Naming of Stimuli in Equivalence Class Formation in Children
A short naming lesson—either one name per set or unique names—helps typically developing preschoolers form equivalence classes faster.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Granerud and team worked with two typically developing 4-year-olds.
They first taught each child to name pictures in two different ways.
One way used the same name for every picture in a set (common naming).
The other way gave each picture its own unique name (individual naming).
After the naming lessons, the kids did match-to-sample trials to see if they could form equivalence classes.
What they found
Both children built new equivalence classes no matter which naming style came first.
One child formed classes faster after common naming; the other did better after individual naming.
The study shows either naming style can prep preschoolers for equivalence learning.
How this fits with other research
Older work like Davison et al. (1989) and Cooper et al. (1990) proved preschoolers can form equivalence classes, but they did not test naming as a booster.
Those studies used basic match-to-sample or added sound cues, so Granerud et al. (2021) extends the list of tools we can give young learners.
Davison et al. (1995) saw mixed results when they tried numeric relations with individuals with intellectual disability.
Granerud’s positive outcomes with typically developing kids hint that naming may be most helpful for learners who already have strong language skills.
Why it matters
If you teach preschoolers or early-elementary clients, add a quick naming round before equivalence drills.
Try both common and individual naming; watch which one speeds up class formation for each child.
This tiny step could save you trials and keep little learners engaged.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before your next equivalence lesson, ask the child to name each picture once, then jump straight into match-to-sample probes.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractIn the present study, two typically developing 4-year-old children, Pete and Joe, were trained six conditional discriminations and tested for the formation of three 3-member equivalence classes. Pete and Joe did not establish the AC relation within 600 trials and were given two conditions of preliminary training, including naming of stimuli with two different stimulus sets. Pete started with preliminary training with common naming of stimuli, followed by conditional-discrimination training and testing for emergent relations, and continued with preliminary training on individual naming of stimuli, followed by the same training and testing as described previously. Joe experienced the same conditions but in reversed order. Pete responded in accordance with equivalence in the second round in the condition with common naming. In the first round of testing in the condition with individual naming, he responded in accordance with equivalence. In the condition with individual naming, Joe did not respond in accordance with stimulus equivalence but established all of the directly trained relations during training. In the condition with common naming, he responded in accordance with equivalence in the first round of testing. The results from the experiment support earlier findings that both common and individual naming could facilitate the emergence of equivalence classes.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 2021 · doi:10.1007/s40616-021-00143-8