Printer Friendly

Speech and language assessment: a verbal behavior analysis.

Introduction

As practitioners concerned with treating speech-language disorders, one of our primary goals is to accurately and efficiently determine which communication skills should be targeted for intervention. How do we know when something needs to be taught? What defines a skill deficit or a communication breakdown ? In everyday terms, a speech-language problem is signaled when a breakdown occurs in the interaction between a speaker and a listener. That is, we say that communication is successful when the outcome of an interaction is effective (i.e., functional), but when the interaction is weak and ineffective, we suspect a deficit in the repertoire of one of the communication partners. Thus, the critical aspect that defines communicative competence lies in the success of the dyad, a dynamic process comprised of functional units of discourse between a speaker and a listener, even when these roles are assumed within a single individual (e.g., Lodhi & Greer, 1989; Palmer, 1998; Skinner, 1957).

Despite the fundamentally social nature of communication, assessment tools for speech-language deficits rarely take into account this requisite speaker-listener unit, nor is it routine to test for, describe, or analyze specific breakdowns in this unit. Most speech-language assessments in widespread use today evaluate response topographies (forms of responses) alone, without regard for a functional analysis of the causal variables that lead to the specific topographic features of responses. Indeed, much assessment time and energy is expended in classifying speech-language performance, not by its role within a unit of functional communication between a speaker and a listener (i.e., cause and effect), but instead only by its arbitrarily-labeled categories describing non-function based properties such as word structure (e.g., nouns, verbs, plurals), modality (expressive, receptive), relationship (e.g., antonyms/synonyms, agreement), or other inferred characteristics (e.g., ellipsis, nomination, phonological process). This focus is illustrated by ASHA's (1993) definition of language disorder as an impairment in "comprehension and/or use of spoken, written, and/or other symbol systems. The disorder may involve (1) the form of language (phonology, morphology, and syntax), (2) the content of language (semantics), and/or (3) the function of language in communication (pragmatics) in any combination." Although function is an element of this definition, this usage of the term refers to a linguistic feature of language (pragmatics) in contrast to Skinner's analysis of function in which environmental variables describe (and thus, define) the contingent relation that accounts for each particular instance of an utterance (i.e., language). As such, linguistic descriptions are less adequate for applied work (i.e., treatments) than is Skinner's model, which specifies the variables that evoke and strengthen verbal behavior.

To be sure, a thorough topographic description of an individual's speech-language repertoire may be a necessary component to plan an appropriate therapy program, but it is insufficient to accomplish the task because a key element of the evaluation is missing. Our job during assessment is to document not merely occurrences of wrong responses to assessment items, but also the speaker-listener environment (antecedent and consequent variables) in which the topography occurs. If a functional analysis of the speaker-listener exchange is omitted from the assessment, a critical part of language learning is at risk of being excluded from an effective intervention plan (Damico, 1993; Frost & Bondy, 2006; LaRue, Weiss, & Cable, 2008; Rowland & Schweigert, 1993; Spradlin & Siegel, 1982; Sundberg, 2008).

Meaning defined by environmental context. The meaning of verbal behaviors is a function of their controlling variables (Hegde, 2008; Skinner, 1957). Speakers and listeners do not "make mistakes," "use the wrong word," or "fail to generalize" in the ordinary sense. A response does not occur in a vacuum, without its controlling variables or variable (Austin, 1975; Bates, 1976; Catania, 2006; Schlinger, 1995; Searle, 1969) and attempting to catalog responses without this information prevents our understanding of what a particular response "means." It is the analysis of a response form within a context defined by antecedent and consequent variables that allows us to determine whether the response is correct or not. For example, the cause-effect context in which a thirsty person asks for water please is different than that in which he or she is not thirsty but nevertheless emits water in responding to a teacher's instructions to repeat after me: "water." The point is the same regardless of topographies; saying water in New York or agua in Costa Rica or Wasser in Germany does not "mean" the same thing when one wants water as it does when one is responding to say "water" or repita "agua" or bitte wiederhole "Wasser."

