See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273065328

Teaching receptive language skills:

Recommendations for instructors

Article · January 2013

Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

8 205

2 authors, including:

Laura L Grow
California State University, Fresno
17 PUBLICATIONS 202 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Laura L Grow
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 13 August 2016
 Teaching Receptive Language Skills:
Recommendations for Instructors

Laura Grow
University of British Columbia

Linda LeBlanc
Trumpet Behavioral Health

Keywords: autism, developmental disabilities, early intervention, instructional strategies, listener behavior,
receptive language

56 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE Behavior Analysis in Practice, 6(1), 56-75
 Receptive language refers to responding appropriately to another person’s spoken language.
Most curricula dedicate a proportion of early intervention to developing receptive
language skills. The specific terms used to refer to the receptive language programs
and the recommendations for teaching such skills vary considerably across the early
intervention curricula. The present paper will provide a conceptual analysis of the desired
controlling variables for different receptive language programs, teaching recommendations,
a brief review of the literature to substantiate the teaching recommendations, and a
discussion of the potential negative effects of deviating from the recommendations.
Young children quickly learn to respond to the spoken bias (e.g., select the option on the right most of the time
language of other people (i.e., receptive language) as regardless of the task) that may hinder learning and
they begin to orient to their own name and familiar lead to problem behavior (Green, 2001). The resulting
voices, follow simple instructions, and identify a wide problems with stimulus control and escape-maintained
range of stimuli and events in their environment (Hart problem behavior could interfere with acquisition in
& Risley, 1995; Lovaas, 1977). Hundreds of everyday other skill areas as well. It is critically important to use
interactions with caregivers readily produce receptive optimal procedures for teaching receptive language skills
language skills as children learn to select pictures in a from the very beginning of EIBI programming to en-
book when an adult says the name of an item or to find sure that effective patterns of responding are established.
the right color during reading and play activities. When
Common Terms and Conceptualization
basic receptive language skills are not readily acquired, a
child misses many important learning opportunities re- Most EIBI curricula and conceptual models refer to
sulting in delays in overall development and subsequent the overall repertoire of responding to another’s spoken
acquisition of spoken language (Drash & Tudor, 1993; language as receptive language (Leaf & McEachin, 1999;
Hart & Risley, 1992; Lovaas, 1977). Lovaas, 2003, Sundberg & Partington, 1998), although
Learners with developmental disabilities require the term listener behavior is also used (Barbera, 2007;
a carefully engineered environment to learn how to Skinner, 1957). The first receptive skills targeted during
respond effectively to the language of others (e.g., fol- early intervention involve responding to basic instruc-
low instructions, identify objects by name, orient when tions (e.g., “Come here” and “Clap your hands”), one’s
called) (Drash & Tudor, 1993; Lovaas, 1977). Thus, own name, and the names of common items. Later tar-
many of the initial programs in early intensive behav- gets in the receptive language domain include following
ioral intervention (EIBI) curricula are designed to teach multiple-step instructions, writing letters and numbers
learners to respond to their name or simple directions upon request, and identifying items based on abstract
followed by training in literally hundreds of other recep- features (e.g., relative size).
tive language targets (e.g., identifying objects by name, Table 1 displays a sampling of receptive language
feature, function; Lovaas, 2003; Smith, 2001; Sundberg programs recommended by several well-recognized
& Partington, 1998). If the instructional procedures for early intervention curricula (Barbera, 2007; Leaf &
teaching receptive language skills are not optimal, sev- McEachin, 1999, Lovaas, 2003, Sundberg & Par-
eral problems may emerge that can slow the rate of skill tington, 1998). The terms for the different programs
acquisition in EIBI (Schilmoeller, Schilmoeller, Etzel, & vary somewhat across curricula, but similar targets are
LeBlanc, 1979). For example, simple errors in arranging displayed across rows while the programs are generally
instructional materials can inadvertently establish a side arranged from basic to advanced skills in a top-bottom

, 56-75 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 57

 Table 1. Examples of the Terms Used to Describe Receptive Language Programs in Several Early Intervention Curricula

fashion. Regardless of the specific name of the program, Examples of programs requiring an auditory-visual con-
it is important to conceptualize the skills based on the ditional discrimination are identifying items based on
type of discrimination required and the desired stimu- their name, basic features (e.g., red, has a tail), compara-
lus control. Receptive language programs that involve tive features (e.g., bigger, higher), classes (e.g., foods,
simple discriminations can be described as a 3-term toys), and functions (e.g., draw with, clean with). The
contingency: (1) an auditory instruction (discriminative reader may want to use Appendix A, a list of technical
stimulus), (2) a particular nonvocal response (behavior), terms and definitions used in the paper, as a reference.
and (3) the delivery of reinforcers, usually in the form Recent literature reviews and experimental labora-
of praise and tangible items (consequence). Educational tory studies provide findings that should inform the
programs that teach simple discriminations include instructional procedures used to teach receptive lan-
teaching a learner to respond to their name, follow basic guage in school and clinic settings (e.g., Green, 2001;
instructions, write letters, numbers, and shapes, and to Grow, Carr, Kodak, Jostad, & Kisamore, 2011; Gutier-
follow many other action-specific requests. Programs rez et al., 2009; Holcombe, Wolery, & Snyder, 1994;
that involve an auditory conditional discrimination Rodgers & Iwata, 1991). The purpose of the paper is to
can be described as a 4-term contingency: (1) an ar- provide five overarching best practice recommendations
ray of comparison stimuli (discriminative stimuli and for receptive language instruction. Each general recom-
incorrect comparison stimuli) with (2) a corresponding mendation is accompanied by a conceptual analysis, the
auditory instruction that occasions the (3) selection of specific practice parameters, a review of the experimen-
the appropriate picture/object from the array (behavior) tal literature, and descriptions of common problematic
that is followed by (4) a reinforcer (consequence). The response patterns that may emerge from deviating from
important difference between the two types of discrimi- the practice recommendations.
nations is that the auditory instruction (i.e., the sample
stimulus) establishes one of the comparison stimuli as Recommendation 1:
the correct one (i.e., discriminative stimulus) and the Require an Observing Response
others as distracters (i.e., S-deltas) at that particular An observing response is emitted by a learner before
moment. Each of the comparison stimuli functions as or during a training trial and results in sensory contact
the discriminative stimulus or distracter on a given trial. with the discriminative stimulus. A differential observ-

58 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

ing response (DORs) is similar to an observing response sponses that may interfere with the acquisition of
except that the learner engages in a unique observing receptive language programs, termed listener responding
response for each discriminative stimulus. Observing in this assessment, is the Verbal Behavior Milestones
and differential observing responses are used to increase and Assessment Placement Program’s Barriers Assess-
the likelihood that the learner will pay attention to the ment (Sundberg, 2008). Several sections of the Barriers
relevant features of the discriminative stimulus and to Assessment help instructors identify responses and/or
avoid the development of faulty stimulus control. In- deficits that may interfere with the acquisition of recep-
structors should require learners to engage in some type tive language programs (e.g., limited scanning skills, dif-
of observing response when teaching new receptive lan- ficulties observing auditory stimuli, problem behavior).
guage skills. Instructors should first assess the learner’s Instructors might use the assessment results to select
observing repertoire and then develop an appropriate appropriate observing responses.
observing-response procedure.
Develop a Strategy
To acquire simple and conditional discrimination
skills under appropriate stimulus control, the learner The instructor should select either an observing or
must observe the relevant features of the programmed differential observing response depending on the learn-
antecedent stimuli. Instructors should determine if an er’s current observing repertoire. The purpose of the
assessment is needed to identify the variables that affect observing response is to increase the likelihood that the
the learner’s observing repertoire. For new learners or learner will attend to the critical and relevant features
any learner with evident difficulties observing relevant of the antecedent stimuli and avoid the development of
features of antecedent stimuli (e.g., rarely looks at an faulty stimulus control.
array of stimuli unless prompted, lack of scanning), as- For learners who readily scan materials, the instruc-
sess the observing repertoire and employ strategies that tor may select a nonspecific-observing response. For
increase the learner’s observation of auditory or visual example, the instructor says “Listen,” “Look at me”
stimuli. For a learner with a documented history of and requires the learner to make eye contact with the
faulty stimulus control (i.e., some erroneous aspect of instructor. Alternatively, the instructor could teach the
the instructional environment controls responding), in- learner to touch a generic visual stimulus (e.g., a color
structors should assess the observing repertoire, particu- card) prior to the instructor delivering the auditory
larly looking for the most common barriers to effective instruction. Nonspecific observing responses may be
stimulus control (e.g., positional bias, overselectivity useful for learners with existing observing repertoires
to a certain feature), and develop specific strategies to (e.g., scans an array of stimuli, can repeat the auditory
overcome them. instruction). If a learner has a history of faulty stimulus
control, nonspecific-observing responses may not be
Assessment of Observing Responses
ideal because they are unlikely to address faulty stimu-
Instructors should consider the learner’s observing lus control (Koegel, Dunlap, Richman, & Dyer, 1981).
repertoire to determine if an assessment of observing Thus, for learners with a history of faulty stimulus con-
is necessary. Some learners readily observe the instruc- trol, instructors should use specific strategies to ensure
tional materials during receptive language program- that learners observe the critical features of the anteced-
ming. Assessments may not be needed for learners that ent stimuli.
readily scan items when entering a room, focus on each The instructor may consider using a DOR to facili-
stimulus in a visual array during tabletop instruction, tate the observation of the visual array of comparison
scan pages in books, and repeat auditory instructions. stimuli. Instructors might consider a DOR that requires
For learners with effective observing behaviors, a com- the learner to match stimuli based on a critical defin-
prehensive assessment may not be needed. ing feature of the subsequent receptive language skill
One potentially helpful way to assess learner re- that involves a conditional discrimination (Dube &

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 59

McIlvane, 1999; Walpole, Roscoe, & Dube, 2007). conditional discrimination programs. For example, the
For example, if a learner is having difficulty observing instructor could present an array of visual stimuli (e.g.,
the relevant visual stimuli during a program to teach pictures of a chair, lamp, and rug), say, “Lamp,” and
receptive identification of an elephant, rhinoceros, and prompt the learner to repeat “Lamp” before providing
a zebra, the instructor could intersperse trials where the an opportunity to select the correct stimulus from the
learner is required to match the critical feature(s) of the array.
animals (e.g., the learner matches two pictures of black
and white stripes before the receptive identification trial Recommendation 2:
for the zebra). An instructor may consider using match- Minimize Inadvertent Instructor Cues
ing as a DOR if the learner has difficulties with observ- Instructors engage in programmed behaviors that
ing the defining features of the relevant antecedents are designed to teach their learners new skills. For
(i.e., responses are influenced by irrelevant features). example, the trials may be conducted at a specific pace,
An instructor may consider arranging DORs for preselected prompting strategies may be employed (see
increase observing the auditory instruction. The instruc- section below), and preferred consequences are likely
tor could teach the learner to emit a manual sign that to be presented. However, other aspects of the instruc-
corresponds to the auditory instruction or discrimina- tor’s behavior can inadvertently exert control over the
tive stimulus (Bonta & Water, 1981). For example, the learner’s responding during listener training leading
instructor could teach the learner to sign “Sit down” to problems with skill acquisition. For example, when
after the instructor presents the auditory instruction teaching the receptive instructions “Stand up” and “Sit
“Sit down.” Using manual signs for DORs may be down,” the content of the instructor’s statement should
particularly useful for learners with limited vocal, verbal occasion two different motor responses. However, an in-
behavior. In the same example, an instructor could structor might inadvertently speak with a lilt at the end
require the learner to repeat the auditory instruction. of one spoken instruction (e.g., “Stand up”) and a drop
For learners who have sufficient vocal imitation reper- at the end of the other (e.g., “Sit down”) and the change
toires, the learner may benefit from naming the sample in tone might become the only feature of the stimuli
stimulus during conditional discrimination programs. that control responding (i.e., overselective responding).
Previous research on DORs requiring naming has The term stimulus overselectivity refers to responding
utilized visual-visual conditional discriminations (i.e., that is influenced by a single feature of a stimulus (e.g.,
matching-to-sample; Constantine & Sidman, 1975; redness) to the exclusion of other relevant features (e.g.,
Gutowski & Stromer, 2003). The experimenter required size, texture; Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979;
the learner to vocally name the sample stimulus (i.e., the Lovaas & Schreibman, 1971; Ploog, 2010). If this hap-
name of the item) while simultaneously matching the pens, a learner might perform well on the instructions
pairs of visual stimuli. Although the body of research is with one instructor and poorly with other instructors
limited to matching, matching is conceptually similar to who say the same words without the tonal changes that
receptive labeling programs that require auditory-visual control responding (i.e., false mastery). Although there
conditional discriminations. The primary difference is are different variables that account for it, false mastery
that the sample stimulus in a visual-visual matching-to- occurs when a learner’s accurate responses are influenced
sample program is visual, whereas, the sample stimulus by unintended antecedent stimuli (e.g., tone of voice)
in a receptive labeling program is auditory. Thus, the rather than the programmed stimuli. Essentially, the in-
research investigating DORs to remediate stimulus structor’s behaviors become features of the instructional
control during matching-to-sample may be applicable event that signal the availability of reinforcement for a
to receptive language programs requiring conditional specific response (i.e., a discriminative stimulus) regard-
discriminations. Instructors may find it helpful to teach less of the other aspects of the stimuli that are presented.
the learner to repeat the auditory instruction as a part of Instructors should minimize the likelihood of faulty

60 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

stimulus control by eliminating the most common in- implementation to detect movements toward an object
advertent cues for responding as overselective respond- or location (e.g., pointing or a head nod toward the toy
ing occurs for a modest proportion of individuals with bin when saying “Get the toy”), small movements that
developmental disabilities (Dickson, Wang, Lombard, mimic or are a component of the target response for re-
& Dube, 2006). ceptive instruction (e.g., moving hands up slightly while
saying “Raise your arms”) or consistent placement of
Eye Gaze and Physical Movements
the hands nearer to correct or incorrect stimuli. Instruc-
An analysis of the instructor’s task reveals sev- tors should minimize all changes in posture and body
eral reasons why inadvertent cues might be shaped in position while presenting trials and to always place the
the course of teaching. For example, the instructor is hands in the same position after stimulus presentation
responsible for responding quickly to accurate learner (e.g., flat on the table within reach of all stimuli, clasped
responses by providing reinforcers and may be respon- in lap during receptive instructions). When array-based
sible for quickly blocking errors or implementing error trials are conducted, instructors might also inadvertently
correction. Looking at the correct stimulus in an array set down the correct stimulus first or last regardless of
might decrease the instructor’s response time and accu- position in the array. If the correct stimulus is consis-
racy of detection of a correct response or error; however, tently placed on the table first or last, the learner can
it could also establish faulty stimulus control. Instruc- consistently contact reinforcement for responding based
tors should look directly at the learner’s face during only on the instructor’s behavior rather than the stimu-
the presentation of the trial and avoid any gaze shifts. lus features. To prevent this potential problem, instruc-
Instructors should be explicitly trained to criterion to tors should arrange the stimulus materials out of the
have consistent and accurate eye gaze; however, since sight line (Green, 2001) of the learner for 3-D stimuli
people are unlikely to detect subtle patterns evolving in and use preprepared stimulus arrays for 2-D stimuli
their own behavior, instructors should monitor proce- (e.g., preprinted sheets in a binder, Velcro board, or
dural integrity for common gaze patterns that could electronic stimulus presentation on a computer).
inadvertently establish faulty stimulus control. Instruc-
Voice Modulation
tors should monitor implementation to detect inadver-
tently looking toward the location for a desired response The typical goal in establishing effective auditory
for receptive instructional programs (e.g., glance at the discriminative stimuli is to have the content control
bookshelf when saying “Get the book,” glance at the responding (e.g., “Red” evokes selecting red, “Get in
wall when saying “Turn on the light,” glance down line” evokes standing in line with peers). The content of
while saying “Touch your feet”) or the target stimulus the auditory instruction is only one of many potentially
in a visual array for conditional discriminations. When salient characteristics of an auditory instruction; pitch,
presenting arrays for selection responses, the instructor rhythm, and volume are also stimulus features. If an
should make eye contact throughout presentation of erroneous stimulus feature (e.g., pitch) consistently co-
the stimuli and monitor for hand movements. When varies with the content of the auditory instruction, the
the learner’s hand moves, instructors should orient their irrelevant feature might inadvertently evoke respond-
gaze to the learner’s hand rather than to the visual array. ing in the training context (e.g., the one with the lilt at
Common physical movement patterns can also the end standing up). If this pattern is established, the
inadvertently establish faulty stimulus control. Consis- learner may master the target responses during training
tently placing a hand nearer to an incorrect stimulus but fail to emit them during maintenance probes when
might be shaped over trials because the instructor is able multiple targets are tested that include the lilt or when
to block error responses quickly; however, it could also another instructor presents the same auditory instruc-
lead to the learner selecting the stimulus farthest away tion without the unusual stimulus feature. To avoid
from the instructor’s hand. Instructors should monitor establishing faulty stimulus control for auditory stimuli,

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 61

instructors should use a consistent pitch for all stimuli that are difficult for the instructor to distinguish (e.g.,
and avoid exaggerating or elongating the pronunciation the learner touches both stomach and thigh simultane-
of parts of the auditory instruction without a specific ously with the same hand). Later sets of targets might
plan in place for fading the stimulus features (i.e., purposefully include responses that share some similari-
within-stimulus fading procedures). ties so that the learner begins to make increasingly more
challenging simple discriminations. In fact, it may be
Recommendation 3: important to teach subtle, yet functional differences
Arrange the Antecedent Stimuli and among stimuli and responses (e.g., drawing a pentagon,
Required Behaviors hexagon, and octagon; identifying someone’s fingernail,
The arrangement of the antecedent stimuli dur- knuckle, and fingertip) once several basic responses have
ing receptive language training directly influences the already been mastered.
type of discrimination taught and the likelihood of Similarly, instructors should avoid teaching in a way
establishing the desired stimulus control. The first two that pairs positional status of the body with the targeted
recommendations target the learner’s observing and the response. For example, an instructor may generate two
instructor’s inadvertent cues. The third recommenda- sets of targeted responses and teach one set of responses
tion emphasizes the instructor’s selection of the anteced- while the learner is standing (e.g., “Jump,” “Walk,” and
ent stimuli and required responses. Five critical steps for “Bend over”) and the other set of responses while the
programming the teaching arrangement are described learner is in a seated position (e.g., “Touch head,” “Clap
below with guidelines for each: (a) plan the required be- hands,” and “Stomp feet”). With this arrangement, it is
haviors, (b) introduce new targets (stimuli or responses) possible that the positional status of the body may come
simultaneously, (c) select the auditory stimuli, (d) coun- to control responding rather than the auditory discrimi-
terbalance the auditory and/or visual stimuli, and (e) native stimulus (i.e., faulty stimulus control). To date,
select the specific features of the discriminative stimulus the authors are unaware of studies that have specifically
and the incorrect visual comparison stimuli. examined the role of the discriminability between the
required behaviors during receptive language programs
Plan the Required Behaviors
involving simple discriminations.
Instructors should consider the types of behaviors
Introduce Multiple Targets Simultaneously
that are taught during simple discrimination programs.
The current behavioral repertoire of the learner and the Instructors should introduce the training stimuli
applied goals of the program should ultimately guide in a simultaneous fashion by presenting and targeting
the selection of responses. Within those parameters, the multiple stimuli across trials in a session. For example,
behaviors targeted at any given time (i.e., as a training in a conditional discrimination program, an instructor
set) should be as distinctly different from each other as may teach “Coat,” “Shoes,” and “Pants” by presenting
possible, particularly for the initial targets. For example, all three pictures of the items on each trial and rotating
a program to teach receptive identification of body parts the discriminative stimulus across trials. Similarly, in a
might include a training set consisting of feet, knees, simple discrimination program for following one-step
and head. A less ideal training set of early targets may instructions, the instructor should present different in-
include stomach, thigh, and chest because of the prox- structions (e.g., “Stand up,” “Touch your nose,” “Clap
imity of the targets in relation to each other and the your hands”) across trials within the same teaching
similarity of the body movements to touch those parts. session.
If the targets are not distinct enough from the learner’s In clinical practice, instructors may have implement-
perspective, the learner might begin to emit each of ed or observed programs in which new receptive lan-
the targeted behaviors in rapid succession, repeat the guage targets are introduced sequentially in a massed-
response targeted in the prior trial or emit responses trial format. Recommendations for teaching simple

