Assessing and Training Categorization Repertoires in Young Children Teresa Mulhern Dr Ian Stewart National University of Ireland, Galway This research was funded by the NUI Galway Doctoral Research Scholarship

Classification Stimuli are said to be in a class when a common set of responses are emitted in their presence (Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond & O’Hora, 2001). Perceptual classes (physical properties – e.g., Gelman & Meyer, 2011) Associative classes (abstract – e.g., Galizio, Stewart & Pilgrim, 2001) Natural language classes (both abstract and physical – e.g., Adams, Fields & Verhave, 1993)

Hierarchical Classification In hierarchical classification, which is a relatively advanced form of classification, classes are themselves categorised into higher order classes Hierarchical classification has garnered less research than that of basic classification Classes are themselves categorised into higher order classes Hierarchical classification has gained less research attention than that of basic classification

Hierarchical Classification Modelled within Relational Frame Theory (RFT) as patterns of relational framing (containment and hierarchical framing) Gil, Luciano, Ruiz & Valdivia-Salas (2012) Slattery & Stewart (2014)

Learning Hierarchical Classification (Relational Frame Theory) Containment (Non-Arbitrary) E.g., “The water is in the glass. What does the glass contain?” (given container and contained materials) Containment (Arbitrary) E.g., “The coin is in the box. What does the box contain?” (no stimuli present) Hierarchy (Arbitrary) E.g., “A lion is a type of animal. Does the class ‘animals’ contain lions?”

Study 1 Measure patterns of relational framing linked with categorization in 50 young typically developing children (aged 3 - 7 years) Non-arbitrary containment Arbitrary containment Arbitrary hierarchy Correlate framing performance with linguistic and cognitive performance

Study 1 Stanford Binet, 5th edition (SB-5) Children’s Category Test (CCT) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th edition (PPVT-4) Class Inclusion Can children respond to a stimulus as simultaneously belonging both to a class, as well as to a subclass contained in it

Study 1: Relational Framing Test Non-Arbitrary Containment Differently coloured, and differently sized boxes Arbitrary Containment Differently coloured same-size circles Arbitrary Hierarchy Nonsense syllables presented on a laptop with certain hierarchical relations between stimuli shown and pt. had to derive others

Study 1: Relational Framing Test All three relational frames (192 questions in all) were measured for: Mutual Entailment (16 questions each) e.g., A is inside B; Does B Contain A? e.g., B is a type of A; Does the class A contain B? Transformation of Function of mutually entailed relations (16 questions each) e.g., A is inside B. Brian likes A; Does B contain something that Brian likes? e.g., B is a type of A. B’s have big eyes. Does the class A contain members that have big eyes?) Combinatorial Entailment (16 questions each) e.g., A is inside B, B is inside C; Does C contain A? e.g., C is a type of B, B is a type of A; Does the class A contain C? Transformation of function of combinatorially entailed relations (16 questions each) e.g., A is inside B, B is inside C. Chloe likes A. Does C contain something that Chloe likes? e.g., C is a type of B, B is a type of A. C’s like sweet food. Does the class A contain members that like sweet food?)

All participants were exposed to NAC, AC and AH relational responding testing with novel stimuli between 10 & 14 days after initial testing. All measures showed high reliability.

Study 1: Relational Framing Scores by Age Group These data provide a developmental trajectory of repertoires of containment and hierarchical relational responding

Study 1: Correlations Strong correlations between the participants age in months and relational framing performance. Strong correlations between relational framing repertoires and cognitive and linguistic performance. Moderate correlations between relational framing repertoire and categorization and class inclusion responding

Conclusion Containment & hierarchical framing strongly related to linguistic and cognitive performance. Insight into development of relational frames underlying categorization in young children.

Study 2 – Arbitrary Containment Participants: Three typically developing 5-year-olds (Mean age = 5 years 3.7 months)  Experimental Group Three typically developing 5-year-olds (Mean age = 5 years 4.7 months)  Control Group Experimental Design: Combined MBD (across pts and components) All pts were first assessed for non-arbitrary containment repertoires and then arbitrary containment repertoires to determine their eligibility for inclusion. Also assessed using PPVT, CCT and class inclusion (before and 6 months after training) to determine impact of training on these variables. 2F; 1 M Because of the small sample size, the comparison between the experimental and control groups with regard to effect on PPVT and / or CCT could not be statistically significant even if there’s a large effect. However, we did what we could under the very time limited circumstances. If data are suggestive that there was a difference then we could use that to justify doing a larger n study.

Pre-Assessment (Arbitrary Containment) Percentage of Correct Arbitrary Containment Relational Repertoires Participant ME ToF ME CE ToF CE Total EP1 68.75% 62.5% 50% 43.75% 56.25% EP2 54.69% EP3 CP1 75% 59.38% CP2 57.81% CP3 37.5% All participants were then assessed for arbitrary containment repertoires. Participants with <60% correct responding were included within the current research.

Method The relationship between nonsense syllables were presented as text on a laptop with up to 4 stimulus sets. E.g., “A blorg is inside a grap.” Underneath this description is a question which assesses ME, CE, or ToF. E.g., “Is a blorg inside a grap?” A total of 64 questions

Baseline Baseline Assessment: Each pt was assessed for AC relational responding across ME relations (16 questions), CE (16 questions), and ToF (32 questions). Tested across 4 stimulus sets. No feedback or positive reinforcement provided. Pts were introduced to training if: (a) baseline responding was stable, and/or (b) the previous pt had completed that phase of training

Training Sequence Phase 1: Mutually entailed relations (2 stimuli) Transformation of stimulus functions of mutually entailed relations (2 stimuli) Phase 3: Combinatorial entailed relations (3 stimuli) Phase 4: Transformation of stimulus functions of combinatorially entailed relations (3 stimuli)

Consequences Positive reinforcement (tokens & praise) for correct responses in addition to specific feedback FR4 exchange of tokens for stickers Pt was given feedback for incorrect responses and re- exposed to the trial If the pt beat his/her score from the previous session, they could then choose something from the stationery box

Progression The pt was exposed to training using one stimulus set Once mastery criterion was met (i.e., 100%), the pt was then assessed for generalization If the pt demonstrated generalization, he/she progressed onto the next phase of training, if not, they were re-exposed to training using a novel stimulus set Then the next pt was introduced to that phase of training (dependent upon a stable baseline)

Combined Multiple Baseline Design Across Components and Participants for Arbitrary Containment Current slide represents the combined MBD for Participants 1, 2 and 3 and provides generalization data

Multiple Baseline Across Relational Components Design for Participant 1 Includes 5 week Maintenance Data

Multiple Baseline Across Relational Components Design for Participant 2 Includes 5 week Maintenance Data

Multiple Baseline Across Relational Components Design for Participant 3 Includes 5 week Maintenance Data

Results Training sessions were conducted over a five-week period. All pts generalised arbitrary containment responding to novel stimuli across all phases Maintenance was also demonstrated for all 3 pts 5 weeks post-training. Both Experimental and control groups will be retested on CCT, PPVT and class inclusion in June 2017

Conclusion First study to successfully train arbitrary containment repertoires in young children Generalization and maintenance for all 3 pts Future research Train arbitrary containment in younger children, or individuals with developmental disabilities Determine impact of training on additional outcome measures (e.g., verbal ability, cognitive ability)

Study 3 – Arbitrary Hierarchy Participants: Three typically developing 6-year-olds (Mean age = 6 years 4.3 months)  Experimental Group Three typically developing 6-year-olds (Mean age = 6 years 3.3 months)  Control Group Experimental Design: Combined MBD (across pts and components) All pts were first assessed for arbitrary hierarchical repertoires to determine their eligibility for inclusion Also assessed using PPVT, CCT and class inclusion (before and 6 months after training) to determine impact of training on these variables 2F; 1 M Because of the small sample size, the comparison between the experimental and control groups with regard to effect on PPVT and / or CCT could not be statistically significant even if there’s a large effect. However, we did what we could under the very time limited circumstances. If data are suggestive that there was a difference then we could use that to justify doing a larger n study.

Pre-Assessment (Arbitrary Hierarchy) Percentage of Correct Arbitrary Hierarchical Relational Repertoires Participant ME ToF ME CE ToF CE Total EP1 62.5% 56.25% 50% 43.75% 53.13% EP2 46.88% EP3 37.5% CP1 68.75% 54.69% CP2 48.44% CP3 42.19% N.B. As with previous study, participants were told that the experimenter would repeat the question if they wanted, or were unsure. This was throughout the assessment and training procedure. All participants were assessed for arbitrary hierarchical repertoires. Participants with <60% correct responding were included within the research.

Method Identical to the previous study, however, hierarchical relations were described Baseline, training sequence, consequences, and progressions were identical to that of Study 2

Combined Multiple Baseline Design Across Components and Participants for Arbitrary Hierarchy

Multiple Baseline Across Relational Components Design for Participant 1 (Arbitrary Hierarchy) Includes 5 week Maintenance Data

Multiple Baseline Across Relational Components Design for Participant 2 (Arbitrary Hierarchy) Includes 5 week Maintenance Data

Multiple Baseline Across Relational Components Design for Participant 3 (Arbitrary Hierarchy) Includes 5 week Maintenance Data

Results Training sessions were conducted over a six-week period All pts generalised arbitrary hierarchical responding to novel stimuli across all phases Maintenance was also demonstrated for all 3 pts 5 weeks post-training Both Experimental and control groups will be retested on CCT, PPVT and class inclusion in June 2017

Conclusion First study to successfully train arbitrary hierarchical repertoires in young children Generalization and maintenance for all 3 pts Future research Train arbitrary hierarchical repertoires in younger children, or individuals with developmental disabilities Determine impact of training on additional outcome measures (e.g., verbal ability, cognitive ability)