Disabled adults are employed at significantly lower rates than nondisabled adults and lack autonomy in occupational choice making (Butterworth et al., 2011). As noted by Bush and Tassé (2017), most adults with developmental disabilities are not employed, and for those who do work, this work largely occurs in facility rather than community settings. Employment opportunities may have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. In September 2021, the employment rate for individuals without an identified disability (64.1%) was more than three times greater than for individuals with a disability (20%), with an even greater disparity for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (18%; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). One of many barriers experienced by young adults with disabilities may be limited declarative knowledge about roles and responsibilities within an employment setting that can further limited occupational choice making; therefore, workplace education is critical to support workers with developmental and intellectual disabilities (Cavanagh et al., 2019).

Declarative knowledge involves verbally exchanging information about a specific topic and differs from procedural knowledge, which involves performing a skill required to obtain reinforcement and does not require the verbal exchange of information (Ten Berge & Van Hezewijk, 1999). In vocational settings, declarative and procedural knowledge are both necessary. Employees need to be able to perform tasks related to the job (procedural knowledge), but also need to be able to describe who other employees are, their job titles, as well as their roles and responsibilities. For example, if an employee with a disability needs assistance with a workplace safety issue, it is important that they know who at the agency is responsible for helping employees navigate workplace safety concerns and their job title in order to contact this information autonomously. On the other hand, not knowing this information among other sources of information about a job site could operate as a barrier for attempting to gain employment in a specific setting or navigating future employment aspirations without knowing job titles and responsibilities in those settings.

Behavior analytic research has extensively evaluated technologies for establishing procedural knowledge of workplace tasks, largely using chained task presentations (e.g., Chazin et al., 2017; Kobylarz et al., 2020). However, few researchers have explored behavior analytic strategies to promote declarative knowledge of workplace settings. Equivalence-based instruction (EBI) could offer a strategy that is efficient for use with disabled populations. EBI is considered an efficient mode of instruction because not all verbal or declarative relations are directly reinforced; rather, subsets of relations are taught directly and others are tested for derived emergence (i.e., untrained verbal relations). For example, Stanley et al. (2018) demonstrated that EBI could be used to teach declarative academic information in a special education program. Their study involved three autistic adolescent participants and utilized a multiple baseline across academic subjects (history, science, and mathematics) replicated across the participants to evaluate the EBI procedure. The researchers implemented the same general procedures across each academic subject. For training historical facts, a set of relations were directly trained, where participants were provided verbal praise for selecting a correct name (B) given a picture of a historical figure (A) (A–B) and for selecting the correct historical fact (C) when presented with a historical figure’s name (B) (B–C). Participants were then able to select correct historical facts (C) given only names (A) (A–C) and correct names (A) given historical facts (C) without direct training during testing probes.

EBI is becoming increasingly common within applied work (Belisle et al., 2020). Whereas earlier research largely targeted arbitrary stimuli and were often applied with college students, more recent demonstrations have focused on the application of EBI to teach important declarative concepts. Recent topics have varied considerably, from teaching children their caregivers’ contact information (LaFond et al., 2021) and to safe responding to dangerous situations (Giannakakos et al., 2021). For example, LaFond et al. (2021) implemented EBI with three typically developing children to establish three 4-member equivalence classes. The classes contained an image of the caregiver (A), the caregiver name (B), the caregiver phone number (C), and the name of their employer (D). One-to-many training was conducted to establish A–B, A–C, and A–D relations, and subsequent testing showed the untrained emergence of several untrained relations (B–A, C–A, D–A, D–C, C–D, B–D, and D–B). To our knowledge, however, no studies to date have evaluated the use of EBI strategies to promote declarative knowledge about employment settings to potentially aid in promoting greater autonomy in the workplace.

Therefore, the present study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of an EBI package to teach an individual with multiple diagnoses common job titles and responsibilities as part of a broader vocational skills training program. The target skills in the current study were adapted from the PEAK Relational Training System-Equivalence Module (PEAK-E; Dixon, 2015) to aid in replication of these procedures and to situate this program within a broader program.

