The Psychological Record

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 81–96 | Cite as

The Relation Between Sorting Tests and Matching-to-Sample Tests in the Formation of Equivalence Classes

Original Article

Abstract

Using the simultaneous protocol, 20 college students attempted forming three 5-member equivalence classes (A → B → C → D → E). In Group 1, baseline training was followed serially with a sorting test, a matching-to-sample (MTS) test of derived relations, and a second sorting test. In Group 2, baseline training was followed with an MTS test, a sorting test, and a second MTS test. In Group 1, initial sorting showed the immediate emergence of three classes for five, one, or two classes for three, and no classes for two participants, respectively. The MTS test documented equivalence classes for three of the first five, one of the next three, and none for last two participants, respectively. Across participants, 19 of 27 classes in sorting (70 %) predicted presence/absence of corresponding equivalence classes in MTS tests. For three participants in Group 2, initial MTS testing showed immediate emergence of all equivalence classes with their maintenance in follow-up sorting tests. Three others showed no classes in MTS testing and emergence of all during sorting, documenting delayed emergence of classes. The last MTS test documented equivalence for one of these three participants. Two others showed no class formation in any test. With five of 16 participants who showed class formation in sorting, the positioning of the stimuli in sorting reflected the nodal structure of the classes. Variables that should increase prediction of equivalence classes by sorting were discussed.

Keywords

Sorting Stimulus classes Stimulus equivalence Immediate emergence Nodal structure College students 

References

  1. Arntzen, E. (2004). Probability of equivalence formation: Familiar stimuli and training sequence. The Psychological Record, 54(2), 275–291. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=tpr.
  2. Arntzen, E. (2012). Training and testing parameters in formation of stimulus equivalence: Methodological issues. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 123–135. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2012.11434412.
  3. Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Fields, L. (2015a). Enhancing responding in accordance with stimulus equivalence by the delayed and relational properties of meaningful stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 524–541. doi:10.1002/jeab.152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Arntzen, E., Norbom, A., & Fields, L. (2015b). Sorting: An alternative measure of class formation? The Psychological Record, 65, 615–625. doi:10.1007/s40732-015-0132-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cowley, B. J., Green, G., & Braunling-McMorrow, D. (1992). Using stimulus equivalence procedures to teach name-face matching to adults with brain injuries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 461–475.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickins, D. W. (2011). Transitive inference in stimulus equivalence and serial learning. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 523–555. Retrieved from Retrieved from www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434399.
  7. Dickins, D. W. (2015). A simpler route to stimulus equivalence? A replication and further exploration of a “simple discrimination training procedure” (Canovas, Debert and Pilgrim 2014). The Psychological Record. doi:10.1007/s40732-015-0134-3.Google Scholar
  8. Doran, E., & Fields, L. (2012). All stimuli are equal, but some are more equal than others: Measuring relational preferences within an equivalence class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 98(3), 243–256. doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-243.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2001). Supplemental measures and derived stimulus relations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 19, 8–12. Retrieved from http://www.eahb.org/1/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Dymond-Rehfeldt.pdf.
  10. Eilifsen, C., & Arntzen, E. (2009). On the role of trial types in tests for stimulus equivalence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 187–202. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2009.11434318.
  11. Eilifsen, C., & Arntzen, E. (2011). Single-subject withdrawal designs in delayed matching-to-sample procedures. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 152–172. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434361.
  12. Fields, L., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 163–181. doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.97-163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Fields, L., Arntzen, E., & Moksness, M. (2014). Stimulus Sorting: A quick and sensitive index of equivalence class formation. The Psychological Record, 64, 487–498. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0034-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332. doi:10.1901/jeab.1987.48-317.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Fienup, D. M., & Dixon, M. R. (2006). Acquisition and maintenance of visual-visual and visual-olfactory equivalence classes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6, 87–98.Google Scholar
  16. Green, G. (1990). Differences in development of visual and auditory-visual equivalence relations. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 95, 260–270.Google Scholar
  17. Hove, O. (2003). Differential probability of equivalence class formation following a one-to-many versus a many-to-one training structure. The Psychological Record, 53, 617–634. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1501&context=tpr.
  18. Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., Harris, F. D. A., & Randle, V. R. L. (2002). Naming and categorization in young children: III. Vocal tact training and transfer of function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 527–549. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.31-04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ludvigson, H. W., & Caul, W. F. (1964). Relative effect of overlearning on reversal and nonreversal shifts with two and four sorting categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 301–306. doi:10.1037/h0042254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mackay, H. A., Wilkinson, K. M., Farrell, C., & Serna, R. W. (2011). Evaluating merger and intersection of equivalence classes with one member in common. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 87–105. doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.96-87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. McIlvane, W. J. (2013). Simple and complex discrimination learning. In G. Madden, W. V. Dube, T. D. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis (Vol. 2, pp. 129–163). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  22. Moss-Lourenco, P., & Fields, L. (2011). Nodal structure and stimulus relatedness in equivalence classes: Post-class formation preference tests. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 343–368. doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.95-343.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Nedelcu, R. I., Fields, L., & Arntzen, E. (2015). Conditional discriminative functions of meaningful stimuli and enhanced equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 349–360. doi:10.1002/jeab.141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: A class of correlations or a relation of classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 173–195). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1977). Children’s sorting: A reinterpretation based on the nature of abstraction in natural categories. In R. C. Smart & M. S. Smart (Eds.), Readings in child development and relationships (2nd ed., pp. 140–148). New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  26. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  27. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22. doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Sigurdardottir, Z. G., Mackay, H. A., & Green, G. (2012). Stimulus equivalence, generalization, and contextual stimulus control in verbal classes. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 3–29. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363409/.
  29. Smeets, P. M., Dymond, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2000). Instructions, stimulus equivalence, and stimulus sorting: Effects of sequential testing arrangements and a default option. The Psychological Record, 50, 339–354. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1401&context=tpr.

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Behavioral ScienceOslo and Akershus University CollegeOsloNorway
  2. 2.Queens College and The Graduate SchoolCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations