Department of Child and Youth Studies

Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Faculty of Social Sciences, Brock University
St. Catharines, Ontario

© November. 2008

Acknowledgments

This MA thesis would not have been possible without the help of a number of people
during the past few years. First, I would like to thank all my participants. They were a joy to
work with and taught me so much along the way. I could not have done this without their
patience and determination. 1 would also like to thank my research assistants, Vicki Pederson,
Holly Bartlett, and Shauna McCambridge for all their help and hard work with the reliability
assessments. I want to thank Dr. Dickie Yu for his helpfiil suggestions. Thank you to my
committee members, Dr. Maurice Feldman and Dr. James Porter. Dr. Feldman has been very
supportive of this project and offered invaluable suggestions. Thank you Dr. Porter for your
feedback during my proposal defence, and your subsequent suggestions. I also want to thank Dr.
Harry Mackay for his suggestions and valuable feedback during my defence.

I would especially like to thank my mom and David for all their support and guidance.
They have been an incredible source of strength throughout my Masters degree, and have helped
me in countless ways. I also want to thank my husband Peter for all his support through this
journey.

And last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my academic advisor Dr. Tricia
Vause who has been tremendous. Her probing questions and remarkable patience were
invaluable. She has been more than an advisor and I am grateful for all the time she devoted to
my learning process. All my questions were met with thoughtfulness, consideration, and
incredible attention to detail. She has constantly steered me in the right direction and provided
me with opportunities to learn and grow in this field.

u

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Use of Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) to Address Impairments 2

The Lovaas study. 2-3

General summary of IBI. 4-5

A Recognized Need to Address Daily Living Skills 5

Stimulus Equivalence 5-6

Reflexivity. 6

Symmetry. 6

Transitivity. 6

Relational Frame Theory and Equivalence 7

Sidman 's First Study 7

Research on Stimulus Equivalence 8

Studies with persons with developmental disabilities. 8
Description of other studies to teach functional skills, including monetary skills. 9-1 1

Research on Stimulus Equivalence with Children with Autism 11-12

Training Structure of Stimulus Equivalence 12-13

Statement of the Problem 14-15

Method 15

Participants 15

Participant!. 15-16

Participant 2. 1(J

iii

CI

Participant 3. 16-17

Setting 17

Ethics 17-18

Materials 18

Autism Assessments 18

Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R). 1 8

Child Autism Rating Scale (CARS). 18-19

Cognitive Assessments 19

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). 19

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS). 1 9-20

The Assessment for Basic Learning Abilities test (ABLA). 20

Monetary Stimuli. 20

Additional materials for training. 20

Materials to test for generalization. 20-23

Research Design 24

Procedure 24

Preference assessment. 24-25

ABLA. 26

Pretest 26

Training 27-34

Additional Treatment Components for Individual Participants 32-34

Reviewing Mastered Relations. 34

iv

Posttest 35

Generalization probes. 35-36

Reliability Assessments 36-37

Results yj

Participant 1 37

Pretest 37

Training. 37-39

Posttest 39

Generalization. 39-41

Participant 2 41

Pretest. 41-43

Training. 43

Posttest 43

Generalization. 43

Participant 3 43

Pre/e$/. 43-46

Training. 46

Posttest. 46

Generalization. 46-47

Discussion 4g

Comparison to Other Studies 48-49

Extending Other Studies 49

Many-to-one structure. 49

Probes. 50

Generalization. 50

ABLAtest. 50-51

Explanations of Training Difficulties and Nonemergence of Relations 5 1

Faulty matching during pretesting and training. 5 1

Training. 52

Variability in training CAfor Participant 3. 52

Addition of extra stimulus auditory prompt for Participant 1. 52-53

Generalization. 53

Limitations 53-54

Implications 54

Conclusion 54-55

References 56

Appendix A: Consent Form 68

Appendix B: Assent Form 73

Appendix C: ^5L/i Data Sheets 74

Appendix D: POR Sheets for the ABLA 79

Appendix E: Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting 81

Appendix F: POR Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting 96

vi

List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Training structures for many-to-one, one-to-many, and the linear

series method. 13
Table 1 A Description of the ABLA levels and the Types of Discriminations

Required 21

Figure 2 Three-stimulus classes with four members. 22

Figure 3 Bristol board used to present sample and comparison stimuli. When

the petri dish was lifted, the hole for the edible was revealed. 23
Figure 4 The solid lines represent the trained relations and the dotted lines

Represent the emergent (tested) relations. 25

Table 2 Relations that were pretested and posttested 28

Figure 5 Stimuli used for size fading with a two-choice MTS procedure. 30

Figure 6 Pretest and posttest results for Participant 1 . The dashed line

indicates chance performance. 38

Figure 7 DB probe data and DA review data during training for Participant 1. 38

Figure 8 BC probes and BA review trials for Participant 1 during the

training of CA. 40

Figure 9 Pre and post generalization tests for Participant 1 . 40

Figure 10 Pretest and posttest data for Participant 2. 42

Figure 11 DA review probes during training of B A and C A for Participant 2. 44

Figure 12 BC probe data for Participant 2 during the training of the CA relation. 44

Figure 13 Pre and post generalization for Participant 2. 45

• •

Vll

Figure 14 Pretest and posttest data for Participant 3. 45

Figure 15 BC probes during training of C A for Participant 3 . 47

Figure 16 Preandpost generalization test for Participant 3. 47

vui

Abstract
The present study evaluated the use of stimulus equivalence in teaching monetary skills
to school aged children with autism. An AB within-subject design with periodic probes was
used. At pretest, three participants demonstrated relation DA, an auditory- visual relation
(matching dictated coin values to printed coin prices). Using a three-choice match-to-sample
procedure, with a multi-component intervention package, these participants were taught two
trained relations, BA (matching coins to printed prices) and CA (matching coin combinations to
printed prices). Two participants achieved positive tests of equivalence, and the third participant
demonstrated emergent performances with a symmetric and transitive relation. In addition, two
participants were able to show generalization of learned skills with a parent, in a second
naturalistic setting. The present research replicates and extends the results of previous studies by
demonstrating that stimulus equivalence can be used to teach an adaptive skill to children with
autism.

IX

Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is recognized as a neurodevelopmental disorder that is
characterized by qualitative impairments in three areas: communication skills, social skills and
engagement in behaviours that are ritualistic or repetitive in nature (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000). hi most cases, ASD is a lifelong condition (Matson & Smith, 2008). Autism
was first described by Dr. Leo Kanner of John Hopkins University in his book "Autistic
disturbances of affective contact" (1943). Based on multiple case studies, Kanner introduced the
label "early infantile autism." Presently, there are five recognized Autism Spectrum Disorders
(ASDs): Autistic disorder, Rett's disorder, Childhood disintegrative disorder, Asperger's
syndrome and Pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) (American
Psychiatric Association). Recent research indicates that .6% of children meet criteria for one of
the disorders on the Autism Spectrum. Specifically, prevalence rates of Autistic disorder and
PDD-NOS, the more common of the spectrum disorders, are 1.3 in 1,000 and 2.1 in 1,000,
respectively (Fombonne, 2005). In relation to other childhood disorders, ASDs are more
common than childhood cancer, diabetes and Down syndrome (Filipek et al., 1999).

Children with ASD often display impairments in functional skills, in addition to showing
impairments in areas of language and social skills (Shriver, Allen, & Mathews, 1999). Academic
skills, motor skills, and independent/daily living skills are often a challenge for children with
autism (Sparrow, Cicchetti, &, Balla, 2005). The focus of the present study was to teach a daily
living skill to children with ASD. In particular, the study focussed on teaching basic monetary
skills that are foundational to the learning of age appropriate monetary skills.

Use of Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) to Address Impairments

A diagnosis of autism can be made as early as 1 8 months, but it is generally recognized in
the first 3 years of life (Bryson, Rogers, & Fombonne, 2003). The earlier children are diagnosed,
the greater the opportunity for working upon and improving recognized impairments. Intensive
behaviour intervention (IBI), based on the principles and procedures of Applied Behaviour
Analysis, can aid in reducing problem behaviours, and help children to make significant
improvements in all areas of adaptive functioning (Green, 1996). Within the province of Ontario,
government funding for IBI has existed since 1999 (Ministry of Children and Youth Services,
2004). Specifically, the fianding is targeted at providing IBI to children with autism, as well as
programming for transition to public schools. The Ontario government has extended funded
treatment of IBI to children with autism fi-om the initial cut-off of 6 years old to providing
services across the lifespan (Ministry, 2007).

The Lovaas study. A groundbreaking study by Lovaas (1987) demonstrated tremendous
improvements for children with autism using IBI. He conducted a non-randomized study
involving 38 participants (19 in the experimental group and 19 in the control group) ranging in
age fi-om 32 to 40 months, who received treatment for at least 2 years in the home, school and
community. The treatment focused on teaching various skills including language skills, social
skills, life skills, as well as decreasing stereotypic or aggressive behaviours. This one-on-one
treatment proved to be effective such that 47% (9 out of 19) of the children in the experimental
group achieved typical scores in IQ and age-appropriate academic placement, and could not be
differentiated fi-om a group of children who were typically developing. Also, 42% (8 out of 19)
of the participants were classified as having a mild intellectual disability and attended special
classes for children with language delays. Lastly, the remaining two children in the experimental

group were classified as having a severe intellectual disability and were placed in special classes
for children with autism and intellectual disabilities. In comparison, only 2% of the participants
in the control group achieved "recovery" (i.e., IQ and educational functioning in the typical
range); 45% of the participants were classified as having a mild intellectual disability and
attended classes for children with language delays; and 53% of the participants had severe
intellectual disability and attended classes for children with autism and intellectual disabilities.
McEachin, Smith and Lovaas (1993) conducted a follow-up to the original Lovaas study. Eight
of the nine participants fi-om the experimental group who achieved the "recovered" outcome at
age 7 were indistinguishable at 13 years of age from typical children with regard to IQ and
adaptive fixnctioning.

Over the past 20 years, replications of the Lovaas (1987) study have been conducted with
children with autism (e.g., Bimbrauer & Leach, 1993; Cohen, Amerine-Dickens, & Smith, 2006;
Eikeseth, Smith, Jahr, & Eldevik, 2007; Harris, Handleman, Gordon, Kristoff, & Fuentes, 1991;
Howard, Sparkman, Cohen, Green, & Stanislow, 2005; Remington et al., 2007; Sallows &
Graupner, 2005; Smith, Eikeseth, Klevstrand, & Lovaas, 1997). One randomized control study
(i.e., Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000) has been conducted to date.

Typically, studies have been conducted with children ranging from 3 to 4 years of age at
entry (Green, Brennan, & Fein, 2002). However, Eikeseth et al. (2002) conducted a non-
randomized study that partially replicated Lovaas's findings with older children who were four
to seven years of age. This study involved a group who received behavioural intervention and an
eclectic treatment group which involved a combination of Project TEACCH (Schopler, Lansing,
& Waters, 1983), sensory-motor therapies (Ayres, 1972) and applied behaviour analysis (Lovaas
et al., 1981). For all children, treatment was conducted in a school setting. Hours of treatment

specified in both the behavioural intervention and the eclectic treatment were equivalent, and
therefore, eliminate treatment intensity as a possible confound. Consequently, the behavioural
intervention was found to be more effective with regard to increasing IQ scores, language
comprehension, expressive language, and adaptive behaviour, compared to scores of participants
receiving the eclectic treatment. However, an acknowledged limitation was that children in the
study had higher IQ scores at intake as the IQ requirement was greater than 50, and the average
IQ was 64. This suggests that the sample may not have represented a typical sample of children
with autism. Overall, this study demonstrates the benefits of behavioural intervention for school-
age children with autism.

General summary oflBI. Based on scientifically established principles, behavioural
treatment packages are aimed at reducing maladaptive behaviour and increasing adaptive
behaviour (Green, 1996). These treatments are highly individualized and address the particular
challenges experienced by the child. IBI appears to be the most efficacious treatment for autism
spectrum disorders to date (Matson & Smith, 2008). According to various authors (Green et al.,
2002; Matson & Smith, 2008), a large proportion of children make meaningfiil improvements
that are long lasting in areas such as cognitive functioning and adaptive fiinctioning, while other
children make some improvement. Typically, children may experience significant gains (e.g., IQ
in the moderate/severe range to a normal range) with exposure to an early behavioural
intervention program if it is: a) intensive (20 to 30 hrs/week); b) starts between the ages of 2 to 5
years, but can begin in the infant years (e.g., 15 months); and c) lasts for at least 2 years (Green
et al.). Parent training can successfully contribute to intervention for children with ASD
(McConachie & Diggle, 2007). Note that these are general characteristics, and may be adapted

based on factors such as severity of autism, IQ, comorbid issues, as well as others (Matson &

Smith, 2008).

A Recognized Need to Address Daily Living Skills

An abundance of applied behaviour analytic research has focused on children's core
symptoms such as disruptive behaviour, stereotypy, social development, and communication
(Frea & Vittimberga, 2000). However, Matson, Benavidez, Compton, Paclawskyi, and Baglio
(1996) emphasized the vital need for developing and empirically testing interventions that are
specifically designed to help foster independence and adaptive behaviours for children with
autism. They define adaptive behaviours as including skills in self-care and daily living skills,
and acknowledge that children with autism are often challenged in these areas. Despite the
acknowledged challenges, there is a scarcity of research concerning how to improve day-to-day
adaptive fiinctioning of children with autism (Gillian, 1990; Liss et al., 2001). In an attempt to
add to this literature, the present study will focus on teaching a life skill (i.e., monetary
exchanges) using a behavioural teaching technology called stimulus equivalence. Money skills
have significant importance in our everyday lives and allow us to be fimctional members of
society. For example, money skills enable an individual to purchase groceries independently and
participate in recreational activities that require a monetary exchange. Using stimulus
equivalence may prove to be a good addition to existing techniques used to teach skills in IBI
programs.
Stimulus Equivalence

In 1971, Murray Sidman demonstrated that the stimulus equivalence paradigm is a
powerfiil tool that establishes classes of stimuli without direct training of all relations. An
equivalence class consists of at least three members (e.g., printed word shoe (Al), picture of a

shoe (Bl), and an actual shoe (CI)) that do not resemble each other but are interchangeable
(Sidman & Tailby, 1982). The relations between members of an equivalence class must possess
the properties of reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity (Sidman, Kirk, & Willson-Morris, 1985;
Sidman & Tailby, 1982). Each of these properties will first be defined, and then illustrated, of the
printed word shoe (A), a picture of a shoe (B), and a three-dimensional shoe (C).

Reflexivity. In order to demonstrate reflexivity, an individual must match the stimuli that
are identical (e.g., the printed word shoe (Al) to the printed word shoe (Al)), in the absence of
reinforcement (Sidman, 2000).

Symmetry. A symmetric relation is demonstrated when conditional relations are
bidirectional (Sidman et al., 1982). Simply speaking, a participant is first trained to match the
printed word shoe (Al) to the picture of a shoe (Bl), when the picture of the shoe is presented as
a sample. In order to demonstrate symmetry, the participant then must match the picture of the
shoe (B) to the printed word shoe (A) (the reverse of the trained relation).

Transitivity. Finally, transitivity is demonstrated through the combination of two learned
conditional relations (with at least one relation at chance level during pretesting). The first
relation involves matching the sample of the printed word shoe (Al) to the comparison of the
picture of the shoe (Bl). The second relation involves matching the sample of the picture of the
shoe (B) to the comparison of the actual shoe (C). If the individual can then match the printed
word shoe to the three-dimensional shoe (A=C) without explicit training, the individual has
demonstrated transitivity (Sidman & Tailby, 1982).

The true test of equivalence includes testing the symmetry of the transitive relation
(C=A), and consists of matching the three-dimensional shoe (C) to the printed word shoe (A), in
the absence of direct training. According to Sidman, it is the true test of equivalence because the

experimenter is simultaneously testing for symmetry and transitivity, and according to
equivalence in mathematics, it is important that all three logical properties are satisfied (Green &
Saunders, 1998).
Relational Frame Theory and Equivalence

A theory that often utilizes a stimulus equivalence framework is called relational frame
theory (RPT) (Hayes & Hayes, 1992). Some researchers view RFT as an extension of stimulus
equivalence such that derived relational responding and its connection to language and cognition
are discussed more broadly (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001). For the purpose of the
present study, our findings will be discussed in terms of stimulus equivalence technology as
proposed by Sidman (2000).
Sidman 's First Study

In 1971, Sidman conducted his first study of stimulus equivalence. He attempted to teach
reading skills to a 17-year-old boy with an intellectual disability. Prior to training, the participant
was able to match 20 spoken words to 20 pictures, as well as name the pictures. Using a match-
to-sample training procedure, the participant was taught to match 20 spoken words, as samples,
to 20 spoken words, as comparisons, as well as match pictures to the same spoken words.
Without ftirther training, the boy demonstrated emergent relations (to match printed words to
pictures and vice versa, therefore demonstrating transitivity and equivalence. The participant
demonstrated reading comprehension, that is he could match the printed words with their
corresponding pictures, and he could read the printed words aloud. In total, 60 new relations
were demonstrated, without direct training.

Stimulus equivalence has the potential to rapidly teach skills to a variety of populations.
Research indicates that new relations emerge, without training, after teaching a small number of

8

relations (Sidman & Tailby, 1982). By enlarging each class by one member, a disproportionate
increase in the maximum number of derived relations is produced. For example, for every one
relation taught, as many as 14 relations can emerge (Saunders, Wachter, & Spradlin, 1988). This
suggests that stimulus equivalence is an economical and efficient tool. The generative nature of
stimulus equivalence can be useful in teaching skills such as money skills as many different
combinations are often required.
Research on Stimulus Equivalence

A large number of studies on stimulus equivalence have been conducted with typically
developing individuals. For example, college and undergraduate students have learned various
matching skills such as matching arbitrarily assigned sets of stimuli with equivalence technology
(e.g., CuUinan, Barnes, Hampson, & Lyddy, 1994; Galizio, Stewart & Pilgrim, 2001; Greenway,
Dougher, & Wulfert, 1996; Hoth & Amtzen, 2000; hmis, Lane, Miller, & Critchfield, 1998;
Mandell, 1997; Mandell & Sheen, 1994; Plaud et al., 1998; Rosales-Ruiz, Eikeseth, Duarte, &
Baer, 2000; Sato, 2001; Sidman & Tailby, 1982; Wirth & Chase, 2002). In addition, nonhuman
participants such as parrots and sea lions have demonstrated the emergence of equivalence
relations (e.g., Pepperberg, 2006; Schusterman & Kastak, 1993).

Studies with persons with developmental disabilities. Stimulus equivalence studies, with
individuals with developmental disabilities, have gradually shifted fi"om teaching abstract
symbols (arbitrary and unrelated symbols) (e.g., Paivio & Yarmey, 1965; Saunders, Saunders,
Williams, & Spradlin, 1993; Stromer & Osborne, 1982; Stromer & Stromer, 1990; Valero &
Luciano, 1992; Zygmont, Lazar, Dube, & Mcllvane, 1992) to teaching functional skills. More
specifically, a wide range of functional skills have been taught using stimulus equivalence such
as: name- face matching (Cowley, Green, & Braunling-McMorrow, 1992), reading (Melchiori, de

Souza, & de Rose, 2000; Sidman, 1971; Sidman, Cresson, & Willson-Morris, 1974), spelling
(Stromer & Mackay, 1992), pre-arithmetic skills (Gast, Vanbiervliet, & Spradlin, 1979), stimulus
classes involving words, pictures and symbols (Carr, Wilkinson, Blackman, & Mcllvane, 2000;
Rehfeldt & Root, 2004; Vause, Martin, Yu, Marion & Sakko, 2005), emotion recognition
(Guercio, Podolska-Schroeder & Rehfeldt, 2004) and monetary skills (McDonagh, Mcllvane, &
Stoddard, 1984; Stoddard, Brown, Hurlbert, Manoli, & Mcllvane, 1989; Trace, Cuvo, &
Criswell, 1977).

Description of other studies to teach functional skills, including monetary skills. A
monetary study was conducted teaching coin combinations using errorless teaching methods,
including a delayed cue procedure. Using a four-choice match-to-sample procedure, McDonagh
et al. (1984) taught coin equivalences to a 28-year-old woman with an intellectual disability.
Prior to training, the participant was able to match a nickel to the printed price 50; however, she
was unable to match the printed price 50 to five pennies. After teaching the participant to match
the printed price 50 to 5 pennies, the performance of matching a nickel to five pennies emerged.
Following this logic, additional stimuli were added, including a dime, two sets of five pennies
and the printed price 100. Without direct training, the relation of the two sets of five pennies to
two nickels emerged. In total, two relations were demonstrated at baseline, six were directly
taught, and 46 relations emerged without direct teaching.

In a similar study by Stoddard et al. (1989), money skills were taught to three individuals
with intellectual disabilities who were 16, 33, and 41 years of age. Two-choice match-to-sample
(MTS) training, with procedures such as extra-stimulus prompting and responding by exclusion,
was used to teach participants to match written prices to coins and coins to coin combinations
(e.g., two nickels and one dime were matched to two dimes). A constructed-response MTS

10

procedure was also used, which is a closer approximation to the way coins are selected in a more
naturalistic environment. Overall, monetary equivalences were formed and the participants were
increasingly capable of demonstrating new performances without explicit training. In fact, eight
and nine member stimulus classes were demonstrated without explicit training.

In addition to using stimulus equivalence to teach monetary skills, this procedure can be
used in a variety of contexts to teach many different types of applied relations. In a study
conducted by Carr et al. (2000), the authors attempted to teach equivalence classes to individuals
with intellectual disabilities. The experiment involved three participants (ages 15, 19 and 21)
who were able to match dictated words ("shirt", "dog", "cake") to visual stimuli (pictures of the
dictated words) before training. Using three-choice match-to-sample training with within
stimulus prompting, the participants were taught to match printed letters (S, D, C) to their
corresponding pictures (shirt, dog, cake), and were then taught to match abstract symbols to the
same pictures. Without fiirther training, the participants demonstrated positive tests of
equivalence.

Similar to the Carr et al. (2000) study, an experiment by Vause et al. (2005) taught
functional skills such as matching pictures of objects (i.e., floppy disk, cactus, and clock) to
corresponding printed words, and to symbols (i.e., IBM, H20, 10:00 pm). Using a three-choice
match-to-sample procedure with within-stimulus prompting, five adults with intellectual
disabilities were first taught to match words (e.g., clock) to pictures (e.g., picture of a clock).
Next, they were taught to match pictures (e.g., picture of a clock) to symbols (e.g., 10:00 pm).
Two of the five participants learned to perform the tasks that demonstrated the relations
necessary to test for stimulus equivalence, and then demonstrated positive equivalence test
outcomes.

11

One unique aspect of the Vause et al. (2005) study is that they used a tool entitled the
Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) to test and determine possible prerequisite
discrimination skills necessary to learn conditional relations. The ABLA, developed by Kerr,
Meyerson, and Flora (1977) is a test with six hierarchically-ordered tasks. These tasks include a
simple imitation task and 5 two-choice motor, visual, and auditory discriminations. Based on this
preliminary study, the authors suggested that individuals may need to have auditory-visual
nonidentity matching in their repertoires in order to learn the conditional relations necessary to
test for stimulus equivalence.
Research on Stimulus Equivalence with Children with Autism

In recent years, some studies have focused on teaching equivalence classes to children
with autism (Garcia Garcia et al., 2001; Gardill & Browder, 1995; LeBlanc, Miguel, Cummings,
Goldsmith, & Carr, 2003; Noro, 2005; Yamazaki, 1996). Thus far, only two studies have
attempted to teach money skills using this technology (Garcia Garcia et al., 2001 ; Yamazaki,
1996). Although neither of these studies was available in English, one was translated. Yamazaki
(1996) taught one child with autism, and two typically developing children to identify two
different coins (i.e., 10 yen and 100 yen) using stimulus equivalence. They were taught to match
coins and printed prices, and to match coins to the dictated value. The child with autism was able
to identify numerical prices and match prices to coins and coins to prices. However, equivalence
relations were not achieved. Symmetry was demonstrated; however transitivity and equivalence
were not.

A study by LeBlanc and colleagues (2003) taught geography skills to 2 participants who
were 6 and 1 3 years of age. Using a three-choice match-to-sample training procedure, the
participants were taught to match printed state names (i.e., Kentucky, Teimessee, South

12

Carolina) to maps of corresponding state shapes, as well as match state shapes to printed state
capitals (i.e., Frankfort, Nashville, Columbus). Results indicated that the untrained relations of
the state names to the capitals reliably emerged. Therefore performance on the transitive relation
and the symmetry of the transitive relation emerged, indicating positive tests of equivalence.
Training Structure of Stimulus Equivalence

Stimulus equivalence has been established using a number of training structures. The
studies previously mentioned (e.g., Carr et al. 2000; LeBlanc et al., 2003; and Vause et al., 2005)
successfially employed different training structures. Three common training structures are the
linear method, the one-to-many method (sample-as-node), and the many-to-one method
(comparison-as-node) (Saunders & Green, 1999) (see Figure 1). In particular, studies by LeBlanc
et al. and Vause et al. successfully used the linear structure, while the Carr et al. study was
successful with the many-to-one procedure.

According to Saunders (2004), the many-to-one procedure yields more successful results
for equivalence. However, according to Amtzen & Holth (2000), the other-to-many method is
superior as a training structure compared with the many-to-other and linear procedure. Currently,
there is no consensus on which method is superior, as researchers have used all three methods
and have reported successful results (Amtzen & Holth, 2000; McDonagh et al., 1984; Saunders
& McEntee, 2004). As shown in Figure 1, all three structures include at least one node, which is
a stimulus that is related conditionally to more than one other stimulus (Green & Saunders,
1998). The nodal distance of the many-to-one and one-to-many procedure is shorter than the
linear series training structure. Research has suggested that using the many-to-one procedure is
quicker and easier than the structure with the longer nodal distance. Consequently, the current
study chose to employ a many-to-one procedure.

13

Many-to-one

One-to-many

Linear series

^ Al

Bl

♦- CI

Dl

Al

â– > Bl

-â–º CI â–º Dl

A2

B2

â–º C2

D2

A2 â–º B2

-> C2 â–º D2

^ A3

B3

•► C3

D3

A3

-^ B3

-â–º C3 â–º D3

Figure 1. Training structures for many- to-one, one-to-many, and the linear series method. Each
alphanumeric designation represents a different stimulus. Arrows point from sample stimuli to
comparison stimuli. A node is a stimulus that is related conditionally to more than one other
stimulus (Green & Saunders, 1998). In the many-to-one structure, the comparison stimulus (i.e.,
A stimuli) is the node. In the one-to-many structure, the sample (i.e., A stimuli) is the node. In
the linear series structure, the B and C stimuli are nodes, but the A and D stimuli are not.

14

Statement of the Problem

The present study replicated previous studies (Carr et al., 2000; LeBlanc et al., 2003;
Vause et al., 2005), by using standard match-to-sample training and a many-to-one method, in an
attempt to teach monetary equivalences to three children with autism. We chose the many-to-one
method for the following reasons. First, we wanted to maximize the use of one member (i.e., the
printed price), as all three participants had a reported learning history with numbers, in
comparison to coins. Also, some researchers (e.g., Amtzen & Holth, 2000) suggest that the
many-to-one method may be superior to the linear method, given the shorter nodal distance.
Lastly, in individuals with limited language repertoires, the many-to-one procedure seems to
produce stimulus equivalence more readily than the one-to-many procedure (Saunders et al.,
1993).

The training procedure was comprised of several components that have been used in
previous studies and were successful in teaching and generalizing the performance of conditional
relations (Carr et al., 2000; Green, 2001 ; Vause et al., 2005). Unlike previous studies with
children with autism, this study extends previous research by testing whether performance on
various relations learned in one setting could be generalized to a second setting.

Last, during training, periodic probing of unlearned relations was conducted. These
probes were inserted to serve as a quasi-control for the trained relations, as the probes would
indicate whether the learning of certain relations was in fact due to training, and not due to
another variable. In addition, the probes would demonstrate when probed relations emerged as a
result of training.

This study sought to answer a number of questions surrounding teaching skills to children
with autism. Can children with autism learn basic monetary equivalences using stimulus

15

equivalence? Is stimulus equivalence an effective tool to teach these skills to children with
autism? If money skills can be taught successfully, can they also be generalized with a parent in
a second setting?

Method

Participants were school-aged children who met criteria for Autistic Disorder and passed
ABLA Level 6, an auditory- visual discrimination task in the Assessment of Basic Learning
Abilities test (Martin & Yu, 2000). In the Vause et al. (2005) study, participants who passed
ABLA Level 6 were able to perform the conditional relations necessary to test for stimulus
equivalence. None of the participants showed significant problem behaviours. Detailed results of
assessments of each participant are presented below.
Participants

Participant 1. Participant 1 was a 10 year old boy who, according to a registered
psychologist, had prior diagnoses of Autism, AD/HD, Communication Disorder, and a Language
Learning Disability. This assessment took place when the participant was 8 years of age. An MA
candidate, who met research reliability on the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R)
(Rutter, Le Couteur, & Lord, 2003), reconfirmed that Participant 1 met the criteria for Autistic
disorder according to the ADl-R and the ADI-R manual (Rutter et al., 2003). Also, this
participant's score on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS) (Schopler, Reichler, &
Renner, 1988) fell in the "mild to moderate" range of autism.

Based on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-4* Edition (WISC-IV) (Wechsler,
2003), Participant 1 's Full Scale IQ Score fell in the Below Average to Well Below Average
Range. Regarding adaptive functioning, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II

16

(Parent/Caregiver Rating Form) (VABS-II) (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005) indicated below
average scores for the Communication, Socialization, and Daily Living Skill domains.

Participant 1 presented as an energetic individual who enjoyed playing with crafts,
painting and cooking. His favourite pastimes included playing alone on the computer and
watching Barney DVDs. He was observed to speak in two to three-word sentences or selected
short sentences, and frequently echoed phrases from TV and Barney DVDs.

Participant 2. Participant 2 was 10 years old and, at 3 years of age, was diagnosed with
Autism by his pediatrician. We reconfirmed that this participant met criteria for Autism, and,
more specifically, met criteria for Autistic Disorder using the ADI-R results and guidelines from
the ADI-R manual (Rutter et al., 2003). Results from the Childhood Autism Rating Scale
(CARS) (Schopler et al., 1988) indicated a score in the "mild to moderate" range.

Based on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-4"' Edition (WISC-IV) (Wechsler,
2003), his Full Scale IQ Score fell in the Extremely Low Range. As well, he scored below
average on all three domains of the VABS-II (Sparrow et al., 2005). According to the DSM-FV-
TR, the combined results of the WISC-FV and adaptive fiinctioning scores suggest an intellectual
disability (APA, 2000).

Participant 2 presented as an active child who enjoyed playing outdoor activities, and he
especially liked to use the internet to look up words and images, and watch movies. He was
observed to speak in two to three-word sentences or selected short sentences, and frequently
echoed phrases from various movies. To sustain attention, short breaks were interspersed
throughout sessions, contingent on appropriate behaviour.

Participant 3. Participant 3 was 13 years old and was diagnosed with Aufism by a
psychologist (for research purposes) using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS)

17

(Lx)rd, Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 2001) when he was 10 years of age. We reconfirmed that the
participant met criteria for Autism and, more specifically, Autistic Disorder using the ADI-R
results and guidelines in the ADI-R manual (Rutter et al., 2003). Based on the CARS (Schopler
et al., 1988), results indicated a score in the "mild to moderate" category. This participant also
had a seizure disorder, which was reported to be controlled by medication.

Based on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-4* Edition (WISC-IV) (Wechsler,
2003), his Full Scale IQ Score fell in the Extremely Low Range. As well, he scored below
average on all three subscales of the VABS-II (Sparrow et al., 2005). According to DSM-IV-TR,
the combined results of the WISC-IV and adaptive fijnctioning test suggest an intellectual
disability (APA, 2000).

Participant 3 presented as a talkative child who enjoyed playing video games, scanning
toy food with a cash register, bike rides, and watching movies. He was observed to speak in fiiU
sentences, however, a lot of his speech involved scripting from movies or video games.
Setting

This study took place in each child's home. For example, training with Participant 1 took
place at the kitchen table and in the basement. Sessions were conducted on the floor when the
participant manded for it, or at the parent's request. Generalization probes, with the parent as
assessor, were conducted in a second setting in each participant's home.