Topography is interesting only in terms of the functional context in which it occurs. The point applies whether considering a single topography (e.g., water, agua, Wasser) or equivalent forms (synonyms). Whether assessing or treating speech-language skills, a knowledgeable clinician will recognize that the conditions that evoke pickle and cucumber are not at all the same as those stimuli that evoke pickle and predicament. It is not the words that mean the same thing; antecedent and consequent relations (e.g., request vs. repeat contingencies) are what explain the occurrence of these forms. That is, forms may be interchangeable only to the extent that they share the same controlling variables. Thus, "meaning" is topography within a contingent relation of controlling variables and it is this contingent arrangement that establishes function (i.e., meaning).

Without assessing the controlling variables (motivation, discriminative stimuli, consequent stimuli) that evoke and strengthen or weaken speech-language responses, we may fail to identify appropriate functional (cause-effect) relations by which defective forms (e.g., grammatical errors) of a disorder should be remediated. Evaluations that result in effective intervention plans include an examination of the reasons (controlling variables) that an individual's verbal environment would occasion or maintain particular speech-language topographies (right or wrong) in the first place. We must account for these occurrences by determining the conditions that evoke and maintain them, to adequately prescribe a treatment program that will eliminate, modify, or otherwise resolve these errors.

In sum, a complete speech-language account (Skinner, 1957) would describe not only the form of a speaker's response but it would also explain the function of interactions between a speaker and a listener, resulting in a detailed description of response errors in terms of their topographies (specific words) and the environmental contexts (antecedent/consequent stimuli) in which those topographical errors occur. This would provide both the description (topography) and the explanation (function) for any given response. Such an account is essential for planning and carrying out effective interventions, whether they involve simple or complex treatments. Without such information, we risk embarking on an incomplete or poorly articulated treatment program that produces or maintains errors (i.e., poor stimulus control over correct responses), resulting in gaps (e.g., splinter skills) in the overall verbal repertoire (see Baker, LeBlanc, & Raetz, 2008; Greer & Ross, 2008).

Treatment Efficacy

A perplexing discrepancy currently exists with respect to assessment and treatment of speech-language disorders. On the one hand, standardized assessment tools that dominate in the field of speech language pathology are based on, and result in, a linguistic description of speech-language, yet, at best, these assessments can only weakly inform treatment because a linguistic approach to treatment does not exist (Hegde & Maul, 2006). It is true that not all speech pathologists rely solely on standardized tools to inform their treatments. However, whether they use standardized tests alone or they supplement them with other information (e.g., language samples), the analysis of skills for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment planning is linguistically based. This is handicapping because, despite linguistic information from the assessment, the therapist lacks the functional analysis of verbal behavior needed to effect behavior change, which is the sole aim of therapy. Moreover, he or she must look elsewhere (i.e., applied behavior analysis) for effective teaching tools (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007; Hegde, 1998; Miltenberger, 2001) and formats (e.g., Lovaas & Smith, 2003) that can support clinical intervention. By contrast, a functional (behavioral) approach to speech-language has already been described for both assessment (e.g., Carr & Durand, 1985; Duker, 1999; Frost & Bondy, 2002; Greer & Ross, 2008; Hart & Rogers-Warren, 1978; Lerman et al., 2005; Spradlin, 1963; Sundberg, 2008; Sundberg & Partington, 1998) and for treatment (see Hegde, 1998, Ogletree & Oren, 2001, and Sautter & LeBlanc, 2006 for reviews). Despite this, it is only speech-language treatment that seems to have been influenced by behavior analysis and its technology (e.g., Bourgeois, 1992; Kouri, 2005; Rvachew, 1994) whereas assessment of these disorders remains firmly linguistically based on tools (see Directory, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, ASHA, 2009) that do not include or provide for an analysis of environmental variables that control the speech-language performances assessed.

