Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design

BARNES, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91–124.

DUGDALE, N., & LOWE, C. F. (1990). Naming and stimulus equivalence. In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 115–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

EIKESETH, S., & SMITH, T. (1992). The development of functional and equivalence classes in high-functioning autistic children: The role of naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 123–133.

FIELDS, L., & VERHAVE, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332.

FIELDS, L., VERHAVE, T., & FATH, S. (1984). Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 143–157.

HORNE, P. J., & LOWE, F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.

MARR, J. (1996). A mingled yarn. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 19–33.

SAUNDERS, K. J., SAUNDERS, R. R., WILLIAMS, D. C., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1993). An interaction of instructions and training design on stimulus class formation: Extending the analysis of equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 725–744.

SAUNDERS, R. R., WACHTER, J. A., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95–115.

SIDMAN, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.

SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

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.

SPRADLIN, J. E., & SAUNDERS, R. R. (1986). The development of stimulus classes using match-to-sample procedures: Sample classification versus comparison classification. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 41–58.

URCUIOLI, P. C., & ZENTALL, T. V. (1993). The test of comparison-stimulus substitutability following OTM matching by pigeons. The Psychological Record, 43, 745–759.

URCUIOLI, P. C., ZENTALL, T. V., & DEMARSE, T. (1995). Transfer to derived sample-comparison relations by pigeons following many-to-one versus one-to-many matching with identical training relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 46B, 158–178.