The Acquisition of Generalized Matching in Children with Developmental Delays.

K. L. Gaisford, R. Malott
{"title":"The Acquisition of Generalized Matching in Children with Developmental Delays.","authors":"K. L. Gaisford, R. Malott","doi":"10.1037/H0100692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Identity matching-to-sample consists of matching a sample stimulus to the corresponding identical comparison stimulus from an array of comparison stimuli (Brown, Brown, & Poulson, 1995). For example, if a learner were presented with an array of stimuli such as a block, car, and spoon (the comparison stimuli), then handed a spoon (the sample stimulus), and told to match, the learner should then place that spoon next to the comparison spoon. After the learner has acquired the ability to match all of the three objects, the experimenter could assess whether he or she had also acquired generalized matching-to-sample by using three different objects, such as a plate, sock, and cup to determine if the learner could match the given sample stimulus with the correct comparison stimulus. If the learner is able to correctly match the novel stimuli, then he or she has acquired a generalized identity matching-to-sample repertoire (Brown, et al., 1995). Identity matching-to-sample has been demonstrated with various animal species such as pigeons (Cummings & Berryman, 1961; Cummings, Berryman, & Cohen, 1965; Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, & Delius, 1988), California sea lions (Pack, Herman, & Roitblat, 1991), bottle nosed dolphins (Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman, Honvancik, Gory, Bradshaw, 1989), infant chimpanzees (Oden, Thompson, & Premack, 1988), and macaque monkeys (Washburn, Hopkins, & Rumbaugh, 1989; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Not only did all of the aforementioned experimenters intend to determine whether or not the various species of animals could acquire an identical matching-to-sample repertoire, but also, would a generalized repertoire develop as well. Cumming and Berryman (1961) were unable to get generalized matching with pigeons; however, Cumming, Berryman, and Cohen (1965) got low levels of generalized matching with their pigeons, and Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, and Delius (1988) got high levels of generalized matching with their pigeons (as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Dolphins demonstrated generalized matching (Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman et al., 1989), as did infant chimpanzees (Oden et al., 1988; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Following identity matching-to-sample training, California sea lions demonstrated some generalization (Pack et al. 1991) and it is unclear if macaque monkeys acquired a generalized matching repertoire (Washburn et al., 1989; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Children under five years of age can acquire identity matching-to-sample, but no attempt seems to have been made to assess generalization (Dixon & Dixon, 1978; Lutzer, 1987; Daehler, Lonardo, & Bukatko, 1979; as cited by Brown, et al., 1995). If a skill is going to be targeted for acquisition, it should be taught not only to mastery, but the generalization of that skill needs to be targeted as well. However, Brown, Brown, and Poulson (1995) demonstrated that three typically developing children were able to acquire generalized identity matching-to-sample. While many manuals recommend training matching-to-sample to young children with developmental disabilities (Lovaas, 1981; Taylor, & McDonough, 1996), we have not found any literature actually showing that traditional matching-to-sample can be achieved by young children with developmental disabilities. And although, Saunders and Sherman (1986) taught matching-to-sample to three developmentally delayed teenagers; and all three children demonstrated generalized matching repertoire (as cited by Brown et al., 1995) there is still a need to demonstrate not only matching-to-sample, but also generalized matching in young children with developmental delays. And while generalized matching is an interesting theoretical issue, presumably it is also of considerable practical importance, as the children will have little opportunity to use their matching skills with the specific stimulus used in training. The acquisition of an identity matching repertoire will be of little value to the child if that child has not acquired a generalized matching repertoire, so that he or she can use that skill in a variety of educational and practical contexts where the matching task involves novel, untrained stimuli. …","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"11 1","pages":"85-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The behavior analyst today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100692","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Identity matching-to-sample consists of matching a sample stimulus to the corresponding identical comparison stimulus from an array of comparison stimuli (Brown, Brown, & Poulson, 1995). For example, if a learner were presented with an array of stimuli such as a block, car, and spoon (the comparison stimuli), then handed a spoon (the sample stimulus), and told to match, the learner should then place that spoon next to the comparison spoon. After the learner has acquired the ability to match all of the three objects, the experimenter could assess whether he or she had also acquired generalized matching-to-sample by using three different objects, such as a plate, sock, and cup to determine if the learner could match the given sample stimulus with the correct comparison stimulus. If the learner is able to correctly match the novel stimuli, then he or she has acquired