It is perhaps this problem referred to by proponents of informal (i.e., criterion-referenced) assessments (Notari & Bricker, 1990; Romanczyk, Lockshin, & Matey, 2001) for children with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). These advocates argue that, for this population at least, standardized assessments typically do not identify appropriate curricular targets. Although focused on the needs of individuals with ASD, these and other discussions (National Autism Center, 2009) emphasize the issue of treatment efficacy for all individuals receiving speech-language intervention and the need to administer assessments that are comprehensive enough to inform treatment.

The Purpose of Assessment

Speech-language assessment is conducted for many reasons. It can provide diagnostic labels (e.g., specific language impairment, apraxia of speech, aphasia) and help determine therapy progress. It can also support documentation required by agencies, such as performance comparisons (i.e., norm-referenced data) for Individualized Educational Plans in schools, and status updates for reimbursement purposes in medical and clinical settings. But by far, one of the most important purposes of an assessment tool is to provide adequate information to plan an effective intervention that fits into a sequenced curriculum of skills. As mentioned earlier, most standardized assessment tools used by SLPs are based theoretically on a linguistic analysis of language for which no corresponding treatment methods are available. This "conceptual inconsistency" (Hegde & Maul, 2006) results from several historical influences on the development of the profession's theoretical base and may explain the prominence (Novak & Pelaez, 2004) of diagnostic labels (e.g., apraxia, auditory processing disorder) in terms of hypothetical constructs in lieu of function-based explanations of behavior. Duchan (2008) traces the current conceptual perspective in speech pathology from an emphasis on psychological processing (1945 to 1965) to linguistics (1965 to 1975) and, finally, to pragmatics (1975 to 2000) at which time "we reconsidered and reframed language in light of its communicative, linguistic, cultural, and everyday-life contexts" (p. 2). It is unclear what is meant by "everyday-life contexts," but a functional (cause-effect) analysis of language may be the goal. Much of what is described in this historical review hints at the need to address behavioral function (see also Prizant & Duchan, 1981) and there is a tangential nod to behavior analysis evident in Duchan's program descriptions that include sabotage techniques (i.e., motivating operations; Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003) and response intents (i.e., mand, tact, intraverbal; Skinner 1957). Despite this, the descriptive focus, including that widely available (e.g., Pinker, 1994) to general consumers interested in language development, remains clearly non-behavioral (e.g., psycholinguistic skills, linguistic relationships). What has evolved, and permeates the field of speech pathology, appears to be largely a non-behavioral view of language learning in which a functional analysis for many professionals may not mean a causal, explanatory analysis of verbal behavior in terms of the environmental stimuli that evoke and maintain it but, rather, may resonate more as a description of the "use of language." This can impede prescription and remediation efforts by failing to provide a full account of speech-language performance: speaker-listener interactions comprised of not only topographic/structural descriptions but also of functional (i.e., causal) explanations for the occurrence of those topographies.

Challenges to Resolve

A number of issues present both assessment and clinical application challenges for speech pathologists and others responsible for teaching speech-language skills. We propose that solutions are available to help resolve these issues by applying a behavioral analysis to the assessment process initially and, later, throughout treatment. Our discussion of these concerns follows.

1. Receptive-Expressive Dichotomy

Speech-language and its assessment is typically described as consisting of two categories, receptive and expressive. Accordingly, treatment plans are likely to channel the therapeutic focus into this same dichotomy. As a result, speaker and listener repertoires may be regarded as simply two halves of a common cognitive process in which words are "understood" in one modality and "used" in another. Instead of considering language as performance (i.e., behavior), this traditional view of language implies that a language entity exists structurally as a type of cognitive holding tank from which appropriate responses (i.e., "meaning") are chosen to fit a particular communicative situation. The notion is that speakers toggle between selecting a word and using it. It is significant, however, that we do not appeal to a similar cognitive account to explain nonverbal behaviors, such as scratching an itch or scrubbing a pot. No one would assert that, when the mosquito bites, we select a scratch from a mental reservoir of available muscle actions. We would be satisfied to contend that the itchiness occurred, we scratched it, and the itch went away.

