The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-020-00131-4
RESEARCH ARTICLE

An Evaluation of Two Tact-Training Procedures

on Acquired Tacts and Tacting During Play

Kate B. LaLonde 1 & Ana D. Dueñas 2 & Nicole Neil 3 & Addam Wawrzonek 4 &
Joshua B. Plavnick 4

Published online: 11 September 2020

# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2020

Abstract
A common practice in tact training is to include a supplemental verbal stimulus (e.g.,
“What is it?”) in addition to the presentation of a nonverbal discriminative stimulus.
Previous literature has suggested that this supplemental verbal stimulus can impede
acquisition and generalization relative to the presentation of the object alone, as it may
establish faulty stimulus control or decrease spontaneous tacting. Research has yet to
compare these 2 training methods on the generalization of learned tacts to more
naturalistic, play-based environments. The present study evaluated the use of “What
is it?” compared to the presentation of only the nonverbal discriminative stimulus on
tact acquisition among 3 children with autism spectrum disorder and the extent to
which these training procedures led to tacting in a play-based setting following discrete-
trial training. Overall, participants learned to tact stimuli under both conditions, and all
participants demonstrated generalization of tacts in a play-based setting. Recommen-
dations for the development and evaluation of naturalistic posttraining assessment are
discussed.

Keywords Autism . Generalization . Stimulus control . Tact . Verbal behavior

A tact is a verbal response that is evoked by a specific nonverbal discriminative stimulus (SD;
e.g., an object or event or property of an object or event) and reinforced by generalized social
reinforcement. The ability to tact is vital to academic and social success and advanced

* Kate B. LaLonde
katherine.lalonde@wmich.edu

1
Western Michigan University, 4571 Sangren Hall (#4827), Kalamazoo, MI 49007, USA
2
Special Education, College of Education, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
3
Applied Behavior Analysis, Faculty of Education, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
4
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI, USA
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192 181

language skills (Sundberg & Sundberg, 2011). Typically developing children easily acquire
tacts without explicit instruction, whereas individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)
often require explicit instruction to learn the same skills (Smith, 2001).
Practitioners teaching individuals with ASD to tact often face several challenges,
including having to individualize instruction to be as effective and efficient as possible
and having to ensure that children generalize taught tacts in a variety of contexts that
are different from instruction. There are many reasons why an individual with ASD
may have a difficult time learning to tact, including motivational variables and diffi-
culty in attending to critical, relevant stimuli (Ploog, 2010). By definition, tacts are
reinforced by conditioned reinforcers, such as social praise, which may be ineffective
for some children with ASD (LeBlanc, Esch, Sidener, & Firth, 2006). For example, if a
child says “fire truck” while seeing one drive by, the people around the child will likely
acknowledge the response by providing attention and continuing the verbal exchange,
such as by saying, “You’re right! Look how fast it goes. What do fire trucks do?” For
children with ASD, this social praise and interaction may not serve as a reinforcer.
Second, teaching tacts requires a child to attend to a specific stimulus in the environ-
ment, which may be difficult for individuals with ASD (Sundberg, Endicott, &
Eigenheer, 2000).
One effective intervention that mitigates motivational and attending issues common-
ly observed when teaching young children with ASD to tact is discrete-trial training
(DTT). Discrete-trial tact instruction typically involves a researcher and child sitting
across from each other; the researcher artificially places a nonverbal SD within the
child’s line of sight, gives an echoic prompt of the nonverbal SD name, provides
conditioned reinforcement contingent on the student echoing the prompt, and
conducts the next trial after a short intertrial interval (ITI). Over time, the echoic
prompt is faded, resulting in the transfer of stimulus control from an echoic response
to a tact.
Discrete-trial tact instruction is often used to teach young children with ASD to tact
because the practitioner can easily incorporate specific instructional strategies to
increase motivation and attending to the relevant stimuli. For example, to increase
motivation, practitioners can use preference assessments and conditioned reinforcement
systems during instruction. The practitioner can also eliminate distractions in the
environment and use supplemental verbal stimuli to increase attending to the
nonverbal SD. For example, Marchese, Carr, LeBlanc, Rosati, and Conroy (2012)
compared the effects of two tact-training procedures on acquisition and maintenance
of tacts in four children with ASD. In one condition (object + question), the researcher
held up a nonverbal SD and asked “What is it?”; in the other condition, the researcher
only held up the nonverbal SD (object only). A transfer-of-stimulus-control procedure
was used in both conditions to transfer an echoic response to a tact. Half of the
participants acquired tacts more efficiently during the object + question condition,
whereas half participants learned more efficiently during the object-only condition. The
results suggest that for some children with ASD, the addition of the verbal supplemen-
tal stimulus may increase the saliency of the nonverbal SD and possibly the echoic
prompt. Marchese et al. compared the two antecedent conditions within one set of
stimuli for participants; therefore, it is unclear whether the supplemental verbal
stimulus is necessary as participants continue to receive DTT. It is possible that the
supplemental verbal stimulus is necessary during initial instruction but can be faded or
182 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192

