The IRAP as a Measure of Implicit Cognition: A Case of Frankenstein’s Monster
The IRAP can be reclaimed as a clean verbal measure, but some peers say dump it for the FAST instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Barnes-Holmes et al. (2022) wrote a theory paper. They looked at the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure, or IRAP.
The authors say the IRAP has been used as a mind-reading tool in mainstream psychology. They want to take it back and use it to measure plain verbal behavior instead.
What they found
The paper does not give new data. It gives a plan. The plan is to treat IRAP scores as just another kind of verbal response that can be shaped and counted.
How this fits with other research
Watters et al. (2023) flat-out disagree. They tell readers to drop the IRAP and use the FAST, a new tool that keeps tight stimulus control.
Crane et al. (2010) show the same build-and-test path. They built TARPA, a computer test for early language, and found it tracked with daily living scores in kids with autism.
Spencer et al. (2022) also reuse old Skinner words. They use Relational Frame Theory to give new life to "countercontrol," just like Barnes-Holmes tries to give new life to the IRAP.
Why it matters
If you run verbal behavior programs, you now have two clear camps. One camp says fix the IRAP and use it to see how clients relate words. The other camp says skip it and use the FAST. You can pick a side and pilot both tools with one client next week. Watch which one gives cleaner data and faster graphs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run one IRAP trial and one FAST trial with the same adult client; compare which tool gives steadier response latencies.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) was initially developed as a way to assess the strength and probability of natural verbal relations, as defined within relational frame theory (RFT), and was conceptually rooted within the behavior-analytic tradition. However, the IRAP quickly became employed primarily as a measure of implicit cognition, more in line with mainstream psychology than behavior analysis. In doing so, research using the IRAP increasingly employed ill-defined mainstream psychological terms, focused on correlational analyses with traditional psychometry, and thus emphasized prediction over the prediction-and-influence of behavior. Although perhaps beneficial to the study of implicit cognition, this approach could be argued to have limited the IRAP’s utility in behavior analyses of human language and cognition. In the current article we will reflect on this suggestion, on the IRAPs place and current use in the field of behavior analysis, and on its potential future within behavioral psychology in light of recent conceptual and empirical advances in RFT. In doing so, it is hoped that the measure may be refined into a better understood, more precise, functional-analytic tool.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2022 · doi:10.1007/s40614-022-00352-z