Naming: What Do We Know So Far? A Systematic Review
Naming research is a tower of Babel—this map lets you pick one language and stay consistent.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors searched every naming paper they could find. They read them all and wrote down how each one defined naming, how they tested it, and how they tried to teach it.
No numbers were combined. The goal was to map the mess, not to pick a winner.
What they found
Labs use the word “naming” to mean different things. Some call it a single skill. Others split it into many steps.
The tests are just as mixed. Picture cards, echoic prompts, and peer trials all show up under the same label.
Because the methods differ, you cannot compare results across studies.
How this fits with other research
Faja et al. (2023) faced the same chaos in autism social tools. They showed that eight scales all claim to measure social communication, yet they score different skills. The naming field repeats that story.
Cheong et al. (2013) found zero self-concept tools with solid psychometrics for kids with CP. Naming is not that bad, but Vassos et al. (2023) warn we are heading the same way if we do not tidy our terms.
Jarrold et al. (1994) once said social-phobia treatments were too flawed to trust. The new review says naming assessments are still at that early, anything-goes stage.
Why it matters
Before you run a naming program, open this review. Pick one clear definition and stick to it. Share your protocol so the next BCBA can build on your work instead of starting over.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one naming definition from the review, print the table, and tape it to your data clipboard.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although the term <i>naming</i> is used colloquially in the English language, it refers to a specific instance of verbal behavior within behavior analysis. Since Horne and Lowe's (Horne & Lowe, 1996) seminal account on naming, the concept continues to generate clinical and research interest to-date. We conducted a systematic search of the behavior analytic studies on naming to highlight the methods that were used to test naming, the terminology that have been adopted, the conceptual underpinnings, and the methods used to train naming if it was found to be absent. Forty-six studies met inclusion criteria and we conducted a descriptive analysis of these studies. We found that most studies either used the terms naming or bidirectional naming. We found wide variation in the methods used to test and train naming. Nearly one third of these studies attempted to offer evidence that naming facilitated some other type of behavior, and the remaining studies attempted to train naming in individuals when the behavior was found to be absent. Overall, our review highlighted that there exists a rich empirical dataset on testing and training naming within behavior analysis, and we discussed specific areas for future research.
, 2023 · doi:10.1007/s40614-023-00374-1