JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2016, 49, 869–883 NUMBER 4 (WINTER)

THE USE OF MATRIX TRAINING TO PROMOTE GENERATIVE

LANGUAGE WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
SARAH E. FRAMPTON, SARAH C. WYMER, AND BETHANY HANSEN
MARCUS AUTISM CENTER

AND

M. ALICE SHILLINGSBURG
MARCUS AUTISM CENTER AND EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Matrix training consists of planning instruction by arranging components of desired skills across
2 axes. After training with diagonal targets that each combine 2 unique skill components,
responses to nondiagonal targets, consisting of novel combinations of the components, may
emerge. A multiple-probe design across participants was used to evaluate matrix training with
known nouns (e.g., cat) and verbs (e.g., jumping) with 5 children with autism spectrum disor-
ders (ASD). Following baseline of Matrix 1 and a generalization matrix, diagonal targets within
Matrix 1 were trained as noun–verb combinations (e.g., cat jumping). Posttests showed recombi-
native generalization within Matrix 1 and the generalization matrix for 4 participants. For 1 par-
ticipant, diagonal training across multiple matrices was provided until correct responding was
observed in the generalization matrix. Results support the use of matrix training to promote
untrained responses for learners with ASD and offer a systematic way to evaluate the extent of
generalization within and across matrices.
Key words: autism, matrix training, recombinative generalization, tact

Although impairments in language are no
longer a necessary component of autism spec-
trum disorders (ASD; American Psychiatric
Association, 2013), failure to develop or a delay
in vocal speech remains a strong predictor of
ASD (Mody & Belliveau, 2013). Even after
acquiring vocal speech, many children with
ASD continue to present with a variety of
unique challenges to language (Luyster, Kadlec,
Carter, & Tager-Flusberg, 2008; Mody & Bel-
liveau, 2013; Paul, 2008). One challenge of
particular importance relates to syntactic devel-
opment; specifically, combining words into
phrases and sentences. Weismer et al. (2011)
found that only 5% of 30-month-old children
with ASD were combining words, with no sig-
nificant relation to vocabulary size. Similarly,
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Sarah E. Frampton, Marcus Autism Center,
1920 Briarcliff Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329 (e-mail:
sarah.frampton@choa.org).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.340
Eigsti, Bennetto, and Dadlani (2007) found
that children with ASD emitted shorter, less
complex utterances than typically developing
and developmentally delayed peers, even when
matched for nonverbal vocabulary skill. These
findings suggest that vocabulary-building inter-
ventions alone will not necessarily lead to the
development of age-appropriate language use.
For multiword utterances to occur, specific
intervention may be necessary. Given the costs
and resources required to deliver high-quality
language intervention, the interventions must
be aimed at developing generalized repertoires
that will allow the learner to demonstrate
responses beyond those that are directly taught
(Striefel, Wetherby, & Karlan, 1976). Interven-
tions that produce flexible word combinations
are needed for children with ASD to make
meaningful gains in language development.
Several studies with adults and teens with
developmental disabilities have shown the util-
ity of using known skills as the foundation for