Ethics. Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Brock University Research
Ethics Board (REB). We placed an advertisement that described the study, gave participant
criteria, and provided contact information. Specifically, as indicated in the REB, we recruited
from two internet autism support groups entitled AutismOntario and autismcanada. The
principal investigator briefly described the study to all interested parents/guardians and an

18

appointment was then made to provide further details. See Appendix A for a copy of the
informed consent form for caregivers and Appendix B for assent forms, which were read to each
child. The assent forms were a modified form of the consent forms. At various times during the
assent process, the principal investigator would highlight certain things such as pointing to the
video camera while explaining the videotaping, as well as pointing to the coins when explaining
what skills would be taught.
Materials

Autism Assessments

Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R). The ADI-R (Rutter et al., 2003) is
designed to gather information on individuals as young as 1 8 months of age to adulthood in order
to establish whether a diagnosis of ASD is appropriate. The interview (approximately three
hours) is administered to a caregiver who is familiar with the child's behaviour and his or her
developmental history. The interview focuses on three domains of functioning: (a)
language/communication, (b) social interaction, and (c) restricted, repetitive and stereotyped
behaviours and interests. Among the three domains, 93 items are coded, and then converted to
algorithm scores. If an individual scores above the cut off, there is a high probability that he or
she has some form of ASD (Rutter et al., 2003). Lord, Storoschuk, Rutter and Pickles (1993)
reported high retest reliability scores for the ADI-R; all coefficients were between .93 and .97.
Discriminate validity was also demonstrated with a clear distinction between ASD and other
disorders (Rutter et al., 2003).

Child Autism Rating Scale (CARS). The CARS (Schopler et al., 1988) is a 15 item
screening tool for autism which is scored using direct observations of the child, and interview
I like questions with the parents. Relevant information fi-om parent reports and other records may

19

also be examined before rating each item. The CARS includes items such as relating to people,
adaptation to change, verbal communication and visual motor imitation. The scale takes
approximately 20 to 30 min to administer. The overall score distinguishes children with autism
in the mild to moderate range from children in the moderate to severe range. The tester observes
the child and rates behaviours that are relevant to each item between 1 (within normal limits) and
4 (severely abnormal). The CARS has an interrater reliability of .71 and test-retest reliability of
.88. There is a high correlated validity (r = .84) when compared to criterion clinical ratings. This
scale has an internal consistency of .94 (Garfin, 1988).
Cognitive Assessments

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). The
WISC-FV (Wechsler, 2003) was designed for individuals ranging from 6 to 16 year of age, and
contains 1 5 subtests (core and supplemental) that comprise a Verbal Scale, a Performance Scale,
and a combined Full Scale. This test examines verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning,
processing speed, and working memory.

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II (VABS). The VABS-Il (Sparrow et al.,
2005) is a standardized test that can be given to the primary caregiver to complete
(Parent/Caregiver Rating Form). This is an indirect assessment that measures impairments in
adaptive behavior for individuals between birth and 90 years. There are four domains in this
scale: communication (expression and receptive), daily living skills, socialization, and motor
skills. Each of the 1 1 sub domains contain content categories which are ordered from easiest to
most difficult. Each item is rated on a scale ranging from (no never) to 2 (yes usually). The
test-retest reliability for ages 7 to 13 years ranges from .75 to .91 for all domains. In addition, the
internal consistency is clinically significant with a range of .80 to .90. Interrater reliability for the

20

sample (age 7 to 18) averaged in the mid to low .70s for the domains and sub domains, as well as
.81 for the adaptive behavior composite (Sparrow et al.).

The Assessment for Basic Learning Abilities test (ABLA). To test participants'
discrimination ability, the test materials include a red box with red stripes, a small red block with
red stripes, a yellow can, a small yellow cylinder, and a small piece of irregularly-shaped beige
foam. See Table 1 for more information about each of the six levels in the ABLA. See Appendix
C for ABLA data sheets, and the accompanying sheet to assess treatment integrity.

Monetary stimuli. Figure 2 shows the stimuli for the training procedure. There were the
printed prices (i.e., 0.05, 0.10, 0.25); single coins (i.e., nickel, dime, quarter); coin combinations
(i.e., 5 pennies, 10 pennies, and 25 pennies); and auditory stimuli, which included dictated coin
values (i.e., "5 cents," "10 cents," and "25 cents"). Stimuli for the size fading procedure were
laminated printed prices at the target size, and at larger sizes (200%, 175%, 150%, and 125%).

Additional materials for training. A white laminated bristol board was used with two
dividers and three velcro pieces to attach comparison stimuli. The board had three small holes
below the velcro strips (see Figure 3). Three opaque petri dishes were used to cover the holes for
the reinforcer discovery component (to be discussed in the procedural section). A voice recorder
and ear phone was used for scheduling the reinforcement (i.e., on a variable time (VT) 90-sec
schedule), and three voice recorders were used as comparison stimuli for the visual-auditory
discrimination.

Materials to test for generalization. A toy cash register displaying prices (e.g., 0.05 and
0.10) and their corresponding coins (i.e., a nickel and 10 pennies) were used. See generalization
procedure on p.35.

21

Table 1

A Description of the ABLA levels and the Types of Discriminations Required

ABLA Levels

Types of Discriminations

Level 1 , Imitation:

A tester puts an object into a container and

asks the client to do likewise.

A simple imitation

Level 2, Position Discrimination:
When a red box and a yellow can are presented
in a fixed position, a client is required to
consistently place a piece of foam in the
container on the left when the tester says "Put
it in."

A simultaneous visual discrimination with
position, colour, shape, and size as relevant
visual cues

Level 3, Visual Discrimination:
When a red box and a yellow can are presented
In randomly alternating positions, a client is
Required to consistently place a piece of foam
in the can when the tester says, "Put it in."

Level 4, Match-to-Sample:
A client demonstrates Level 4 if, when given a
yellow can and a red box in randomly
alternated left-right positions, and is presented
randomly with a yellow cylinder and a red
cube, he/she consistently places a yellow
cylinder in the yellow can and a red cube in
the red box.

A simultaneous visual discrimination with
colour, shape, and size as relevant visual
cues.

A conditional visual-visual quasi-identity
discrimination with colour, shape, and size
as relevant visual cues

Level 5, Auditory Discrimination:
When presented with a yellow can and a red
box (in fixed positions), a client is required
to consistently place a piece of foam in the
appropriate container when the tester
randomly says, 'red box' or 'yellow can.'

Level 6, Auditory-visual Combined

Discrimination:

Same as Level 5, except the left-right

positioning of the containers is randomly

alternated.

A conditional auditory- visual discrimination
with pitch, pronunciation, and duration as
relevant auditory cues and position, colour
shape, and size as relevant visual cues

A conditional auditory-visual discrimination
with the same auditory cues as level 5, with
only colour, shape, and size as relevant
visual cues

Note : Reprinted with permission from Martin and Yu (2000).

22

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

A Printed Price

0.05

0.10

0.25

B Object/Coin

C Coin Combo

^'i^

r

m

K^

"^ ^ ^

z^:^ ^^i^ /s

fk

D Dictated
Price

'5 cents''

'10 cents'

'25 cents"

Figure 2. Three-stimulus classes with four members.

23

Experimenter

46 cm

o

()

O

Sample
stimulus

42 cm

O

Hole for edible

Petrle dish

Figure 3. Bristol board used to present sample and comparison stimuli. When the petri dish was
lifted, the hole for the edible was revealed.

24

Research Design

An AB within-subject design with multiple probes (Homer & Baer, 1978) was used. All
children demonstrated the DA relation at pretest (selecting a printed price after hearing the
dictated price), and therefore, the DA relation was used as an instrumental relation in our training
paradigm. See Figure 4 for the trained and emergent relations. The BA relation (matching a coin
to a printed price) was first taught to participants. When the BA relation was mastered, the
participants were taught the CA relation (matching coin combinations to a printed price). Tests
of all reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relations were conducted before and after training,
including the generalization tests with the parent. Throughout training, mastered relations were
reviewed, and various probes of unlearned relations that were measured in pretest, were
administered as a quasi-control. The purpose of these probes was to give an indication that the
training package was responsible for the learning of the two trained relations, and to test for the
emergence of increased performance of certain relations as a result of training.
Procedure

The training was conducted by the author, a Master of Arts candidate in Child and Youth Studies
who completed coursework in Applied Behavior Analysis, and has four years of clinical
experience with children with autism. For each child, the sessions were approximately 30 to 60
min in length, and were conducted two or three times per week. Prior to testing, the experimenter
took two to three sessions to establish rapport with the child. These sessions included playing
with the child using preferred toys and activities.

Preference assessment. The experimenter conducted a reinforcer preference assessment
with the child before each session by using items chosen during the rapport sessions that the
caregiver described as potentially reinforcing. These items included edibles and activities. The

25

'5 cents" "10 cents" "25 cents"
Dictated words

D

^. >^

1 — ^

^ — 1 —

5P lOP 25P

Coin combinations

c

Figure 4. The solid lines represent the trained relations and the dotted lines represent the
emergent (tested) relations.

26

brief preference assessment was an adaptation of the multiple stimulus without replacement
method (DeLeon & Iwata, 1 996). At the beginning of each session, each child was shown an
array of four items and was asked to pick one. After the child had chosen one item, the three
remaining items were randomly arranged and the experimenter asked the child to pick one again.
Throughout the session, the child was presented with a potential reinforcer (alternating between
two preferred items).

ABLA test. The Assessment for Basic Learning Abilities assessment was administered
(see Table 1 for ABLA levels and the types of discriminations required). Throughout the ABLA,
a response was followed by an error correction procedure. This procedure included a
demonstration of the correct response, a guided trial (e.g., hand over hand), and an opportunity
for an independent response. For each phase in the ABLA, the child was required to obtain 8
consecutive correct responses in order to move onto the next level. If there were 8 cumulative
errors, the failing criterion was met.
Pretest

Twelve relations were tested (AB, BA, BC, CB, AC, CA, AA, BB, CC, DA, DB, DC),
with 1 8 trials per relation, except for selected non identity relations that were tested with 9 trials
per relation. The number of trials was reduced at the request of the parent, and also to prevent
frustration and lack of motivation. These problems were more likely to occur during the
pretesting due to the absence of differential reinforcement. The following criterion was used for
a reduction in trials. If four or more errors occurred in the first nine trials, the testing was
terminated. If the participant had fewer than foiir errors in the first nine trials, then testing
continued to 1 8 trials. See Appendix E for the data sheets used for the presentation of each
relation. The test trials were randomized according to rules specified by Green (2001). These

27

included presenting the samples in an unsystematic order. More specifically, the same sample
was never presented on more than two consecutive trials. Also, the S+ comparison never
appeared in the same position in the comparison array for more than two trials consecutively.

Table 2 lists the relations and trial types presented in the pretest and posttest. The
experimenter waited for the attention of the participant (or prompted the participant by stating his
name) and said "look at this one". While holding the sample stimulus, the experimenter pointed
to the left, middle, and right section on the board and said "put with the same amount" or "where
does it go?" The experimenter made certain to place the sample stimulus in fi-ont of the child's
eyes/face when asking "where does it go", and then placed the stimuli in front of him, or in his
hands. A correct response was defined as the child reaching for the correct comparison stimulus.
An incorrect response was defined as the child reaching for the incorrect comparison stimulus.
Differential reinforcement for correct and incorrect responses was not provided during the pretest
phase. Instead, the experimenter said "Thank you" in a neutral voice after each trial. The
intertrial interval was the standard 3 to 5 seconds. To maintain responding throughout the pretest,
a preferred edible was given to the child on a variable time (VT) schedule of 90 seconds
(approximately every two or three trials). Independent of the child's matching performance,
according to Noro (2005), providing a preferred item approximately every three trials is
sufficient to encourage continued task engagement for the pretest. The length of the pretest
depended on the participant, but averaged from 3 to 5 sessions.
Training

A match-to-sample training procedure was used to teach BA (matching a coin to a printed
price) and CA (matching a set of pennies to a printed price), which were visual-visual
nonidentity relations (see Figure 4). Differential reinforcement was used during the fraining

28

Table 2

Relations that were pretested and posttested (using S+ and S-)

Relations Trial types

S± Sr

AA Al A2, A3

A2 A1,A3

A3 A1,A2

BB HI 32, 33

32 31,33

33 31, B2

CC CI C2,C3

C2 C1,C3

C3 C1,C2

AB Bl 32, 33

B2 31,33

33 31,32

BC CI C2,C3

C2 C1,C3

C3 C1,C2

BA Al A2, A3

A2 A1,A3

A3 A1,A2

CB 31 32,33

32 31,33

B3 31,32

AC CI C2,C3

C2 C1,C3

C3 C1,C2

CA Al A2,A3

A2 A1,A3

A3 A1,A2

DA Al A2, A3

A2 A1,A3

A3 A1,A2

DB Bl 32, 33

32 31,33

33 B1,B2

DC CI C2,C3

C2 C1,C3

C3 C1,C2

29

phase. Participants were reinforced for correct responses with verbal praise (e.g. "Good job!") as
well as a preferred edible or item. Incorrect responses were followed by removal of the board,
and presentation of the next trial. Mastery criterion for advancing to the posttest was at least 15
out of 1 8 correct trials for both B A and CA, with no more than one incorrect trial per relation.

After mastery of the two-choice match-to-sample (MTS) training, progression to a three-
choice was implemented. The training procedures for teaching the BA and CA relations were the
same. The multiple components used during each session are briefly described below:

a. The preference assessment (p.26) was administered at the beginning of each
session in order to identify reinforcers (either edibles or activities), to be used
during training;

b. The same procedure as in pretesting (p. 27) was used to ensure that participants
were attending to stimuli at the beginning of each trial. The experimenter said
"look at this one" while holding the sample stimulus, and then placing the
sample in front of the child, or in the child's hands;

c. Guidelines outlined by Green and Saunders (1998) concerning trial presentation
were followed as closely as possible, which was the same presentation used in
pretesting;

d. Initially, training involved two-choice match-to-sample (MTS) and within
stimulus prompting (Vause et al., 2005). Size fading of one comparison
stimulus was implemented (from 200% of its original size to its target size,
from big to small) (see Figure 5). The comparison stimulus served as both the
correct and incorrect comparison. The samples and the other comparison
stimulus remained at their target size. Mastery criterion for advancing to the

30

Class 1

Class 2

5 consecutive correct

3 consecutive errors

(100%) 0.05 (target stimulus)

(200%)

0.10

(starting stimulus)

Figure 5. Stimuli used for size fading with a two-choice MTS procedure. The starting stimulus
was the 0.05 printed price at 200% of the target size. After 5 consecutive correct responses, the
participant was presented with the 175% stimulus and was gradually faded to the target stimulus
at 100%. If the participant made 3 consecutive errors, the previous larger size was then
presented.

31

next step was five consecutive correct responses. The criteria for moving back a
step was three cumulative errors. We began with a two-choice MTS training
(including six steps), and when mastery criterion was met (i.e., five consecutive
correct responses at each step), a three-choice MTS training was implemented
(with another set of the same six steps).

Reinforcer discovery was used with each participant throughout the training
procedure (Koegel & Williams, 1980; Thompson & Iwata, 2000). Before each
trial and out of the child's sight, the experimenter placed a preferred edible or
item in the indentation under the correct comparison (see Figure 3). Instead of
placing the edible in fi-ont of the child or handing the edible to the child (indirect
reinforcement), the edible was revealed underneath the correct comparison
stimulus by the participant (direct reinforcement). For all participants, in
addition to reinforcer discovery, social and edible reinforcers were delivered
contingent upon correct responding, good sitting, and attending to stimuli.
Examples of social reinforcers were statements such as "good job," and "way to
go." Examples of edible reinforcers were popcorn, chips, and chocolate. These
immediate reinforcers were used to bridge the gap between responses and a
delayed reinforcer as part of a quasi-token economy. The tokens were used
during a few sessions with Participant 1, and were used during approximately
one quarter of the total sessions with Participant 2 and 3.
For the correction procedure, the experimenter removed the board following an
error. Then, a new trial began when the board was placed back on the table; the
experimenter modeled the correct response, provided hand-over hand guidance

32

to perform the response, and provided the child with an opportunity to make an
independent response. The hand-over-hand guidance of correct performance
appeared to provide social attention for all participants, and therefore, was
discontinued after approximately three sessions,
g. Response blocking was implemented occasionally either to interrupt or to

prevent an incorrect response. Response blocking was used during session 3 for
all participants, as well as being used during another 1 to 2 sessions. To
interrupt or prevent completion of errors, the experimenter put her hand on top
of the incorrect comparison to block an incorrect response and immediately
removed the board. In most cases, the experimenter took away the board
without response blocking, and proceeded with an error correction procedure.
h. For all participants, periodic probes of relations (e.g. CA, BC, DA, and DB)

were conducted before each training session, and occasionally after the training
session. For Participant 1, 2, and 3, we administered 11, 16, and 35 probes
respectively.
Additional Treatment Components for Individual Participants

a. When training was not progressing for Participant 1 , an informal error

analysis was conducted. This analysis examined the correct and incorrect
responses, with respect to position (left or right), comparison stimuli, and
sample stimuli. As a result of this analysis, faulty matching of the nickel to the
printed price (0. 1 0) was determined. Therefore, we used colour fading as an
extra-stimulus prompt (Green, 2001) during the two-choice and three-choice
MTS training, initially, to reduce faulty matching of the printed price (0.10) to

33

the nickel, a dark red colour was present around the sample stimulus (i.e., the
printed price, 0.05), and the matching comparison stimulus (i.e., enlarged
picture of the nickel). The printed price (0.10) was 200% less than its original
size, and the dime had an inch of foam attached to it, to make it a 3D stimulus,
and to exaggerate the difference between the two classes (i.e., 50 and 100
stimuli). The colour and 3D extra-stimulus prompts appeared to be beneficial;
however, when the colour and the 3D size were faded, Participant 1 continued
to make errors.