62 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

discriminations in a massed-trial format as an initial (Cuvo et al., 1980; Doyle, Wolery, Ault, Gast, & Wiley,
component of conditional discrimination training are 1989). Overall, the simultaneous method is better in
common (Leaf & McEachin, 1999; Lovaas, 2003; Mau- terms of acquisition, maintenance, and/or generalization
rice, Green, & Luce, 1996). Lovaas (2003) provided a of skills. Thus, recommendations for teaching simul-
detailed description of how to use a sequential method taneously can be applied to many early intervention
for teaching receptive language programs. If a sequen- programs.
tial method is used, a 3-array receptive identification A good rule of thumb is to include at least three
program is taught in a series of nine steps that include new targets at the start of training to reduce the likeli-
(a) teaching each stimulus in isolation, (b) teaching each hood of reinforcing correct responses occurring under
stimulus as a simple discrimination in the presence of faulty stimulus control (e.g., position biases). Smaller
an incorrect comparison stimulus (i.e., always the same array sizes during conditional discrimination programs
target but a nontarget stimulus is also present), and (c) can yield errors because the reinforcement schedule
teaching the stimuli as conditional discriminations (i.e., for “correct” responses occurring under faulty stimu-
the correct stimulus varies according to the instructor’s lus control is relatively dense. For example, if a learner
auditory instructions). always selects the right-side stimulus (i.e., side bias)
To date, several studies have evaluated the acquisi- during a two-stimulus array conditional discrimina-
tion, maintenance, and/or generalization of conditional tion program, the probability of reinforcement for error
discrimination programs when comparing sequential responses is 50% (i.e., variable-ratio 2 schedule). In
and simultaneous methods (Grow et al., 2011; Grow, contrast, the probability of reinforcement for selecting
Kodak, & Carr, in press; Johnston, Buchanan, & Dav- the rightmost stimulus drops to 25% in a four-stimulus
enport, 2009; Waldo, Guess, & Flanagan, 1982) or two array. Another problem with using an array of two
different sequential methods (Gutierrez et al., 2009) for stimuli is that it is difficult to determine if the learner
introducing new targets. Although the specific meth- has acquired a selection or rejection relation (Johnson
odologies of the studies vary, several themes emerge & Sidman, 1993). For example, if a learner masters a
when examining the results. First, teaching in isolation receptive color identification program with the colors
(i.e., a simple discrimination) is unlikely to increase red and blue, it is difficult to determine if the learner is
the efficiency of acquisition of subsequent conditional responding away from the blue visual stimulus or select-
discriminations (Grow et al., 2011; Grow et al., in ing the red stimulus when the instructor presents the
press; Gutierrez et al., 2009). Second, the simultaneous auditory sample, “Red.” If a learner is responding away
method may produce better maintenance of skills over from the blue stimulus, the instructor will not likely
time (Grow et al., 2011). Third, generalization of recep- detect the problem until the learner is required to select
tive language skills is better after an instructional history a red stimulus in the absence of a blue stimulus. Due to
with a simultaneous method (Waldo et al.). Although the multiple issues with teaching in isolation, instruc-
there are few published studies directly comparing tors should include multiple stimuli in the visual array.
approaches for teaching receptive language skills, the Few studies have evaluated the impact of array size on
existing body of research in both basic and applied stud- conditional discrimination learning in applied settings
ies is fairly consistent in its support for simultaneously and additional research is needed.
introducing stimuli from the outset of instruction (e.g., In addition to teaching multiple new receptive lan-
even for very early learners who are first encounter- guage skills simultaneously, instructors should consider
ing the teaching preparation). This paper is focused on interspersing mastered targets that are related or unre-
receptive language skills; however, previous studies have lated to the receptive language targets. The instructor
compared the simultaneous and sequential introduction should consider the magnitude (i.e., high versus low
of new skills such as tracing (Panyan & Hall, 1978), quality) and schedule of reinforcement (i.e., continuous
imitation (Schroeder & Baer, 1972), and tact training or intermittent schedule) for the mastered targets

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 63

(Charlop, Kurtz, & Milstein, 1992; Volkert, Lerman, counterbalanced fashion (see Figures 1 and 2 for several
Tosclair, Addison, & Kodak, 2008) during program examples of counterbalanced rotations). Instructors can
planning. use counterbalancing regardless of precisely how stimuli
are presented to the learner (e.g., horizontal, vertical,
Select Appropriate Auditory Instructions
scattered). When presented horizontally, visual compari-
The auditory instructions during receptive language sons should be presented and targeted proportionally
programs should only contain the relevant informa- in the left, middle, and right positions. Similarly, if the
tion (Green, 2001; Tarbox, Tarbox, & O’Hora, 2009). visual stimuli are presented in a vertical fashion, the
Including unnecessary information in the auditory in- items in the array should be targeted evenly across the
struction introduces the risk of irrelevant features exert- top, middle, and bottom positions.
ing stimulus control over responses. A brief instruction Although unintentional, if the stimuli are not pre-
such as “Red” is better than “Point to red” or “Show sented in a balanced format, the instructor may pres-
me the red one” because the similarity of the auditory ent the targets in a way that generates faulty stimulus
stimuli across targets is minimized. When instructions control and leads to persistent errors (Green, 2001). For
such as “Show me red,” “Show me blue,” and “Show me example, a side bias may be established if the instruc-
green,” the auditory stimuli are nearly identical, which tor places the correct stimulus in a particular position
could impair the ability of the single critically different more often than other positions because the propor-
feature to occasion correct responses. Rather, the stimu- tion of available reinforcers is higher for that position.
lus “Show me” may gain control over responses, which Similarly, a learner may learn to respond away from a
may be evidenced by the learner attempting to respond comparison position if the correct stimulus is rarely put
prior to the instructor completing the presentation of in that particular position in the array. The instructor is
the auditory instruction. Thus, the instructor should likely to overlook imbalances or idiosyncratic patterns
select concise auditory instructions to maximize the sa- in their stimulus presentation during sessions. Thus, a
lience of the critical component of the auditory instruc- strategy for accurately counterbalancing the auditory
tion and minimize the similarity of the auditory stimuli and/or visual stimuli should be used because even subtle
across trials. Although instructors should use clear and deviations from counterbalancing can come to nega-
concise instructions, lengthier auditory instructions tively affect acquisition and errors over time.
may be used if the goal of the discrimination program A well-designed data collection sheet can assist
is to teach a learner how to respond to more complex instructors with following the counterbalancing rec-
instructions (e.g., engage in different kinds of selection ommendations presented above. Figure 1 displays an
responses after hearing different instructions such as example of a data sheet for a receptive language program
“Cover,” “Touch,” and “Hide”). involving auditory-visual conditional discriminations.
For each trial, the stimuli included in the array are
Counterbalance the Visual and/or Auditory Stimuli
presented from the learner’s perspective and the bolded
The instructor should rotate the auditory and/or stimulus indicates the target (i.e., discriminative stimu-
visual stimuli across trials in a balanced manner. For lus). The presentation of the stimuli is counterbalanced
simple discrimination programs, the auditory instruc- according to the recommendations from Green (2001)
tions should be presented semirandomly and propor- such that all stimuli are targeted proportionally across
tionally within the same teaching session (e.g., rotate trials in a session. The data sheet includes three differ-
between three instructions, three times during a nine- ent session types to counterbalance the presentation of
trial session). For conditional discrimination programs, the stimuli across sessions. Instructors should record
the instructor should present the auditory stimuli as the learner’s first selection response regardless of ac-
described above and also rotate the correct and incor- curacy to evaluate faulty stimulus control, if necessary.
rect visual stimuli across the comparison positions in a To evaluate skill acquisition over time, the instructor

64 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

 Figure 1. The example data collection sheet illustrates Figure 2. The example data collection sheet illustrates how
how to properly counterbalance three visual comparison to properly counterbalance the auditory discriminative
stimuli in an array and the rotation of the discriminative stimuli during a receptive instructions program.
stimulus (i.e., the bolded stimulus) during a receptive
identification of actions program.

should also indicate whether the correct response was

Select the Features of the Discriminative Stimulus
prompted or independent by checking the appropriate
and Incorrect Comparison Stimuli
column. Figure 2 displays a data collection sheet for a
receptive instructions program. The required behaviors The instructor should arrange the features of the
on the part of the learner are counterbalanced within discriminative stimulus and incorrect comparison
and across sessions similarly to the data collection sheet stimuli displayed within the comparison stimuli. The
presented in Figure 1. features of a particular discriminative stimulus (e.g.,

