The Application of Skinner’s Analysis of Verbal Behavior to Children with Autism

“There are many behavior analytic procedures for arranging learning opportunities, some adult-initiated, some learner-initiated, some embedded in typically occurring activities or sequences of responses, and some that are hybrids or permutations of these. Each type of procedure has its uses and advantages. ABA programming uses any and all procedures to accomplish the job of skill development and skill generalization with each individual learner” (Green, 2001, p. 74)

Skinner’s Analysis of Language LeBlanc et al. (2006) While some behavior analysts teaching language to children with autism were heavily influenced by the UCLA program or Stokes and Baer (1977)… Others were more heavily influenced by B.F. Skinner’s analysis of language Verbal Behavior - 1957

Five Verbal Operants Mand Tact Intraverbal Duplic Codic

Mand Form of the response is controlled by an EO Note: An SD may control its occurrence, but not always its form SD: Mom Response: “Cookie” SR+: Cookie EO: Hungry for cookie

Specific to each mand, related to current MO Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement Mand EO - form SD - occurrence Specific to each mand, related to current MO

Mand In everyday language, mands are “requests” for something specific, where the item requested is the reinforcer Examples Objects “Can I have a Coke?” Information “What’s missing?” Action “Tickle me!”

Tact A verbal operant in which the response form is controlled by a nonverbal stimulus Reinforced by nonspecific reinforcement (e.g., praise) In everyday language, a tact is a “label”, evoked by a nonverbal stimulus SD: Cookie Response: “Cookie” SR+: “That’s right!”

Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement Mand Form – EO Occurrence - SD Specific to each mand, related to current EO Tact Non-verbal SD Nonspecific

Examples: Tact “Doggy” (“Good Girl!”) “It’s raining.” (“Thanks, I’ll get an umbrella.”)

“What’s your favorite snack?” Intraverbal Response form is controlled by a verbal stimulus Reinforced by nonspecific reinforcement (e.g., praise) There is no point-to-point correspondence between the response and the verbal stimulus What’s that? When parts of the response can be related to parts of the stimulus. SD: “What’s your favorite snack?” Response: “Cookie” SR+: “That’s right!”

Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement Mand Form – EO Occurrence - SD Specific to each mand, related to current EO Tact Non-verbal SD Nonspecific Intraverbal Verbal SD, no point-to-point correspondence

Examples: Intraverbal (SD)-“What’s up?” (R)- “_____” (SD)-“How are you?” (R)- “_____” (SD)-“Red, white and ___?” (R)- “___”

Duplic SD: “Cookie” Response: “Cookie” SR+: “That’s right!” Response form is controlled by a verbal stimulus Reinforced by nonspecific reinforcement (e.g., praise) There is point-to-point correspondence between the response and the verbal stimulus There is formal similarity between the response product and the verbal stimulus What’s that? They’re in the same sense mode and resemble each other. SD: “Cookie” Response: “Cookie” SR+: “That’s right!”

Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement Mand Form – EO Occurrence - SD Specific to each mand, related to current EO Tact Non-verbal SD Nonspecific Intraverbal Verbal SD, no point-to-point correspondence Duplic Echoic, Copying text, Mimetic Verbal SD, point-to-point correspondence, formal similarity

Examples: Duplic Echoic: “Hi” – “Hi” Copying a text: see written word John – write John Mimetic: see someone sign ball – sign ball

All of the responses are of the same topography “eeee” – but are different operants because they have different types of controlling antecedents and consequences Mand Tact Echoic Intraverbal Joey wants his sister’s candy, and says, “eeee!” X Chris is watching Thomas and after Thomas says, “Percy”, he says “eeee!” X Julie’s mom sings, “Ring Around the Ros…” And Julie says “eeee!” X Karen sees a monkey on TV, points, and says, “eeee!” X

Codic SD: “Cookie” Response: Write cookie SR+: “That’s right!” Response form is controlled by a verbal stimulus Reinforced by nonspecific reinforcement (e.g., praise) There is point-to-point correspondence between the response and the verbal stimulus NO formal similarity between the response and the verbal stimulus SD: “Cookie” Response: Write cookie SR+: “That’s right!”

Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement Mand Form – EO Occurrence - SD Specific to each mand, related to current EO Tact Non-verbal SD Nonspecific Intraverbal Verbal SD, no point-to-point correspondence Duplic Echoic, Copying text, Mimetic Verbal SD, point-to-point correspondence, formal similarity Codic Textual, Taking dictation Verbal SD, point-to-point correspondence, NO formal similarity

Examples: Codic Textual behavior: See written Turn left – say “turn left” Taking dictation: “Buy juice” – write buy juice

“Applied Verbal Behavior” (AVB) The application of Skinner’s analysis to language training for children with autism and other developmental disabilities

AVB and NTA Comparisons LeBlanc et al. (2006) Linguistic Framework Motivation Spontaneity

Linguistic Framework (LeBlanc et al Linguistic Framework (LeBlanc et al.,2006; Sundberg & Partington, 1999) Language is taught and conceptualized in terms of the verbal operants rather than using a traditional structural analysis Most research is published in The Analysis of Verbal Behavior and JABA and is not as easily accessed or consumed by teachers, speech therapists Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills (ABLLS) Corresponding language assessment that guides published curriculum for instruction VB-MAPP www.marksundberg.com/vb-mapp.htm

Motivation (Sundberg & Partington, 1998) Mands are taught first because the mand “is a unique type of language that directly benefits the child by letting his caretakers know exactly what he wants at that particular moment” (p. 110)

Motivation: Natural Environment Training (NET) (Sundberg & Partington, 1998; Sundberg & Partington, 1999) Based on NLP? And the “general orientation” (S&P, 1999, p. 151) of incidental teaching Language training is conducted in the natural environment Child directed teaching activities and functional reinforcers are used Generalization is programmed for

Other Characteristics of “AVB Programs” More frequent use of sign language than PECS “Mixed verbal behavior” Specific data collection procedures Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing Procedure Fluency training

DTT and NET in AVB Programs (Sundberg & Partington, 1999) Phase 1 NET>DTT Focus on early manding, pairing, compliance, stimulus control Phase 2 NET=DTT Focus on mand, tact, receptive, imitation, echoic, intraverbal Phase 3 DTT>NET Focus on academic activities and specific skill development Phase 4 Focus on learning from group instruction, from peers, and without a highly structured environment; training is more like that of typical kindergarten and 1st grade classrooms Phase 5 Focus on academic skills and structured learning characteristic of later elementary classrooms

References Carr, J.E., & Firth, A.M. (2006). The verbal behavior approach to early and intensive behavioral intervention for children with autism: A call for additional empirical support. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 2, 18-27. Carr, J. E., & Sidener, T. M. (2002). On the relation between applied behavior analysis and positive behavior support. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 245-253. Cautilli, J. (2006). Validation of the verbal behavior package: Old wine new bottle - A reply to Carr and Firth (2005). The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 81-92. Halle, J. W. (1987). Teaching language in the natural environment: An analysis of spontaneity. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12,28-37. Horner, R.H., Carr, E.G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Council for Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179. Koegel, R.L., Koegel, L.K., & Brookman, L.I. (2003). Empirically supported pivotal response interventions for children with autism. In A.E.Kazdin & J.R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 341-357). New York: Guilford Press. LeBlanc, L.A., Esch, J., Sidener, T.M., & Firth, A.M. (2006). Behavioral language interventions for children with autism: Comparing applied verbal behavior and naturalistic teaching approaches. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 49-60. Michael, J. (2004, August). B.F. Skinner’s elementary verbal relations. In ABA IV. Class conducted at the Pennsylvania State University Behavior Analysis Program. Sautter, R.A., & LeBlanc, L.A. (2006). Empirical applications of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior with humans. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 35-48. Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367. Sundberg, M.L. (2001). 301 research topics from Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 81-96. Sundberg, M.L., & Michael, J. (2001). The benefits of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior for children with autism. Behavior Modification, 25, 698-724. Sundberg, M.L., & Partington, J.W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Danville, CA: Behavior Analysts, Inc. Sundberg, M.L., & Partington, J.W. (1999). The need for both discrete trial and natural environment language training for children with autism. In P.M. Ghezzi, W.L. Williams, & J.E. Carr (Eds.), Autism: Behavior analytic perspectives (pp. 139-156). Reno, NV: Context Press. Barbera, M., & Rasmussen, T. (2007). The verbal behavior approach: How to teach children with autism and related disorders. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.