Given the fi-equent errors, an extra-stimulus auditory prompt was then used
simultaneously with colour fading, and 3D to 2D fading. During the two-
choice MTS procedure, size and colour fading were implemented as described
above. At the same time, the experimenter provided an auditory cue, (i.e., "put
with five cents", "ten cents", or "25 cents"), when presenting the respective
sample. This auditory cue proved beneficial, as the participant continued to
pass each step, while the colour, size, and 3D to 2D fading occurred.
Specifically, the colour around the printed price (0.05), and the pictiu-e of the
nickel was gradually faded to a lighter red, until finally the stimuli were
presented without any colour around them. The printed price (0.10) was also
gradually presented at a larger size until it reached its target size. The 3D dime
was gradually faded from an inch of foam to a dime without any foam
attached to it. When the participant passed the three-choice matching with the
auditory prompt alone, then the auditory prompt was faded until he reached
mastery criterion without any prompt. First, the auditory prompt was given at

34

a normal volume, and then gradually faded to a whisper, and then to no
auditory cue.

c. For Participant 3, reinforcer discovery no longer appeared to be a useful
component based on his facial expressions (e.g., blank stare) and behaviour
(e.g., turned away from potential reinforcer). Therefore, in replacement of
reinforcer discovery, stickers were given for him to place on a calendar
approximately every second correct response, as the stickers appeared to have
reinforcing value.

d. For Participant 3, faulty matching occurred with the printed price (0.05) and
the 10 pennies during the three-choice MTS procedure. As a result of success
in two-choice matching with the above stimuli, the two-choice matching was
reviewed following errors made with three choices. Moreover, periodic probes
of a two-choice MTS training were interspersed during the three-choice MTS
training, contingent upon errors. This procedure enabled the participant to
acquire more practice and encounter the sample more frequently.

Reviewing Mastered Relations. After mastery (at least 1 5 out of 1 8 correct responses with
no more than one error per stimulus-response relation) was achieved with both the B A and C A
relations, the participants were then required to complete one set of nine trials of BA, followed
by one set of nine trials of CA, with no errors. As in the pretest, no differential reinforcement
was used, rather each response was followed with "thank you" stated in a neutral voice. Also, to
maintain responding, an edible was presented on a variable time (VT) schedule of 90 seconds
independent of performance.

35

Post-test

Unlike the pretest, three extra relations (i.e., AD, BD, and CD) were added to include the
symmetry of the auditory relations (i.e., DA, DB, and DC). These relations were tested by using
a vocal word, which was projected from voice recorders as comparisons. The experimenter
recorded "five cents," "ten cents," and "25 cents," respectively on individual voice recorders.
She pressed the play button on each voice recorder in a randomized order, therefore presenting
each comparison successively as opposed to simultaneously. In total, there were 270 trials during
the posttest. See Figure 4 for a description of the relations trained and the possible emergent
relations. See Appendix E to see the sheets used for testing and training each relation.

Generalization probes. Probes with the generalization stimuli and setting were conducted
before and after training. They were conducted to ascertain if relations previously taught could
be demonstrated with a parent, in a second setting, without further training. Tests for four
relations were administered (AB, BC, CB, AC), with 9 trials per relation. Nine block trials were
used to lessen the demand placed on the child and parent. The generalization component was
conducted by the parent using the coins with the cash register. To approximate a more
naturalistic monetary exchange, the board and laminated printed prices were not used during this
component. The parent sat beside the child, and the cash register was placed in front of the child.
Similar to the tests for the AB relations (see Figure 4), the parent arranged three coins in front of
the child (i.e., the nickel, dime, and quarter). The parent then typed a price into the toy cash
register (i.e., 0.05, 0.10, or 0.25), pointed to the price and asked the child to "give me the same."
The child then responded by picking up one of the coins (out of three choices) and giving it to
his mother. To assess the BC relation, the three sets of pennies were presented in separate petri
dishes and the parent handed the child a single coin and said "put with the same." For the CB

36

relation, the single coins were placed in front of each petri dish, and the parent asked the child to
put each coin combination with "the same". The child responded by placing the coin
combination inside the petri dish with the corresponding single coin.
Reliability Assessments

A research assistant completed inter-observer reliability and treatment integrity
assessments for all participants by watching videotapes at a later time. For inter-observer
reliability (lOR) checks, an observer and a tester independently recorded the responses of the
participants. An agreement was scored if both persons recorded the same response (i.e., correct
or incorrect) on a given trial. A disagreement was scored if both persons recorded different
responses on a given trial.

Reliability assessments for all participants were conducted throughout each testing phase
(i.e., pretests, training, and posttests). Reliability assessments for Participant 1 were conducted
for 50% of pretest sessions, 44% of training sessions, and 60%) of posttest sessions. For
Participant 2, reliability assessments were conducted for 40% of pretest sessions, 43% of training
sessions, and 43% of posttest sessions. For Participant 3, reliability assessments were conducted
for 40% of pretest sessions, 33% of training sessions, and 40% of posttest sessions. Percentage
agreement scores between the experimenter and the second observer were calculated by dividing
the number of trials for which both observers scored the same response by the total number of
trials in a session. For all participants, percentage agreement scores ranged from 99%) to 100%).

Procedural reliability (POR) checks were conducted to ensure that key treatment
components were implemented by the tester (see POR sheets in Appendix E), and were
completed during the same sessions that lOR was calculated. Treatment components included
proper set-up of materials, appropriate verbal prompts, appropriate timing of administration of

37

reinforcers, and appropriate consequences for correct and incorrect responses. POR ranged from
99% to 100% for all participants for pretesting, training, and posttesting sessions.

Results

Participants 1, 2, and 3 completed a total of 20, 28, and 39 sessions, respectively. This
included pretest, training, posttest, and generalization sessions. For Participants 1 and 2, positive
tests of equivalence were demonstrated after 226 and 422 training trials, respectively. For
Participant 3, performance on one symmetric and one transitive relation emerged after 1, 004
training trials. Detailed results for each participant are given below.
Participant 1

Pretest. The pretest consisted of 18 trials per relation, with the exception of relations AC
and CB, which were scored out of nine trials. The reduction in trials was due to the parent's
request to begin training. Figure 6 shows data for the relations that were tested (DA, BA, AB,
CA, AC, DB, BC, CB, DC, AA, BB, and CC). Participant 1 's performance was perfect on the
DA task. He scored approximately 33% or below on tests for the four non-identity relations BA,
AC, DB, and CB. On the tests for the remaining four nonidentity relations (i.e., AB, CA, BC,
DC), percentage correct ranged from 44% to 61% (mean = 50%). The identity matching tasks
AA and BB were performed at chance level, and CC was at 56%.

Training. Recall that the BA and CA relations were established using the intervention
package (see p. 29-34). Mastery was achieved after nine training sessions, seven sessions for BA,
and three for CA. Figure 7 shows the results of BA fraining, DA review probes, and DB probes.
During the training, two DA review sessions (sessions two and five) were conducted. Participant
1 achieved 100% accuracy on both sessions, with 9 trials each session. Performance on the first
DB probe, implemented in the 4"' session of training BA, was 83% (an increase from 17%

Participant 1

38

100% 1

to

0}

75%

o
a.
m

»

"o

V

o 50% J
O

o
o>
c

§ 25%
a>

0%

DA AD BA AB CA AC DB BD BC CB DC CD AA BB CC

Relatbns Tested

Figure 6. Pretest and posttest results for Participant 1 . The dashed Hne indicates chance
performance.

D Pretest
â–  Posttest

T 100%

75%

BA Training
DB Probes
DA Review

Sessions

Figure 7. DB probe data and DA review data during and after training of BA for Participant 1.

39

accuracy in the pretest). In other words, midway through training BA, performance on the DB
relation was close to being intact (i.e., 83% accuracy). Interestingly, performance on the DB
probe was demonstrated to be intact before the training of BA was complete. Performance on the
DB relation then remained intact during the 6* 7'*', and 9**^ sessions, and also the posttest session.
Figure 8 shows that during the last session of CA training, the BC relation was probed and
demonstrated to be at 83% accuracy (5/6 correct trials). In contrast to the DB probe performance,
the BC performance did not fully emerge before the CA relation was demonstrated in training.
Note, however, that only one probe was conducted, and previous probes may have indicated
otherwise.

Posttest. For Participant 1, there were a total of 297 trials for the posttest (not including
the generalization posttest), and 1 8 trials were administered for each relation tested. The two
intact trained relations (i.e., DA and BA) were reviewed, and used to practice the trained
relations before posttesting the transitive relation (DB), and the symmetry of the transitive
relation (BD). Specifically, the experimenter practiced with relations that were directly linked to
the two untrained relations (i.e., review for DA and BA, followed by testing DB and BD). The
remaining relations were tested in the order of BA, CA, and followed by BC and CB relations for
the reasons stated above.

As shown in Figure 6, the nonidentity relations were at or above 89% accuracy during the
posttest, with the exception of the DC relation at 83%. Performance on the reflexive relations
emerged after the BA and CA relations were trained.

Generalization. There were a total of 126 trials for the pre-training and post-training tests
in the generalization tasks. As seen in Figure 9, the performance of Participant 1 improved
between the pre-training and post-training generalization tests. The pre training test scores

40

<f

N'V'b^<3<b'\<t>Q)

T 100%

25%

<2°

<5»

(/)

M

C

o

Q.
W
(U

q:

o

o
O

c

CL

• Steps passed for BA

â–  Steps Passed for CA
- Review BA

â–  BC Probe

Sessions

Figure 8. BC probes and BA review trials for Participant 1 during the training of CA.

100%

BC CB DC

Relations Tested (9-trial blocks)

Figure 9. Pre-training and post-training generalization tests for Participant 1 .

41

ranged from 22% to 67%.

During the first post-training generalization test. Participant 1 achieved an accuracy score
of 89% or higher on tests of the DC and AC relations. However, for the remaining three relations
(i.e., AB, BC, and CB), he scored at approximately chance level, with a mean of 37%. Due to
behavioural difficulties in the first post-training generalization test, a second generalization test
was administered. The failure to provide warning or advance notice of the change in the testing
location was likely a factor in his behavioural difficulties. His agitation may have affected his
performance, and the results may have been unreliable. During the second test, performance on
relations AB, BC, and AC were intact, but performance on the CB relation was at 78% accuracy.
Repeated testing may have increased performance on the tested relations, as performance
increased with the experimenter and then with the parent.
Participant 2

Pretest. All relations were pretested with 18 trials, except for relations CA, AC, BC, and
CB, which were tested with 9 trials. As shown in Figure 10, Participant 2 scored at chance level
or below on five nonidentity relations (i.e., BA, AB, AC, DB, and CB). Performance on BC and
DC relations were at 67% and 94%, respectively. Regarding relations that were targeted for
training, performance on the DA relation was at 89% accuracy, and the performance of the CA
relation appeared to be intact at 100%. The reflexive relations (i.e., AA, BB, and CC) differed
from one another at 94%, 67%, and 44%, respectively.

Training. Participant 2 received 10 sessions of BA training, and 6 sessions of CA
training. With performance on the DA relation intact, performance on the remaining target
relations (i.e., BA and CA) reached mastery criterion with the intervention package (see p. 29-
34). Performance on the CA relation appeared mastered at pretest, but when probed during the

42

100% 1

M

w

§ 75%

o.
w

50%

o

o
o>

I 25%

a.

0%

r-

r

r-

_J — — 1 ■

r-

D Pretest
â–  Posttest

DA AD BA AB CA AC DB BD BC CB DC CD AA BB CC

Relations Tested

Figure 10. Pretest and posttest data for Participant 2.

43

training of BA, performance ranging from 33% to 83% accuracy was shown to be highly
variable.

As shown in Figure 1 1 , the DA relation was reviewed throughout training and
performance remained near 100% accuracy, (ranging from 83% to 100%, mean = 92%). As
shown in Figure 12, performance on the BC relation was at 67% accuracy during pretest.
However, accuracy of performance on the BC relation dropped to 0% when training for CA
began, and then gradually increased back to 67%.

Posttest. For Participant 2, there were a total of 342 posttest trials (not including the
generalization posttest). All relations were tested (18 trials each), and performance on 10
nonidentity relations were at 89% accuracy or higher, except for performance on the BC relation
at 78% and performance on the CB relation at 67% accuracy. After training nonidentity relations,
associated reflexive relations emerged.

Generalization. There were a total of 72 trials for the pre-fraining and post-fraining
generalization tests. As shown in Figure 13, the performance of Participant 2 improved between
the two tests. The pre-training test scores ranged from 22% to 56% (mean = 36%). Post-fraining
results showed all relations at 100% accuracy, except for the performance on the AB relation at
89%. Interestingly, the equivalence relations (i.e., BC and CB) were intermediate during the
initial assessor's posttest, but rose to 100% with the parent.
Participant 3

Pretest. As shown in Figure 14, performance on the DA relation was intact and
performance on four nonidentity relations (DC, CA, AC, and CB) were at or below chance level.
Performance on the remaining nonidentity relations (i.e., BC, AB, and DB) were at 44%, 61%,
and 83% accuracy, respectively. Regarding relations that were targeted for fraining,

44

O)

c

T3
0)
(0
CO
01

Q.

(0

Q.

(U
*-»

W

12

10
8
6

4 H
2

n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I

100%

75%

-- 50%

(/}

0)
(0

c
o
a.
tn

I

o
O

•«-
o

a>

O)

CO

25% ^

0%

c

i

o

Pretest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Posttest

Sessions

steps passed for BA
Steps passed for CA
Review DA

Figure 11. DA review probes during training of BA and CA for Participant 2.

T 100%

Pretest 12 3 4 5

) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Posttest
Sessions

-•- steps passed for BA
-•- Steps passed for CA
-•- BC Probes

Figure 12. BC probe data for Participant 2 during the training of the CA relation.

45

100% 1

75%

50%

25%

0%

AB

BC

CB

AC

Relations Tested (9-trial blocks)

Figure 13. Pre-training and post-training generalization for Participant 2.

100% 1

M

<D
</>

o 75%
o.

V)

a:

*■•
O
0)

I-

o 50%

o
o

0)
Q.

0%

AB CA AC DB BD BC CB DC CD AA BB CC

Relations Tested

n Pretest
â–  Posttest

D Pretest
â–  Posttest

Figure 14. Pretest and posttest data for Participant 3.

46

performance on the BA relation was at 78%, and performance on the DA relation was intact.
Performance on the reflexive relations AA and BB were at 89% accuracy, and performance on
the CC relation was at 78%.

Training. The target relations (i.e., BA and CA) reached mastery criterion with the
intervention package (see p. 29-34). There was a total of 26 training sessions for Participant 3 (8
sessions for BA, and 18 for CA). As shown in Figure 15, performance on the CA relation was
highly variable throughout the training procedure. A similar pattern of variability was indicated
with performance on the BC probe, as seen in Figure 15. Performance on the BC probes
fluctuated throughout the training of CA, with scores ranging from 17% to 67% accuracy (mean
= 47%).

Posttest. There were a total of 378 trials for the posttest (including the generalization
posttest), and 18 trials were administered for each relation tested. As shown in Figure 14,
performance on seven nonidentity relations were at 89% accuracy or higher (DA, AD, BA, AB,
CA, DC, and CD). Performance on five nonidentity relations (DB, BD, BC, CB, and AC) ranged
from 44% to 83% accuracy (mean = 68%). Performance on the reflexive relations were at 89%
accuracy or higher, except for performance on the CC relation at 78%.

Generalization. Ninety trials were completed for the pre-training and post-training tests.

