The Application of Skinner’s Analysis of Verbal Behavior to

Children with Autism

“There are many behavior analytic procedures for arranging learning opportunities, some adult-initiated, some learner-

initiated, some embedded in typically occurring activities or sequences of responses, and some that are hybrids or

permutations of these. Each type of procedure has its uses and advantages. ABA programming uses any and all procedures to accomplish the job of skill development and skill generalization

with each individual learner” (Green, 2001, p. 74)

Skinner’s Analysis of Language LeBlanc et al. (2006)

• While some behavior analysts teaching language to children with autism were heavily influenced by the UCLA program or Stokes and Baer (1977)…

• Others were more heavily influenced by B.F. Skinner’s analysis of language– Verbal Behavior - 1957

Five Verbal Operants• Mand• Tact• Intraverbal• Duplic• Codic

Mand

• Form of the response is controlled by an EO

• Note: An SD may control its occurrence, but not always its form

EO:

Hungry for

cookie

SD:

Mom Response:

“Cookie”

SR+:

Cookie

Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement

MandEO - form

SD - occurrence

Specific to each mand, related to

current MO

Mand

• In everyday language, mands are “requests” for something specific, where the item requested is the reinforcer

• Examples– Objects

• “Can I have a Coke?”

– Information• “What’s missing?”

– Action • “Tickle me!”

Tact

• A verbal operant in which the response form is controlled by a nonverbal stimulus

• Reinforced by nonspecific reinforcement (e.g., praise)

• In everyday language, a tact is a “label”, evoked by a nonverbal stimulus

SD:

Cookie

Response:

“Cookie”

SR+:

“That’s right!”

OperantControlling

variableReinforcement

MandForm – EOOccurrence - SD

Specific to each mand, related to current EO

Tact Non-verbal SD Nonspecific

Examples: Tact

• “Doggy” (“Good Girl!”)• “It’s raining.” (“Thanks, I’ll get an

umbrella.”)

Intraverbal• Response form is controlled by a verbal

stimulus• Reinforced by nonspecific reinforcement

(e.g., praise)• There is no point-to-point correspondence

between the response and the verbal stimulus– What’s that? When parts of the response can be related to

parts of the stimulus.

SD:

“What’s your favorite snack?”

Response:

“Cookie”

SR+:

“That’s right!”

Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement

MandForm – EOOccurrence - SD

Specific to each mand, related to current EO

TactNon-verbal SD

Nonspecific

IntraverbalVerbal SD, no point-to-point correspondence

Nonspecific

Examples: Intraverbal

• (SD)-“What’s up?” (R)- “_____”• (SD)-“How are you?” (R)- “_____”• (SD)-“Red, white and ___?” (R)- “___”

Duplic

• Response form is controlled by a verbal stimulus• Reinforced by nonspecific reinforcement (e.g.,

praise)• There is point-to-point correspondence between

the response and the verbal stimulus• There is formal similarity between the response

product and the verbal stimulus– What’s that? They’re in the same sense mode and

resemble each other.

SD:

“Cookie”

Response:

“Cookie”

SR+:

“That’s right!”

Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement

MandForm – EOOccurrence - SD

Specific to each mand, related to current EO

TactNon-verbal SD

Nonspecific

IntraverbalVerbal SD, no point-to-point correspondence

Nonspecific

DuplicEchoic, Copying text, Mimetic

Verbal SD, point-to-point correspondence, formal similarity

Nonspecific

Examples: Duplic

• Echoic: “Hi” – “Hi”• Copying a text: see written word John

– write John• Mimetic: see someone sign ball –

sign ball

All of the responses are of the same topography “eeee” – but are different operants

because they have different types of controlling antecedents and consequences

XKaren sees a monkey on TV, points, and says, “eeee!”

XJulie’s mom sings, “Ring Around the Ros…” And Julie says “eeee!”

XChris is watching Thomas and after Thomas says, “Percy”, he says “eeee!”

XJoey wants his sister’s candy, and says, “eeee!”

IntraverbalEchoicTactMand

Codic

• Response form is controlled by a verbal stimulus• Reinforced by nonspecific reinforcement (e.g., praise)• There is point-to-point correspondence between the

response and the verbal stimulus• NO formal similarity between the response and the

verbal stimulus

SD:

“Cookie”

Response:

Write cookie

SR+:

“That’s right!”