Methods

Participant, Setting, and Materials

Paul (male, age 17) was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Paul engaged in vocal conversation with staff and peers and was understood by familiar listeners. He resided in treatment centers since age 13 years from which he was most recently discharged due to high rates of aggressive behavior and frequent elopement. At the time of the study, Paul was enrolled in an alternative day-treatment program for students with an instructional individualized education plan who could not be adequately supported within their resident school district’s special education services. Results from a parent-completed Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (2nd ed.; Gray & Carter, 2013) indicated composite and subscale scores at or below the 0.1 percentile level, suggesting Paul would benefit from training and support with adaptive behavior across multiple skill areas. At the time of the study, Paul was also receiving language and cognitive supportive programming guided by the PEAK Relational Training System (e.g., PEAK-Equivalence; Dixon, 2015).

To meet this vocational goal while remaining consistent with his comprehensive programming, and to evaluate the use of EBI establish declarative knowledge about employment settings, we adapted a program from the PEAK Relational Training System Equivalence Module (PEAK-E; Dixon, 2015)—Program 10-F: Informational Resources. The adapted program includes references to specific stimuli (A, B, and C) that vary across each employment setting and provide a better fit for his vocational programming goals. The restated goal was:

When taught to respond to a photo of a sample employee (A) by selecting the correct option from an array of eight corresponding job titles (B) (A–B), and to match the sample job title (B) with the correct option from an array of eight textual description of the job responsibilities (C) (B–C), the participant is able to respond by selecting the textual description of the job responsibilities (C) when provided with an array of eight sample employee photos (A) (A–C). The participant is also able to respond by identifying the correct photo of the sample employee (A) when provided with an array of eight textual descriptions of job responsibilities (C) (C–A).

In addition to adapting the program stimuli to meet Paul’s vocational goals, we added the C–A test trial type that is necessary for demonstration of stimulus equivalence. It is not only important to identify the responsibilities of people on the jobsite (A–C) but also to identify people who can perform a specific responsibility on the jobsite (C–A), which is reflected in the adapted program. The A stimuli used in programming were unfamiliar to simulate learning new information at the initial conditions of employment.

Figure 1 shows the stimuli used across the three employment settings. We selected these sites as they were common vocational placements for students in the program. Each jobsite contained a total of eight equivalence classes, including 24 total stimuli associated (8 classes x 3 class members) with each setting and 32 target relations (8 classes x 4 relations). The intervention was presented via PowerPoint slideshows using a Dell Inspiron 3576 laptop computer with built-in webcam and internal microphone using the procedures described by Belisle et al. (2021a) for creating computerized training content. The webcam and microphone were used only for online sessions which occurred on three occasions due to COVID-19 precautions and dangerous road conditions. Otherwise, programming occurred directly at the school program in a room separate from other students to minimize distractions.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Stimuli Used in the Present Study across the Three Employment Settings, including the Person/Employee (A), the Job Title (B), and the Job Responsibility (C)

Full size image

Dependent Variables

The two primary dependent variables were the percentage correct responding for trial types where correct responding was directly trained [matched photos and employee names (A) to corresponding job titles (B) (A–B) and job titles (B) to corresponding job responsibilities (C) (B–C)] and tested equivalence trial types [employees (A) to corresponding job responsibilities (C) (A–C), and job responsibilities (C) to corresponding employees (A) (C–A)]. Trials were delivered in eight-trial blocks corresponding to the eight relations contained in each block. Each stimulus–stimulus pair was presented on one single occasion within each block and the location of each stimulus within the block was randomized. Only a single relation type was targeted within a single block. All sessions were videotaped. We evaluated point-by-point agreement (Belisle et al., 2021a, b) by comparing the scores of two independent observers for each trial across 33% of all trial in the present study. The independent rater recorded scores for each trial from video recordings of the training sessions. The percent agreement was determined by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of trials, multiplied by 100. Arithmetic mean IOA was 90% (range: 87%–93%). We also evaluated implementation fidelity using a PEAK implementation fidelity checklist (Belisle et al., 2016; see supplemental material).