As shown in Figure 16, Participant 3 showed minimal improvement between the pre and
posttests. The pre-training generalization test scores ranged from 22% to 89% accuracy (mean =
44%). The post-fraining generalization test scores ranged from 33% to 100% accuracy (mean =
58%), with performance on the AB relation improving minimally, from 89% in pretest to 100%
in the posttest.

47

C

'ro

i_

I-

_c

â– o

<D
(O
(A
CO
Q.

(0
Q.

S
V)

12

10 ^

8
6
4
2

<^^'

T — n — r~i — I — n — i — i — i — n — i — n — i — n — i — i — i — n — i i i — r

Sessions

T 100% 1
75% S ^

M- CO

50% 0) o

CO

CO

^ CD

^ 25% S^ q:

0%

0)

o

o
a.

Steps passed for BA
Steps Passed for CA
BC Probes

Figure 15. BC probes during training of CA for Participant 3.

100%

AB

BC DC CB

Relations Tested (9-trial blocks)

n Pretest
â–  Posttest

AC

Figure 16. Pre and post generalization tests for Participant 3.

48

Discussion
Comparison to Other Studies

Similar to the results of past studies (e.g., Carr et al. 2000; LeBlanc et al., 2003;
McDonagh et al., 1984; Stoddard et al., 1989; Vause et al., 2005), two participants in the current
study demonstrated positive equivalence test outcomes. In accordance with past studies, the
participants did not demonstrate stimulus equivalence as it is defined by Sidman and Tailby
(1982), in that positive results did not occur on all tests of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity.
Specifically, there was some variability within and across participants in the emergence of
reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relations. For example, similar to LeBlanc et al., in some
instances, when a transitive relation emerged, the symmetric relations were not completely
intact. The performance of Participants 1 and 2 improved on many symmetric and transitive
relations. Participant 3 improved his performance on some of the symmetric relations and one of
the transitive relations. Interestingly, in the current study, the reflexive (identity) relations
emerged with Participant 1 and 2 after the non-identity relations were taught.

The present study used table top procedures comparable to LeBlanc et al. (2003) and
Vause et al. (2005), as these procedures may be easily implemented in a school setting or IBI
program. For example, when teaching children to match a single coin to coin combinations, the
instructor could use any skills already present in the child's repertoire, as well as teach one or
two relations in a three-choice match-to-sample procedure. It is important that the instructor test
for associated relations, as well as using at least three members in each class. The required
materials tend to be inexpensive, easy to make, and readily accessible. Further, using hands-on
materials, the procedures and components can be administered in a variety of ways that are

JJ<1-

49

individualized to the child. For example, preferred edibles can be handed to the child, real-life
stimuli can be used (e.g., pennies and nickels), and vocal praise can be
easily delivered by the instructor who is administering the procedures.

Using table-top procedures, similar to LeBlanc et al. (2003), the study attempted to teach
educational skills to children with autism. As mentioned previously, children with autism often
experience challenges in areas such as self-help and daily living skills (Matson et al., 1996).
Therefore, empirical research is needed to determine effective teaching strategies that are
specifically designed to teach adaptive skills and to help foster independence (Matson & Smith,
2008; Shipley-Benamou et al., 2002).
Extending Other Studies

Many-to-one structure. In the present study, the many-to-one training structure was
chosen in order to capitalize on the strengths of the participants, and foster the learning of
conditional discriminations. All participants had a history with numbers, and, therefore, with the
many-to-one training structure we were able to capitalize on the use of the printed price member.
In the present study, the printed prices were used as comparison stimuli for both trained relations
(i.e., BA and CA). This differs fi-om other studies (e.g., Carr et al., 2000; LeBlanc et al., 2003;
McDonagh et al., 1984; Stoddard et al., 1989; Vause et al., 2005), which used a linear training
method. Given the success of many studies using different training methods, certain training
structures may work better with specific individuals. Therefore, comparative studies, and
possibly large scale studies, are needed to determine if there is indeed a "best training method."
Evaluating different training structures, within and across participants, will help determine what
works best for different populations, for children at varying severity levels, and will likely aid in
capitalizing on the strengths of each child.

50

Probes. Unlike previous studies, the present study included periodic probes during
training. Probes of untrained relations were administered, as well as probes of mastered relations.
This was done for two reasons: a) to indicate whether the learning of certain relations was in fact
due to the training, and not due to another variable, and b) to determine when probed relations
emerged as a result of training. Regarding the latter point, interestingly, some probes (i.e.,
selecting the coin after hearing the dictated coin price (DB)) appeared to emerge before the
trained (linked) relations were taught, and other probes (i.e., selecting the set of pennies when
given a coin (BC)) were achieved after training. Unfortunately, probes were periodic, and,
therefore, a complete pattern of the emerging relations could not be depicted from the data
collected. In order to determine when untrained probes emerge, and to completely rule out the
influence of extraneous variables, collection of more frequent probes is needed. The effect of
additional probes adds more control to the study.

Generalization. A unique component of the present study was the generalization
component. In this study, we programmed for generalization by incorporating familiar stimuli
(i.e., coins and sets of pennies), and similar persons (parent rather than teaching) (Baer, Wolf, &
Risley, 1987). The current study demonstrated generalization with two participants with a parent
in a second setting, with similar stimuli (i.e., toy cash register). A focus on testing for
generalization is important because children with autism often experience difficulty in this area
(Green, 2001). Future research should continue to program and test for generalization, examine
the extent of specific programming needed, and test for maintenance of relations taught.

ABLA test. Similar to Vause et al. (2005), all participants in the present study passed
Level 6 of the ABLA (an auditory- visual discrimination), and also demonstrated the learning of
conditional nonidentity relations. In addition, all children had an auditory visual relation (i.e.,

51

selecting the printed price after hearing a dictated coin value) in their repertoire prior to training.
However, similar to Vause et al., visual-visual nonidentity relations were not tested with the
ABLA. Recent studies are suggesting the addition of a visual- visual nonidentity matching task to
the ABLA test, which appears to fit between visual identity matching and auditory- visual
nonidentity matching (Sakko, Martin, Vause, Martin, & Yu, 2004). Research indicates that
visual-visual matches are easier than auditory-visual matches, and identity matching is easier
than nonidentity matching (Cohen & Sloan, 2007; Green, 2001). Future studies may consider
using a discrimination learning test such as the ABLA to test for both visual-visual nonidentity
matching and auditory- visual matching prior to the pretest. This may aid the experimenter in
determining variables such as training structure and stimulus members to include, which
capitalize on an individual's strengths.
Explanations of Training Difficulties and Nonemergence of Relations

Faulty matching during pretesting and training. During the pretest, the complete sets of
identity relations were not demonstrated to be intact for all participants. Specifically, participants
demonstrated some identity relations that were in the low to intermediate range. This was
surprising given that all participants were able to demonstrate a visual-identity match on the
ABLA, and passed some visual- visual and auditory- visual nonidentity relations during pretest. It
is possible that the pretest scores for identity relations were attenuated due to the two-
dimensional nature of the stimuli and stimulus overselectivity. In support of this hypothesis, two
participants demonstrated relatively higher scores with the printed prices than with the coins. The
coins are very similar with respect to various properties (e.g., size, shape, and color) and,
therefore, stimulus overselectivity may have occurred. The participants did not appear to have

52

much experience or familiarity with the coins as opposed to the printed price, and they also
appeared to make more errors with the coins than with the printed prices.

Training. Similar to pretest, stimulus overselectivity may have played a role in the
prolonged training for participants. For example, for Participant 1, matching the printed price
(0.05) to a dime may have been due to a failure to discriminate between the two coins as they are
similar in shape, size, and colour. With training involving similar stimuli (i.e., the dime, nickel
and quarter, or the sets of pennies), additional training components such as within-stimulus and
extra stimulus prompt fading may be needed to help the participant discriminate better.

Variability in training CA for Participant 3. For Participant 3, performance during the
training of CA was highly variable and did not show the same gradual learning progression as
the other trained relation, BA. Throughout training, BC probes were also demonstrated to be
highly variable. Not surprisingly, performance on the BC and CB relations showed low to
intermediate emergence during posttest. These results occurred despite additional sets of review
trials for CA that occurred prior to posttest. One possible explanation for his variable
performance may have been difficulties with attention, which was often fleeting, even for objects
or activities that he requested.

Addition of extra stimulus auditory prompt for Participant I. An extra stimulus auditory
prompt was successfully used to match a nickel and dime to their corresponding printed prices,
and to teach a visual-visual nonidentity relation. Multiple components (e.g., colour fading) were
used with the auditory prompt to aid the participant in discriminating between two coins and
ultimately matching them to the corresponding printed price. To our knowledge, this is a unique
component which has rarely been used in teaching conditional relations to children with autism.

53

The first stqj of the auditory component could be seen as similar to the DB relation, as
the participant was given a coin while hearing the dictated price. However, this procedure
differed fi"om the DB relation, as the participant was asked to match a coin to a printed price
while hearing a dictated price, instead of choosing a coin based on a dictated price (the DB
relation). It is possible that the DB relation was inadvertently trained with the addition of the
auditory prompt, and may account for the emergence of DB in posttest.

Generalization. Interestingly, with Participant 2, his results during generalization were
considerably higher than posttest results. This may have been due to the mother's observed
instructional control, association with reinforcers, and years of experience working with him
(e.g., assisting him with homework).
Limitations

One limitation of the study was the small sample size. This study shows positive
preliminary findings, however, replication with additional participants is needed. Further, more
frequent probes of unlearned relations that are linked and unlinked to the trained relations would
increase internal validity. A third limitation was the absence of pretests for the symmetry of the
auditory relations (i.e., presenting the auditory stimuli as comparisons). This is necessary to
ensure that the emergence of the symmetric relations in posttest were not already present in the
participant's repertoire. Unfortunately, an alternative method (i.e., the use of the voice recorders
as comparison stimuli) for testing the symmetry of visual-auditory relations was not discussed
until well into training.

In addition, while the symmetry of the auditory relations was posttested, a potential
methodological limitation was that the auditory stimuli were not presented simultaneously for
comparison purposes (Sidman et al., 1985). However, despite the successive presentation of

sy.-'lf*-.-

'0 ;"â–  'iii-^n'jr u'^-::, "â– aAifii:.^u<' tit

54

stimuli, and the increased complexity in comparison to simultaneous presentation, (e.g.,
increased delay between presentation of discriminative stimuli and the participant's response),
the participants performed well. Future studies may consider this alternative testing method in
order to get some indication of the emergence of visual-auditory stimuli. Last, a
maintenance/follow-up session would have been advantageous to determine both the stability of
the relations taught as well as emergent relations.
Implications

Preliminary results of the current study suggest that stimulus equivalence, with the use of
table-top procedures, may be an effective tool to teach monetary skills to children with autism.
Stimulus equivalence has the potential to generate many more relations than are directly taught,
making it an efficient tool for learning. With proper programming, skills taught in one setting
may generalize to other settings. In addition to replicating the current study, other studies (Cuvo,
Veitch, Trace, & Konke, 1978; Gardill & Brower, 1996; McDonagh et al., 1984; Stith &
Fishbein, 1996; Stoddard et al., 1989) may examine the acquisition of more complex money
skills, including combinations of different coins and inclusion of monetary bills.

In general, having money skills, and the ability to generalize these skills in multiple
settings may help children to become more active participants within their community.
Specifically, depending on their individual repertoires, children may be able to exchange money
for preferred items, pay for food at restaurants, and/or shop for grocery items independently.
Conclusion

In summary, the present study demonstrated three main findings. First, it provided
preliminary evidence that monetary relations may be taught, using stimulus equivalence, to
school aged children with autism. Secondly, Participants 1 and 2 demonstrated positive

55

equivalence test outcomes, and Participant 3 demonstrated a symmetric and a transitive relation.
Thirdly, for two participants, generalization of learned skills to a second setting occurred.

Research is needed to further explore the use of stimulus equivalence technology as well
as other strategies in teaching money skills and other adaptive/educational skills to children with
autism. If proven effective, these strategies could be incorporated into IBI programs, school
programs, as well as in home settings.

56

References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Amtzen, E., & Holth, P. (2000). Equivalence outcome in single subjects as a fiinction of training

structure. Psychological Record, 50, 603-628.
Ayres, A. J. (1972). Sensory integration and learning disorders. Los Angeles: Western

Psychological Services.
Baer, Wolf, & Risley. (1987). Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior analysis.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 3 1 3-327.
Bimbrauer, J. S. & Leach, D. J. (1993). The Murdoch Early Intervention Program after 2 years.

Behaviour Change, 10, 63-74.
Bryson, S.E., Rogers, J.S., & Fombonne, E. (2003). Autism Spectrum Disorders: Early detection,

intervention, education, and psychopharmacological management. Canadian Journal of

Psychiatry, 48, 506-516.
Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & Mcllvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes in

individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

Behavior, 7^, 101-114.
Cohen, H., Amerine-Dickens, M., & Smith, T. (2006). Early intensive behavioral treatment:

Replication of the UCLA model in a community setting. Journal of Developmental &

Behavioral Pediatrics, 27, 145-155.
Cohen, M. J., & Sloan, D. L. (2007). Visual supports for people with autism: A guide for parents

and professionals. Bethesda, MD, US: Woodbine House.

57

Cowley, B. J., Green, G., & Braunling-McMorrow, D. (1992). Using stimulus equivalence

procedures to teach name-face matching to adults with brain injuries. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 25, 461-475.
CuUinan, V. A., Barnes, D., Hampson, P. J., & Lyddy, F. (1994). A transfer of explicitly and

nonexplicitly trained sequence responses througji equivalence relations: An experimental

demonstration and connectionist model. Psychological Record, 44, 559-585.
Cuvo, A. J., Veitch, V. D., Trace, M. W., & Konke, J. L. (1978). Teaching change computation

to the mentally retarded. Behavior Modification, 2, 531-548.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for

assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-533.
Eikeseth, S., Smith, T., Jahr, E., & Eldevik, S. (2002). Intensive behavioral treatment at school

for 4 to 7 year old children with autism: A 1 year comparison controlled study. Behavior

Modification, 26, 49-68.
Eikeseth, S., Smith, T., Jahr, E., & Eldevik, S. (2007). Outcome for children with autism who

began intensive behavioral treatment between ages 4 and 7: A comparison controlled

study. Behavior Modification, 31, 264-278.
Filipek, P. A., Accardo, P. J., Baranek, G. T., et al. (1999). The screening and diagnosis of

autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 439-84,
Fombonne, E. (2005). The changing epidemiology of autism. Journal of Applied Research in

Intellectual Disabilities, 18, 281-294.
Frea, W. D., & Vittimberga, G. L. (2000). Behavioral interventions for children with autism. In

Austin, J. (Ed), Carr, J. E. (Ed). Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 247-273).

Reno, NV, US: Context Press.

58

Galizio, M., Stewart, K. L., & Pilgrim, C. (2001). Clustering in artificial categories: An

equivalence analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 609-614.
Garcia Garcia, A., Bomez Bujedo, J., Guierrez Dominguez, M. T., & Puch Echegaray, A.

(2001). Formation and expansion of equivalence classes applied to the treatment of an

autistic child. Andlisis y Modificacion de Conducta, 27, 649-669.
Gardill, C. M., & Browder, D. M. (1995). Teaching stimulus classes to encourage independent

purchasing by students with severe behavior disorders. Education and Training in Mental

Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 254-264.
Garfin, D. G. (1988). Validity and reliability of the Childhood Autism Rating Scale with autistic

adolescents. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 367-378.
Gast, D. L., VanBiervliet, A., & Spradlin, J. E. (1979). Teaching number-word equivalences: A

study of tiansfer. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 524-527.
Gillian, T. (1990). Adolescence and early adulthood (1): The needs of the more able young adult.

In Ellis, K (ed). (1990). Autism: Professional perspectives and practice. Therapy in

practice series, 17 (pp. 78-104). Boca, Raton Florida, Chapman & Hall.
Green, G. (1996). Early behavioral intervention for autism: What does research tell us? In

Catherine Maurice (Ed) Behavioral Intervention for Young Children with Autism: A

manual for Parents and Professionals, (pp. 29-44). Texas: Pro-Ed
Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in stimulus

control technology. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 72-85.
Green, G., Brennan, L. C, & Fein, D. (2002). Intensive behavioral treatment for a toddler at high

risk for autism. Behavior Modification. 26, 69-102.