Operant Controlling variable Reinforcement

MandForm – EOOccurrence - SD

Specific to each mand, related to current EO

TactNon-verbal SD

Nonspecific

IntraverbalVerbal SD, no point-to-point correspondence

Nonspecific

DuplicEchoic, Copying text, Mimetic

Verbal SD, point-to-point correspondence, formal similarity

Nonspecific

CodicTextual,Taking dictation

Verbal SD, point-to-point correspondence, NO formal similarity

Nonspecific

Examples: Codic

• Textual behavior: See written Turn left – say “turn left”

• Taking dictation: “Buy juice” – write buy juice

“Applied Verbal Behavior” (AVB)

•The application of Skinner’s analysis to language training for children with autism and other developmental disabilities

AVB and NTA Comparisons LeBlanc et al. (2006)

• Linguistic Framework• Motivation• Spontaneity

Linguistic Framework (LeBlanc et al.,2006; Sundberg &

Partington, 1999)• Language is taught and conceptualized in terms of the verbal operants rather than using a traditional structural analysis

• Most research is published in The Analysis of Verbal Behavior and JABA and is not as easily accessed or consumed by teachers, speech therapists

• Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills (ABLLS)– Corresponding language assessment that guides published

curriculum for instruction• VB-MAPP www.marksundberg.com/vb-mapp.htm

Motivation (Sundberg & Partington, 1998)

• Mands are taught first because the mand “is a unique type of language that directly benefits the child by letting his caretakers know exactly what he wants at that particular moment” (p. 110)

Motivation: Natural Environment Training (NET) (Sundberg & Partington, 1998; Sundberg &

Partington, 1999)

• Based on NLP? And the “general orientation” (S&P, 1999, p. 151) of incidental teaching

• Language training is conducted in the natural environment

• Child directed teaching activities and functional reinforcers are used

• Generalization is programmed for

Other Characteristics of “AVB Programs”

• More frequent use of sign language than PECS

• “Mixed verbal behavior”• Specific data collection procedures• Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing Procedure• Fluency training

DTT and NET in AVB Programs

(Sundberg & Partington, 1999)

Phase 1 NET>DTT Focus on early manding, pairing, compliance, stimulus

control

Phase 2 NET=DTT Focus on mand, tact, receptive, imitation, echoic,

intraverbal

Phase 3 DTT>NET Focus on academic activities and specific skill development

Phase 4 NET>DTT Focus on learning from group instruction, from peers, and without a highly structured

environment; training is more like that of typical kindergarten

and 1st grade classrooms

Phase 5 DTT>NET Focus on academic skills and structured learning

characteristic of later elementary classrooms

References

• Carr, J.E., & Firth, A.M. (2006). The verbal behavior approach to early and intensive behavioral intervention for children with autism: A call for additional empirical support. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 2, 18-27.

• Carr, J. E., & Sidener, T. M. (2002). On the relation between applied behavior analysis and positive behavior support. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 245-253.

• Cautilli, J. (2006). Validation of the verbal behavior package: Old wine new bottle - A reply to Carr and Firth (2005). The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 81-92.

• Halle, J. W. (1987). Teaching language in the natural environment: An analysis of spontaneity. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12,28-37.

• Horner, R.H., Carr, E.G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Council for Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.

• Koegel, R.L., Koegel, L.K., & Brookman, L.I. (2003). Empirically supported pivotal response interventions for children with autism. In A.E.Kazdin & J.R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 341-357). New York: Guilford Press.

• LeBlanc, L.A., Esch, J., Sidener, T.M., & Firth, A.M. (2006). Behavioral language interventions for children with autism: Comparing applied verbal behavior and naturalistic teaching approaches. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 49-60.

• Michael, J. (2004, August). B.F. Skinner’s elementary verbal relations. In ABA IV. Class conducted at the Pennsylvania State University Behavior Analysis Program.

• Sautter, R.A., & LeBlanc, L.A. (2006). Empirical applications of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior with humans. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 35-48.

• Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.• Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 10, 349-367.• Sundberg, M.L. (2001). 301 research topics from Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior. The Analysis of Verbal

Behavior, 9, 81-96.• Sundberg, M.L., & Michael, J. (2001). The benefits of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior for children with

autism. Behavior Modification, 25, 698-724.• Sundberg, M.L., & Partington, J.W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism and other developmental

disabilities. Danville, CA: Behavior Analysts, Inc.• Sundberg, M.L., & Partington, J.W. (1999). The need for both discrete trial and natural environment language

training for children with autism. In P.M. Ghezzi, W.L. Williams, & J.E. Carr (Eds.), Autism: Behavior analytic perspectives (pp. 139-156). Reno, NV: Context Press.

• Barbera, M., & Rasmussen, T. (2007). The verbal behavior approach: How to teach children with autism and related disorders. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.