used intermittently. Further, given that only one comparison was completed in the
Marchese study, it is unclear what the effects of the two antecedent conditions have on
maintenance of taught tacts.
Although DTT is effective at teaching young children with ASD to tact, it is possible
and probable that for some students, the instructional setting does not readily lead to
tacting those same stimuli in noninstructional settings, such as during daily routines and
social interactions. To evaluate if discrete-trial tact training leads to increased tacting in
noninstructional settings, researchers have measured tact frequency in noninstructional
settings.
Several studies (Delgado & Oblak, 2007; Greenberg, Tsang, and Yip, 2014; Lydon,
Healy, Leader, & Keohane, 2009) evaluated the effects of discrete-trial tact instruction
on tacts emitted in noninstructional settings in young children with developmental
disabilities, including ASD. In these studies, researchers completed pre- and
postinstruction observations in which they recorded the number of spontaneous tacts
participants made in noninstructional settings, which included during free play, at
lunchtime, and in hallways. Across these studies, most participants emitted more tacts
during posttraining observations compared to pretraining.
A limitation of these studies is that the frequency of taught tacts was not reported.
That is, these studies measured the frequency of any tact that participants made but did
not report if they were tacts that the participants had been taught during instruction. It is
possible that the tact training increased a participant’s overall frequency of tacts but did
not lead to maintenance and generalization of acquired tacts in noninstructional
settings. It is possible that participants tacted the same item several times during an
observation or emitted tacts that were already part of their repertoire. In that case, it
could be said that discrete-trial tact instruction increases the frequency of tacts but does
not necessarily lead to generalization of acquired tacts. This is plausible given a
participant’s history of reinforcement during DTT for making a response in the
presence of a nonverbal SD.
The current study sought to answer questions related to the two types of problems
discussed previously: attending issues and generalization. In the current study, we
developed a semistructured play assessment to determine if tacts taught during
discrete-trial tact instruction generalized in a noninstructional setting. The
semistructured play assessment was modeled after reciprocal imitation training (RIT;
Ingersoll, 2010). Additionally, the current study extended Marchese et al. (2012) by
repeatedly comparing the effects of two antecedent conditions (i.e., object only and
object + question) on tact acquisition in young children with ASD. Therefore, the
purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of two antecedent conditions
during DTT on the acquisition of tacts and the degree to which acquired tacts
generalized in noninstructional settings during a posttraining play-based probe.

Method

Participants, Setting, and Materials

Three young children who attended early intensive behavior intervention (EIBI) 30 hr
each week and had a diagnosis of ASD participated in the study. None of the children
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192 183

had received formal exposure to discrete-trial tact instruction prior to the start of the
study. Prior to the study, all children were administered the Verbal Behavior Milestones
Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP; Sundberg, 2008) by the first author
and the Preschool Language Scale, Fifth Edition (PLS-5; Zimmerman, Steiner, &
Pond, 2011) by an independent assessor who was a doctoral candidate in school
psychology.
Mayra was 44 months old at the start of the study. Her overall VB-MAPP score was
62.5, and her tact score was 5.5. Mayra was able to tact between 10 and 20 items
without prompts and had been observed to occasionally tact items spontaneously;
however, this was rare and usually only occurred during independent play or while
singing songs (e.g., “Old MacDonald”). Her standard score on the PLS-5 was 53 for
expressive language, 50 for auditory comprehension, and 50 total, with an age equiv-
alence of 17 months.
Elliot was 42 months old at the start of the study. His overall VB-MAPP score was
48, and his tact score was 4 (all Level 1). Elliot was able to tact approximately four
items without prompts but had not been observed to tact spontaneously. His standard
score on the PLS-5 was 72 for expressive language, 57 for auditory comprehension,
and 62 total, with an age equivalence of 26 months.
Earl was 43 months old at the beginning of the study. His overall VB-MAPP score
was 48, and his tact score was 4 (all Level 1). Elliot was able to tact about 10 common
items without prompts but had not been observed to spontaneously tact. His standard
scores on the PLS-5 were 59 for expressive language, 50 for auditory comprehension,
and 51 total, with an age equivalence of 17 months.
Experimental sessions took place in a small, quiet research room. During pretraining
probes and training sessions, the experimenter and participant sat across from each
other at a child-sized table and chairs. The play-based probes took place in the same
room on the carpet.
Each participant was taught to tact 24 target stimuli (three-dimensional objects).
Other items used included token boards, individualized reinforcers, pretend-play items
for play-based probes, and data collection materials.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable was the percentage of correct (independent) tacts emitted
during a session. A response was scored as correct if the child said the name of the
object within 6 s of object presentation or incorrect if the child emitted any sound or
word that was not the name of the object or did not respond.

Design

A repeated-acquisition design (Horner et al., 2005; Kennedy, 2005) was used to

compare the two tact-training procedures on tact acquisition, with embedded pre- and
posttraining probes for each tact set. This design was selected because it allowed for the
repeated evaluation of two training procedures across four sets of stimuli for each
participant. The sequence of the study included pretraining probes (DTT and play
based) used to obtain a baseline measure of tacts for a set of stimuli (e.g., Set A) under
two conditions. After pretraining probes, participants were taught to tact a set of stimuli.
184 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192

A set of stimuli included six objects that were divided into two groups of three stimuli.
Participants were taught to tact one group (three objects) using the object-only proce-
dure; the other three objects were taught using the object + question procedure. A
session consisted of 12 trials of one procedure, and the order of the procedures was
alternated until a participant learned to tact a group (i.e., three) of stimuli. Mastery
criterion for a group of stimuli was set at 90% of above for two consecutive sessions.
Posttraining play-based probes were then conducted. The play-based probe provided a
measure of setting and structure generalization. That is, we wanted to see if participants
would tact target stimuli during semistructured play sessions, as this likely resembles
the conditions under which typically developing children tact and adults and peers
reinforce tacts. Next, pretraining probes for Set B were conducted, and the two
procedures were alternated until mastery for Set B was achieved, at which time
posttraining play-based probes were conducted. This sequence continued for Sets C
and D.