59

Green, G. & Saunders, R. R. (1998). Stimulus Equivalence. In Lattal & Perone (Ed.), Handbook

of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior (pp. 229-261). New York, Plenum

Press.
Greenway, D. E., Dougher, M. J., & Wulfert, E. (1996). Transfer of consequential functions via

stimulus equivalence: Generalization to different testing contexts. Psychological Record,

46, 131-143.
Guercio, J. M., Podolska-Shroeder, H., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2004). Using stimulus equivalence

technology to teach emotion recognition to adults with acquired brain injury. Brain

Injury, 18, 593-601.
Harris, S. L., Handleman, J. S., Gordon, R., Kristoff, B., & Fuentes, F. (1991). Changes in

cognitive and language functioning of preschool children with autism. Journal of Autism

and Developmental Disorders, 21, 281-290.
Hayes, S. C, Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-

Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, US: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum.
Hayes, S. C, & Hayes, L. J. (1992). Verbal relations and the evolution of behavior analysis.

American Psychologist, 11, 1383-1395
Homer, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple

\id&Q\m.Q. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189-196.
Hoth, P., & Amtzen, E. (2000). Reaction times and the emergence of class consistent

responding: A case for precurrent responding? Psychological Record, 50, 305-337.

60

Howard, J.S., Sparkman, C. R., Cohen, H. G., Green, G., & Stanislow, H. (2005). A comparison

of intensive behavior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism.

Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 359-383.
Innis, A., Lane, S. D., Miller, E. R., & Critchfield, T. S. (1998). Stimulus equivalence: Effects of

a default-response option on emergence of untrained stimulus relations. Journal of the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 87-102.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217-250.
Kerr, N., Meyerson, L., & Flora, J. A. (1977). The measurement of motor, visual, and auditory

discrimination skills. Rehabilitation Psychology, 24 (Monograph issue), 95-1 12.
Koegel, R. L., & Williams, J. A. (1980). Direct versus indirect response-reinforcer relationships

in teaching autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 537-547.
LeBlanc, L. A., Miguel, C. F., Cummings, A. R., Goldsmith, T. R., & Carr, J. E. (2003). The

effects of three stimulus-equivalence testing conditions on emergent US geography

relations of children diagnosed with Autism. Behavioral Interventions, 18, 279-289.
Liss M. et al. (2001). Predictors and correlates of adaptive fimctioning in children with

developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 219-230.
Lord, C, Rutter, M., DiLavore, P. D., & Risi, S. (2001). Autism Diagnostic Observation

Schedule. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Lord, C, Storoschuk, S., Rutter, M., & Pickles, A. (1993). Using the ADI-R to diagnose autism

in preschool children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 14, 234-252.
Lovas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in

young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3-9.
Lovaas, O. I., Ackerman, A., Alexander, D., Firestone, P., Perkins, M., & Young, D. B. (1981).

Teaching developmentally disabled children: The ME Book. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

0c

.p-z 'â– 

vl-!Wq

61

Mandell, C. C. (1997). Stimulus equivalence and meaning: The influence of verbal behavior.

Mandell, Charlotte (Ed); McCabe, AUyssa (Ed). (1997). The problem of meaning:

Behavioral and cognitive perspectives. Advances in psychology, (pp. 81-116).

Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-HoUand/Elsevier Science Publishers.
Mandell, C, & Sheen, V. (1994). Equivalence class formation as a function of the

pronounceability of the sample stimulus. Behavioural Processes, 32, 29-46.
Martin, G. L., & Yu, D. (2000). Overview of research on the Assessment of Basic Learning

Abilities Test Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 7, 10-36.
Matson, J. L., Benavidez, D. A., Compton, L. S., Paclawskyi, T., & Baglio, C. (1996).

Behavioral treatment of autistic persons: A review of research from 1980 to the present.

Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 433-465.
Matson, J. L., & Smith, K. R. (2008). Current status of intensive behavioral interventions for

young children with autism and PDD-NOS. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2,

60-74.
McConachie, H., & Diggle, T. (2007). Parent implemented early intervention for young children

with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical

Practice, 13, 120-129.
McDonagh, E. C, Mcllvane, W. J., & Stoddard, L. T. (1984). Teaching coin equivalences via

matching to sample. Applied Research In Mental Retardation, 5, 177-197.
McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O.I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism

who received early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal on Mental

Retardation, 4, 359-372.

62

Melchiori, L. E., de Souza, D. G., & de Rose, J. C. (2000). Reading, equivalence, and

recombination of iinits: A replication with students with different learning histories.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 97-100.
Ministry of Children and Youth Services. (2004, September). Preschool Intervention Program

For Children with Autism Program Guidelines. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from

http://www.children.gov.on.ca/NR/CS/Autism/En-PIP-Notice-Guidelines.pdf
Ministry of Children and Youth Services. (2007, October). Services and programs available for

children and youth with autism. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from

http://www.gov.on.ca/children/english/programs/needs/autism/STEL01_136681.html
Noro, F. (2005). Using stimulus equivalence procedures to teach receptive emotional labeling to

a child with autistic disorder. Japanese Journal of Special Education, 42, 483-496.
Paivio, A., & Yarmey, A. D. (1965). Abstractness of the common element in mediated learning.

Psychonomic Science, 8, 231-232.
Pepperberg, I. M. (2006). Ordinality and inferential abilities of a grey parrot (psittacus erithacus).

Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 205-216.
Plaud, J. J., Gaither, G. A., Weller, L. A., Bigwood, S. J., Barth, J., & von Duvillard, S. P.

(1998). Rational -emotive behavior therapy and the formation of stimulus equivalence

c\d&SQS. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 597-610.
Rehfeldt, R. A., & Root, S. (2004). The generalization and retention of equivalence relations in

adults with mental retardation. Psychological Record, 54, 173-186.
Remington, B. et al. (2007). Early intensive behavioral intervention: Outcomes for children with

autism and their parents after 2 years. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 112,

418-438.

63

Rosales-Ruiz, J., Eikeseth, S., Duarte, A., & Baer, D. M. (2000). Verbs and verb phrases as
instructional stimuli in the control of stimulus-equivalence effects. The Psychological
Record, 50, 173-187.

Rutter, M., Le Couteur, A., & Lord, C. (2003). ADI-R: The Autism Diagnostic Interview-
Revised. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Sakko, G., Martin, T. L., Vause, T., Martin, G. L., & Yu, C. T. (2004). Visual-visual nonidentity
matching assessment: A worthwhile addition to the Assessment of Basic Learning
Abilities Test. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 109, 44-52.

Sallows, G. O., & Graupner, T. D. (2005). Intensive behavioral treatment for children with
autism: Four-year outcome and predictors. American Journal on Mental Retardation,
110. 417-438.

Sato, T. (2001). The function of common naming and establishment of stimulus
equivalence. Japanese Journal of Behavior Analysis, 16, 2-21.

Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training structure effects on
stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 117-
137.

Saunders, R. R., & McEntee, J. E. (2004). Increasing the probability of stimulus equivalence
with adults with mild mental retardation. Psychological Record, 54, 423-435.

Saunders, K. J., Saunders, R. R., Williams, D. C, & Spradlin, J. E. (1993). An interaction of
instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: Extending the analysis of
equivalence. Psychological Record. Special Issue: Stimulus equivalence, 43, 125-1 AA.

64

Saunders, R. R., Wachter, J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control

over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95-115.
Schopler, E., Lansing, M., & Waters, L. (1983). Individualized assessment and treatment for

autistic and developmentally disabled children: Vol. 3. Teaching activities for autistic

children. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). The Childhood Autism Rating Scale. Los

Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Schusterman, R. J. & Kastak, D. (1993). A California sea lion (zalophus califomianus) is capable

of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823-839.
Shipley-Benamou, R., Lutzker, J. R., & Taubman, M. (2002). Teaching daily living skills to

children with autism through instructional video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 4, 166-177.
Shriver, M. D., Allen, K. D., & Mathews, J. R. (1999). Effective assessment of the shared and

unique characteristics of children with autism. The School Psychology Review, 28, 538-

58.
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory- visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing

Research, 14, 5-13.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74. 127-146.
Sidman, M., Cresson, O., & Willson-Morris, M. (1974). Acquisition of matching to sample via

mediated transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 261-273.

-£Ti Id:: "

65

Sidman, M., Kirk, M., & Willson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by

conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43,

21-42.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An

expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37,

5-22.
Smith, T., Eikeseth, S., Klevstrand, M., & Lovaas, 0. 1. (1997). Intensive behavioral treatment

for preschoolers with severe mental retardation and pervasive developmental disorder.

American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102, 238-249.
Smith, T., Groen, A. D., Wynn, J. W. (2000). Randomized trial of intensive early intervention for

children with pervasive developmental disorder. American Journal on Mental

Retardation, 105, 269-285.
Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Ciccetti, D. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines,

Minn: American Guidance Service.
Stith, L. E., & Fishbein, H. D. (1996). Basic money-counting skills of children with mental

retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 185-201.
Stoddard, L. T., Brown, J., Hurlbert, B., Manoli, C, & Mcllvane, W. J. (1989). Teaching money

skills through stimulus class formation, exclusion, and component matching methods:

Three case studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 413-439.
Stromer, R., & Mackay, H. A. (1992). Spelling and emergent picture-printed word relations

established with delayed identity matching to complex samples. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 25, 893-904.

66

Stromer, R., & Osborne, G. J. (1982). Control of adolescents' arbitrary matching-to-sample by

positive and negative stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of

Behavior, 37, 329-348.
Stromer, R., & Stromer, J. B. (1990). The formation of arbitrary stimulus classes in matching to

complex samples. The Psychological Record, 40, 51-66.
Thompson, R., & Iwata, B. A. (2000). Response acquisition under direct and indirect

contingencies of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 1-11.
Trace, M. W., & Cuvo, A. J., & Criswell, J. L. (1977). Teaching coin equivalence to the mentally

retaided. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 85-92.
Valero, L., & Luciano, M. C. (1992). Control factors in the appearance of symmetry in

equivalence relationships: Importance of stimulus function. International Journal of

Methodology and Experimental Psychology, 13, 243-259.
Vause, T., Martin, G. L., Yu, C. T., Marion, C, & Sakko, G. (2005). Teaching equivalence

relations to individuals with minimal verbal repertoires: Are visual and auditory- visual

discriminations predictive of stimulus equivalence? The Psychological Record, 55, 197-

218.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition. San Antonio,

TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wirth, O., & Chase, P. N. (2002). Stability of functional equivalence and stimulus equivalence:

Effects of baseline reversals. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 29-

47.
Yamazaki, M. (1996). Basic comprehension of the value of money for a child with autism.

Japanese Journal of Special Education, ii, 1-13.

67

Zygmont, D., Lazar, R., Dube, W. V., & Mcllvane, W. J. (1992). Teaching arbitrary matching

via sample stimulus-control shaping to young children and mentally retarded individuals.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 109-117.

68

Appendix A

Consent Form

Research Project Title: Teaching Monetary Skills to Children with Autism using Stimulus

Equivalence
Principal Investigator: Danielle Savona (M.A. student at Brock University)

Faculty Supervisor: Dr. Tricia Vause (Professor in Child and Youth studies at Brock)

Sponsor for Research: Hamilton/Niagara Regional Autism Initiative (pending clearance)

This description, a copy of which will be left with you for your records and reference, is only
part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is
about and what participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something
mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel fi"ee to ask. Please take the
time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information.

What is the purpose of the study?

We are interested in teaching practical skills to children with autism and understanding more
about how children with autism learn best. We will be using a state of the art teaching
technology called stimulus equivalence to teach money skills. Your child will be shown a variety
of stimuli (e.g., coins) in which he or she will be asked to match items that go together. These
teaching procedures have the potential for quick learning of valuable skills, which would be
useful in everyday settings.

What does the project consist of and how long will the study take?

If you give consent for your child to take part in this project, we will:

• Meet with your child, to find out what he or she likes, and help him or her feel at ease
with a new person

• Conduct direct assessments (e.g., test of nonverbal intelligence) and indirect assessments
(e.g., a parent interview that examines your child's daily living skills; the tests will
involve yourself, your child, and possibly a therapist, in order to gather information
regarding diagnosis, intellectual, and adaptive functioning

• Assess your child's ability to imitate and make basic visual and auditory discriminations

• Teach your child a variety of different money relations

• Schedule 30 minute to one-hour sessions at your convenience, two to three times per
week. Altogether, the study will take about 36 hours of you and your child's time.

• Videotaping may take place at any point during this study to aid in treatment integrity
and reliability.

What personal health information of my child will be accessed by the research staff?

The researcher will access, either fi-om yourself or from agency records (if applicable) the age,
diagnosis, level of functioning, previous intellectual and adaptive behavior assessments, physical
and sensory difficulties, and present curriculum and skill development.

69

Will my child's personal information be kept confidential?

All information will be kept confidential and stored in a locked office. Only the research staff
will have access. Any presentations, reports, or publications about the project will not contain
any identifying information. No information that discloses your identity will be released or
published without consent unless required by law. The information will be kept for up to five
years after the completion of the study and will then be destroyed in a confidential manner.

What are the risks and benefits in taking part in the study?

The procedures used in this study present no risks to the participant beyond what he/she might
encounter in everyday activities.

Participants will benefit directly in that we will determine your child's ability to imitate and
make basic motor, visual, and auditory discriminations. This information will be usefiil for
improving the way your child is taught new skills. If applicable, with your permission, this
information will be shared with authorized clinical staff

More importantly, your child has the potential to learn a variety of new money relations, which
could be usefial in settings outside of the home.

Finally, our experience in past studies is that participants typically enjoy the one-to-one
interactions during research sessions.

Will I receive the results of the study?

If you wish to be informed of the results, please check YES in the appropriate box at the end of
this form and we will send you a summary of the purpose of the study, general findings, as well
as information that we learned about your child (e.g., what tasks he or she should work on,
preferred activities) within 3 months after the completion of the study.

Is there any payment or cost for participating?

No. There is no payment or cost for participating in this research project.

Is participation voluntary?

Participation is voluntary. Whether or not you give consent for your child to take part in the
study will in no way affect any services that you or your child may be receiving now or in the
fiature. Moreover, even after you give consent, you can stop any time and for any reason by
simply calling the principal investigator listed at the end of the consent form.

Lastly, the cooperation of your child to continue in this study (e.g., their willingness to come to a
session and to work with the research project staff) will be monitored throughout the study. If at
any time your child does not want to participate, that decision will be respected and the session
will be cancelled/rescheduled. If you feel that your child is unable to communicate this to us, we
will rely on you to let us know if and when to stop the sessions. If this happens on a continual
basis (e.g., several times in a row), we will accept this as a possible indication that your child
does not wish to continue and will discontinue his or her participation from the project. Of
course, we will discuss this with you before the decision is made.

70

Participant Withdrawal

Withdrawal from the study could entail the child discontinuing participation, and it could
also entail a request of the parent to withdraw the child's information. The parent has a right to
withdraw the child's information at any time. If the decision is made to terminate participation,
the parent will let the principal investigator know by verbal consent whether the data that was
collected to that point can be included in the study.

Will I be contacted in the future for other studies?

The results of this research may lead to other related studies in the future that may be beneficial
to your child. Please check the appropriate box at the end of this form if you would like to be
contacted directly by the researchers in the future about other studies.

Signing the Consent Form

Signing the following page of this Project Description and Consent Form indicates that you have
understood to your satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research project and
agree for your child to participate. In no way does this waive your legal rights nor release the
researchers, sponsors, or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities.
You are free to withdraw from the study at any time, and/or refrain from answering any
questions you prefer to omit, without prejudice or consequence. Your continued participation
should be as informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification or
new information throughout your participation. The Research Ethics Officer can be contacted at
mailto: reb@brocku.ca or (905) 688-5550 ext. 3035, and can provide responses to questions
about the research participant's rights.

Principal Investigator:
Faculty Supervisor:

Danielle Savona
ds05on@brocku.ca
Dr. Tricia Vause
tvause@brocku.ca

Phone: (905) 688-5550, ext. 3347
Phone: (905) 688-5550, ext. 3559

Signatures

I

(Parent/Guardian - please print your name)

_, hereby:

71

consent to my participation in completing the following assessments for my child: the
ADI-R, the CARS, and the VABS.

• ADIR: The Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) is designed to establish
whether a diagnosis of ASD is appropriate. The interview is approximately 90
minutes, and is administered to a caregiver who is familiar with the child's behaviour
and his or her developmental history. The interview focuses on three domains of
functioning: (a) language/communication, (b) social interaction, and (c) restricted,
repetitive and stereotyped behaviours and interests.

• CARS: Child Autism Rating Scale (CARS) is a 15 item screening tool for autism
which is scored using direct observations of the child as well as parent report. It
includes items such as relating to people, adaptation to change, verbal communication
and visual motor imitation. The scale takes approximately 20 to 30 min. to administer.
The overall score distinguishes children with autism in the mild to moderate range
from children in the moderate to severe range.