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 65

round, green) should be salient. In addition, the rele- istics) among comparison stimuli as well as the auditory
vant feature(s) of a given discriminative stimulus should sample stimuli affect the speed with which conditional
be absent from the incorrect comparison stimuli. For discriminations are acquired (Carter & Eckerman,
example, if the learner is taught to select items based on 1975).
their roundness, the instructor should ensure that all
incorrect comparisons do not contain round elements. Recommendation 4:
The introduction of any feature of the discriminative Prompting and Differential Reinforcement
stimulus to the incorrect comparison stimuli may inad- The goal of the fourth recommendation is to pro-
vertently establish faulty stimulus control. For example, mote rapid acquisition by minimizing or eliminating
an instructor may use a set of stuffed animals to teach persistent errors and increasing consistent use of effec-
color identification. The stuffed animals are identical tive reinforcers. To accomplish this, instructors should
in shape, vary in color (e.g., black, pink, yellow) but (a) identify an effective prompt(s) and prompt fading
all have black eyes and a mouth. Although seemingly strategy, (b) conduct regularly scheduled systematic
unimportant, the feature “black” is contained in all of preference assessments to identify several potential
the stuffed animals and complicates the learner’s task of reinforcing stimuli, and (c) provide differential rein-
identifying items based on color. forcement for independent, correct responses. General
The instructor should ensure that the features of the guidelines and considerations for each recommendation
incorrect comparison stimuli differ from the discrimi- are presented with reference to several published litera-
native stimulus along the critically defining features ture reviews on topics beyond the scope of the paper
(Allen & Fuqua, 1985). If the incorrect comparison (e.g., an overview of prompt fading strategies).
stimuli differ along more than one dimension, one of
Identify an Effective Prompt(s) and Fading Strategy
which is not a defining characteristic of the discrimina-
tive stimulus, a learner’s selection responses may come Prompts are used temporarily to evoke correct
under the control of irrelevant stimulus features. For responses during initial teaching sessions for a new
complex discriminative stimuli that contain multiple skill (MacDuff, Krantz, & McClannahan, 2001). An
defining features, it may not be possible for instruc- instructor can choose from two broad categories of
tors to select incorrect comparison stimuli that vary prompts: stimulus prompts and response prompts.
along every critical feature. However, including a range Stimulus prompts are modifications to instructional
of incorrect comparison stimuli that differ along the materials to occasion a correct response. Examples
most relevant dimensions will likely contribute to the include increasing the physical size of the correct target
development of appropriate stimulus control (Allen and emphasizing an aspect of the discriminative stimu-
& Fuqua). For example, if the instructor is teaching lus (Green, 2001). Extra-stimulus prompts involve the
an individual to receptively identify lotion, it may be addition of stimuli to the discriminative stimulus to
important to include other bath products as incorrect facilitate a correct response (Schreibman, 1975). For
comparison stimuli because the discrimination in the example, an instructor can place yellow highlighting
natural environment will include subtle discriminations around the correct comparison stimulus and fade the
among items such as lotion, body wash, and shampoo highlighting over time. Within-stimulus prompts alter
(e.g., opacity of the liquid inside the bottles). Although aspects of the discriminative stimulus to increase the
these stimuli are similar in terms of features (e.g., bottle saliency of its defining features (Rincover, 1978). For
shape and size, bottle top) and context of use, the func- example, during a receptive identification of animals
tions of the items are different and should be directly program, an instructor can present an elephant trunk in
taught to the learner. Applied research on this topic is isolation (i.e., a defining feature of an elephant) dur-
limited but basic animal research also suggests that the ing initial training and slowly add in components of
discriminability (i.e., salience of the defining character- the discriminative stimulus (e.g., the ears, body, and

66 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

tail) over time. Response prompts involve instructor likely to evoke undesirable behavior (e.g., moving away
behavior that occasions correct responses (e.g., point- from the instructor, negative vocalizations) or be overly
ing to the correct visual stimulus, modeling the correct intrusive. If a learner has strong matching and imitation
behavior, providing minimal physical guidance; see skills, physical prompts should be avoided despite
MacDuff et al., 2001 for a review). While prompts are their inherent effectiveness, as they are unnecessarily
useful teaching tools, it is critical to fade prompts in a intrusive.
systematic and timely manner to avoid prompt depen- Finally, instructors should consider the practical
dence (Wolery & Gast, 1984). The type(s) of prompt aspects of fading for each possible type of prompting
chosen by the instructor will guide the selection of the strategy under consideration for a given learner. For ex-
appropriate prompt fading strategy. Regardless of the ample, if a within-stimulus prompt is selected, a stimu-
strategies used, prompt fading should result in the rapid lus fading strategy should be used where the instructor
acquisition of independent skills with minimal errors. gradually alters the prompt along the salient features of
Instructors should select prompts and fading strate- the discriminative stimulus. If within-stimulus prompts
gies that are likely to be effective based on the learner’s are used, the materials should be generated in a manner
behavioral repertoire and barriers (e.g., touch is aversive) that allows the instructor to fade the prompt along the
and are practical with respect to the resources required relevant aspects of the discriminative stimulus (Rincov-
for prompt fading. er, 1978; Schreibman & Charlop, 1981). However, the
Assessments of prerequisite repertoires allow the instructor should also consider whether the materials
instructor to capitalize on the learner’s skill strengths and staff time needed to generate the stimuli for fad-
and minimize possible barriers to acquisition when ing are available. If staff resources are limited, response
selecting prompting strategies. For example, instructors prompts should be explored either in a progressive
might select model prompts (Lovaas, Freitas, Nelson, & hierarchy (e.g., most-to-least prompting) or in a single
Whalen, 1967) for learners with generalized imitation prompt form with a temporal fading strategy (e.g., con-
repertoires. If a learner has strong matching-to-sample stant or progressive time-delay). A review of the types
skills, a modified identity-matching prompt could be of prompts and appropriate prompt fading strategies is
used during receptive language programs involving beyond the scope of this paper. However, several pub-
conditional discriminations (e.g., the instructor presents lished literature reviews provide an overview of prompt
the auditory sample stimulus while the learner engages fading procedures with clinical recommendations for
in the matching task). Similarly, an identity-matching their use (e.g., Demchak, 1990; MacDuff et al., 2001;
prompt might be appropriate for learners who have Mueller, Palkovic, & Maynard, 2007; Waugh, Alberto,
difficulties observing the critical features of the com- & Fredrick, 2011; Wolery & Gast, 1984).
parison stimuli (Carp, Peterson, Arkel, Petursdottir, & Overall, prompt fading should result in the rapid
Ingvarrson, in press; Fisher, Kodak, & Moore, 2007). acquisition of skills and minimal errors. If there are per-
For learners who observe irrelevant features of stimuli, sistent errors or stalled progress in learning, instructors
display overselective responding, or have a history of may consider using a different prompt fading strategy
faulty stimulus control, extra-stimulus prompts should and/or evaluating other contextual variables that may
be avoided. Extra-stimulus prompts (e.g., position- affect learning (e.g., the manner in which stimuli are
ing one stimulus in the array closer than the others) presented, the reinforcement system). Previous research
may hinder the establishment of appropriate stimu- indicates that exposure to ineffective prompt fading pro-
lus control during discrimination training (Koegel & cedures can impede learning despite the introduction
Rincover, 1976) because responses are brought under of effective fading strategies (Schilmoeller et al., 1979).
faulty stimulus control during initial teaching. Instruc- Therefore, instructors should identify effective prompts
tors should also consider whether the presentation of and a prompt fading strategy during program planning
particular types of prompts (e.g., physical guidance) is to maximize learning outcomes.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 67