869
870 SARAH E. FRAMPTON et al.
developing novel, combined responses. Recom-
binative generalization is a process by which
individuals come to produce and respond to
novel combinations of words when the compo-
nents themselves are familiar (Goldstein &
Mousetis, 1989). For the learner to display
novel, recombined responses made up of
known components, the components them-
selves must “continue to exert precise and
appropriate control over corresponding portions
of the novel responses” (Goldstein & Mousetis,
1989, p. 246). Typical strategies to produce
recombinative generalization call for training
responses with overlapping components, so that
the participants can learn to emit novel
responses made up of those components
arranged in a new order (Hanna, de Souza, de
Rose, & Fonseca, 2004). For example, having
taught a learner to read the words hug and mat,
the clinician tests for correct responses to hat
and mug. These new responses are made up
entirely of components of learned responses.
Thus, initial training may be sufficient to pro-
duce correct responses in the presence of words
that involve different combinations of the
taught components. Recombinative generaliza-
tion has been used to teach skills such as spell-
ing (Hanna et al., 2004), reading (Hübner,
Gomes, & McIlvane, 2009; Mueller, Olmi, &
Saunders, 2000), and reading music (Perez &
de Rose, 2010) to typically developing adults
and children.
Some studies suggest that interventions that
target recombinative generalization may be a
viable strategy for learners with ASD or other
developmental disorders (Axe & Sainato, 2010;
Goldstein, Angelo, & Mousetis, 1987; Gold-
stein & Brown, 1989; Goldstein & Mousetis,
1989; Karlan et al., 1982; Kohler & Malott,
2014; Light, Watson, & Remington, 1990;
Mineo & Goldstein, 1990; Pauwels, Ahearn, &
Cohen, 2015; Remington, Watson, & Light,
1990; Striefel & Wetherby, 1973; Striefel,
Wetherby, & Karlan, 1976, 1978). These stud-
ies employed matrix training to maximize the
interaction of the components to produce novel
responses through recombinative generalization.
Matrix training consists of preplanning inter-
vention by first identifying the components of
desired compound responses and displaying
them across two axes. For example, when target-
ing tact noun–verb combinations, the horizon-
tal axis may contain the desired verbs
(e.g., jumping, sleeping, and eating) and the verti-
cal axis includes the list of nouns (e.g., pig,
horse, and cat). The possible intervention targets
are made up of all nine combinations of these
verbs and nouns (e.g., pig jumping, horse jump-
ing, cat jumping, pig sleeping, horse sleeping, cat
sleeping, pig eating, horse eating, and cat eating).
By arranging these desired responses into a
matrix, targets for intervention can be systemat-
ically identified and trained. Some studies sug-
gest that the optimal targets for intervention
are found along the diagonal, because these tar-
gets share no overlapping components (Axe &
Sainato, 2010; Kohler & Malott, 2014; Pau-
wels et al., 2015). These diagonal targets are
selected for intervention, because together they
contain one example of each verb and one
example of each noun (e.g., pig jumping, horse
sleeping, and cat eating). After learning these
targets, the learner may demonstrate correct
responses to the nondiagonal targets through
recombinative generalization. If recombinative
generalization is not observed, the nondiagonal
targets (which share overlapping components
with the diagonal targets) are trained. Of note,
it has been suggested that the inclusion of
known component skills is required for diago-
nal, nonoverlapping training approaches to pro-
duce recombinative generalization (Goldstein,
1983; Striefel & Wetherby, 1973, Striefel
et al., 1978). This assertion has recently been
contradicted (Axe & Sainato, 2010; Pauwels
et al., 2015), so overall findings remain mixed
on this point. Given the robust findings regard-
ing the efficiency of matrix training in produ-
cing untrained responses, more recent studies
have focused on extending the literature to
 MATRIX TRAINING WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
include broader tests for recombinative general-
ization; specifically, evaluation of familiar
(i.e., mastered) components that were not
included in the trained matrix.
Axe and Sainato (2010) used matrix training
to establish preliteracy skills with children with
ASD and evaluated the effects of training across
several untrained matrices. Six unknown
actions (e.g., underline, circle, highlight, etc.)
were assigned to three matrices, making up the
y axis. The x axis consisted of unknown pic-
tures for one matrix (primary matrix), known
letters and numbers for the second matrix, and
known pictures for the third matrix. Within
the primary matrix, targets were divided into
several submatrices. Training of the diagonal
targets was sequentially introduced into each
submatrix following the logic of a multiple-
probe design. Recombinative generalization was
assessed within the targeted submatrix and
additional, nondiagonal targets were trained as
necessary until mastery criteria were met for
each submatrix. Results showed that all partici-
pants demonstrated untrained responses within
the primary matrix, and three participants
showed evidence of recombinative generaliza-
tion with the matrices composed of previously
known stimuli, which received no direct train-
ing. These findings suggest that the effects of
matrix training may extend well beyond the
targets in the matrix in which diagonal targets
are trained, for which both components would
overlap with a trained target. Rather, the effects
may extend exponentially as long as the com-
ponents of the skills are known.
Kohler and Malott (2014) also demonstrated
recombinative generalization to untrained
matrices composed of known component skills.
Six matrices were developed for two partici-
pants with ASD. Before baseline, probes for
each of the component skills (i.e., tacts for sub-
jects, verbs, and object names) were conducted
and responses were trained to mastery as
needed. A multiple-probe design across stimu-
lus sets (matrices) was used to evaluate the
871
effects of diagonal training within one matrix
on all matrices. In baseline, all subject–verb–
object tacts in all matrices were probed. Diago-
nal training was employed in Matrix 1 and,
after mastery was obtained, probes for recombi-
native generalization within Matrix 1 were con-
ducted. If mastery was obtained for these
nondiagonal targets, probes were conducted
with the diagonal targets of the remaining
matrices. If correct responding was obtained for
two thirds of the diagonal targets within an
untrained matrix, the remaining nondiagonal
targets within that matrix were probed. If
responding was below mastery levels, diagonal
training was conducted with that matrix, and
training of the nondiagonal targets followed as
necessary. The probe-and-train sequence was
repeated until untrained responses were
obtained across all six matrices.
Results indicated that for one participant,
diagonal training within Matrix 1 produced
recombinative generalization within Matrices
1 through 3 but not Matrices 4 through
6. Diagonal training for Matrix 4 established
some correct responses for nondiagonal targets
in Matrix 4; however, errors were detected with
one verb so remedial training specific to that
verb was provided. Probes indicated that
responding for the nondiagonal targets still did
not meet the mastery criterion, so training for
the nondiagonal targets was provided. After this
training, evidence of recombinative generaliza-
tion was obtained within Matrices 5 and
6, although some remedial training was still
necessary for some of the nondiagonal targets
in Matrix 6. For the second participant, diago-
nal training with Matrix 1 did not produce
recombinative generalization, and no effects on
other matrices were obtained after training the
nondiagonal targets. Diagonal training for
Matrix 2 produced recombinative generaliza-
tion within Matrix 2 but limited improvements
in Matrices 3 through 6. The nondiagonal tar-
gets for Matrix 3 were trained and improve-
ments were observed for Matrix 4, but effects
872 SARAH E. FRAMPTON et al.