• VABS: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) is a standardized test that is
administered in a semi-structured interview format to a primary caregiver. This is an
indirect test that measures quantitative impairments in adaptive behavior for
individuals between birth and 90 years. There are four domains in this scale including
communication (expression and receptive), daily living skills, socialization and motor
skills.

n consent to a researcher working with my child to complete adaptive functioning
assessments.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -Third Edition (WISC) contains
13 subtests that contain a Verbal Scale, a Performance Scale and a Full Scale. This test
includes information, similarities, arithmetic, vocabulary, comprehension, digit span, picture
completion, coding, picture arrangements, block design, object assembly, symbol search and
mazes.

The Assessment for Basic Learning Abilities test (ABLA) has 5 levels which involve a
variety of tasks such as imitation, and discrimination skills with a variety of objects.

â–¡ consent to 's participation in this study.

{please print child's name)

jr

72

By giving consent I allow the research project staff to:

• Work with my child in 2 to 3 one-to-one sessions per week, each session lasting 30 minutes to 1 hour for
approximately 36 hours in total.

• Conduct diagnostic and adaptive functioning assessments that involve my child, me, and possibly a
therapist.

• To obtain personal health information, including: age, diagnosis, level of functioning, previous
intellectual and adaptive behavior assessments, physical and sensory difficulties, and information regarding
the child's past and present curriculum and skill development from either myself or the agency records.

• Videotape my child, if necessary, in order to ensiu-e that procedures are carried out as they should be.
Videotapes will be viewed by project staff only, and will be kept in a locked office. They will be destroyed
within one year from the date that your child begins participation in the study.

• Include my child's results in publications, reports, and talks, so that others may learn from this project.
The identity of my child, however, will not be disclosed.

• Ask whether the data that was collected thus far can be included in the study, if I decide to terminate
participation from the study

I understand that I can revoke or amend this consent at any time and for any reason. The
consent will otherwise remain in effect for a period of 12 months from the date it is received.

Please check YES or NO for the following items:

YES NO

• I would like to receive the results of this study.

I allow the researchers to share my child's results with authorized clinical staff. (This
information would be shared with school staff that is familiar with the child and for the
child's benefit).

The researchers may contact me directly for possible future related studies.

Signature of Parent/Guardian

DATE

Signature of Researcher/Delegate

Date

NAME OF
RESEARCHER/DELEGATE

Please return all 4 pages of this Project Description and Consent to Participation Form in the
enclosed stamped envelope to the principal investigator. Keep the extra copy for your records.

Thank you for cooperation.

This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance though the REB (file #06-087). This study involves research and the
child is being invited to participate in this project. The prospective research participant (or parent):
I I has read and understood the relevant information

I I understands that he or she may ask questions in the future

I I indicates free consent for their child to research participation by signing the research consent form

^ v^ /

73

Appendix B
Assent Form
Title of Study: Teaching Money Skills to Children with Autism
Purpose of the study

We are asking you to be part of our study so we can find out how children like you learn best. We would
like to teach you how to match coins such as nickels and dimes. Diiring our time together, I will ask you
to match different types of money to each other. Sometimes, you will get a toy or a snack for good
behavior, as well as for correct choices. This will be similar to something you might do at school. We
may also videotape you for some of the sessions.

This study is confidential. That means no one can know what you say or do during this study except the
members of our research team. If, however, you let us know about something that caused us to worry
about your safety, we may have to report this information.

Nobody will be angry or upset if you do not want to be in the study. We are discussing the study with
your parents and you can talk to them about it too. If you agree to be in the study, you can stop at any
time if you choose.

I was present when read this form and gave his/her verbal

assent.

Name of person obtaining assent

Signature Date

Note : This will be adapted based on the level of disability.

74

Appendix C
ABLA Data Sheets

SUBJECT

TESTER

OBSERVER

1

DATE \

Instructions: If response is correct, circle trial number. If response is incorrect, place x on trial number. Continue to place

Xs for incorrect responses on the lines below until the student corrects the error. Upon correction, place a check mark on

1 the next line below, and then move on to the next trial. II

ASK, "WHERE DOES IT GO?"
Level 1 (Imitation) Passing criterion includes 8 correct trials in a row as follows:

- 4 trials with foam + box - 4 trials with foam + can

Notes

1

2
1

2

2

2

3

2

3

4

2

4

5

2

5

6

2
6

7

2
7

8

2
8

9

2
9

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

2

3
2

1
3

3
3

1
4

3
4

1
5

3

5

1
6

3
6

1
7

3

7

1
8

3
8

1
9

3
9

2

4

Passing criterion:

8 consecutive correct
responses.

Failing criterion:

8 cumulative incorrect
rcspKinscs.

Le

veil

(Pos

ition

)

CA

N

A]

^DB

OX

REM

[AIN

ST;^

lBLE

Notes

75

Ask, "Where does it go?"

Correct container is yellow can.

1

2
1

2

2
2

3

2
3

4

2
4

5

2
5

6

2
6

7

2
7

8

2
8

9

2
9

1

3

1

1

3

1

1
2

3
2

1
3

3
3

1
4

3
4

1

5

3
5

1
6

3
6

1

7

3

7

1

8

3
8

1
9

3
9

2

4

Passing critcrioa:

8 consecutive correct
re^xinses.

Failing critcrioa:

8 cumulative incorrea
responses.

'L ' AND 'R ' INDICA TE CORRECT PLACEMENT OF CAN
Level 3 (Visual) ^^^ „^^^^ ^^^ .^ g^,„

Correct response is foam in can

Notes

L

1

R

2

L
3

L
4

R

5

L
6

R

7

R

8

L
9

L

1

R

1
1

R

1
2

L

1
3

R

1
4

L

1

5

L

1
6

R

1
7

L

1
8

R

1
9

R

2

76

L

2

1

L

2
2

R

2
3

R

2
4

L

2
5

R

2
6

L

2
7

R

2
8

L

2
9

R

3

R

3

1

L

3
2

R

3
3

L

3
4

L

3
5

R

3
6

L

3
7

R

3
8

R

3
9

L

4

Passing criterion:

8 consecutive correct
responses.

Failing criterion:

8 cumulative incorrect
responses.

'L' AND 'R' INDICATE CORRECT PLACEMENT OF CAN

- 'b' indicates to present little red box
Level 4 (Matching)

- 'C' INDICATES TO PRESENT SMALL CYLINDER

Notes

Ask, "Where does it go?"

R

c

1

L
c

2

R
b

3

L
b
4

R
c

5

R
b
6

L

c

7

L
b
8

R

b
9

R

c

1

L

b

1
1

L

c

1
2

R

c

1
3

R

b

I
4

L

c

1
5

L

b

1
6

R

B

1
7

L

b

i
8

R

c

1
9

L

c

2

77

R

b

2
1

R

c

2
2

L

b

2
3

L

c

2
4

R

c

2
5

_

_

L

b

2
6

R

b

2
7

L

c

2
8

L

b

2
9

R

c

3

L

c

3
1

R

b

3
2

L

b

3
3

L

c

3
4

R

c

3
5

_

R

b

3
6

R

C

3

7

L

b

3
8

R

b

3
9

L

c

4

8 consecutive correct
responses.

Failing criterion:

8 cumulative incorrect
responses.

Level 6 (Auditory- '^' "^^ ^^' ^^ICATE CORRECT PLACEMENT OF CAN
Visual)

Say, "Red Box" (RB) or "Yellow Can" (YC)

Notes U

R

Y
C

1

R

R
B

2

L

Y
C

3

L

R
B

4

L

Y
C

5

R

Y
C

6

R

R
B

7

L

R
B

8

R

Y
C

9

L

Y
C

1

R

R
B

1
1

R

Y
C

1
2

L

R
B

1
3

R

R
B

1
4

L

Y
C

1
5

R

R
B

1
6

L

R
B

1
7

L

Y
C

1
8

L

R
B

1
9

R

Y
C

2

78

Y
C

2
1

R

R
B

2
2

L

R
B

2
3

R

R
B

2
4

R

Y
C

2
5

L

Y
C

2
6

_

L

R
B

2

7

R

Y
C

2
8

R

R
B

2
9

L

Y
C

3

R

Y
C

3

1

L

R
B

3
2

L

Y
C

3
3

R

R
B

3
4

L

R
B

3

5

R

Y
C

3
6

L

Y
C

3

7

R

Y
C

3
8

L

R
B

3
9

R

R
B

4

Passing criterion:

8 consecutive correct
responses.

Failing criterion:

8 cumulative incorrect
responses.

Additional Session Notes

79

Appendix D
POR Sheets for the ABLA

1 SUBJECT 1 TESTER

|pOR

DATE 1

COPY (CIRCLE ONE) TESTER /
POR

Predictive Task Column #

LEVEL 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1
1

1 I

2 3

1

4

1
5

1
6

1
7

1
8

1
9

2

Setup

Correct position of apparatus; correct

manipulation.

Demonstration

After error correction or every trial.

Guided Trial

Correct Auditory Cue from
Experimenter
Independent Response

Verbal/Physical Prompt Provided
if participant does not respond after lOs

If Correct - Praise and Edible

If Incorrect - "No", then on to
Demonstration

LEVEL 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1
1

1 1

2 3

1
4

1
5

1
6

1
7

1
8

1
9

2

Setup

Correct position of apparatus; correct
manipulation.

Demonstration
After error correction

Guided Trial

Correct Auditory Cue from
Experimenter
Independent Response

Verbal/Physical Prompt Provided
if participant does not respond after 10s

If Correct - Praise and Edible

If Incorrect - "No", then on to
Demonstration

LEVEL 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1
1

1

2 :

1
4

1
5

1
6

1
7

1
8

1
9

2

Setup

Correct position of apparatus; cowect

manipulation.

Demonstration
After error correction

Guided Trial

Correct Auditory Cue from

80

Experimenter
Indqjendent Response

Verbal/Physical Prompt Provided
if participant does not respond after 10s

If Correct - Praise and Edible

If Incorrect - "No", then on to
Demonstration

LEVEL 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

S

9

1

1
1

1

2

1
3

1

4

1
5

1
6

1

7

1
8

1
9

2

Setup

Correct position of apparatus; correct

manipulation.

Demonstration
After error correction

Guided Trial

Correct Auditory Cue fi-om
Experimenter
Independent Response

Verbal/Physical Prompt Provided
if participant does not respond after 10s

If Correct - Praise and Edible

If Incorrect - "No", then on to
Demonstration

LEVEL 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I

1
1

1

2

1

3

1
4

1
5

1
6

1
7

1

8

1
9

2

Setup

Correct position of apparatus; correct

manipulation.

Demonstration
After error correction

Guided Trial

Correct Auditory Cue from
Experimenter
Independent Response

Verbal/Physical Prompt Provided
if participant does not respond after 10$

If Correct - Praise and Edible

If Incorrect - "No", then on to
Demonstration

81

Appendix E

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation AA

Al to Al, A2 to A2, and A3 to A3, with Al, A2, and A3 as comparisons

Al = printed price (0.05)
A2 = printed price (0. 1 0)
A3 = printed price (0.25)

.25 .10 .05 .10 .25 .05 .25 .05 .10 .05 .25 .10 .10 .25 .05 .05 .25 .10
.25 .05 .05 .25 .10 .10

12 3 4 5 6

.25 .10 .05 .05 .25 .10 .10 .05 .25 .25 .10 .05 .05 .10 .25 .25 .10 .05
.05 .05 .25 .10 .10 .25

7 8 9 10 11 12

05 .10 .25

.05 .10 .25

.10 .25 .05

.25 .05 .10

.05

.25

.25

.10

15

16

17

18

.10 .05 .25 .10 .25 .05
.05 .10

13 14

.25 .10 .05 .10 .25 .05 .25 .05 .10 .05 .25 .10 .10 .25 .05 .05 .25 .10
.25 .05 .05 .25 .10 .10

19 20 21 22 23 24

.25 .10 .05 .05 .25 .10 .10 .05 .25 .25 .10 .05 .05 .10 .25 .25 .10 .05
.05 .05 .25 .10 .10 .25

25 26 27 28 29 30

.10 .05 .25 .10 .25 .05 .05 .10 .25 .05 .10 .25 .10 .25 .05 .25 .05 .10
.05 .10 .05 .25 .25 .10

31 32 33 34 35 36

0)

82

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation BB

Bl to Bl, B2 to B2, and B3 to B3, with Bl, B2, and B3 as comparisons

Bl = coin
B2 = coin
B3 = coin

(nickel) (N)
(dime) (D)
(quarter) (Q)

NQD
D
1

DQN
D
2

NQD

Q

3

QND

N
4

DQN

N
5

QDN

N

6

QDN

Q

7

NDQ
D
8

QDN
D
9

DNQ

Q
10

QDN
N
11

NQD

N
12

QND

N
13

DQN

Q
14

NDQ

Q

15

NDQ
N
16

DNQ
D
17

DNQ

Q
18

NQD
D
19

DQN

D

20

NQD

Q

21

QND

N
22

DQN
N
23

QDN
N
24

QDN

Q

25

NDQ
D
26

QDN
D

27

DNQ

Q

28

QDN
N
29

NQD
N
30

QND
N
31

DQN

Q

32

NDQ

Q

33

NDQ
N
34

DNQ
D
35

DNQ

Q
36

83

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation CC

CI to CI, C2 to C2, and C3 to C3, with CI, C2, and C3 as comparisons

Cl= coin combo (5P)
C2= coin combo (1 OP
C3= coin combo (25?)

5P 25P lOP lOP 25P 5P 5P 25P lOP 25P 5P lOP lOP 25P 5P 25P lOP 5P
lOP lOP 25P 5P 5P 5P
1 2 3 4 5 6

25P10P5P 5P10P25P 25P lOP 5P 10P5P25P 25P lOP 5P 5P25P10P
25P lOP lOP 25P 5P 5P
7 8 9 10 11 12

25P5P10P 10P25P5P 5P10P25P 5P10P25P 10P5P25P 10P5P25P

5P 25P 25P 5P lOP 25P

13 14 15 16 17 18

5P25P10P 10P25P5P 5P25P10P 25P 5P lOP 10P25P5P 25P lOP 5P

lOP lOP 25P 5P 5P 5P

19 20 21 22 23 24

25P10P5P 5P10P25P 25P lOP 5P lOP 5P 25P 25P lOP 5P 5P25P10P
25P lOP lOP 25P 5P 5?
25 26 27 28 29 30

25P5P10P 10P25P5P 5P10P25P 5P10P25P 10P5P25P 10P5P25P
N 25P 25P N 10? 25?
31 32 33 34 35 36

'Vfi

0r

n i

U

84

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation DA

Al = printed price (0.05)
A2 = printed price (0.10)
A3 = printed price (0.25)

Dl = dictated "5 cents" ("50")
D2 = dictated "10 cents" ("100")
D3 = dictated "25 cents" ("250")

10.05.25

.25 .10 .05

.25 .05 .10

.10.05.25

.10.05.25

.10.05.25

"100"

1

"50"
2

"250"
3

"100"

4

"250"
5

"250"
6

.25.10.05

.10 .25 .05

.05.10.25

.10.25.05

.10.25.05

.25 .05 .10

"100"

7

"250"
8

"50"
9

"250"
10

"50"
11

"250"
12

.10.05.25

.05.10.25

.10.25.05

.05.10.25

.10.05.25

.10.05.25

"100"

13

"100"

14

"50"
15

"50"
16

"100"

17

"50"
18

.10 .05 .25

.25.10.05

.25 .05 .10

.10 .05 .25

.10.05.25

.10 .05 .25

"100"

19

"50"
20

"250"
21

"100"

22

"250"
23

"250"
24

25 .10 .05

.10.25.05

.05.10.25

.10.25.05

.10.25.05

.25 .05 .10

"100"

25

"250"
26

"50"
27

"250"
28

"50"
29

"250"
30

10.05.25

.05 .10 .25

.10 .25 .05

.05.10.25

.10.05.25

.10.05.25

"100"

31

"100"

32

"50"
33

"50"
34

"100"
35

"50"
36

m

"r,f*

i^:.

■^•.-•^

?j.

