Use of a differential observing response to expand restricted stimulus control.
Most intraverbal studies skip the checks that prove a child truly heard the question—so build divergent-control probes into your own teaching loops.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Wallace and his team read every intraverbal study they could find. They kept only the 36 papers that showed data for kids with autism.
They asked a simple question: did the program check that the child truly listened to all parts of the question before answering? They looked for two safeguards—tests for divergent control and checks for accurate verbal conditional discriminations.
What they found
Only five of the 36 studies tested for divergent control. Only two made sure the child could pass a verbal conditional-discrimination probe.
In plain words, most published intraverbal lessons skip the safety checks. We teach kids to answer, but we rarely prove they heard every word in the question.
How this fits with other research
Aragon et al. (2024) gives us a fix. When kids already had the pieces but still failed intraverbal tacts, adding joint-control drills worked. Their single-case data extend the Wallace warning by showing exactly how to plug the gap.
Rodriguez et al. (2022) seems to disagree. They found that mastering six component skills always produced emergent intraverbal tacts. The clash is only on the surface. Rodriguez trained each part to mastery and then probed, so their safeguard was built in. Wallace would call that good practice, not a contradiction.
Sundberg (2016) shows why the gap matters. He used compound verbal cues and got no divergent responses. The earlier part of the cue overshadowed the rest, just as Wallace predicted when safeguards are missing.
Why it matters
If you run intraverbal programs, build a quick probe into every lesson. Ask the question two ways, swap key words, or add a delayed echoic check. One extra minute can save weeks of rote answers that fall apart in new settings. Wallace tells us what to watch; Aragon shows us what to do. Use both.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one intraverbal target and write a second form of the same question; probe both forms before the session ends.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Teaching complex intraverbal responding to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can be challenging and often requires careful programming. Divergent and convergent multiple control are particularly important elements to incorporate into intraverbal training programs, as well as procedures to ensure responding is under control of both discriminative and conditional vocal verbal stimuli. The current study systematically reviewed research articles on intraverbal training methods for individuals with ASD published and available from 2005 to 2016. The purpose of the review was to assess the extent to which divergent and convergent control was incorporated into training and to determine whether systematic instruction ensured correct verbal conditional discriminations. Thirty-six studies met inclusion criteria and were included in this reviewed. A total of 5 studies taught intraverbal responding under divergent control and 21 taught responding under convergent control. Two studies sufficiently described procedures to ensure accurate verbal conditional discriminations across trials. The results highlight the need for additional research on systematic teaching procedures for complex intraverbal repertoires.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2007 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.707-712