were limited for Matrices 5 and 6. After train-
ing the nondiagonal targets for Matrix
5, improvement was obtained for Matrix 6. For
this participant, secondary probe sessions for
incorrect responses were included when it was
hypothesized that the errors were due to poor
attending in the initial session. For Matrices
4 and 6, it was in these secondary sessions that
mastery criterion were met. This study offers a
promising procedure for establishing recombi-
native generalization across matrices. However,
as noted by the authors, these findings are lim-
ited by possible threats to experimental control
introduced with the use of the multiple-probe
design across matrices. In addition, the reme-
dial procedures were inconsistent across partici-
pants, making evaluation of the efficacy of
these remedial strategies difficult.
Although the matrix-training literature covers
several decades, few studies have used matrix
training to teach vocal tact responses (Goldstein,
Angelo, & Mousetis, 1987; Goldstein & Brown,
1989; Goldstein & Mousetis, 1989), and even
fewer studies have done so in the ASD population
(Kohler & Malott, 2014; Pauwels et al., 2015).
Given the noted challenges related to establishing
generative verbal responding for individuals with
ASD, further examination of the application of
matrix training to language instruction is neces-
sary. Thus, the purposes of the current study were
(a) to continue to extend matrix training that tar-
gets vocal tact skills to learners with ASD, (b) to
employ a stronger experimental design to evaluate
effects of diagonal tact training within and across
matrices, and (c) to offer systematic remedial
training when recombinative generalization is not
observed within untrained matrices.
METHOD
The study was conducted with five individuals
who received services in a clinical setting. All par-
ticipants received services 5 days per week for
2 to 3 hr per day. Mark was a 5-year-old boy
who had attended the clinic for 10 months prior
to the start of the study. He had been diagnosed
with ASD at 2 years of age by a developmental
pediatrician. At 3 years of age, he was given the
Capute Scales (Cognitive Adaptive Test and the
Clinical Linguistic Auditory Milestone Scale;
Accardo & Capute, 2005). On the Clinical Lin-
guistic Auditory Milestone Scale, his age equiva-
lence was 12 to 14 months in expressive
language and 8 to 16 months in receptive lan-
guage. The Verbal Behavior Milestones Assess-
ment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP;
Sundberg, 2008) was administered to Mark
when he was admitted to the clinic and after
2 months of treatment (see Table 1 for results).
Brad was a 6-year-old boy who had attended
the clinic for 1 month at the start of the study.
Brad’s parents reported that he had been diag-
nosed with ASD by a psychologist, but no test-
ing information was available. The VB-MAPP
was administered to Brad 1 month before
admission to the clinic (see Table 1 for results).
Zack was a 6-year-old boy who had attended
the clinic for 1 month at the start of the study.
He had been diagnosed with ASD at the age of
4 by a clinical psychologist. At that time, Zack

Table 1
Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program Results

Total milestones Tact domain Tact noun–verb Listener domain Listener noun–verb
Participant score score skills score skills
Mark 97 8 No 8 No
Brad 116.5 9 No 10 No
Zack 125 10.5 No 12.5 Yes
Daisy 124.5 9.5 No 10 Yes
Jaleel 107 8 No 8.5 No
 MATRIX TRAINING WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
was given the Differential Ability Scale (2nd
ed., DAS-II, Early School Years Form; Elliott,
2007), the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales
(2nd ed., VABS-II; Sparrow, Cicchetti, &,
Balla, 2005), and the Autism Diagnostic Obser-
vation Schedule (ADOS; Lord, Rutter, DiLa-
vore, & Risi, 1999). On the DAS-II, Zack
received an overall score of 67 for General Con-
ceptual Ability, with a percentile rank of 1. His
score on the Verbal Reasoning Cluster was a
73, placing him in the 4th percentile. His stand-
ard score on the communication subdomain on
the VABS-II was a 63, which falls in the 1st per-
centile. According to the ADOS algorithm, he
met the criteria for an ASD diagnosis. The VB-
MAPP was administered to Zack when he was
admitted to the clinic (see Table 1 for results).
Daisy was a 6-year-old girl who had attended
the clinic for 1 month at the start of the study.
She had been diagnosed with ASD at the age of
5 by a clinical psychologist. At that time, Daisy
was given the ADOS, DAS-II, and the VABS-
II. On the DAS-II, Daisy received a standard
score of 59 for General Conceptual Ability, with
a percentile rank of 1. Her score on the Verbal
Reasoning Domain was 86, placing her in the
18th percentile. She received a score of 67 on
the VABS-II Communication domain, falling in
the 1st percentile. The VB-MAPP was adminis-
tered to Daisy when she was admitted to the
clinic (see Table 1 for results).
Jaleel was 15 years old at the start of the
study and had been attending the clinic for
4 months. Jaleel’s parent reported that he had
been diagnosed with ASD, but no testing infor-
mation was available. The VB-MAPP was
administered when he was admitted to the
clinic (see Table 1 for results).
Setting and Materials
All sessions took place at the individual work
station assigned to each participant for his or
her clinical services. The participant and a clini-
cian were seated at the station; materials typical
873
to the participant’s programming were present
on the table or nearby. These could include
toys, edible items, television, DVD player, tar-
get cards, data sheets, clickers, pens or pencils,
accessory items, and animal figurines. The ani-
mal figurines varied according to the targeted
nouns (e.g., dog, bear, alligator). The accessory
items varied according to the targeted verbs
(e.g., a paint brush for painting, a chair for sit-
ting). Table 2 shows all nouns and verbs used
for each participant.
Response Measurement, Interobserver
Agreement, and Treatment Integrity
The primary dependent measure was the per-
centage of correct tact responses for diagonal and
nondiagonal targets within Matrix 1. Diagonal
and nondiagonal targets were determined based
on the arrangement of each participant’s matrix.
The second dependent measure was the percent-
age of correct tact responses for all targets within
the generalization matrix. The generalization
matrix targets were presented only during base-
line and posttest conditions and never received
direct training. For all tact responses to be con-
sidered correct, the response had to be emitted
within 5 s of the vocal question, “What’s hap-
pening?” when the clinician modeled an action
with a particular figurine. The response had to
include both the correct verb and noun. If either
noun or verb was omitted or a different noun or
verb was included, the response was scored as an
incorrect response. Trials with no response were
also scored as incorrect.
Trial-by-trial interobserver agreement data
and treatment fidelity data were scored in vivo,
with paper and pencil, by a trained second
observer. Interobsever agreement was calculated
for each session by dividing the number of
agreements by the total number of agreements
and disagreements and converting the result to a
percentage. For Mark, data were collected on
50% of sessions, with a mean agreement of
100%. For Brad, data were collected on 73% of
874 SARAH E. FRAMPTON et al.