85

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:

Date:

Experimenter:

lOR:

Relation AD

Al = price (0.05)

Dl = 5 cents (5c)

A2 = price (0.10)

D2= 10 cents (10c)

A3 = price (0.25)

D3 = 25 cents (25c)

5c 10c 25c

25c 10c 5c

25C 5C IOC

10C5C25C

10C5C25C

10C5C25C

0.10

0.05

0.25

0.10

0.25

0.25

1

2

3

4

5

6

25c 10c 5c

10c 25c 5c

5cl0c25c

10c 25c 5c

10c 25c 5c

25c 5c 10c

0.10

0.25

0.05

0.25

0.05

0.25

7

8

9

10

11

12

10c 5c 25c

5c 10c 25c

10c 25c 5c

5c 10c 25c

10c 5c 25c

10c 5c 25c

0.10

0.10

0.05

0.05

0.10

0.05

13

14

15

16

17

18

10c 5c 25c :

>5clOc5c

25c 5c 10c

10c 5c 25c

10c 5c 25c

10c 5c 25c

0.10

0.05

0.25

0.10

0.25

0.25

19

20

21

22

23

24

25c 10c 5c

10c 25c 5c

5c 10c 25c

10c 25c 5c

10c 25c 5c

25c 5c 10c

0.10

0.25

0.05

0.25

0.05

0.25

25

26

27

28

29

30

10c 5c 25c

5c 10c 25c

10c 25c 5c

5c 10c 25c

10c 5c 25c

10c 5c 25c

0.10

0.10

0.05

0.05

0.10

0.05

31

32

33

34

35

36

■ ?■ •>

r i-
t,. ,v

'il

0? •

<7,f

f-<"

t?

i'f:

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

86

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:

lOR:

Relation BA

Al = price (0.05)

Bl =coin

(nickel) (N)

A2 = price (0.10)

B2 = coin

(dime) (D)

A3 = price (0.25)

B3 = coin

(quarter) (Q)

.10 .05 .25

.25.10.05

.25 .05 .10

.10.05.25

.10 .05 .25

.10 .05 .25

D

N

Q

D

Q

Q

1

2

3

4

5

6

.25 .10 .05

.10 .25 .05

.05.10.25

.10.25.05

.10.25.05

.25 .05 .10

D

Q

N

Q

N

Q

7

8

9

10

11

12

.10.05.25

.05.10.25

.10 .25 .05

.05 .10 .25

.10.05.25

.10.05.25

D

D

N

N

D

N

13

14

15

16

17

18

.10.05.25

25.10.05

.25 .05 .10

.10.05.25

.10 .05 .25

.10.05.25

D

N

Q

D

Q

Q

19

20

21

22

23

24

.25.10.05

.10.25.05

.05 .10 .25

.10 .25 .05

.10 .25 .05

.25 .05 .10

D

Q

N

Q

N

Q

25

26

27

28

29

30

.10 .05 .25

.05 .10 .25

.10.25.05

.05 .10 .25

.10.05.25

.10 .05 .25

D

D

N

N

D

N

31

32

33

34

35

36

or

(*

87

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation AB

Al = price (0.05)
A2 = price (0.10)
A3 = price (0.25)

Bl = coin (nickel) (N)
B2 = coin (dime) (D)
B3 = coin (quarter) (Q)

DNQ

0.10
1

QDN

0.10
7

DNQ

0.10

13

DNQ

0.10
19

QDN

0.10
25

DNQ
0.10
31

QDN
0.05
2

DQN

0.25

8

NDQ

0.10
14

QDN
0.05
20

DQN

0.25
26

NDQ
0.10

32

QND

0.25
3

DNQ

0.10
4

DNQ

0.25
5

NDQ

0.05
9

DQN

0.25
10

DQN
0.05
11

DQN
0.05
15

NDQ

0.05

16

DNQ

0.10
17

QND

0.25
21

DNQ
0.10
22

DNQ

0.25
23

NDQ

0.05
27

DQN
0.25
28

DQN
0.05
29

DQN

0.05

33

NDQ

0.05
34

DNQ
0.10
35

DNQ

0.25
6

QND

0.25

12

DNQ

0.05
18

DNQ

0.25
24

QND

0.25
30

DNQ
0.05
36

in

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

88

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation DB

Dl = dictated word (5c)
D2 = dictated word (10c)
D3 = dictated word (25c)

Bl = coin (nickel) (N)
B2 = coin (dime) (D)
B3 = coin (quarter) (Q)

DNQ

10c

QDN
5c

QND

25c

DNQ

10c

DNQ

25c

DNQ

25c

1

2

3

4

5

6

QDN
10c

DQN

25c

NDQ

5c

DQN

25c

DQN

5c

QND

25c

7

8

9

10

11

12

DNQ
10c

NDQ

10c

DQN
5c

NDQ

5c

DNQ
10c

DNQ

5c

13

14

15

16

17

18

DNQ

10c

QDN

5c

QND

25c

DNQ
10c

DNQ

25c

DNQ

25c

19

20

21

22

23

24

QDN

0.10

DQN

0.25

NDQ

0.05

DQN

0.25

DQN
0.05

QND

0.25

25

26

27

28

29

30

DNQ
0.10

NDQ

0.10

DQN
0.05

NDQ

0.05

DNQ

0.10

DNQ

0.05

31

32

33

34

35

36

M

89

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation BD

Dl == dictated word (5c) Bl = coin (nickel) (N)

D2 = dictated word ( 1 Oc) B2 = coin (dime) (D)
D3 = dictated word (25c) B3 = coin (quarter) (Q)

10c 5c 25c

25c 10c 5c

25c 5c 10c

10C5C25C

10c 5c 25c

10c 5c 25c

N

N

Q

D

Q

Q

1

2

3

4

5

6

25clOc5c 10c 25c 5c 5cl0c25c 10c 25c 5c 10c 25c 5c 25c 5c 10c
D Q N Q N Q

7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Oc 5c 25c 5c 1 Oc 25c 1 Oc 25c 5c 5c 1 Oc 25c 1 Oc 5c 25c 1 Oc 5c 25c
D D N N D N
13 14 15 16 17 18

10c 5c 25c 25c 10c 5c 25c 5c 10c 10C5C25C 10c 5c 25c 10c 5c 25c
N N Q D Q Q

19 20 21 22 23 24

25c 1 Oc 5c 1 Oc 25c 5c 5c 1 Oc 25c 1 Oc 25c 5c 1 Oc 25c 5c 25c 5c 1 Oc
D Q N Q N Q

25 26 27 28 29 30

10c 5c 25c 5c 10c 25c 10c 25c 5c 5c 10c 25c 10c 5c 25c 10c 5c 25c
D D N N D N

31 32 33 34 35 36

â– a

1!

* ' ? c

i'J

90

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

\ Name:

j Date:

I Experimenter:

i lOR:

Relation CA

CI to Al, C2 to A2, and C3 to A3, with Al, A2, and A3 as comparisons

Al = price (.05) CI = coin combo (5P)

A2 = price (.10) C2 = coin combo ( 1 OP)

A3 = price (.25) C3 = coin combo (25P)

.05 .25 .10
lOP
1

.10 .25 .05
lOP
2

.05 .25 .10
25P
3

.25 .05 .10
5P
4

.10 .25 .05
5P
5

.25.10.05
5P
6

,25 .10 .05
25P
7

.05.10.25
lOP
8

.25.10.05
lOP
9

.10.05.25
25P
10

.25.10.05
5P
11

.05 .25 .10
5P
12

,25 .05 .10
5P
13

.10.25.05

25P

14

.05.10.25
25P
15

.05.10.25
5P
16

.10.05.25
lOP
17

.10.05.25
25P
18

,05.25.10
lOP
19

.10.25.05
lOP
20

.05 .25 .10
25P
21

.25 .05 .10
5P
22

.10.25.05
5P
23

.25.10.05
5P
24

.25 .10 .05
25P

25

.05 .10 .25
lOP
26

.25.10.05

10?

27

.10.05.25
25P
28

.25 .10 .05
5P
29

.05 .25 .10
5P

30

.25.05.10
5?
31

.10.25.05
25P
32

.05.10.25
25P
33

.05.10.25
5P
34

.10 .05 .25
lOP
35

.10.05.25
25P
36

Oi

1:?:

•1^

oc

HI

91

Data Sheets for Pretesting. Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation AC

Al = price (0.05)
A2 = price (0.10)
A3 = price (0.25)

CI = coin
C2 = coin
C3 = coin

combo (5?)
combo (10?)
combo (25?)

10? 5? 25?
0.10
1

25? 10? 5?
0.05
2

25? 5? 10?
0.25
3

10? 5? 25?
0.10
4

10? 5? 25?
0.25
5

10? 5? 25?

0.25

6

25? 10? 5?
0.10
7

10? 25? 5?
0.25
8

5? 10? 25?

0.05

9

10? 25? 5?
0.25
10

10? 25? 5?
0.05
11

25? 5? 10?
0.25
12

10? 5? 25?

0.10

13

5? 10? 25?
0.10
14

10? 25? 5?
0.05
15

5? 10?25?
0.05
16

10? 5? 25?
0.10
17

10? 5? 25?
0.05
18

10? 5? 25? :
0.10
19

25? 10? 5?
0.05
20

25? 5? 10?

0.25

21

10? 5? 25?
0.10
22

0? 5? 25?
0.25
23

10? 5? 25?

0.25

24

25? 10? 5? 10? 25? 5?
0.10 0.25
25 26

5? 10? 25?
0.05

27

10? 25? 5?
0.25
28

10? 25? 5?

0.05

29

25? 5? 10?
0.25
30

10? 5? 25?

0.10

31

5? 10? 25?
0.10
32

10? 25? 5?
0.05
33

5? 10?25?

0.05

34

10? 5? 25?
0.10

35

10? 5? 25?
0.05
36

If

i !

?$1'

■• tJ

92

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation BC

Bl to CI, B2 to C2, and B3 to C3, with CI, C2, and C3 as comparisons

Bl = coin (nickel) (N) Cl= coin combo (5P)
B2 = coin (dime) (D) C2= coin combo (1 OP)
B3 = coin (quarter) (Q) C3= coin combo (25?)

5P 25? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5P25P10P 25? 5? 10? 10? 25? 5? 25? 10? 5?
D D Q N N N

1 2 3 4 5 6

25? 10? 5? 5? 10? 25? 25? 10? 5? 10? 5? 25? 25? 10? 5? 5? 25? 10?
Q D D Q N N

7 8 9 10 11 12

25P 5? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5? 10? 25? 5? 10? 25? 10? 5? 25? 10? 5? 25?

N Q Q N D Q

13 14 15 16 17 18

5? 25? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5? 25? 10? 25? 5? 10? 10? 25? 5? 25? 10? 5?

D D Q N N N

19 20 21 22 23 24

25? 10? 5? 5? 10? 25? 25? 10? 5? 10? 5? 25? 25? 10? 5? 5? 25? 10?
Q D D Q N N
25 26 27 28 29 30

25? 5? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5? 10? 25? 5? 10? 25? 10? 5? 25? 10? 5? 25?
N Q Q N D Q
31 32 33 34 35 36

d?-

>f

Data Sheets for Pretesting. Training, and Posttesting

93

Name:

Date:

Experimenter:

lOR:

Relation CB

Bl = coin (nickel) (N)

Cl =

= coin combo (5?)

B2 = coin (dime)

(D)

C2 =

= coin combo (10?)

B3 = coin (quarter) (Q)

C3 =

= coin combo (25?)

DNQ

QDN

QND

DNQ

DNQ

DNQ

lOP

5?

25?

10?

25?

25?

1

2

3

4

5

6

QDN

DQN

NDQ

DQN

DQN

QND

lOP

25?

5?

25?

5?

25?

7

8

9

10

11

12

DNQ

NDQ

DQN

NDQ

DNQ

DNQ

lOP

10?

5?

5?

10?

5?

13

14

15

16

17

18

DNQ

QDN

QND

DNQ

DNQ

DNQ

10?

5?

25?

10?

25?

25?

19

20

21

22

23

24

QDN

DQN

NDQ

DQN

DQN

QND

10?

25?

5?

25?

5?

25?

25

26

27

28

29

30

DNQ

NDQ

DQN

NDQ

DNQ

DNQ

10?

10?

5P

5?

10?

5P

31

32

33

34

35

36

^•i

Hr

94

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation DC

Dl to CI, D2 to C2, and D3 to C3, with CI, C2, and C3 as comparisons

Dl = dictated word (5c) Cl= coin combo (5P)

D2 = dictated word ( 1 Oc) C2= coin combo ( 1 OP)
D3 - dictated word (25c) C3= coin combo (25?)

5P 25? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5? 25? 10? 25? 5? 10? 10? 25? 5? 25? 10? 5?
10c 10c 25c 5c 5c 5c
1 2 3 4 5 6

25? 10? 5P 5? 10? 25? 25?10?5P 10? 5? 25? 25? 10? 5? 5? 25? 10?

25c 10c 10c 25c 5c 5c

7 8 9 10 11 12

25? 5? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5? 10? 25? 5? 10? 25? 10? 5? 25? 10? 5? 25?

5c 25c 25c 5c 10c 25c

13 14 15 16 17 18

5? 25? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5? 25? 10? 25? 5? 10? 10? 25? 5? 25? 10? 5?

10c 10c 25c 5c 5c 5c

19 20 21 22 23 24

25? 10? 5? 5? 10? 25? 25? 10? 5? 10? 5? 25? 25? 10? 5? 5? 25? 10?
Q D D Q N N
25 26 27 28 29 30

25? 5? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5? 10? 25? 5? 10? 25? 10? 5? 25? 10? 5? 25?
N Q Q N D Q
31 32 33 34 35 36

f ^

95

Data Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

Name:
Date:

Experimenter:
lOR:

Relation CD

CI to CI, C2 to C2, and C3 to C3, with Dl, D2, and D3 as comparisons

Cl= coin combo (5P)
C2= coin combo (lOP
C3= coin combo (25P)

5C25C10C 10C25C5C 5C25C10C 25C 5C IOC 10C25C5C 25C10C5C
10? 10? 25? 5? 5? 5?

12 3 4 5 6

25C10C5C 5C10C25C 25C10C5C 10C5C25C 25C IOC 5C 5C25C10C
25? 10? 10? 25? 5? 5?

7 8 9 10 11 12

25C5C10C 10C25C5C 5C10C25C 5C10C25C 10C5C25C 10C5C25C

5? 25? 25? 5? 10? 25?

13 14 15 16 17 18

5C 25c 10c 10c 25c 5c 5C 25c 10c 25c 5C 10c 10c 25c 5C 25c 10c 5C

2? 10c 25c 5? 5? 5?

19 20 21 22 23 24

25c 10c 5C 5C 10c 25c 25c 10c 5C 10c 5C 25c 25c 10c 5C 5C 25c 10c
25c 10c 10c 25c 5P 5P

25 26 27 28 29 30

25c 5C 10c l0c25c5C 5C 10c 25c 5C 10c 25c 10c 5C 25c 10c 5C 25c
N 25c 25c N 10c 25c

31 32 33 34 35 36

ijf

96

Appendix F
POR Sheets for Pretesting, Training, and Posttesting

1 SUBJECT

TESTER

1 \

II ^^^ 1

DATE

COPY (CIRCLE ONE) TESTER / POR

Predictive Task Column #

PROBES-DB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

Say Thank you

Edible given (VT schedule)

Correct (V), incorrect (X)

REVIEW DA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 1 seconds

Edible given (VR schedule)

Correct (V), incorrect (X)

TRAINING-BA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Veibal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

If incorrect-Take board away

If correct (ask to lift or open)

TRAINING-BA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

If incorrect-Take board away

97

If correct (ask to lift or open)

TRAINING-BA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

If incorrect-Take board away

If correct (ask to lift or open)

TRAINING-BA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

If incorrect-Take board away

If correct (ask to lift or open)

98

1 SUBJECT

TESTER

1 ^^^ III

DATE

COPY (CIRCLE ONE) TESTER / POR

Predictive Task Column #

PROBES-BC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

Say Thank you

Edible given (VT schedule)

Correct (V), incorrect (X)

REVIEW BA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

Say Thank you

Edible given (VR schedule)

TRAINING-CA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

If incorrect-Take board away and demonstrate

If correct (ask to lift or open)

TRAINING-CA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

g

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

If incorrect-Take board away and demonstrate

If correct (ask to lift or open)

TRAINING-CA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and

99

comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

If incorrect-Take board away and demonstrate

If correct (ask to lift or open)

TRAINING-CA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Set up: Correct position of sample and
comparisons

Ask participant to match

Verbal physical prompt provided (if participant does
not responds after 10 seconds

If incorrect-Take board away and demonstrate

If correct (ask to lift or open)

t<>

100

Note: The bold arrows indicate trained relations and the dotted arrows indicate emergent
relations. Reflexive relations are represented by the curved arrows.

101

Figure X. The solid lines represent the trained relations. The dotted lines represent the emergent
(tested) relations.