 ed responses are reinforced).
Conduct Systematic Preference Assessments
While it may be necessary to provide high-quality
The purpose of a preference assessment is to identify reinforcers for prompted responses during the first few
a hierarchy of preferred stimuli to determine items and/ teaching sessions, instructors should reserve the best
or activities that are likely to function as reinforcers quality reinforcers for independent correct responses.
(Hagopian, Long, & Rush, 2004). Researchers have A small, but growing body of research suggests that
developed a wide range of techniques for assessing the more rapid transfer of stimulus control occurs when
preferences of individuals with developmental disabili- independent correct responses are differentially rein-
ties (see Cannella, O’Reilly, & Lancioni, 2005; Hago- forced (Karsten & Carr, 2009; Olenick & Pear, 1980;
pian et al., 2004; Tullis et al., 2011 for a description). Touchette & Howard, 1984). To date, no studies have
Common methods include the paired-choice (Fisher compared different methods of differential reinforce-
et al., 1992), multiple stimulus (without replacement) ment (e.g., magnitude versus schedule manipulations)
assessment (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata, 1996), and free- for transferring stimulus control from prompts to dis-
operant method (Roane, Vollmer, Ringdahl, & Marcus, criminative stimuli.
1998). Instructors should select an appropriate prefer-
ence assessment based on the learner’s repertoire includ-
Recommendation 5:
ing the ability to scan a visual array, tolerate the removal Troubleshoot Existing Problems
of preferred items, and choose among an array of With Stimulus Control
stimuli. For example, an MSWO may be inappropriate Despite our best efforts to program optimal stimu-
for learners with difficulty scanning a large visual array. lus control, problems may develop. The following
The authors recommend that instructors see Karsten, performance patterns might be indicative of problems
Carr, and Lepper (2011) for an example of a clinical with stimulus control. Faulty stimulus control may be
model used to select and implement systematic prefer- implicated if the learner makes a selection prior to the
ence assessments based on individual learner factors. presentation of the auditory instruction. The learner
may also shift between responses that are currently
Use Differential Reinforcement
targeted and/or those that have been previously targeted
Instructors should use differential reinforcement (e.g., following “Touch nose,” the learner touches their
to promote independent, correct responses during stomach and nose in rapid succession). Following an au-
receptive language programs. Within the context of ditory instruction, the learner may look at the instructor
skill acquisition, differential reinforcement is arranged and wait to respond. This pattern would suggest that
by providing higher magnitude reinforcers or denser the learner is observing other unintentional aspects of
schedules of reinforcement for independent responses the instructor behavior (e.g., movements, looking at
than prompted responses (for a review of the litera- the target stimulus) rather than the intended auditory
ture, see Vladescu & Kodak, 2010). The magnitude of instruction. During receptive language programs involv-
reinforcement can be manipulated in terms of duration ing conditional discriminations, faulty stimulus control
(e.g., brief versus extended access to a toy), amount is likely if the learner selects visual stimuli based on the
(e.g., one versus several small pieces of a snack), and placement in the array (i.e., side bias). The learner may
intensity (e.g., access to low versus moderate volume engage in a large proportion of errors or inconsistent
music). Schedules of reinforcement can be manipulated performance (i.e., sometimes accurate, sometimes below
in several ways. Typically, continuous schedules of rein- chance). Similarly, a learner may meet the mastery crite-
forcement (i.e., every response is reinforced) are used for rion but perform poorly during maintenance and gen-
independent responses while prompted responses result eralization probes. Escape-maintained problem behavior
in intermittent reinforcement (e.g., every two or three may occur as a result of inconsistent or lean schedules of
responses are reinforced) or extinction (i.e., no prompt- reinforcement associated with high error rates.

68 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

 Table 2. Examples of Issues That Might Arise During Receptive Language Instruction and Some Potential Solutions

If these performance patterns develop, instructors et al., 1979). If those particular targets were arbitrary
should conduct an analysis of the potential source(s) of (e.g., “Touch your feet,” “Find the hippopotamus”), the
stimulus control that might have been established based instructor might simply alter the programming to teach
on the program components (e.g., prompting strate- new targets optimally. If the targets were critical for
gies, arrangement of stimuli) and develop strategies to long-term functioning (e.g., “Stop,” recognizing their
remediate the faulty stimulus control (see Table 2). For own name), the stimulus control must be systematically
example, an instructor may suspect that inadvertent reprogrammed by reintroducing the stimuli under op-
small movements are evoking correct responses dur- timal programming conditions, using errorless learning
ing a receptive instructions program resulting in false procedures and eliminating the erroneous stimulus fea-
mastery. To test whether this faulty stimulus control tures that are currently controlling responding. For ex-
is a problem, a different instructor could conduct the ample, an instructor selects two similar targets in terms
teaching session and accuracy across instructors could of the antecedent stimulus (e.g., “Stand up,” “Stomp
be compared. Alternatively, if the instructor has been feet”), and the learner develops faulty stimulus control.
arranging the visual stimuli in front of the learner and During trials, the learner is responding before the in-
suspects that some placement cue could be occasioning structor presents the entire auditory instruction and en-
correct selection responses, the instructor could switch gages in “switching” responses (i.e., rapidly alternating
to preparing the stimuli out of sight of the learner. If the between stomping feet and standing up and down). The
learner is tracking the correct stimulus by observing the instructor could pick one of the targets and include it in
instructor prepare the stimuli, changes should occur in a new training set with other stimuli that have dissimilar
the accuracy of responding. auditory instructions. A progressive prompt delay could
If there are specific targets that have already been be used to promote accurate responding during trials. If
inadvertently trained under faulty sources of stimu- the learner engages in vocal verbal behavior, the instruc-
lus control, the instructor should decide whether the tor might consider prompting the learner to engage in
specific targets are worthy of targeting again as the echoic behavior following the auditory instruction to
effort required to eliminate faulty stimulus control and increase the saliency of the auditory instruction and
program new control may be substantial (Schilmoeller promote observing.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 69

 for early learners or learners who are progressing on to
Conclusion pre-academic areas. Thus, it is critically important that
Receptive language skills are ubiquitous in everyday appropriate stimulus control is established to maximize
situations. Thus, receptive language is a critical skill the learner’s progress during skill acquisition programs
and included in every version of curriculum for EIBI that rely on an already established receptive language
regardless of the specific terms that are used. An un- repertoire.
derstanding of the conceptual analysis of the receptive Although there is solid empirical support for EIBI,
language skills will enhance programming by ensuring there are areas in which no direct experimental evidence
that the instructional variables are properly presented exists to inform how we teach particular skills (Eldevik
to the learner. First, instructors should understand that et al., 2009; Howlin, Magiati, & Charman, 2009).
the most common receptive targets fall in two impor- However, there is substantial experimental and applied
tant and distinct categories—simple and conditional literature that is pertinent to receptive language to guide
discriminations. Second, all skill acquisition is predi- the development of best practice guidelines. This paper
cated upon the principle of stimulus control and certain was designed to integrate the literature while providing
well-established best practices will allow instructors to useful and practical resources for instructors.
optimize stimulus control. Third, that same conceptual
analysis can guide troubleshooting and resolution when
References
problems do develop. Allen, K. D., & Fuqua, R. W. (1985). Eliminating
The current paper outlines five overarching best selective stimulus control: A comparison of two
practices that should guide programming in recep- procedures for teaching mentally retarded children to
tive language skills. First, the instructor should require respond to compound stimuli. Journal of Experimen-
the learner to attend (i.e., observing response) prior to tal Child Psychology, 39, 55–71.
presenting the antecedent stimulus. Second, the task Barbera, M. L. (2007). The verbal behavior approach.
should be presented in a way that eliminates or sub- Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
stantially reduces the risk of the instructor providing Bonta, J. L., & Waters, R. G. (1981). Use of manual
inadvertent cues. Third, the instructor should arrange signs in delayed matching-to-sample with devel-
the antecedent stimuli to increase the likelihood that opmentally disordered, speech deficient children.
appropriate stimulus control will be established. Fourth, Behavior Research of Severe Developmental Disabilities,
the instructors should select an effective prompt fading 2, 51–66.
and use differential reinforcement to transfer stimu- Cannella, H. I., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E.
lus control from prompts to the relevant antecedent (2005). Choice and preference assessment research
stimuli. Fifth, if faulty stimulus control is suspected, the with people with severe to profound developmental
instructor should troubleshoot the existing problems disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in
with stimulus control to determine if a strategy should Developmental Disabilities, 26, 1–15.
be implemented to remediate the faulty control. Carp, C. L., Peterson, S. P., Arkel, A. J., Petursdottir, A.
It is important to provide instruction in a way that I., & Ingvarsson, E. T. (in press). A further evalua-
helps learners establish effective learning repertoires. tion of picture prompts during auditory-visual con-
Receptive language programming is often targeted ditional discrimination training. Journal of Applied
to teach learners to pay attention to the instructions Behavior Analysis.
of other people. If a learner establishes “shortcuts” or Carter, D. E., & Eckerman, D. A. (1975). Symbolic
repertoires based on faulty stimulus control, the learner’s matching by pigeons: rate of learning complex dis-
progress in other areas may be undermined. In addition, criminations predicted from simple discriminations.
receptive language programs are common programs Science, 187, 662–664.

