An interaction of instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: extending the analysis of equivalence. (Special Issue: Stimulus Equivalence): An article from: The Psychological Record
Book Details
Publisher
Psychological Record
ISBN / ASIN
B00092UCXY
ISBN-13
978B00092UCX3
Availability
Available for download now
Marketplace
United States 🇺🇸
Ratings & Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first!
No reviews yet.
Description
This digital document is an article from The Psychological Record, published by Psychological Record on September 22, 1993. The length of the article is 6769 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
From the author: Our previous research with subjects with mild mental retardation indicated different outcomes on stimulus equivalence tests when different training designs were employed. Subjects exposed to match-to-sample training involving four pairs of sample stimuli and one pair of comparisons (comparison as node) were more likely to show positive results on equivalence tests than subjects trained with four pairs of comparisons and one pair of samples (sample as node). We describe three studies aimed at analyzing the superiority of the comparison-as-node training procedure. The results suggest that (a) preexperimental individual differences and subject assignment do not account for the previous findings, (b) the greater effectiveness of the comparison-as-node procedure may be caused partially by an interaction of the procedure and instructions providing stimulus names, and (c) differential outcomes on equivalence tests with these training procedures may be demonstrated only with developmentally limited subjects. Several theoretical interpretations for the reason the comparison-as-node training method is more likely to produce positive equivalence test performances and the implication of these interpretations for understanding stimulus equivalence in general are discussed.
Citation Details
Title: An interaction of instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: extending the analysis of equivalence. (Special Issue: Stimulus Equivalence)
Author: Kathryn J. Saunders
Publication:The Psychological Record (Refereed)
Date: September 22, 1993
Publisher: Psychological Record
Volume: v43 Issue: n4 Page: p725(20)
Distributed by Thomson Gale
From the author: Our previous research with subjects with mild mental retardation indicated different outcomes on stimulus equivalence tests when different training designs were employed. Subjects exposed to match-to-sample training involving four pairs of sample stimuli and one pair of comparisons (comparison as node) were more likely to show positive results on equivalence tests than subjects trained with four pairs of comparisons and one pair of samples (sample as node). We describe three studies aimed at analyzing the superiority of the comparison-as-node training procedure. The results suggest that (a) preexperimental individual differences and subject assignment do not account for the previous findings, (b) the greater effectiveness of the comparison-as-node procedure may be caused partially by an interaction of the procedure and instructions providing stimulus names, and (c) differential outcomes on equivalence tests with these training procedures may be demonstrated only with developmentally limited subjects. Several theoretical interpretations for the reason the comparison-as-node training method is more likely to produce positive equivalence test performances and the implication of these interpretations for understanding stimulus equivalence in general are discussed.
Citation Details
Title: An interaction of instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: extending the analysis of equivalence. (Special Issue: Stimulus Equivalence)
Author: Kathryn J. Saunders
Publication:The Psychological Record (Refereed)
Date: September 22, 1993
Publisher: Psychological Record
Volume: v43 Issue: n4 Page: p725(20)
Distributed by Thomson Gale