In contrast to linguistic explanations of language, a behavioral view posits that we would not "use" a word, water for example, any more than we would "use a reach" (Skinner, 1957, p. 7) to obtain the water itself. Instead, antecedent and consequent conditions related to water are sufficient to evoke either response, whether a nonverbal reach for water or a verbal water (Hegde & Maul, 2006). Nothing is gained by inserting a hypothetical construct (receptive or expressive "use") into an explanation of why the response occurred. We still have to account for each instance of the proposed use (Sundberg & Michael, 2001). This requires identifying the response of interest as part of a unit of motivational variables, prompts, instructions, and consequences. Instead of residing at-the-ready in a sort of cognitive container, speech-language skills are more usefully characterized as different repertoires based on separate functional relations between antecedent and consequent conditions (Hegde & Maul, 2006; Schlinger, 1995; Sundberg & Michael, 2001).

Appealing to hypothetical constructs to explain instances of verbal behavior can obscure a clinician's efforts to pinpoint errors during assessment and to target a coordinated sequence of skills for remediation. Consider a situation in which a child does well on a receptive test of verb tense but fails verb items on an expressive test (e.g., CELF-4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003). Is the problem with the speaker repertoire (expressive) in general or with verb tense specifically? Should treatment consist of repeating verb tense forms while looking at pictures (e.g., the boy is running) or should it provide practice in completing sentences (e.g., Bob is walking but Reggie is ...), with pictures or without? What if the learner can label pictures with progressive verb forms (e.g., TWF-2; German, 2000), but cannot complete sentences with correct verb forms, or changes verb tense when asked to repeat sentences (e.g., CELF-4; also CELF-P, Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 2004; TOLD-P:3, Newcomer & Hammill, 1988), a task that essentially tests echoic skills? Is this a problem of verb tense, sentence completion, or poor repetition (i.e., echoic)? What about the learner who can say rhyming words but cannot point to them (e.g., PLS-4; Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2002)? Is the problem receptive or does it indicate a poor (possibly covert) echoic repertoire (i.e., "expressive")? How are we to interpret results of a test that shows a child can point to a puppy in response to which one is little but cannot tell you the opposite of big? Should you work on adjectives, opposites, or general expressive skills? These situations exemplify the difficulty in determining intervention targets from assessments where skills are not explained functionally (i.e., by their controlling variables) but, instead, they are defined linguistically and categorized topographically as either receptive or expressive.

2. Mismatch Between Assessment Focus and Real-World Contingencies

Most speech-language tests in wide use today are standardized instruments (ASHA, 2009) that provide information about skills solely according to linguistic parameters, described earlier as topographic responses. However, the speech-language behavior emitted by an individual does not exist in a topography-only sense, absent its effect on a listener (Skinner, 1957) and, in the real world, topographic errors (thoup for soup) are disregarded (Hart & Rogers-Warren, 1978) unless their form is too deviant (e.g., my doggy runded away). Topographies become functional entities (i.e., meaningful) only when they occur in a dynamic environment consisting of at least one speaker and one listener. We cannot know what a speaker means if we hear him or her say shoe merely on the basis of the topography (word) itself. We need access to the speaker's reasons, a description of the conditions that evoked such a response (Hegde, 2008). Functional speech-language behavior is evoked and strengthened in a unit in which antecedent and consequent stimuli occur in temporal proximity to an instance of a speaker's topographic behavior and combine to become functional communication (see Sautter & LeBlanc, 2006). Therefore, its description, to be useful for treatment planning, must involve more than just a description of topography. Instead, we need to describe speech-language behavior more functionally (e.g., Baker et al., 2008; Greer & Ross, 2008; Koegel & Koegel, 1995) with resulting evaluation tools (e.g., Sundberg, 2008; Partington & Sundberg, 1998) that take this functional unit into account.