Procedures

Pretraining play-based probes Prior to training for a given set of stimuli, participants
completed a play-based probe. The purpose of the play-based probe was to determine
whether participants would tact objects in a noninstructional setting pre- and
posttraining. The play-based probe was developed for the current study and was
modeled after RIT (Ingersoll, 2010). RIT is a naturalistic imitation intervention that
has been demonstrated (with single-case and randomized controlled trial experiments)
to increase imitation skills and language skills with young children with autism
(Ingersoll, 2010; Ingersoll & LaLonde, 2010). A RIT session lasts about 20 min and
requires that several sets of toys be set out and available in a play area. During a RIT
session, the experimenter or therapist contingently imitates a child’s verbal and non-
verbal behavior while describing the child’s actions using simplified language and
expanding on the child’s utterances. About once per minute, on average, the therapist
models a play action and provides a simple description of the play action. The play
action is modeled up to three times, and if the child does not imitate the play action, the
therapist provides a physical prompt for the child to complete the play action. Both
prompted and unprompted responses are praised, and the therapist returns to imitating
and describing the child’s play and behavior.
In the current study, the play-based probe used these same procedures, except
instead of modeling a play action, once per minute, the researcher presented an
opportunity for the participant to tact a target stimulus. During the play-based probe,
no prompts were provided for tacting or any other response. Social praise was provided
for interacting and playing with the researcher but not for tacting.
The probe started when the participant entered the research room and the experimenter
said, “Come play with my toys” (14 age-appropriate toys plus the 6 target stimuli). The
experimenter slowly took each toy out of a large bin and began imitating the participant’s
play. Approximately once per minute, the experimenter conducted a tact trial by holding
up the target stimulus for the participant to see for 6 s. The experimenter did not respond to
any vocalizations during a target trial. After the 6 s had passed or the child tacted the item,
the experimenter returned to imitating and narrating the child's behavior. If a participant
grabbed for the item or correctly tacted the stimulus (which only happened during
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192 185

postprobes) the item was placed behind the experimenter’s back for at least 20 s to ensure
the response did not function as a mand for the item. Each target stimulus was presented
twice, once when the experimenter held the item (object only) and once with the verbal
supplemental stimulus “What is it?” (object + question).

Pretraining (i.e., baseline) sessions comprised the participant and experimenter

sitting across from each other at a child-sized table and chairs. A session started
with the experimenter conducting a brief multiple-stimulus without-replacement
(MSWO; Carr, Nicolson, & Higbee, 2000) preference assessment. This preference
assessment was used as it has been shown that the MSWO can accurately identify
reinforcers in a shorter period of time than other preference assessments (Kang
et al., 2013). The item selected first was used as the backup reinforcer and placed
on the table.

A trial consisted of the experimenter securing attention from the participant, holding the
target stimulus in the participant’s line of vision, and waiting 6 s for the participant to make a
response. During object + question trials, the experimenter asked “What it is?” when
presenting the target stimulus; the experimenter omitted the question during object-only
trials. The experimenter interspersed mastered trials with tact trials, and conditioned rein-
forcers (i.e., tokens) were delivered contingent on correct mastered responses on a fixed-ratio
1 schedule. The backup reinforcer was delivered on a fixed-ratio 6 schedule (this system was
used in the EIBI center, and participants had prior history with it). Once the participant had
earned six tokens, he or she was presented with the backup reinforcer for 30 s. The
participant then left the room and took a 5-min break in the therapy room. The participant
then returned to the research room and completed the same sequence, except now trials were
presented under the other antecedent condition.

Tact training Tact-training sessions were identical to baseline, except that a progressive
time delay echoic prompt was provided and one session consisted of 12 trials. Sessions were
separated by a 5-min break (same as the pretraining probe), and the order of the training
procedures was randomly predetermined, with the same number of sessions under each
antecedent condition being equivalent within and across days. For example, a participant
would receive training under the object-only procedure (12 trials), take a 5-min break, and
then receive training under the object + question procedure (12 trials). After the second
training, participants would take a 5-min break and then continue with their regular therapy
schedule. Prompts were faded when the prompt delay was 90% effective across two
consecutive sessions or 100% for one session. Once a participant met fading criteria at the
various time delays, independent trials were presented in which no echoic prompt was
provided.

Posttraining play-based probes Posttraining play-based probes were identical to

pretraining playbased probes except they occurred after a participant mastered a set
of stimuli.

Maintenance Four weeks after posttraining play-based probes were conducted for Set D,
participants completed two types of maintenance sessions: pretraining DTT probes and play-
based probes. The purpose of the maintenance probes was to determine whether acquired
186 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192

tacts maintained in both settings (i.e., instructional and noninstructional/play) and to evaluate
the effect of the two antecedent conditions (i.e., object only and object + question) on
maintenance and generalization of acquired tacts. The order of the sets was randomized
within and across participants. The sequence of the presentation of sets was determined
using a random number generator. For example, the sequence for Mayra was Sets C, B, D,
and A, whereas for Elliot it was C, A, B, and D.