a generalized identity matching-to-sample repertoire (Brown, et al., 1995). Identity matching-to-sample has been demonstrated with various animal species such as pigeons (Cummings & Berryman, 1961; Cummings, Berryman, & Cohen, 1965; Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, & Delius, 1988), California sea lions (Pack, Herman, & Roitblat, 1991), bottle nosed dolphins (Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman, Honvancik, Gory, Bradshaw, 1989), infant chimpanzees (Oden, Thompson, & Premack, 1988), and macaque monkeys (Washburn, Hopkins, & Rumbaugh, 1989; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Not only did all of the aforementioned experimenters intend to determine whether or not the various species of animals could acquire an identical matching-to-sample repertoire, but also, would a generalized repertoire develop as well. Cumming and Berryman (1961) were unable to get generalized matching with pigeons; however, Cumming, Berryman, and Cohen (1965) got low levels of generalized matching with their pigeons, and Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, and Delius (1988) got high levels of generalized matching with their pigeons (as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Dolphins demonstrated generalized matching (Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman et al., 1989), as did infant chimpanzees (Oden et al., 1988; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Following identity matching-to-sample training, California sea lions demonstrated some generalization (Pack et al. 1991) and it is unclear if macaque monkeys acquired a generalized matching repertoire (Washburn et al., 1989; as cited by Brown et al., 1995). Children under five years of age can acquire identity matching-to-sample, but no attempt seems to have been made to assess generalization (Dixon & Dixon, 1978; Lutzer, 1987; Daehler, Lonardo, & Bukatko, 1979; as cited by Brown, et al., 1995). If a skill is going to be targeted for acquisition, it should be taught not only to mastery, but the generalization of that skill needs to be targeted as well. However, Brown, Brown, and Poulson (1995) demonstrated that three typically developing children were able to acquire generalized identity matching-to-sample. While many manuals recommend training matching-to-sample to young children with developmental disabilities (Lovaas, 1981; Taylor, & McDonough, 1996), we have not found any literature actually showing that traditional matching-to-sample can be achieved by young children with developmental disabilities. And although, Saunders and Sherman (1986) taught matching-to-sample to three developmentally delayed teenagers; and all three children demonstrated generalized matching repertoire (as cited by Brown et al., 1995) there is still a need to demonstrate not only matching-to-sample, but also generalized matching in young children with developmental delays. And while generalized matching is an interesting theoretical issue, presumably it is also of considerable practical importance, as the children will have little opportunity to use their matching skills with the specific stimulus used in training. The acquisition of an identity matching repertoire will be of little value to the child if that child has not acquired a generalized matching repertoire, so that he or she can use that skill in a variety of educational and practical contexts where the matching task involves novel, untrained stimuli. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
发展迟缓儿童广义匹配的习得。
样本身份匹配包括将样本刺激与一系列比较刺激中相应的相同比较刺激进行匹配(Brown, Brown, & Poulson, 1995)。例如,如果向学习者展示一系列刺激物,如积木、汽车和勺子(比较刺激物),然后递给一个勺子(样本刺激物),并告诉学习者要匹配,然后学习者应该把这个勺子放在比较勺子旁边。在学习者获得了匹配所有三个物体的能力之后,实验者可以通过使用三个不同的物体(如盘子、袜子和杯子)来评估他或她是否也获得了对样本的广义匹配,以确定学习者是否能够将给定的样本刺激与正确的比较刺激匹配起来。如果学习者能够正确匹配新刺激,那么他或她已经获得了一个广义的身份匹配样本库(Brown, et al, 1995)。身份与样本的匹配已在鸽子等各种动物物种中得到证明(Cummings & Berryman, 1961;卡明斯,贝里曼,科恩,1965;Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, & Delius, 1988),加利福尼亚海狮(Pack, Herman, & Roitblat, 1991),瓶鼻海豚(Herman & Gordon, 1974;Herman, Honvancik, Gory, Bradshaw, 1989),幼年黑猩猩(Oden, Thompson, & Premack, 1988),猕猴(Washburn, Hopkins, & Rumbaugh, 1989;引用自Brown et al., 1995)。上述所有的实验人员不仅想要确定不同种类的动物是否能获得相同的匹配样本的技能,而且也想要确定是否能发展出一种通用的技能。Cumming和Berryman(1961)无法得到与鸽子的广义匹配;然而,Cumming, Berryman, and Cohen(1965)与鸽子的广义匹配程度较低,而Wright, Cook, Rivera, Sands, and Delius(1988)与鸽子的广义匹配程度较高(Brown et al., 1995)。海豚证明了广义匹配(Herman & Gordon, 1974;Herman et al., 1989),幼年黑猩猩也是如此(Oden et al., 1988;引用自Brown et al., 1995)。经过身份匹配到样本的训练,加利福尼亚海狮表现出一定的泛化(Pack等,1991),尚不清楚猕猴是否获得了泛化的匹配技能(Washburn等,1989;引用自Brown et al., 1995)。五岁以下的儿童可以获得身份匹配样本,但似乎没有尝试评估概括(Dixon & Dixon, 1978;鲁茨,1987;Daehler, ronardo, & Bukatko, 1979;引用自Brown等人,1995年)。如果一项技能的目标是获取,那么它不仅应该被教授为精通,还应该被教授为该技能的泛化。然而,Brown, Brown, and Poulson(1995)证明了三个典型发展的儿童能够获得广义的样本认同匹配。虽然许多手册建议对有发育障碍的幼儿进行抽样匹配培训(Lovaas, 1981;Taylor, & McDonough, 1996),我们还没有发现任何文献表明传统的样本匹配可以在有发育障碍的幼儿身上实现。尽管Saunders和Sherman(1986)教授三个发育迟缓的青少年样本匹配;这三个孩子都表现出了广义匹配能力(Brown et al., 1995),但仍需要证明不仅是样本匹配,还有发育迟缓幼儿的广义匹配。虽然广义匹配是一个有趣的理论问题,但它也可能具有相当大的实际重要性,因为孩子们很少有机会将他们的匹配技能与训练中使用的特定刺激相结合。如果孩子没有获得广义的匹配技能,那么获得身份匹配技能对孩子来说就没有什么价值,这样他或她就可以在各种教育和实践环境中使用这种技能,在这些环境中,匹配任务涉及新颖的、未经训练的刺激。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Functional and morphological maturation of the full-sized and mini-pig corpus luteum by programmed cell death mechanism. Procedural aspects that control discounting rates when using the fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice methods On the sequential and concurrent presentation of trials establishing prerequisites for emergent relations. Using SAFMEDS and direct instruction to teach the model of hierarchical complexity The zeitgeist of behavior analytic research in the 21st century: A keyword analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1