Table 2
Noun–Verb Targets Across Participants

Generalization targets Training targets

Participant Nouns Verbs Matrix Nouns Verbs
Mark Dog, bear, alligator Drinking, jumping, eating Matrix 1 Duck, rabbit, pig Reading, painting, sitting
Brad Sheep, monkey, dinosaur Jumping, sleeping, eating Matrix 1 Tiger, turtle, pig Drinking, flying, walking
Zack Tiger, giraffe, duck Eating, flying, sleeping Matrix 1 Frog, horse, pig Drinking, spinning,
jumping
Daisy Tiger, giraffe, duck Eating, flying, sleeping Matrix 1 Shark, wonder pet, pig Drinking, spinning
jumping
Jaleel Dog, bear, sheep Drinking, jumping, sleeping Matrix 1 Cat, frog, pig Reading, eating, writing
Matrix 2 Cow, monkey, chicken Coloring, sitting, flying
Matrix 3 Horse, bee, dolphin Painting, spinning, calling

sessions, with a mean agreement of 97% (range, Target Selection

67% to 100%). For Zack, data were collected
on 59% of sessions, with a mean agreement of
99% (range, 88% to 100%). For Daisy, data
were collected on 88% of sessions, with a mean
agreement of 99.5% (range, 89% to 100%).
For Jaleel, data were collected on 67% of the
sessions, with a mean agreement of 100%.
Treatment fidelity was scored in vivo, on
paper and pencil, by a trained second observer.
A checklist was developed that outlined each
step of the procedures for each condition. The
second observer observed a trial, then recorded
a plus if the step was completed as outlined or
a minus if any deviations from the outlined
procedures were observed. The fidelity score
was calculated by dividing the number of steps
completed with fidelity (scored as a plus) by
the total number of steps and converting the
result to a percentage. For Mark, fidelity data
were collected on 50% of sessions, and fidelity
was 100%. For Brad, fidelity data were col-
lected on 36% of sessions, and fidelity was
100%. For Zack, fidelity data were collected on
65% of sessions, with a mean score of 99.8%
(range, 97% to 100%) fidelity. For Daisy,
fidelity data were collected on 50% of sessions,
with a mean score of 99.8% (range, 98% to
100%) fidelity. For Jaleel, fidelity data were
collected on 22% of sessions, with a mean
score of 99% (range, 97% to 100%) fidelity.
To be included in the matrix, the verbs and
nouns had to be mastered as tacts in isolation.
Mastery was determined through direct probes
or review of clinical mastery records. Mastery
required three consecutive correct responses on
probe trials. To assess the nouns, the clinician
presented the target figure and asked, “Who
[what] is it?” and then allowed a 5-s response
interval. To assess the verbs, the clinician used
a novel figure (not included in the target matri-
ces), modeled the target action, asked “What is
he [she or it] doing?,” and allowed a 5-s
response interval. Matrices were arranged with
the mastered nouns on the vertical axis and
mastered verbs on the horizontal axis. Figure 1
displays the design of each matrix, and Table 2
outlines the verbs and nouns targeted for each
participant. At the start of the study, two matri-
ces were developed for each participant: the
generalization matrix and Matrix 1. For Jaleel,
additional matrices were developed throughout
the course of the study, and probes for nouns
and verbs were conducted before baselines for
the new matrices.
Design
A multiple-probe design across participants
was used to assess the effects of diagonal train-
ing. Baselines were initially conducted with the
generalization matrix followed by Matrix 1. After
 MATRIX TRAINING WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
Verb 1 Verb 2 Verb 3
Noun 1
Noun 1-Verb 1 Noun 1-Verb 2 Noun 1-Verb 3
(Diagonal Target)
Noun 2
Noun 2-Verb 1 Noun 2-Verb 2 Noun 2-Verb 3
(Diagonal Target)
Noun 3
Noun 3-Verb 1 Noun 3-Verb 2 Noun 3-Verb 3
(Diagonal Target)
Figure 1. The vertical axis reflects the known noun
components to be included within target responses, and
the horizontal axis reflects the known verb components.
Among the nine possible combinations of the nouns and
verbs, the diagonal targets that were selected for training
are indicated.
diagonal training with Matrix 1, posttest probes
were conducted for both Matrix 1 and the gen-
eralization matrix. If mastery criteria were met
for both matrices, the experiment was com-
pleted. For Jaleel, a delayed multiple-probe
design across stimulus sets (Richards, Taylor, &
Ramasamy, 2014) was also used to assess the
effects of diagonal training within trained
matrices.
Baseline
To begin each experimental session, the cli-
nician identified items to be used as reinforcers
during teaching by asking the participant
“What do you want?” or by arranging items
and waiting for a response in the form of a
reach or point toward a preferred item. The
items in the array varied based on these
responses and vocal mands emitted by the par-
ticipant throughout the clinical session
(i.e., before the start of the experimental ses-
sion). If the participant ceased to emit these
responses or vocal mands for the available
items, new items were selected from the toy
shelves in the clinic. The clinician presented
one or two mastered targets before the first
probe trial to gain momentum and provided
praise contingent on correct responses. The
mastered targets were unrelated to the matrix
targets and consisted primarily of motor
875
imitation and single-step receptive instructions.
When the participant had complied with the
mastered targets, a probe trial was conducted.
The clinician presented the figurine that corre-
sponded with the target noun, modeled the tar-
get action, and asked, “What’s happening?”
The participant was given 5 s to respond. Neu-
tral statements (e.g., “okay,” “interesting”) were
provided for correct or incorrect responses, the
trial was terminated, and the clinician either
presented the next target trial or interspersed a
mastered skill. After one to five target trials, a
mastered target was interspersed and a correct
response was reinforced with access to the pre-
viously identified desired item. Each of the nine
targets within each matrix was presented once
in a session, for a total of nine trials. Sessions
were conducted first for the generalization
matrix followed by sessions for Matrix 1. For
Jaleel, additional baseline sessions were con-