Interobserver Agreement and Procedural Integrity

A second observer recorded participant data for 51% of instructional sessions and during all
probe sessions (pretraining DTT and play based). Interobserver agreement was determined
by dividing agreements by the sum of agreements and disagreements and multiplying by
100% An agreement was recorded if both observers independently scored the same response
for each trial. The mean agreement for instructional sessions for Mayra was 98.5% (range
97%–100%) and 98% (range 92%–100%) for probe sessions. The mean agreement for
instructional sessions for Elliot was 95.5% (range 86%–100%) and 94.7% (range 83%–
100%) for probe sessions. The mean agreement for instructional sessions for Earl was 97.7%
(range 92%–100%) and 98.3% (range 83%–100%) for probe sessions.
Procedural integrity was assessed during 33% of instructional sessions and during all
probe sessions. A member of the research team recorded data on the following
experimenter behaviors during tact-training sessions: (a) a brief MSWO preference
assessment was completed prior to the first trial, (b) the correct item was placed in front
of the child, (c) the item was placed in the child’s line of sight, (d) the correct
antecedent condition was implemented (i.e., object only or object + question), (e) the
correct prompt delay was implemented, (f) the correct consequence was delivered, (g)
the experimenter ensured the participant did not touch the item, and (h) the next trial
was presented within a 5-s intertrial interval. Procedural integrity for pretraining was
identical to the aforementioned steps except that the prompt delay was kept at 6 s.
A different procedural integrity form was used during play-based probes; the
experimenter behaviors scored were (a) imitating the child’s play and verbal behavior;
(b) presenting the correct target item, once per minute, for 6 s; (c) presenting the correct
antecedent condition (i.e., object only or object + question); (d) ensuring the participant
did not touch or receive the item; and (e) returning to contingently imitating the child’s
play and verbal behavior. The mean percentage of steps implemented with fidelity for
instructional sessions was 96.2% (range 89%–100%) and 99% (range 92%–100%) for
pretraining and play-based sessions.

Results

Figure 1 displays the percentage of correct (independent) tacts during DTT pretraining
probes, DTT training, and DTT maintenance sessions for all three participants. Mayra,
Elliot, and Earl did not emit any tacts during preprobes. Table 1 shows the number of
sessions to mastery for each set and condition for all participants. Mayra met mastery
criteria in fewer sessions under the object-only condition for Set A. However, due to an
experimenter error, training continued for 2 more days. For Sets B and C, she met
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192 187

Fig. 1 Pretraining probes, training, and maintenance probes during DTT

mastery in fewer trials under the object + question condition. For Set D, she required
the same number of sessions of each condition to meet mastery. During DTT mainte-
nance probes, she tacted each stimulus correctly each time save during Set B when
items were presented under the object-only condition.
Elliott met mastery criteria in fewer sessions under the object-only condition for Set
A, and for Sets B, C, and D, he met mastery criteria in fewer sessions under the object +
question condition. During DTT maintenance probes, Elliott tacted the same number of
188 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192

Table 1. Sessions to Mastery for All Targets, Conditions, and Participants

Participant Set Sessions to Mastery

Object Only Object + Question

Mayra A 11 13
B Discontinued 5
C 7 Discontinued
D 7 Discontinued
Elliot A 17 Discontinued
B Discontinued 6
C Discontinued 8
D Discontinued 7
Earl A Discontinued 34
B Discontinued 18
C 11 Discontinued
D 18 18