3. Treatment Interference Due to Problem Behavior

We have often heard the sentiment expressed by clinicians and others that "I can't work with this person until his (or her) behavior is fixed." It is true that interfering behavior is a problem, yet it need not preclude our assessment and teaching efforts. A good first step is to ask "if he were speaking English (or any language) right now, instead of crying, hitting, running away, what would he be saying?"

Through functional analysis (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1994), it is possible to identify and address weak speech-language repertoires that are functioning as problem behavior. Functions have been identified that indicate problem behavior, although not recognizable as true language in form, is indeed functioning as language to gain access to (i.e., request) attention, tangibles, or escape from task demands (e.g., Dwyer-Moore & Dixon, 2007; Kodak, Northup, & Kelley, 2007).

For learners with weak communication skills disguised as problem behavior, listener skills are often the initial focus of therapy (i.e., compliance training) because these skills were the weakest (and thus most salient) during assessment. Although listener skills are critically important in the overall speech-language repertoire, focusing initial treatment on those skills may be unproductive for learners with interfering behavior problems. From a functional standpoint, this is because the consequences for listener responses do not directly benefit the speaker (Skinner, 1957). Learners who already find little to compel them to engage in treatment are unlikely to be motivated by generalized social reinforcers (i.e., praise) when they can emit easier responses (e.g., hitting) that readily produce consequences of greater value to them. For the learner with a history of failure for speech-language attempts, mand (i.e., request) assessment and training is a good first choice (Esch, 2009; Koegel & Koegel, 1995) because the consequences that maintain mand behavior are specific and are of direct benefit (i.e., you get what you ask for). The key issue is to train responses that are equivalent in function (e.g., access to attention) but yet are more socially acceptable in form (e.g., asking instead of hitting).

Typically developing children develop a strong repertoire of mands before other verbal operants (Bijou & Baer, 1965; Novak, 1996) and, like any other learner, when this skill set is defective, it is not unusual to see problem behaviors arise that fill the functional vacuum. Therefore, the task of assessment is to identify not only inappropriate response form, but its function. Without determining function, eliminating an offensive form alone is unlikely to succeed. Through assessment of verbal functions, the therapist can identify appropriate mands to teach in order to provide the learner, child or adult, with speech-language responses that are adaptive in the natural environment, regardless of diagnosis (e.g., ASD, traumatic brain injury), disability label (e.g., developmental language impairment, aphasia, apraxia of speech), or educational setting (e.g., home, school, hospital, clinic).

4. Identifying and Sequencing Intervention Targets

Assessment should lead to a plan for intervention, a prescriptive list of targets to be acquired (LeBlanc, Dillon, & Sautter, 2009). When assessments identify deficits in nonfunctional, topographic terms alone (e.g., derivational adjectives, inflection verbs), it can be difficult to pinpoint specific speech-language responses that would be manageable therapy targets or to determine how they fit together as part of a competent verbal repertoire. What should we teach first--nouns, opposites, plurals, or colors? Should we work to resolve word-finding problems before number repetition or relational vocabulary? Because none of us has access to a learner's perceptions or cognitions (Schlinger, 1995; see also, Schlinger, this issue), targets identified in linguistic terms are not easily modifiable until they are re-interpreted as a measurable, observable set of responses, defined as part of a functional verbal unit comprised of antecedent and consequent stimuli. Given these more concrete criteria, it is easy to see how topographic descriptions alone do not resolve our diagnostic task.