ducted for Matrix 2 and Matrix 3.
Diagonal Training
After baseline, training was conducted with
the three diagonal targets within Matrix 1. These
three targets were presented three times each per
session, for a total of nine trials. The trials had
been randomized, with the constraint that no
target was presented three times consecutively.
Training sessions were conducted in a similar
manner to baseline, with a few exceptions. The
clinician modeled the target action with the ani-
mal figurine and any needed accessory items
(e.g., bringing a cup to the bear’s mouth for
drinking) while she asked the vocal question,
“What’s happening?” If a correct response
occurred, the clinician provided praise and
immediately provided access to the specified
preferred item or activity. If an incorrect
response occurred or no response occurred
within 2 s, the clinician began an error-
correction procedure. The response interval was
reduced to 2 s in an effort to reinforce fluent
responding differentially. During the error-
876 SARAH E. FRAMPTON et al.
correction sequence, the clinician repeated the
modeled action and vocal question, then pro-
vided an immediate vocal prompt (e.g., “What’s
happening? Bear drinking”). If the child echoed
the vocal prompt, another independent oppor-
tunity, called a transfer trial, was provided. On
the transfer trial, the clinician modeled the
action and asked “What’s happening?” but did
not prompt the response; this allowed an evalua-
tion of transfer of stimulus control from the
prompt to the target instruction. After a correct
response on the transfer trial, the clinician inter-
spersed a mastered demand and then presented
the target again for another independent oppor-
tunity. This final independent opportunity,
called a spaced trial, was included to replicate
more closely the conditions on a probe trial,
because the spaced trial was not immediately
preceded by a prompted response. Correct
responses on the spaced trial were reinforced
with access to the high-preference item or activ-
ity and praise. All other prompted and correct
responses in the error-correction sequence were
followed by praise only. On both transfer and
spaced trials, the participant was given a 2-s
response interval. If an error occurred during
the correction sequence, the model, vocal ques-
tion, and immediate vocal prompt were re-pre-
sented, and the trial sequence ended. No praise
or access to desired items was provided.
The mastery criterion was two consecutive ses-
sions with 89% correct independent responses
on the initial target presentation. Responses dur-
ing the error-correction sequence (i.e., on the
transfer and spaced trials) did not count towards
mastery. After mastery had been achieved with
the diagonal targets for Matrix 1, posttests were
conducted with Matrix 1 and the generalization
matrix. For Jaleel, diagonal training was repeated
with Matrix 2 and Matrix 3.
Posttest
Procedures were identical to baseline.
Responding for Matrix 1 was evaluated first to
assess whether recombinative generalization
occurred within the trained matrix; next,
probes were conducted with the generalization
matrix. Mastery was defined as three consecu-
tive sessions with a minimum of 78% correct
responses. Because the majority of the
responses evaluated in the posttest were not
directly trained and probes were conducted
under extinction, it was expected that respond-
ing would be more variable. Thus, the mastery
criterion was reduced slightly from the training
condition.
RESULTS
Results for Mark, Brad, Zack, and Daisy are
presented in Figure 2, and Jaleel’s results are
displayed in Figures 3 and 4. Mark emitted no
correct responses during baseline for either
matrix. After four sessions of diagonal training
for Matrix 1, the mastery criterion was met and
the posttests were conducted. Results showed
that Mark met the mastery criterion for Matrix
1, demonstrating recombinative generalization
to the untrained targets in that matrix. Results
also showed that he met the mastery criterion
for the targets in the untrained generalization
matrix.
Brad emitted one correct response to a gen-
eralization matrix target during Session 2; how-
ever, responding decreased to 0% in Session
3. He also emitted one correct response to a
nondiagonal target from Matrix 1 during Ses-
sion 6; however, correct responding decreased
to 0% in Sessions 7 and 8. After eight sessions
of diagonal training with Matrix 1, the mastery
criterion was met. During the posttest, Brad
met the mastery criterion for Matrix 1, demon-
strating recombinative generalization to the
untrained targets in that matrix. Results also
showed that he met mastery for the targets in
the untrained generalization matrix.
Zack emitted no correct responses during
baseline for either matrix. After three diagonal
training sessions with Matrix 1, the mastery
 MATRIX TRAINING WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM 877

Diagonal Training
Baseline Matrix 1 Posttest
Matrix 1 Diagonal
100 Targets
80 Matrix 1 Nondiagonal
Targets
60 Generalization Targets

40
Mark
20

100

80

60
Percentage of Correct Responses

40

20 Brad
0

100

80

60

40

20 Zack
0

100

80

60

40

20
Daisy
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Sessions

Figure 2. The percentages of correct tact responses to targets in the generalization matrix and Matrix 1 are shown
across participants. Generalization matrix targets are represented by filled diamonds. Matrix 1 diagonal targets are repre-
sented by filled circles, and nondiagonal targets are represented by open diamonds.

criterion was met and the posttest was con- the posttest, she met the mastery criterion for
ducted. Zack met the mastery criteria for Matrix 1. The posttest for the generalization
Matrix 1 and the generalization matrix. matrix showed fluctuation in correct respond-
Daisy emitted no correct responses during ing. During Session 22, only one response was
baseline for either matrix. She required eight incorrect (88.9% correct). In the following ses-
training sessions to meet the mastery criterion sions, the percentage of correct responding
in the diagonal training with Matrix 1. During decreased, perhaps because of the lack of
878 SARAH E. FRAMPTON et al.