Procedure

We used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline across employment settings to assess the efficacy of EBI in establishing the directly trained relations (A–B and B–C) and tested relations (A–C and C–A). Baseline sessions were introduced to determine Paul’s initial levels of correct responding. During the baseline phase, reinforcement was never provided for correct responses and prompting was never delivered contingent on incorrect responses. The responses were simply recorded, and the implementer progressed to the next trial. The total number of trial blocks in each baseline phase for each jobsite were staggered. In addition, stability was required in the baseline phase before progressing to the first training phase. Training for each jobsite occurred nonconcurrently, such that the second job was introduced after the first was mastered (all relation types), and the third job was introduced after the second was mastered (all relation types).

Training occurred in two successive training phases (A–B training followed by B–C training). The first training phase for each job site targeted A–B relations. The slideshow trial presentation was programmed such that when Paul selected the correct B stimulus from the array, he was immediately provided visual (i.e., computer screen presented a visual that said, “Correct!”) feedback and the implementer provided verbal praise. If a response was incorrect, the screen did not progress, no visual feedback was provided, and the implementer provided feedback that the answer was incorrect (e.g., “What’s your second choice?”). Paul was provided with the opportunity for three incorrect answers, after which the implementer provided the correct answer and asked Paul to repeat the correct answer prior to selecting the correct response that initiated the visual feedback sequence.

The skill was considered mastered once participants achieved three consecutive trial blocks with at least 90% mean accuracy and a stable or increasing trend. In some phases, additional trials were conducted after mastery when the research team had not yet met to collectively determine if mastery was achieved. Once the mastery criteria were met, Paul progressed to the B–C training phase. This phase was identical to the A–B training phase except that the stimulus presentation was consistent with the B–C trial type. Again, once the mastery criteria were met, Paul progressed to a testing phase that included the derived relations (A–B and B–C). Testing of these relations was identical to the baseline phase and trial block types alternated between A–C and C–A testing. We developed an experimental design integrity checklist (see supplemental materials) based on this basic arrangement. The mean fidelity of the experimental design was 94%, with a range of 91% to 100%. Notable exceptions were additional training trials after the mastery criterion for two phases (overtraining) and failure to meet the mastery criterion in one of the training phases (B–C hospital) before progressing to a new phase.

Consistent with the applied nature of this study, during the B–C training phase in the hospital setting, there was a 21-day break in training due to Paul’s illnesses, behavior, and transportation challenges. To compensate for this training break, we provided booster training sessions interspersed with test probes prior to the final testing phase.

Results and Discussion

The results of the study are summarized in Fig. 2. Baseline results across each of the vocational targets demonstrated that Paul did not respond correctly to the directly trained and derived relations prior to EBI. His baseline scores for the restaurant were 28.1% (averaged across all relations; range: 0%–75%), for the hospital were 29.2% (range: 0%–75%), and for the school 25% (range: 0%–62.5%). Higher scores were observed for the B–C relations across all workplace settings suggesting he may have had a prior learning history with these classes, but overall scored below mastery levels. EBI was first implemented in the restaurant condition targeting the A–B relations. Paul’s mean percent accuracy was 68.2% (range: 12.5%–100%) and he achieved mastery on the 19th training trial block after scores of 88%, 88%, and 100% on the three prior blocks. B–C relations were then targeted resulting in 100% accuracy in all trial blocks. It is important to note that his percent correct for this trial type was already high in the baseline phase. He demonstrated 100% correct responding on the final trial blocks for both A–C and C–A equivalence relations. For the hospital setting, Paul mastered the A–B relations in 17 trial blocks with an average percent accuracy of 64.7% (range: 12.5%–100%). He did not meet the mastery criterion for B–C training before the booster sessions, but he did reach 100% correct responding in the booster A–B and B–C phases (mean for the whole B–C phase was 75.8%, range: 37.5%–100%). Following the booster sessions, all A–C and C–A tests were 100%. Results in the school setting mirrored those from the restaurant condition, with mean percent accuracy of 64.1% (A–B, range: 37.5%–100%) and 84.8% (B–C, range: 62.5%–100%) and achieving mastery in on trial blocks 14 and 11, respectively. Paul did not immediately demonstrate the derived A–C and C–A relations; however, repeated testing was sufficient to observe the emergence of these relations. The final test block for A–C was 75% and for C–A was 100%.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Multiple Baseline across Workplace Settings. Note. Solid symbols represent trained relations and open symbols represent test relations. Data paths indicate where training occurred

