The Psychological Record

, Volume 64, Issue 3, pp 381–391 | Cite as

Effects of Correspondence Training on Self-Reports of Errors During a Reading Task

  • Camila Domeniconi
  • Júlio C. de Rose
  • William F. Perez
Original Article


This study investigated correspondence in children’s self-reports about the correctness of previous reading responses. Participants were typically developing children ages 9–14, with a poor school performance. Experiment 1 was conducted in a school setting, and Experiment 2 replicated it in a lab setting. Each trial presented a target word on a computer screen. The child read the word orally and, after the computer dictated the target word, selected a green or a red window to report whether the response had been correct or incorrect, respectively. In an initial baseline, children often selected the green window, regardless of whether they read correctly or not. A correspondence training then provided points for self-reports that corresponded to the reading response, whereas non-corresponding reports did not produce points. Correspondence quickly increased and was maintained in subsequent baseline sessions. Correspondence training was effective to establish accurate reports of errors in these children.


Correspondence training Verbal behavior Self-tact Self-report Children 



The first author was supported by a doctoral fellowship by the Ministry of Education (CAPES). The second author had a research productivity fellowship by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), and the third author had an undergraduate fellowship by CNPq. The study was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Grant 03/09928-4). All authors are currently affiliated with Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia sobre Comportamento, Cognição e Ensino, supported by FAPESP (Grant # 08/57705-8) and CNPq (Grant # 573972/2008-7), which provided support for preparation of this manuscript.

We thank Aline R. A. da Costa, Mariéle Cortez, Deisy de Souza, and Bill McIlvane for constructive comments on the research and preparation of the manuscript. We are also grateful to Drausio Capobianco for help with the software used in the research. The final version of the manuscript benefited from thoughtful and constructive comments of anonymous reviewers.


  1. Baer, R. A., & Detrich, R. (1990). Tacting and manding in correspondence training: effects of child selection of verbalization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 23–30. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-23.
  2. Brino, A. L. F., & de Rose, J. C. (2006). Correspondência entre auto-relatos e desempenhos acadêmicos antecedentes em crianças com história de fracasso escolar. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 1, 67–77.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  4. Critchfield, T. S., & Perone, M. (1990). Verbal self-reports of delayed matching to sample by humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 321–344. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-321.
  5. Critchfield, T. S., & Perone, M. (1993). Verbal self-reports about delayed matching to sample: effects of the number of elements in a compound sample stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 193–214. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-193.
  6. de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., & Hanna, E. S. (1996). Teaching reading and spelling: stimulus equivalence and exclusion. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 451–469. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-451.
  7. Doepke, K. J., Henderson, A. L., & Critchfield, T. S. (2003). Social antecedents of children’s eyewitness testimony: a single-subject experimental analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 459–463. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-459.
  8. Glenn, S. S. (1983). Maladaptive functional relations in client verbal behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 6, 47–56.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lanza, R. P., Starr, J., & Skinner, B. F. (1982). “Lying” in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 201–203. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-201.
  10. Lattal, K. A., & Doepke, K. J. (2001). Correspondence as conditional stimulus control: insights from experiments with pigeons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(2), 127–144. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-127.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lima, E. L., & Abreu-Rodrigues, J. (2010). Verbal mediating responses: effects on generalization of say-do correspondence and non-correspondence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 411–424. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-411.
  12. Luciano, C., Herruzo, J., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Generalization of say-do correspondence. The Psychological Record, 51, 111–130.Google Scholar
  13. Perez, W. F., Domeniconi, C., & de Rose, J. C. (2005). Contingências que favorecem dizer a verdade ou mentir em auto-relatos de desempenho acadêmico.[Contingencies that favor telling the truth or lying in self reports of academic performance]. Paper presented at the XIV annual convention of the Brazilian Association of Psychotherapy and Behavioral Medicine, Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
  14. Ribeiro, A. F. (1989). Correspondence in children’s self-report: tacting and manding aspects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 361–367. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-361.
  15. Rosa Filho, A. B., de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., Fonseca, M. L., & Hanna, E. S. (1998). Software para programação de atividades para o ensino de leitura (Version 1.0) [computer software]. São Carlos, SP: Universidade Federal de São Carlos.Google Scholar
  16. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Applenton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. St. Peter, C. C., Montgomery-Downs, H. E., & Massullo, J. P. (2012). Improving accuracy of sleep self-reports through correspondence training. The Psychological Record, 62, 623–630.Google Scholar
  18. Vintere, P., & Poulson, C. (2010). The effects of a behavioral movement-training package on dance performance. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 11, 151–166.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camila Domeniconi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Júlio C. de Rose
    • 1
    • 2
  • William F. Perez
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidade Federal de São Carlos and Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia sobre Comportamento, Cognição e EnsinoSão CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de PsicologiaUniversidade Federal de São CarlosSão CarlosBrazil
  3. 3.Núcleo Paradigma de Análise do ComportamentoSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations