Protocol analysis and the "silent dog" method of analyzing the impact of self-generated rules.
Use the silent-dog think-aloud test to see if accurate performance comes from hidden self-rules or straight contingency shaping.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Gutierrez et al. (1998) wrote a how-to paper. They give a new twist on protocol analysis. The trick is called the "silent dog" method.
You ask the client to talk out loud while working. Then you watch for two things. First, the words must match the correct steps. Second, the talking must stop when the task ends.
What they found
The paper is all theory. No new data. The authors show that the silent-dog check beats old cognitive probes. It keeps the science clean and stays inside behavior analysis.
How this fits with other research
Szatmari et al. (1994) came first. They said staff behavior is rule-governed too. Gutierrez et al. (1998) take the same idea and give you a tool to test it in any client.
Raslear et al. (1992) also sharpen assessment. They ran a mini functional analysis to see if self-restraint works like SIB. C et al. offer a verbal test instead of extra conditions.
Pisacreta (1982) watched humans on fixed-interval schedules. He guessed that silent verbal rules guided their pauses or steady rates. The silent-dog method could finally show those rules without guessing.
Why it matters
Next time a client nails a task, you will not know why. Did the contingencies shape the moves? Or did the child silently spell out a rule? Run the silent-dog probe. Ask for think-aloud. If the words line up with the moves and stop when the task ends, you have evidence of self-rule control. If not, keep shaping. You just saved hours of guessing.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one mastered task. Ask the learner to say each step out loud while doing it. Note if the speech matches the moves and stops at the end.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Within the cognitive literature, verbal protocols of cognitive events are plagued by difficult questions of unconsciousness, completeness, reactivity, and validity. In this paper we argue that these concerns apply with much less force or not at all when protocol analysis is used to determine whether a given instance of behavior is governed by self-generated rules. When adequate controls are used, some patterns of results allow this question to be answered unambiguously and in a manner untouched by the philosophical hurdles encountered within the cognitive literature on protocol analysis. We argue that in at least some circumstances a slightly modified version of protocol analysis allows us to know, in a functional sense, what a person was thinking. Protocol analysis can be very useful to behavior analysts who are interested in determining whether task-relevant behavior is controlled by self-generated rules or is purely contingency shaped.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 1998 · doi:10.1007/BF03392923