stimuli for each of the sets under both conditions except for Set B in which he tacted
more items under the object + question condition.
Earl met mastery criteria for target stimuli in fewer sessions under the object +
question condition for Sets A, B, and D and under the object-only condition for Set C.
During DTT maintenance probes, Earl tacted more stimuli under the object + question
condition for Sets C, A, and D and the same number of items for Set B.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of correct (independent) tacts during pre- and
posttraining play-based probes. During the posttraining play-based probes, Mayra did
not tact any target stimuli during probes for Set A and tacted 5 (41.6%), 10 (83.33%),
and 12 (100%) times for Sets B, C, and D, respectively. During play-based mainte-
nance probes, she tacted each stimulus under both antecedent conditions, except for Set
A stimuli when presented under the object-only condition. Elliott tacted eight
(66.67%), six (50%), six (50%), and seven (58.33%) times during probes for Sets A,
B, C, and D, respectively. During play-based maintenance probes, he tacted each
stimulus under both antecedent conditions, except for Set A stimuli when presented
under the object-only condition. Earl made correct responses during each trial on play-
based probes (100%) except for Set B (50%). During play-based maintenance probes,
he tacted the same number of items under both conditions for Sets C and A and more
items under the object + question condition for Sets B and D.

Discussion

The current study extended tact-training research by (a) repeatedly comparing the effects of
two tact-training procedures on tact acquisition to determine if learning patterns sustained
across comparisons for each participant and (b) conducting play-based probes to determine
if participants would generalize taught targets in a noninstructional setting.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192 189

Fig. 2 Pre- and posttraining and maintenance play-based probes for all participants

Marchese et al. (2012) conducted one evaluation between the two independent
variables, whereas the current study conducted four evaluations per participant. Similar
to Marchese et al., each participant demonstrated an idiosyncratic learning pattern
across the evaluations. However, two participants (Earl and Elliott) learned more
quickly when the supplementary verbal stimulus was used on six of the eight
evaluations.
The second aim of the study was to determine if participants would tact target items
in a noninstructional setting. In the current study, each participant demonstrated
generalization of tacts in a context that was dissimilar from training, suggesting that
DTT may set the occasion for individuals to tact in less structured environments and
without conditioned reinforcement systems, which more closely resembles instances in
which young children tact. That said, clinicians must contrive situations in which
participants repeatedly have the opportunity to demonstrate generalization of skills
190 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192

acquired during DTT. Had only one evaluation been completed, it would have ap-
peared as if Mayra did not generalize. Mayra’s results may suggest that some children
with ASD need to be exposed to the tact contingency for a period of time or for a
certain number of trials before generalization occurs. As such, clinician should fre-
quently conduct setting generalization probes when using DTT instruction to determine
at which point, children demonstrate generalization of acquired tacts.
Additionally, during both types of maintenance probes (DTT and play based), all
participants tacted more when the supplemental verbal stimulus was used. This sug-
gests that the addition of the supplemental verbal stimulus increases the saliency of the
stimulus to be tacted or cues the learner that a response is scheduled for reinforcement.
Although DTT is effective at teaching children with ASD to tact, researchers and
practitioners should consider combining traditional DTT with naturalistic approaches to
teach children to tact under a sufficient range of antecedent variables, which may
increase unprompted or cued language (see Duenas, Plavnick, & Maher, 2019, for an
example of teaching tacts during play).
There are several limitations to the current study. First, a lack of experimental
control makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the two independent variables.
Responding across the two independent variables was similar for nearly all the
comparisons, and it is unclear whether the interventions were similar in effectiveness
or if carryover effects or extraneous variables influenced responding across conditions.
These concerns may have been remedied by including a no-treatment control condition,
or by embedding the comparisons within a multiple-baseline across-participants or
stimulus sets design.
Alternatively, future research might consider the use of a counterbalanced
design, where participants experience a single condition at a time in order to
examine carryover effects. It would also aid in furthering the understanding of the
necessary conditions for generalization. Previous research suggests that exposure to
conditions with and without a supplemental stimulus is important for generaliza-
tion. Williams, Carnerero, and Pérez-González (2006) found that experience in tact
training with and without a verbal supplemental stimulus was necessary to gener-
alize to novel tacts in the absence of a verbal supplemental stimulus. Relatedly, in
the present study, for Elliott DTT was not efficient in teaching tacts and did not lead
to generalization in a context dissimilar to training. Future research should evaluate
additional interventions to teach individuals to tact and generalize those tacts,
including multiple-exemplar training or video modeling.
Another limitation of the current study was the format of the play-based probes.
Play-based probes allowed for the repeated assessment of generalization of acquired
tacts in a more naturalistic context; however, play-based probes did still contain
contrived elements (e.g., holding up a target stimulus for 6 s). Further, because
experimenters were not blinded to the target stimuli, there is the possibility that
experimenters provided prompts unknowingly (e.g., facial cues). Future researchers
might consider developing and evaluating a posttraining probe in which they combine
methods used in Delgado and Oblak (2007) and the current study. For example,
posttraining probes could occur during daily routines (e.g., during free play, at meal-
times, and while walking in the hallway), and researchers could ensure that target
nonverbal SDs were in sight and out of reach and record frequency of trained and
untrained targets.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192 191

