1. Teresa Mulhern Ian Stewart
Investigating Containment and Hierarchical Relational Responding In Young Children
Teresa Mulhern
Ian Stewart
This research was funded by the NUI Galway Research Doctoral Scholarship

2. 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)
Associative classes (abstract; e.g., Galizio, Stewart, & Pilgrim, 2001)
Natural language classes (both abstract and physical; e.g., Adams, Fields, & Verhave, 1993)

3. Hierarchical Classification
Classes within classes
Missing functional properties cited in cognitive literature
Griffee & Dougher (2002)
Slattery, Stewart & O’Hora (2011)
Modelled within Relational Frame Theory (RFT) as patterns of relational framing (‘containment’ and ‘hierarchical’ framing)
Transitivity and asymmetrical relations
Gil, Luciano, Ruiz and Valdivia-Salas (2012)
Slattery and Stewart (2014)

4. Learning Hierarchical Classification
Containment (Non-arbitrary)
E.g., ‘The water is in the glass’ (given container and contained material)
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 ‘animal’ contain lions?’

5. Current Research
Measure patterns of relational framing linked with categorization in 50 young typically developing children (aged years)
Correlate framing performance with linguistic and cognitive performance
Stanford Binet, 5th edition (SB-5)
The Children's Category Test (CCT)
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th Edition (PPVT-4)
Class Inclusion

6. Assessments Stanford Binet, 5th edition (SB-5)
The Children's Category Test (CCT)
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th Edition (PPVT-4)
Class Inclusion
Non-Arbitrary Containment
Differently coloured, and differently sized boxes (e.g., a small box could be inserted into a medium sized box, while a medium sized box could be inserted into a large box)
Arbitrary Containment
Differently coloured same-size circles
Arbitrary Hierarchy
Nonsense syllables presented as text on a laptop screen outlining hierarchical relationship between stimuli

7. Assessing Non-Arbitrary Containment
“The blue box is inside the orange box” - “Does the orange box contain a blue box?”
ToF 2 stimuli:
“The orange box contains a blue box. Susan likes the colour orange.” – “Is the blue box inside a box that Susan likes?”
CE:
“The yellow box is inside the blue box, the blue box is inside the red box.” – “Does the red box contain a yellow box?”
ToF 3 stimuli:
“The red box contains a blue box, the blue box contains a yellow box. Ben likes the colour yellow.” – “Does the red box contain a box that Ben likes?”

8. Assessing Arbitrary Containment
“The green circle contains the red circle” – “Is the red circle inside the green circle?”
ToF 2
“The red circle is inside the green circle. Brian likes the colour red.” – “Is there a circle that Brian likes inside the green circle?”
CE:
“The blue circle is inside the orange circle, the orange circle is inside the yellow circle.” – “Does the blue circle contain the yellow circle?”
ToF 3:
The blue circle contains the orange circle, the orange circle contains the yellow circle. Sarah likes the colour yellow.” – “Does the blue circle contain a circle that Sarah likes?”

9. Assessing Arbitrary Hierarchy
ME:
“A Tol is a type of Gip” – “Are all Tols Gips?”
ToF 2:
“A tol is a type of Gip. Tols have green eyes.” – “Does the class Gip contain members with green eyes?”
CE:
“A Bik is a type of Gip, a Gip is a type of Timp.” – “Does the class Timp contain Biks?”
ToF 3:
“A Timp is a type of Gip, a Gip is a type of Bik. Timps like sweet food.” – “Does the class Timps contain members that like sweet food?”

10. Test-Retest Reliability
All pts were re-exposed to non-arb. containment, arb. containment, and arb. hierarchical relational responding testing with novel stimuli between days after initial testing. All measures showed high reliability.

11. Hierarchical Framing & Development
These data provide a developmental trajectory of repertoires of containment and hierarchical relational responding

12. Correlations

13. Correlations
Strong correlations between age in months and relational framing performance
Strong correlations between relational framing repertoire and cognitive and linguistic performance
Moderate correlations between relational framing performance and categorization and class inclusion responding

14. Conclusion
Promising initial result for the assessment of containment and hierarchical derived relational responding, indicating that this repertoire is strongly related to linguistic and intellectual performance
The current research also provided information regarding the development of relational frames theorized to influence categorization repertoires in young children

15. Study 2
Aim: To investigate whether arbitrary containment repertoires can be trained using multiple exemplar training (MET)
Participants: One 5 yr. 4mth old TD female
Design: Multiple baseline across components

16. Pre-Assessment Non-Arbitrary Containment Repertoire Assessed
Participants with <60% correct responding were selected as participants.
ME Score
ToF 2 Score
CE Score
ToF 3 Score
Total Score
100%
81.25%
95.31%
ME Score
ToF 2 Score
CE Score
ToF 3 Score
Total Score
43.75%
56.25%
50%
48.44%

17. Method
Arb. Containment Materials

18. Method
The relationship between nonsense syllables were presented as text on a laptop screen with up to 4 stimulus sets.
E.g., A blorg is inside a grap
Underneath this description, is a question which assesses either mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment and transformation of stimulus function
E.g., Is a blorg inside a grap?
A total of 64 questions

19. Baseline Baseline Assessment
Pt. assessed for arb. containment relational responding across mutually entailed relations (16 questions), combinatorial entailed relations (16 questions), and transformation of stimulus functions (64 questions)
Tested across 4 stimulus sets
No feedback or R+ provided

20. Training Sequence Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Mutually entailed relations (2 stimuli)
Phase 2
Transformation of stimulus functions (2 stimuli)
Phase 3
Combinatorial entailed relations (3 stimuli)
Phase 4
Transformation of stimulus functions (3 stimuli)

21. Consequences
Positive R+ (tokens and praise) for correct responses in addition to specific feedback
FR4 exchange of tokens for stickers
Pt. given corrective feedback for incorrect responses and re-exposed to the trial
If the pt. beat her score from the previous session she could choose something from the stationery box

22. Progression The pt. was exposed to training using one stimulus set
Once mastery criterion was met, the pt. was then assessed for generalization
If generalization shown, she progressed onto the next phase; otherwise she was re-exposed to training using a novel set

23. Results Training sessions conducted over a three-week period
The pt. generalized arb. containment to novel stimuli across all phases
Maintenance was shown 1 wk, 2 wks, 3 wks and 4 wks post-training

24. Conclusion
The current study constitutes the first of its kind to successfully train arbitrary containment repertoires in a young child
Generalization and maintenance observed
Future research should aim to train arbitrary containment repertoires in younger populations, or individuals with developmental disabilities