Diagonal
Baseline Training Posttest Jaleel
100

80
Nondiagonal Targets
60 Diagonal Targets

40

20
Matrix 1
0
Percentage of Correct Responses

100

80

60

40

20
Matrix 2
0

100

80

60

40

20
Matrix 3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sessions

Figure 3. The percentages of correct tact responses to targets within Matrices 1, 2, and 3 are shown across matrices
for Jaleel. Diagonal targets are represented by filled circles, and nondiagonal targets are represented by open diamonds.

reinforcement provided after correct responses met the mastery criterion in four sessions. Postt-
during the probe. By Session 26, the mastery est probes with Matrix 1 showed that Jaleel
criterion was not met, but responding was recombined the trained elements to emit correct
100% correct during the session, so no addi- responses on nondiagonal targets; however, no
tional posttests were conducted. correct responses occurred with the targets from
Jaleel’s performances with targets within the generalization matrix (Figure 4). Thus,
trained matrices and the generalization matrix Matrix 2 was created, and baselines were con-
are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Jaleel ducted. No correct responses occurred with any
emitted no correct tacts during baseline for the of the targets in Matrix 2, but after six diagonal
generalization matrix and Matrix 1. Diagonal training sessions recombinative generalization
training was introduced for Matrix 1, and he was observed. Some correct responses occurred
 MATRIX TRAINING WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM 879

Diagonal Training Diagonal Training Diagonal Training

Matrix 1 Matrix 2 Matrix 3

Posttest Posttest Posttest

Baseline
Percentage of Correct Responses 100

80

60

40

20

Jaleel
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sessions

Figure 4. The percentage of correct tact responses to targets in the generalization matrix are shown for Jaleel. All tar-
gets are represented by the filled diamonds.

