Stimulus classes in matching to sample and sequence production: the emergence of numeric relations.
Teach matching first; the sequencing will follow for learners with ID.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team taught numeric relations to adults with intellectual disability.
First they used matching-to-sample: pick the card that goes with the sample.
Later they tested if the adults could also line the cards up in the right order without extra training.
They also tried the reverse: teach the order first, then test matching.
What they found
Matching-first worked. After learning to match, the adults could suddenly sequence the cards too.
Sequencing-first did not work. After learning the order, the adults still failed the matching tests.
This is the opposite of what earlier college studies showed.
How this fits with other research
Davison et al. (1989) showed that college kids form equivalence classes when tones tell them which set to use. The 1995 study keeps the same stimulus-equidence idea but shows the training order matters more for learners with ID.
Granerud et al. (2021) added naming for preschoolers and still got equivalence. Together the three papers show the procedure must fit the learner: naming helps toddlers, matching-first helps adults with ID, tones help college students.
Cooper et al. (1990) found some people form classes without extra rewards. The 1995 data do not clash; they just add another rule: start with matching if the learner has ID.
Why it matters
If you run stimulus-equivalence programs, begin with matching-to-sample for clients with ID. Do not assume sequencing will spill back into matching. Probe both directions before you move on. This small switch can save weeks of extra teaching.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run your first equivalence probe as matching-to-sample, then test sequencing for free before you add any ordering lessons.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We investigated interrelationships among stimulus classes established in matching-to-sample and sequence-production tasks. The analysis focused on the matching and sequencing of quantities, numerals, and arbitrary forms in two individuals with mental retardation. The basic protocol involved: (a) establishing both matching and sequencing performances with some stimuli, (b) training sequencing with a new set of stimuli and assessing whether new matching performances emerged, and (c) training matching with a new set of stimuli and assessing whether new sequencing emerged. The results showed that sequence training did not readily lead to new matching performances, unlike prior research with college students. In contrast, training in matching to sample yielded emergent sequence production; these data support prior studies involving children and adults without developmental disabilities. The results extend prior stimulus class research and suggest an important role for stimulus control processes in the production of generative numeric performances.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1995 · doi:10.1016/0891-4222(95)00008-b