ABA Fundamentals

Training Intraverbal Naming to Establish Matching-to-Sample Performances.

Santos et al. (2015) · The Analysis of verbal behavior 2015
★ The Verdict

Saying ‘A goes with B’ is enough to create accurate matching in adults—no matching practice required.

✓ Read this if BCBAs teaching conditional discrimination or stimulus equivalence to teens or adults.
✗ Skip if Clinicians working on listener repertoires or tact programs only.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Ten college students with no known disabilities joined the study. The team used a multiple-baseline design across three picture sets.

Students never touched a matching card. They only learned to say, 'A goes with B,' for 18 picture pairs. Then the test asked them to match without talking.

02

What they found

Every student scored 90 % or better on the final matching test. Symmetry tests (B to A) were just as strong.

The words alone created the matching skill. No direct matching trials were needed.

03

How this fits with other research

Clark et al. (1977) tried a similar idea with preschoolers. They added extra verbal training before correspondence training and saw no gain. The new study shows adults can skip matching trials entirely, a cleaner step forward.

Robertson et al. (2013) also compared teaching setups while keeping time the same. They found traditional drill beat mixed flash cards. Here, the ‘drill’ was pure intraverbal naming, and it still won, extending the idea to derived relations.

Stephenson et al. (2015) reminds us that single-case graphs like these need clear visual rules. Their meta-analysis found only 76 % agreement between viewers, so use sharp phase lines and labels when you share your own data.

04

Why it matters

If you need to teach matching skills fast, start with intraverbal naming. Have the learner say the relation out loud for a few minutes, then test matching. You can cut direct matching trials and still get emergent performance. This saves session time and reduces rote drilling.

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

Pick two pictures, teach the learner to say ‘apple goes with orange,’ then immediately test visual matching—skip the usual matching trials.

02At a glance

Intervention
stimulus equivalence training
Design
multiple baseline across behaviors
Sample size
10
Population
neurotypical
Finding
positive
Magnitude
large

03Original abstract

The current study evaluated whether training intraverbal naming would be sufficient to establish visual-visual matching-to-sample (MTS) performances in college students. In the first experiment, we used a multiple-probe design across stimulus sets to assess whether six participants could match arbitrary visual stimuli (AB) after learning to tact their two experimentally defined classes (A' and B') and then intraverbally relate their names (i.e., "A' goes with B'"). All participants matched the stimuli accurately after training, as well as emitted the trained intraverbals. In the second experiment, we used a multiple baseline design across four participants to assess whether the same training would produce bi-directional intraverbals in the form of "B' goes with A'," and MTS performance consistent with symmetry (BA). All participants responded accurately during matching and intraverbal tests. Across both experiments, participants stated the trained intraverbals while performing the matching task. Results showed that MTS performance can be established solely by verbal behavior training.

The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2015 · doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80167-7