during the second posttest with the generaliza- ASD. This approach to training led to expo-
tion matrix targets; however, accuracy was well nential gains in novel skills for all participants.
below the mastery criterion. Matrix 3 was cre- Training three noun–verb combinations led to
ated, baselines were conducted, and the diago- the emergence of 15 novel combinations for
nal targets were trained. The mastery criterion four participants, and training nine noun–verb
was met after three sessions. Posttest probes combinations led to the emergence of 27 novel
indicated that recombinative generalization combinations for one participant. The inclu-
occurred for the targets within Matrix 3 and sion of a multiple-probe design across partici-
finally with the targets from the generalization pants allowed a precise demonstration of
matrix. Of note, responding fell below the mas- experimental control, accomplishing one of our
tery criterion in the final probe session for the purposes. Furthermore, the use of a delayed
generalization matrix. Because we hypothesized multiple-probe design across matrices with
that this decrease was due to lack of reinforce- Jaleel allowed systematic evaluation of the
ment during probe sessions, additional sessions effects of training with each new matrix,
were not conducted. accomplishing our third purpose. Recombina-
tive generalization has been established as an
efficient means to teach socially significant skills
DISCUSSION to individuals with and without disabilities
The current study extends the matrix- (e.g., Axe & Sainato, 2010). The current study
training literature by demonstrating recombina- extends the literature in several ways and offers
tive generalization of noun–verb tacts with lear- new directions for future research.
ners with ASD in the context of a more The mastery of targets within the generaliza-
rigorous experimental design. Results from the tion matrix indicates that the effects of recom-
present study showed that matrix training effec- binative generalization were not limited to the
tively established recombinative generalization nouns and verbs that received direct training.
of known nouns and verbs for five learners with These results replicate findings from prior
880 SARAH E. FRAMPTON et al.
studies (Axe & Sainato, 2010; Kohler & Mal-
ott, 2014) and support the hypothesis that
recombination itself may be a type of higher
order operant or behavioral cusp. As noted by
Rosales-Ruiz and Baer (1997), a behavior
change that can be considered a cusp “exposes
the individual’s repertoire to … new responses,
new stimulus controls, and new communities
of maintaining or destructive contingencies”
(p. 534). For all participants, new responses in
the form of noun–verb tacts were observed,
meeting one criterion for consideration as a
cusp. Further, both the presented item and the
demonstrated action evoked distinct responses,
meeting the criterion of altering repertoires
such that the responses are now under new
stimulus control. In addition to these criteria,
the changes to the individual’s repertoire must
be considered important. The determination of
importance for the individual includes the view
of “societal norms and expectations of what
behaviors should develop in children and when
that development should happen” (Rosales-
Ruiz & Baer, p. 537). For all participants, a
critical expressive language milestone was
achieved as they began to combine known
words into multiword utterances using a pres-
ent progressive form. Utterances of this nature
are consistent with Brown’s (1973) Stage II of
language development that typically occurs
within the 26th to 36th month of life. Overall,
it appears that matrix training led to the
achievement of a significant behavioral cusp for
all participants.
Jaleel’s results suggest that recombination
skills may be strengthened by training addi-
tional exemplars within new matrices. Although
diagonal training was highly effective in estab-
lishing untrained responses within the targeted
matrices, immediate effects on the generaliza-
tion targets were not observed for Jaleel. His
results suggest that the materials presented in
the trained matrices may have exerted stimulus
control over noun–verb responding, preventing
generalization to novel materials and targets.
This type of restrictive stimulus control was
not obtained with the other four participants,
although it highlights the importance of the
inclusion of a generalization matrix. For Jaleel,
without the assessment of performance in a
novel matrix, the underlying stimulus control
problem might not have been detected.
Although Jaleel’s skills at the start of the
study were similar to the other participants, he
failed to demonstrate recombinative generaliza-
tion within the generalization matrix until addi-
tional matrices were trained. Thus, prerequisite
skills alone are not a predictor of responsiveness
to intervention, and additional exposure to the
intervention may be necessary to produce flexi-
ble, generative responses for some learners. It
will be important in future studies to include
full characterizations of all participants in an
attempt to isolate variables that predict respon-
siveness to matrix training. The fact that Jaleel
was older than the other participants makes it
likely that his learning was impeded by addi-
tional barriers. Thus, future research should
evaluate the application of matrix training to a
broader range of learners in the ASD popula-
tion to understand fully the participant vari-
ables and prerequisite skills that may be critical
for the demonstration of recombinative
generalization.
Findings from the current study have clinical
implications for the design of language pro-
gramming. If a learner shows fluent recombina-
tive generalization after training of the diagonal
targets within a matrix, a less rigorous treat-
ment approach may be indicated. The clinician
can continue to train new component skills
(e.g., nouns and verbs) and assume that recom-
binative generalization will continue to occur as
the new targets are introduced. However, if a
learner struggles to demonstrate recombinative
generalization after training of the diagonal tar-
gets within a matrix, tightly controlled, rigorous
treatment approaches may be indicated. The
clinician may need to train additional targets
within the matrix and possibly train targets
 MATRIX TRAINING WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
within additional matrices (as demonstrated
with Jaleel) until recombinative generalization
occurs. If recombinative generalization never
occurs, the clinician may need to plan to teach
each individual noun–verb combination. Fur-
ther, results of this nature may point to under-
lying problems related to restrictive stimulus
control, a noted challenge for learners with
ASD (Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979).
Additional strategies and procedures may be
needed to address this barrier before the learner
can respond to matrix training.
Lastly, results from the current study high-
light the need to understand fully the mechan-
isms that underlie the success of matrix
training. Several authors have hypothesized that
the emergence of untrained responses after
matrix training can be attributed to the refined
control exerted by all components of the pre-
sented stimuli (Axe & Sainato, 2010; Gold-
stein & Mousetis, 1989). This process is
different from convergent verbal control and
control by a compound stimulus, because each
component of the presented stimuli maintains
control over unique elements of the combined
response. For example, in the present study the
presented noun controls the noun element of
the response, whereas the modeled action con-
trols the verb element of the response. When
this refined control over verbal responses has
been established, novel responses may occur as
long as they are composed of known nouns
and verbs (Axe & Sainato, 2010; Goldstein &
Mousetis, 1989). Theoretically, this effect
could be obtained across all mastered nouns
and verbs in the participant’s repertoire, regard-
less of whether they were presented in a matrix.
Future research should evaluate this hypothesis
by teaching additional nouns and verbs in isola-
tion and evaluating whether these responses are
fluently recombined with previously mastered
nouns and verbs after matrix training.
In addition, future research should evaluate
whether the effects of matrix training are
unique to matrix training or could be achieved
881
through multiple-exemplar training (MET). In
the current study, training the three diagonal
targets of Matrix 1 could be considered MET
because it consisted of “practice with a variety
of response topographies … [and] typically
incorporates both stimulus and response varia-
tions” (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007,
p. 628). After diagonal training, the posttests
for Matrix 1 (with the trained targets and
untrained targets with overlapping compo-
nents) are conducted first and are then followed
by the posttest for the generalization matrix (all
untrained targets and no overlapping compo-
nents). For Jaleel, we saw a unique pattern of
responding in that recombinative generalization
was observed for Matrix 1 but not for the gen-