Finally, the rate of acquisition may have been affected by a multitude of dimensions
of the target stimuli. Future research should include a logical analysis (Wolery, Gast, &
Ledford, 2014, p. 325) to more adequately select target stimuli.

Funding This study was not funded.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in 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 individual participants included in the study.

References

Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference
assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 353–357. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-353
Delgado, J. P., & Oblak, M. (2007). The effects of daily intensive tact instruction on the emission of pure
mands and tacts in non-instructional settings by three preschool children with developmental delays.
Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 4, 392–411.
Duenas, A. D., Plavnick, J. B., & Maher, C. E. (2019). Embedding tact instruction during play for preschool
children with autism spectrum disorder. Education and Treatment of Children, 42, 361–384.
Greenberg, J. H., Tsang, W., & Yip, T. (2014). The effects of intensive tact instruction with young children
having speech delays on pure tacts and mands in non-instructional settings: A partial replication.
Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19, 35–39.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject
research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 165–179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
Ingersoll, B. (2010). Brief report: Pilot randomized controlled trial of reciprocal imitation training for teaching
elicited and spontaneous imitation to children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 40, 1154–1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0966-2
Ingersoll, B., & LaLonde, K. (2010). The impact of object and gesture imitation training on language use in
children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 1040–
1051. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/09-0043)
Kang, S., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., Falcomata, T. S., Sigafoos, J., & Xu, Z. (2013). Comparison of the
predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: A review of the literature.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 1125–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
LeBlanc, L. A., Esch, J., Sidener, T. M., & Firth, A. (2006). Behavioral language interventions for children
with autism: Comparing applied verbal behavior and naturalistic teaching approaches. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, (1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393026
Lydon, H., Healy, O., Leader, G., & Keohane, D. (2009). The effects of intensive tact instruction on three
verbal operants in non-instructional settings for two children with autism. Journal of Speech and
Language Pathology—Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 173–184.
Marchese, N. V., Carr, J. E., LeBlanc, L. A., Rosati, T. C., & Conroy, S. A. (2012). The effects of the question
“What is this?” on tact-training outcomes of children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
45, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-539
Ploog, B. O. (2010). Stimulus overselectivity four decades later: A review of the literature and its implications
for current research in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40,
1332–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0990-2
192 The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (2020) 36:180–192

Smith, T. (2001). Discrete trial training in the treatment of autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 16, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760101600204
Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program. Concord, CA: AVB
Press.
Sundberg, M. L., Endicott, K., & Eigenheer, P. (2000). Using intraverbal prompts to establish tacts for
children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 17, 89–104.
Sundberg, M. L., & Sundberg, C. A. (2011). Intraverbal behavior and verbal conditional discriminations in
typically developing children and children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 23–43
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/896406236?accountid=12598
Williams, G., Carnerero, J. J., & Pérez-González, L. A. (2006). Generalization of tacting actions in children
with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 233–237.
Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Comparison designs. In D. L. Gast & J. R. Ledford (Eds.),
Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.,
pp. 325–374). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2011). Preschool language scale (5th ed.) [Database record].
Washington, DC: APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15141-000

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.