70 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

Charlop, M. H., Kurtz, P. F., Milstein, J. P. (1992). Too Fisher, W. W., Kodak, T., & Moore, J. W. (2007). Em-
much reinforcement, too little behavior: Assessing bedding an identity-matching task within a prompt
task interspersal procedures in conjunction with dif- hierarchy to facilitate acquisition of conditional
ferent reinforcement schedules with autistic children. discrimination in children with autism. Journal of
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 795–808. Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 489–499.
Constantine, B., & Sidman, M. (1975). Role of naming Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian,
in delayed matching-to-sample. American Journal of L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A compari-
Mental Deficiency, 79, 680–689. son of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for
Cuvo, A. J., Klevans, L., Borakove, S., Borakove, L. S., persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal
Van Landuyt, J., & Lutzker, J. R. (1980). A com- of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.
parison of three strategies for teaching object names. Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 249–257. learners with autism: Advances in stimulus control
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing Disorders, 16, 72–85.
reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Grow, L. L., Carr, J. E., Kodak, T., Jostad, C. M., &
Analysis, 29, 519–533. Kisamore, A. N. (2011). A comparison of methods
Demchak, M. A. (1990). Response prompting and fad- for teaching receptive labeling to children with au-
ing methods: A review. American Journal of Mental tism spectrum disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior
Retardation, 94, 603–615. Analysis, 44, 475–498.
Dickson, C. A., Wang, S. S., Lombard, K. M., & Dube, Grow, L. L., Kodak, T., & Carr, J. E. (in press). A com-
W. V. (2006). Overselective stimulus control in resi- parison of methods for teaching receptive labeling to
dential school students with intellectual disabilities. children with autism spectrum disorders: A system-
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 618–631. atic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
Drash, P. W., & Tudor, R. M. (1993). A functional Gutierrez, A., Hale, M. N., O’Brien, H. A., Fischer,
analysis of verbal delay in preschool children: Impli- A. J., Durocher, J. S., & Alessandri, M. (2009).
cations for prevention and total recovery. The Analy- Evaluating the effectiveness of two commonly used
sis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 19–29. discrete trial procedures for teaching receptive dis-
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., & crimination to young children with autism spectrum
Wiley, K. (1989). Establishing conditional discrimi- disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3,
nations: Concurrent versus isolation-intermix in- 571–579.
struction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, Gutowski, S. J., & Stromer, R. (2003). Delayed match-
349–362. ing to two-picture samples by individuals with
Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1999). Reduction of and without disabilities: An analysis of the role of
stimulus selectivity with nonverbal differential ob- naming. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36,
serving responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy- 487–505.
sis, 32, 25–34. Hagopian, L. P., Long, E. S., & Rush, K. S. (2004).
Eldevik, S., Hastings, R. P., Hughes, J. C., Jahr, E., Preference assessment procedures for individuals
Eikeseth, S., & Cross, S. (2009). Meta-analysis of with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modifica-
early intensive behavioral intervention for children tion, 28, 668–677.
with autism. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1992). American parenting of
Psychology, 38, 439–450. language-learning children: Persisting differences in
family-child interactions observed in natural home
environments. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1096–
1105.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 71

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences Lovaas, O. I. (2003). Teaching individuals with develop-
in the everyday experience of young American children. mental delays: Basic intervention techniques. Austin,
Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. TX: PRO-ED.
Holcombe, A., Wolery, M., & Snyder, E. (1994). Ef- Lovaas, O. I., Freitas, L., Nelson, K., & Whalen, C.
fects of two levels of procedural fidelity with constant (1967). The establishment of imitation and its use
time delay on children’s learning. Journal of Behav- for the development of complex behavior in schizo-
ioral Education, 4, 49–73. phrenic children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5,
Howlin, P., Magiati, I., & Charman, T. (2009). System- 171–181.
atic review of early intensive behavioral interventions Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R. L., & Schreibman, L. (1979).
for children with autism. American Journal of Intellec- Stimulus overselectivity in autism: A review of the
tual and Developmental Disabilities, 114, 23–41. research. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1236–1254.
Johnson, C., & Sidman, M. (1993). Conditional dis- Lovaas, O. I., & Schreibman, L. (1971). Stimulus over-
crimination and equivalence relations: Control by selectivity of autistic children in a two-stimulus situ-
negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 9, 305–310.
of Behavior, 59, 333–347. MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E.
Johnston, S. S., Buchanan, S., & Davenport, L. (2009). (2001). Prompts and prompt-fading strategies for
Comparison of fixed and gradual array when teach- people with autism. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & R.
ing sound-letter correspondence to two children with M. Foxx (Eds.), Making a difference: Behavioral inter-
autism who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative vention for autism. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Communication, 25, 136–144. Maurice, C., Green, G., & Luce. S. (Eds.). (1996).
Karsten, A. M., & Carr, J. E. (2009). The effects of Behavioral intervention for young children with autism:
differential reinforcement of unprompted respond- A manual for parents and professionals. Austin, TX:
ing on the skill acquisition of children with autism. PRO-ED.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 327–334. Mueller, M. M., Palkovic, C. M., & Maynard, C. S.
Karsten, A. M., Carr, J. E., & Lepper, T. L. (2011). (2007). Errorless learning: Review and practical
Description of a practitioner model for identifying applications for teaching children with pervasive
preferred stimuli with individuals with autism spec- developmental disorders. Psychology in the Schools,
trum disorders. Behavior Modification, 35, 347–369. 44, 691–700.
Koegel, R. L., Dunlap, G., Richman, G. S., & Dyer, K. Olenick, D. L., & Pear, J. J. (1980). Differential re-
(1981). The use of specific orienting cues for teach- inforcement of correct responses to probes and
ing discrimination tasks. Analysis and Intervention in prompts in picture-name training with severely re-
Developmental Disabilities, 1, 187–198. tarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Koegel, R. L., & Rincover, A. (1976). Some detrimental 13, 77–89.
effects of using extra stimuli to guide learning in nor- Panyan, M. C., & Hall, R. V. (1978). Effects of serial
mal and autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child versus concurrent task sequencing on acquisition,
Psychology, 4, 59–71. maintenance, and generalization. Journal of Applied
Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (1999). A work in progress: Behavior Analysis, 11, 67–74.
Behavior management strategies and a curriculum for Ploog, B. O. (2010). Stimulus overselectivity four de-
intensive behavior treatment of autism. New York, NY: cades later: A review of the literature and its implica-
DRL Books. tions for current research in autism spectrum disor-
Lovaas, O. I. (1977). The autistic child: Language devel- der. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
opment through behavior modification. New York, NY: 40, 1332–1349.
Irvington.

