Advertisement

Reading Words Using the Go/No-Go Procedure with Compound Stimuli with Preschool Children

  • Daniela de Souza Canovas
  • Anna Carolina Muller Queiroz
  • Paula DebertEmail author
  • Maria Martha Costa Hübner
Original Article

Abstract

The study investigated whether the go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli would produce emergent relations among dictated word (A), picture (B) and printed word (C). The emergence of textual behavior (CD) was also evaluated. Eight children from 4 to 5 years old were submitted to AB and AC training, followed by tests of BC, CB, and CD relations. During AB and AC training, a compound stimulus (formed of auditory and visual stimuli) was successively presented in each trial. Responses were differentially reinforced in the presence of “related” compounds (e.g., A1B1 and A2B2 in AB training), but not in the presence of “unrelated” compounds (e.g., A1B2 and A2B1). In BC and CB tests, the compounds were formed of a picture and a printed word side by side. Finally, tests of CD relations were conducted (textual behavior). The results showed that all the children met the learning criteria and showed emergence of BC, CB, and CD relations. The data also indicated the feasibility of the go/no-go procedure in producing emergent performance in reading.

Keywords

Reading Stimulus equivalence Go/no-go Compound Preschool children 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. Abadzi, H. (2011). Reading fluency measurements in EFA FTI partner countries: Outcomes and improvement prospects. Global Partnership for Education Working Paper Series on Learning. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/925221468179361979/pdf/797780WP0readi0Box0379789B00PUBLIC0.pdf.
  2. Boldrin, L. S., Gusmão, B. E., & Debert, P. (2016). Procedimento Go/No-Go Com Estímulos Compostos Com Esquema De Intervalo Variável. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 12(1), 33–43.  https://doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v12i1.3789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campos, H. C., Debert, P., Barros, R. S., & McIlvane, W. J. (2011). Relational discrimination by pigeons in a go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli: A methodological note. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 417–426.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.96-413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canovas, D. S., de Souza, D. G., & Barros, R. S. (2013). Simple successive discrimination and functional class formation in preschool children. The Psychological Record, 63, 525–544.  https://doi.org/10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.3.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canovas, D. S., Debert, P., & Pilgrim, C. (2015). Transfer-of-function and novel emergent relations using simple discrimination training procedures. The Psychological Record, 65, 337–346.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0109-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Da Hora, C., Debert, P., LaFrance, D., & Miguel, C. F. (in press). Inadvertent establishment of location control in matching-to-sample tasks in individuals with autism. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento.Google Scholar
  7. de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., & Hanna, E. S. (1996). Teaching reading and spelling: exclusion and stimulus equivalence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 451–469.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., Rossito, A. L., & de Rose, T. M. S. (1989). Aquisição de leitura após história de fracasso escolar: Equivalência de estímulos e generalização. Psicologia Teoria e Pesquisa, 5, 325–346 Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-75004-001.Google Scholar
  9. Debert, P., Huziwara, E. M., Faggiani, R. B., de Mathis, M. E. S., & McIlvane, W. J. (2009). Emergent conditional relations in a go/no-go procedure: Figure-ground and stimulus-position compound relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92, 233–243.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2009.92-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Debert, P., Matos, M. A., & McIlvane, W. J. (2007). Conditional relations with compound abstract stimuli using a go/no-go procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.46-05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grisante, P. C., Galesi, F. L., Sabino, N. M., Debert, P., Arntzen, E., & McIlvane, W. J. . (2013). Go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli: Effects of training structure on the emergence of equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 63, 63–72.  https://doi.org/10.11133/j.tpr.2013.63.1.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hübner, M. M. C., Gomes, R. C., & McIlvane, W. J. (2009). Recombinative generalization in minimal verbal unit-based reading instruction for prereading children. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 27, 11–17 Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045050/pdf/nihms-140865.pdf.Google Scholar
  13. Índice de desenvolvimento Humano Municipal. (2018). Total e dimensões Renda, Longevidade e Educação: Município de São Paulo e Prefeituras Regionais. Retrieved from https://www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cidade/secretarias/upload/urbanismo/infocidade/htmls/7_Indice_de_desenvolvimento_humano_municip_2000_10962.html
  14. Kubina, R. M., Jr., & Starlin, C. M. (2003). Reading with precision. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 4(1), 13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2003.11434212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lionello-DeNolf, K., McIlvane, W. J., Canovas, D. S., de Souza, D. G., & Barros, R. S. (2008). Reversal learning set and functional equivalence in children with and without autism. The Psychological Record, 58, 15–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mackay, H. A. (1985). Stimulus equivalence in rudimentary reading and spelling. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 373–387.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-4684(85)90006-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mackay, H. A., & Sidman, M. (1984). Teaching new behavior via equivalence relations. In P. H. Brooks, R. Sperber, & C. MacCauley (Eds.), Learning and cognition in the mentally retarded (pp. 493–513). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Melchiori, L. E., de Souza, D. G., & de Rose, J. C. (2000). Reading, equivalence, and recombination of units: A replication with students with different learning histories. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 97–100.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Modenesi, R. D., & Debert, P. (2015). Contextual control using a Go/no-go procedure with compound abstract stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 103, 542–552.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mueller, M. M., Olmi, D. J., & Saunders, K. J. (2000). Recombinative generalization of within-syllable units in prereading children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 515–531.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perez, W. F., Campos, H. C., & Debert, P. (2009). Procedimento go/no-go com estímulos compostos e a emergência de duas classes de equivalência com três estímulos. Acta Comportamentalia, 17, 191–210 Retrieved from http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/acom/article/view/18148/17268.Google Scholar
  22. Rehfeldt, R. A. (2011). Toward a technology of derived stimulus relations: an analysis of articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1992–2009. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 109–119.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (1993). A California sealion (Zlophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823–839.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.  https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 127–146.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sidman, M., Cresson, O., Jr., & Willson-Morris, M. (1974). Acquisition of matching-to-sample via mediated transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 261–273.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.22-261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. (1973). Reading and cross modal transfer of stimulus equivalences in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 515–523.Google Scholar
  28. Silva, R. A., & Debert, P. (2017). Go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli with children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 750–755.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stromer, R., McIlvane, W. J., & Serna, R. W. (1993). Complex stimulus control and equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 585–598.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. UNESCO. (2019). Literacy. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://en.unesco.org/themes/literacy
  32. United Nations. (2019). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment
  33. Vernucio, R., & Debert, P. (2016). Transferência de função em classes de equivalência formadas pelo procedimento go/no-go com estímulos compostos. Acta Comportamentalia, 24, 315–330 Retrieved from http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/acom/article/view/56966/50536.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade de São Paulo, Cidade UniversitáriaSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto Nacional de Ciência e TecnologiaSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Grupo MétodoSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations