ABA Fundamentals

Training intraverbal bidirectional naming to establish generalized equivalence class performances

Jennings et al. (2017) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2017
★ The Verdict

Tact and intraverbal training alone can build stimulus equivalence in verbally-able adults—no matching trials required.

✓ Read this if BCBAs teaching advanced language or academic skills to teens or adults
✗ Skip if Clinicians working with preschoolers or clients below two-year verbal age

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Jennings et al. (2017) asked a simple question. Can you build stimulus equivalence without matching-to-sample drills?

They worked with 17 college students. Everyone got tact and intraverbal training only. No matching trials.

After training, they tested for emergent relations. They wanted to see if the students formed equivalence classes anyway.

02

What they found

Thirteen of the 17 students passed. They showed all the emergent relations. Equivalence formed without any matching practice.

The classes generalized to new pictures and words. The shortcut worked for most learners.

03

How this fits with other research

Davison et al. (1984) did the opposite. They used only matching-to-sample with children. No naming. Equivalence still formed. The two studies seem to clash, but the age gap matters. Kids may need the visual task. Adults can skip it.

Frampton et al. (2025) also taught equivalence to college students. They used cover-copy-compare plus graphic organizers. Jennings shows another adult-friendly shortcut: just talk about the stimuli.

Barnes et al. (1990) warns us to check verbal age. Their deaf children with low verbal skills rarely formed classes. Jennings’ adults all had strong language. The shortcut may only work for verbally-able learners.

04

Why it matters

If your client can tact and answer questions, you can skip lengthy matching-to-sample programs. Start with naming and intraverbal drills. Test for emergent relations after a few sessions. You might save hours of table work and still get full equivalence. Always probe first—some learners still need the traditional matching steps.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Try a quick tact and intraverbal probe on your next equivalence goal—skip matching-to-sample and test for emergent relations.

02At a glance

Intervention
stimulus equivalence training
Design
single case other
Sample size
17
Population
neurotypical
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of tact and intraverbal training on the establishment of generalized equivalence classes. Seventeen college students were exposed to tact training, listener testing, and intraverbal training (A'B' and B'C') in two experiments. Visual-visual matching-to-sample and intraverbal tests measured performances consistent with the formation of equivalence classes. Generalization was assessed with four novel sets of stimuli. In the second experiment, matching-to-sample tests for baseline relations (AB, BC) were eliminated to control for the possibility that equivalence classes were developed through exposure to these visual stimulus-stimulus relations. Thirteen of 17 participants passed all matching-to-sample and intraverbal posttests. Results suggest that when trained and emergent intraverbal relations were not maintained or were faulty, participants did not respond correctly during matching-to-sample posttests.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2017 · doi:10.1002/jeab.277