Full size image

These results replicate and extend previous EBI studies and research on component PEAK programs. Employment opportunities and choice-making are limited for disabled persons (Butterworth et al., 2011; Bush & Tassé, 2017) who may lack the declarative knowledge to interact within and make informed decisions about employment settings. For example, if employed as a custodian in a school (as of this writing in Paul’s state of residence, there are a limited number of candidates for custodial jobs with 4,206 annual openings with a current 0.68 candidates per job), knowing the roles of other professionals in the school can facilitate effectively obtaining important information. If a student requires assistance locating a lost item, and if the teach is primarily responsible for supporting students throughout the day, then the teacher may be an effective resource for obtaining information to help locate the lost item. It is important to note that this conclusion represents a derived relation of the sort targeted in this study (i.e., child (A) lost item (B) (A–B), teacher (C) works primarily with the child (A) (C–A), therefore may have information about the lost item (C–B).

This sort of derived relation highlights the inefficiency of directly training every behavior for learners who can derive relations and can limits autonomous learning through problem solving and reasoning. In the present study, two relations (person name–job title; job title–job description) were directly trained and this was sufficient to promote the untrained emergence of at-least two additional equivalence relations (person name–job description; job description–person name) across two employment settings. For the hospital setting, booster sessions were sufficient to establish mastery for both trained and tested relations. Efficiency of training procedures may be especially important within vocational training for learners with disabilities when instruction occurs in settings with limited resources (e.g., adult training programs). Finally, knowledge about employment settings is necessary to freely choose among available employment opportunities that requires what roles employees in those settings perform.

There are other potential benefits to learning this information in the context of a larger vocational training program. For example, a common employment option across these environments is that of custodians. where information about this setting could make students more competitive for open positions. An additional benefit is that knowledge about the job that one is expected to perform may operate as a behavioral cusp, opening up other avenues for meaningful reinforcement through gainful employment.

There are several limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, the use of unfamiliar people in the training allowed for a stronger demonstration of experimental control but limits the direct social validity of this training. The use of real people who work in an upcoming work placement opportunity could extend this work and continue to evaluate the potential versatility of adapting curricular programs. Second, the time delay in the hospital settings limits replication within our experimental strategy. Although this may be common in applied settings, only one tier of the multiple baseline contains the booster train-test strategy. Third, there were minor errors in the implementation of the design due to multiple implementers. Therefore, we developed a method to report experimental fidelity as a measured variable in applied research. Finally, we opted for a nonconcurrent experimental arrangement that is weaker than a concurrent design to avoid training multiple employment settings at the same time.

A necessary avenue for future research is to evaluate how EBI instruction targeting declarative workplace knowledge leads to real changes in workplace behavior through a transfer of stimulus function. For example, given knowledge that Mr. Jones is a guidance counselor and guidance counselors assist students with emotional needs, does the worker now suggest that a student who appears upset in the hallway talk to Mr. Jones? Demonstrations such as these are broadly lacking in the research on derived relational responding (Belisle et al., 2020).

In summary, EBI-based instruction is becoming increasingly prevalent in behavioral research and practice along with the use of comprehensive curricula such as PEAK. The present study provides a replication and extension showing that these programs can be adapted to target declarative workplace knowledge that may participate in broader vocational training in educational settings. Moreover, these results contribute to bridging the gap between EBI and real-world application.