observed in the generalization matrix. Results support the use of matrix training to promote untrained responses for learners with ASD and offer a systematic way to evaluate the extent of generalization within and across matrices.

Improving oral sentence production in children with cochlear implants: effects of equivalence-based instruction and matrix training

“…Constructing sentences is a language milestone that depends on learning (Mackay, 2013;Papalia & Olds, 2000). It requires abstracting syntactic rules, categorizing words in classes, and establishing relations between words (or classes of words) that occupy a specific position in a sentence (Frampton, Wymer, Hansen, & Shillingsburg, 2016;Mackay, 2013). Order (or lexical responding) is at the base of such learning (Goldstein, Angelo, & Mousetis, 1987;Mackay, 2013;Skinner, 1957).…”

“…Order (or lexical responding) is at the base of such learning (Goldstein, Angelo, & Mousetis, 1987;Mackay, 2013;Skinner, 1957). Sentence productivity derives from recombinative generalization, in which the learner produces novel combinations by recombining words that were previously trained and arranged in order (Frampton et al, 2016;Goldstein, 1983b;Goldstein & Mousetis, 1989;Yamamoto & Miya, 1999). Some procedures can promote order-word relations and sentence productivity, such as matrix training (Axe & Sainato, 2010;Frampton et al, 2016;Goldstein, 1983a), CRMTS (Mackay, 2013), and matrix and CRMTS combined (Yamamoto & Miya, 1999).…”

Editor's Note

“…To create meaningful, general, and lasting behavior change often requires a synthesis of assessment and intervention components of known efficacy. It has also become clearer over time that these synthesized or packaged interventions (e.g., Lovaas, ) can occasion the next generation of highly analytic research (e.g., Cariveau, Kodak, & Campbell, ; Fisher, Pawich, Dickes, Paden, & Toussaint, ; Frampton, Wymer, Hansen, & Shillingsburg, ; Grow, Carr, Kodak, Jostad, & Kisamore, ; Plaisance, Lerman, Laudont, & Wu, ; Vladescu & Kodak, ). Descriptions of synthesized interventions and evaluations of their effects are therefore welcome in JABA , partly so that meaningful and lasting behavior change may be showcased in this journal and partly so that new lines of highly analytic research may be occasioned.…”

Generative time telling in adults with disabilities: A matrix training approach

“…Matrix training has been shown to produce generative responding for a variety of tact combinations such as noun–verb (Frampton, Wymer, Hansen, & Shillingsburg, ), object–preposition (Pauwels, Ahearn, & Cohen, ), and subject–verb–object (Kohler & Malott, ). A recent matrix training review that focused on individuals with autism spectrum disorder found that there is the potential for learning to occur from direct teaching for approximately 31% of selected target combinations and the remaining 69% to occur through recombinative generalization (Curiel et al, ).…”