1. El SCoRE* de la Conducta Verbal:
La Ecuación de Relaciones de Estimulo Controlado
*Stimulus Control Ratio Equation
el puntaje

2. The University of Texas at San Antonio
Quantifying Language with the Verbal Behavior Stimulus Control Ratio Equation
The University of Texas at San Antonio

3. TEAM Autism Research Center, UTSA
The center was established in Spring 2013 to provide intensive state-of-the-art programming for children and adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders premised upon Applied Behavior Analysis, specifically toward the development of verbal behavior to address communication, reciprocal and interactional skill deficits and associated challenging behavior. The center recently received formal designation as an organized research unit. In addition to supporting the community, the TEAM Research Center (VB lab/ShaperSpace) located downtown San Antonio, offers university students an opportunity for an intensive supervised practicum situation with a clinical and research emphasis.

4. Drash & Tudor (2004)
The failure of the verbal community to establish an individual’s functional verbal and listener repertoire is often described as autism spectrum disorder.

5. Mand Derived from the words demand and command
Often thought of as a request
Asking for “pizza” is a mand when under the control of getting pizza
“Specifies” its reinforcement
Manding “pencil” specifies pencil as reinforcement
Asking for directions specifies directions as the reinforcement for asking.
Same response at Pizza Hut vs McDonalds.

6. Echoic Verbal behavior that echoes what somebody else has said.
Often referred to as copying:
Hearing “pizza”, saying “pizza”
Seeing the sign for “pencil”, signing “pencil”
Watching someone touch a PECS symbol for “dog”, touching the PECS symbol for “dog”

7. Tact
Verbal behavior under control of properties of objects or other stimuli with which you are currently in contact.
Often referred to as labeling:
Seeing pizza, saying “pizza”
Seeing a pencil, signing “pencil”
Smelling smoke, writing “smoke”
Hearing barking, typing “dog”

8. Intraverbal (Sequelics)
Verbal behavior controlled by other verbal behavior. Often thought of as a reply:
I say…
You say…
What are you hungry for?
Pizza
Name something you write with
Pencil
Twinkle, twinkle …
Little star
1, 2, 3, 4, … 5!
You sit on a …
Chair!
This accounts for the largest category of verbal behavior. Most of what we say, when speaking, is controlled by other people’s verbal behavior.

9. Teaching verbal operants independent of one another leads to disproportionate levels of responding across operants.
Sundberg (2007) compared VB-MAPP profiles for typically developing children and children with autism.
The VB-MAPP profiles for children with autism show higher levels of tacts and echoics than mands and intraverbals (sequelics), while the VB-MAPP profiles of typically developing children are balanced across each of these four operants.
Therefore, it appears that teaching operants in a molecular format promotes autistic speech patterns.

10. Assessing the Functions of Emerging Speech
Experimental analysis of the functional independence of verbal operants
An extension of Lerman, Parten, Addison, Vorndran, Volkert, & Kodak (2005)
Purpose:
The development of a metric to summarize the experimental evaluation of verbal behavior.

11. Procedures
The VOA, exposed participants to 5 assessment conditions (mand, echoic, tact, sequelic and control) in varying order.
Each condition lasted 5 minutes and observers used a partial interval recording method to score target responses in 30-sec intervals.
The 25-min assessment was repeated 3 times per participant.
In the mand and tact conditions participants were allowed access to preferred items and at 20-sec intervals were prompted, “What do you want?” or “What’s this?” (Respectively) by therapist.
In the echoic and sequelic conditions items from the mand condition were removed and therapist provided an echoic or sequelic SD for an item probed in the mand condition.
A single control condition isolated the variable of listener proximity and items from the mand condition were present within the environment but out of reach of the participant, while echoic and sequelic SDs were alternated at 20-sec intervals.

12. Mand
Allow access to preferred item(s). S​R+ ​identified by allocation of time.
If child is not presently engaged with a toy, default to last manipulated item.
At 30­sec intervals, remove access to item (out of sight/sound/etc to control for potential tact confound)
Once S​R+​ has been removed, ask, “What do you want?”
If child mands for item with target response within 5 seconds, reinforce with item
No generalized reinforcement.
No echoic.
If child mands before S​R+​ is removed, hide S​R+​ and ask, “What do you want?”
If no target response after 5 seconds, place item on the floor/table at arms length from the child.
Repeat for duration of the condition.

13. Echoic Remove items from mand condition.
At 30­sec intervals, provide echoic S​D​ for an item probed in the mand condition.
If echoic occurs within 5 seconds, provide generalized reinforcement.
Repeat for duration of the condition.

14. Tact Allow access to same items probed in mand condition.
At 30­sec intervals, place hand on the items with which child is playing and ask “What’s this?”
If child tacts item with target response within 5 seconds, provide with generalized reinforcement.
Repeat for duration of the condition.

15. Sequelic Remove items from mand condition.
At 30­second intervals, provide sequelic S​D​ fill­in based on how child interacted with the S​R+​.
If sequelic occurs within 5 seconds, provide generalized reinforcement.
Repeat for duration of the condition.

16. Control No listener proximity.
Items from mand condition present within the environment, but out of reach of the child.
At 30­second intervals, alternate between sequelic (30­sec, 90­sec, etc.) and echoic (60­sec, 120­sec, etc.) S​D​s.
Repeat for duration of the condition.

17. Stimulus Control Ratios

18. Stimulus Control Ratios

19. Stimulus Control Ratios

20. Agreements+Disagreements
SCoRE
Agreements
Agreements+Disagreements

21. Stimulus Control Metric
Calculated as IOA across two independent observers (real and null):
Mand = 25/30.3 = .83
Echoic = 25/29 = .86
Tact = 25/31 = .81
Sequelic = 9.7/25 = .39
Total = .72

22. Novel Outcome Measure
Post - .72
Pre Post - .72

23. Effect Sizes: < .20 – Emergent .20 - .49 – Practical
– Moderate
> – Strong
Ferguson (2009)

24. Emergent: < .20

25. Practical:

26. Moderate:

27. Strong: > .80

28. Five-year-old male with ASD

29. 4 year old neurotypical female

30. “The verbal operants we have examined may be said to be the raw material out of which sustained verbal behavior is manufactured” (Skinner, 1957, p. 312).
Same response at Pizza Hut vs McDonalds.

31. Contact Information:
Lee Mason
Alonzo Andrews
TEAM Autism Research Center
210/