72 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

Rincover, A. (1978). Variables affecting stimulus fading Touchette, P. E., & Howard, J. S. (1984). Errorless
and discriminative responding in psychotic children. learning: Reinforcement contingencies and stimulus
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 541–553. control transfer in delayed prompting. Journal of Ap-
Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., J. E. Ringdahl, & Marcus, plied Behavior Analysis, 17, 175–188.
B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus prefer- Tullis, C. A., Canella-Malone, H. I., Basbigill, A. R.,
ence assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Yeager, A., Fleming, C. V., Payne, D., & Wu, P.
31, 605–620. (2011). Review of choice and preference assessment
Rodgers, T. A., & Iwata, B. A. (1991). An analysis of literature for individuals with severe to profound
error-correction procedures during discrimination disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and
training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, Developmental Disabilities, 46, 576–595.
775–781. Vladescu, J. C., & Kodak, T. (2010). A review of recent
Schilmoeller, K. J., Schilmoeller, G. L., Etzel, B. C., & studies on differential reinforcement during skill
LeBlanc, J. M. (1979). Conditional discrimination acquisition in early intervention. Journal of Applied
after errorless and trial-and-error training. Journal of Behavior Analysis, 43, 351–355.
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 405–420. Volkert, V. M., Lerman, D. C., Trosclair, N., Addison,
Schreibman, L. (1975). Effects of within-stimulus and L., & Kodak, T. (2008). An exploratory analysis of
extra-stimulus prompting on discrimination learn- task-interspersal procedures while teaching object
ing in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior labels to children with autism. Journal of Applied
Analysis, 8, 91–112. Behavior Analysis, 41, 335–350.
Schreibman, L, & Charlop, M. H. (1981). S+ versus Waldo, L., Guess, D., & Flanagan, B. (1982). Effects of
S− Fading in prompting procedures with autistic concurrent and serial training on receptive labeling
children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, by severely retarded individuals. The Journal of the
508–520. Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6, 56–65.
Schroeder, G., & Baer, D. M. (1972). Effects of concur- Walpole, C. W., Roscoe, E. M., & Dube, W. V. (2007).
rent and serial training on generalized vocal imita- Use of a differential observing response to expand
tion in retarded children. Developmental Psychology, restricted stimulus control. Journal of Applied Behav-
6, 293–301. ior Analysis, 40, 707–712.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Waugh, R. E., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011).
Prentice Hall. Simultaneous Prompting: An instructional strategy
Smith, T. (2001). Discrete trial training in the treatment for skill acquisition. Education and Training in Au-
of autism. Focus on autism and other developmental tism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 528–543.
disabilities, 16, 86–92. Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Effective and ef-
Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones ficient procedures for the transfer of stimulus con-
assessment and placement program: The VB-MAPP. trol. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4,
Concord, CA: AVB Press. 52–77.
Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching
language to children with autism or other developmen- Author Note
tal disabilities. Danville, CA: Behavior Analysts. Address correspondence to Laura Grow, Educational
Tarbox, J., Tarbox, R. S. F., & O’Hora. (2009). Nonre- and Counselling Psychology and Special Education,
lational and relational instructional control. In R. A. University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Van-
Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived rela- couver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4. Email: laura.grow@ubc.
tional responding: Applications for learners with autism ca. We thank Kaneen Geiger, Nicole Hanney, Megan
and other developmental disabilities. Oakland, CA: Heinicke, and Carrie Zuckerman for the comments on
New Harbinger Publications. earlier versions of the manuscript.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 73

 Appendix A

Auditory-visual conditional discrimination: a type of conditional discrimination involving

a 4-term contingency: (1) the presentation of an auditory sample stimulus,
(2) the presentation of an array of visual comparison stimuli, (3) a selection response,
(4) the delivery of a reinforcer.

Comparison stimuli: the visual array of stimuli presented during auditory-visual and visual-
visual conditional discrimination training. The function of the comparison stimuli (i.e., a
discriminative stimulus or S-delta) is altered by the presentation of the auditory or visual
sample stimulus.

Counterbalancing: a method of arranging the antecedent stimuli such that each of the
stimuli are presented proportionally across sessions. The presentation of the auditory
instruction should be counterbalanced across sessions in which simple discriminations
are taught. The presentation of the auditory instruction and the comparison array should
be counterbalanced for auditory-visual conditional discrimination training.

Differential reinforcement of independent correct responses: providing reinforcers for

independent correct responses while providing lower quality reinforcers for prompted
responses or placing prompted responses on extinction.

Differential observing response: the learner engages in a unique observing response for each
sample stimulus.

Discriminative stimulus: for a receptive language program requiring simple discriminations,

the auditory instruction presented by the instructor functions as the discriminative stimu-
lus. For receptive language programs requiring conditional discriminations, the correct
comparison stimulus on a given trial functions as the discriminative stimulus.

Distracter stimulus: a stimulus in the array of comparison stimuli that functions as the
incorrect response (i.e., S-delta) during a given trial.

Faulty stimulus control: learner responses that are evoked by irrelevant or a restricted range of
antecedent stimuli.

Generalized imitation repertoire: the learner can reliably engage in imitation behavior when
presented with novel, untrained imitation tasks.

74 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE

Interspersal: embedding mastered tasks into a teaching session with new acquisition tasks.

Mass trials: the instructor teaches one relation in isolation within a teaching session.

Observing response: a learner response that results in sensory contact with the sample
stimulus.

Response prompts: the instructor supplements the behavior of a learner by proving gestural,
model, or physical prompts to increase the likelihood of a correct response.

Sample stimulus: the first part of the contingency for conditional discrimination training.
The sample stimulus alters the function of the comparison stimuli.

Sequential method: teaching a set of relations as simple discriminations before targeting the
relations as conditional discriminations.

Simple discrimination: a type of discrimination involving a 3-part contingency: (1) the

presentation of a discriminative stimulus, (2) a learner response, and (3) the delivery of a
reinforcer.

Simultaneous method: teaching a set of relations as a conditional discrimination from the

onset of training (e.g., teaching a child to identify “green,” “yellow,” and “purple” from an
array after hearing the name of each color within the same session).

Stimulus control: the presence or absence of antecedent stimuli influences the emission of
behavior.

Stimulus overselectivity: a type of faulty stimulus control in which responses are evoked by
only a subset of features in a multi-component antecedent stimulus.

Stimulus prompts: a modification or addition to the discriminative stimulus thatevokes

correct responses.

Visual matching-to-sample: a type of conditional discrimination involving a 4-term

contingency: (1) the presentation of a visual sample stimulus, (2) the presentation of
an array of visual comparison stimuli, (3) a selection response, and (4) the delivery
of a reinforcer.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE 75