eralization matrix; recombinative generalization
was then observed with Matrix 2 but still not
with the generalization matrix. Had MET
alone accounted for his responding, correct
responding should not have been restricted to
the trained matrices. His differential success
with targets that shared overlapping compo-
nents with the trained targets is unique to
matrix training. The distinction may lie in the
sequence of training and testing typically used
in matrix training. The hallmark of matrix
training is the inclusion of probes for the tar-
gets with overlapping components shared with
the trained targets. Perhaps this test for recom-
bined components has a facilitative effect on
responding, so that the posttests are actually an
active variable. To test this hypothesis, future
studies should progress directly from diagonal
training to a posttest for the generalization
matrix. If recombinative generalization is
demonstrated, these results would support
MET alone. If recombinative generalization is
demonstrated only after a posttest with the
trained matrix, these results would support
matrix training. This procedural variation may
clarify outcomes like those observed with Zack,
Daisy, Brad, and Mark, for whom the effects of
MET cannot be definitively distinguished from
matrix training because responding was not
882 SARAH E. FRAMPTON et al.
differentiated between Matrix 1 and the gener-
alization matrix after diagonal training. Thus,
we cannot say with certainty whether training
any three particular targets and probing for
emergence of untrained responses would have
been as effective as arranging targets into matri-
ces and training the diagonal targets.
The phenomenon of recombinative generali-
zation appears to offer clinicians a highly effec-
tive strategy to produce significant language
changes rapidly. This type of work will serve to
continue the development of interventions that
produce flexible, generative vocal utterances for
learners with ASD.
REFERENCES
Accardo, P. J., & Capute, A. J. (2005). The Capute Scales:
Cognitive Adaptive Test/Clinical Linguistic & Auditory
Milestone Scale (CAT/CLAMS). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Axe, J. B., & Sainato, D. M. (2010). Matrix training of
preliteracy skills with preschoolers with autism. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 635–652.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-635
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages.
London, UK: Allen & Unwin.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).
Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Eigsti, I.-M., Bennetto, L., & Dadlani, M. B. (2007).
Beyond pragmatics: Morphosyntactic development in
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
37, 1007–1023. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0239-2
Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential Ability Scales (2nd ed.).
San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Goldstein, H. (1983). Recombinative generalization: Rela-
tionships between environmental conditions and the
linguistic repertoires of language learners. Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3(4),
279–293. doi:10.1016/0270-4684(83)90002-2
Goldstein, H., Angelo, D., & Mousetis, L. (1987). Acqui-
sition and extension of syntactic repertoires by
severely mentally retarded youth. Research in Develop-
mental Disabilities, 8, 549–574. doi:10.1016/0891-
4222(87)90054-0
Goldstein, H., & Brown, W. H. (1989). Observational
learning of receptive and expressive language by
handicapped preschool children. Education and Treat-
ment of Children, 12, 5–37.
Goldstein, H., & Mousetis, L. (1989). Generalized lan-
guage learning by children with severe mental retar-
dation: Effects of peers’ expressive modeling. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 245–259.
doi:10.1901/jaba.1989.22-245
Hanna, E. S., de Souza, D. G., de Rose, J. C., &
Fonseca, M. (2004). Effects of delayed constructed-
response identity matching on spelling of dictated
words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37,
223–227. doi:10.1901/jaba.2004.37-223
Hübner, M. M. C., Gomes, R. C., & McIlvane, W. J.
(2009). Recombinative generalization in minimal ver-
bal unit-based reading instruction for pre-reading
children. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior
Bulletin, 27, 11–17.
Karlan, G. R., Brenn-White, B., Lentz, A., Hodur, P.,
Egger, D., & Frankoff, D. (1982). Establishing gen-
eralized, productive verb-noun phrase usage in a
manual language system with moderately handi-
capped children. The Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 47, 31–42. doi: 10.1044/jshd.4701.31
Kohler, K. T., & Malott, R. W. (2014). Matrix training
and verbal generativity in children with autism. The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 30, 170–177. doi:
10.1007/s40616-014-0016-9
Light, P., Watson, J., & Remington, B. (1990). Beyond
the single sign: The significance of sign order in a
matrix-based approach to teaching productive sign
combinations. Mental Handicap Research, 3,
161–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.1990.tb00034.x
Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P. C., & Risi, S. (1999).
Autism diagnostic observation schedule: Manual. Los
Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R. L., & Schreibman, L. (1979).
Stimulus overselectivity in autism: A review of
research. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1236–1254.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.86.6.1236
Luyster, R. J., Kadlec, M. B., Carter, A., & Tager-
Flusberg, H. (2008). Language assessment and devel-
opment in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38,
1426–1438. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0510-1
Mineo, B. A., & Goldstein, H. (1990). Generalized learn-
ing of receptive and expressive action-object responses
by language-delayed preschoolers. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders, 55, 665–678. doi: 10.1044/
jshd.5504.665
Mody, M., & Belliveau, J. W. (2013). Speech and lan-
guage impairments in autism: Insights from behavior
and neuroimaging. North American Journal of Medi-
cine and Science, 5, 157–161. doi: 10.7156/v5i3p157
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. doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-515
Paul, R. (2008). Interventions to improve communication
in autism. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 17,
835–856. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2008.06.011
 MATRIX TRAINING WITH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
Pauwels, A. A., Ahearn, W. H., & Cohen, S. J. (2015).
Recombinative generalization of tacts through matrix
training with individuals with autism spectrum disor-
der. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 31, 200–214.
doi: 10.1007/s40616-015-0038-y
Perez, W. F., & de Rose, J. C. (2010). Recombinative
generalization: An exploratory study in musical read-
ing. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 26, 51–55.
Remington, B., Watson, J., & Light, P. (1990). Beyond the
single sign: A matrix-based approach to teaching pro-
ductive sign combinations. Mental Handicap Research,
3, 33–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.1990.tb00079.x
Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., & Ramasamy, R. (2014).
Single subject research: Applications in educational and
clinical settings. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps:
A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,
533–544. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-533
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V., (2005).
Vineland-II: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Survey
forms manual. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
Striefel, S., & Wetherby, B. (1973). Instruction-following
behavior of a retarded child and its controlling sti-
muli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6,
663–670. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1973.6-663
883
Striefel, S., Wetherby, B., & Karlan, G. R. (1976). Estab-
lishing generalized verb-noun instruction-following
skills in retarded children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 22, 247–260. doi: 10.1016/0022-
0965(76)90005-9
Striefel, S., Wetherby, B., & Karlan, G. R. (1978). Devel-
oping generalized isnruction-following behavior in
severely retarded people. In C. E. Meyers (Ed.),
Quality of life in severely and profoundly mentally
retarded people: Research foundations for improvement
(pp. 267–326). Washington, DC: American Associa-
tion on Mental Deficiency.
Sundberg, M. L. (2008). VB-MAPP: Verbal Behavior
Milestones Assessment and Placement Program. Con-
cord, CA: AVB Press.
Weismer, S. E., Gernsbacher, M. A., Stronach, S.,
Karasinski, C., Eernisse, E. R., Venker, C. E., &
Sindberg, H. (2011). Lexical and grammatical skills
in toddlers on the autism spectrum compared to late
talking toddlers. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 41, 1065–1075. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-
1134-4
Received June 10, 2015
Final acceptance February 1, 2016
Action Editor, Anna Petursdottir