Functions of verbal behavior. No doubt most readers of this journal are familiar with Skinner's (1957) analysis of verbal behavior, which provides a useful theoretical framework for assessing, and thus treating, speech-language behavior in terms of the environmental variables that control verbal responses (see also Greer & Ross, 2008; Hegde, this issue; Sundberg, 2008; Sundberg & Partington, 1998). Table 1 presents five of these verbal operants that are most relevant to our discussion. In brief, consider the conditions under which we might emit the response cookie. When hungry, we might ask for cookie. We could say cookie! in response to seeing, smelling, or tasting one even if we are not hungry. Given the instruction say 'cookie', we may emit the required repetition. Also, we could likely respond cookie to one of many verbal stimuli related to the topic of cookies (e.g., what did your mom bake, what does c-o-o-k-i-e spell). Finally, we might read cookie if we saw it written on the Keebler[R] box. The foregoing examples are identified as mand, tact, echoic, intraverbal, and textual operants, respectively, and, in each instance, the form of the response is the same, yet the environmental conditions (antecedent/consequent stimuli) in which each response would likely be emitted are not at all equivalent. When assessments provide this level of speech-language information, a more effective intervention plan can be designed, one that addresses not only response topographies but response function as well, thus ensuring a more integrated language learning experience for those we teach.

Sequential targets. Assessments need to do more than just identify what needs to be taught. Intervention targets also need to be sequenced in such a way that the learner's new communication skills achieve success in his or her verbal community as quickly as possible (Greer & Ross, 2008). Teaching targets sequenced according to a functional analysis of verbal behavior may be more efficient than following traditionally defined sequences (i.e., receptive before expressive) (Miguel & Petursdottir, 2009). For example, Williams and Greer (1993) demonstrated that, when targets were defined in terms of their verbal function, children learned functional and spontaneous speech, whereas, when linguistic targets were taught, the children learned fewer forms and functions. This study shows that when the variables that control a speech-language target response are identified, they can be used, modified, or otherwise brought to bear on the response of interest to help a therapist effect change in the learner's verbal behavior to ultimately become a more competent speaker. As we shall see in the next section (see Error Analysis below), this is a powerful tool for therapists.

Sometimes the controlling variables for certain intervention targets are inside the learner's body and thus they are inaccessible to the clinician. Response targets like these, often called feelings (e.g., tired, happy, sad, angry, sick), are difficult to teach because, as clinicians, we cannot verify the presence/absence of the stimuli that evoke them. Yet these and other private events (Schlinger & Poling, 1998; Skinner, 1957) are commonly tested in speech-language assessments (e.g., PLS-4; ROWPVT, Brownell, 2000; TOLD-P:3) and are often selected as targets to teach labeling non-verbal stimuli (i.e., tact) to children whose tact repertoires are weak even for stimuli that are outside the skin and thus are verifiable by teacher and learner alike (e.g., book, wagon, pizza). Because of this, assessments that identify controlling variables for potential intervention targets (e.g., Sundberg, 2008) have the advantage of pointing clinicians toward appropriate targets and, at the same time, focusing their efforts away from targets that may seem important but that are premature in the developmental-functional curriculum.

5. Error analysis

The purpose of speech-language assessment is to identify response errors in the learner's verbal repertoire so treatment can be provided that will eliminate these errors in the day-to-day communication environment and replace them with more adequate responses. As discussed, a careful analysis of the controlling relations for speech-language responses can provide valuable information for treatment planning.

The value of an error. Error responses are instructive for clinicians because they tell us precisely what variables control the extant incorrect response. An analysis of these errors allows us to thereby establish correct responses and to eliminate stimuli as prompts (i.e., multiple control) that are extraneous, but currently required, to evoke these responses (Sundberg & Michael, 2001).

For example, a learner may indeed be able to correctly answer How many feet does a duck have when visiting the duck pond at the park but may not be able to emit the same correct response on the ride home when the visual stimulus (i.e., the duck) is absent. By cataloging the conditions in which a desired response does and does not occur, we have the information we need to write intervention plans to transfer control from the current evocative variables to those that should evoke and maintain correct responding.

Functional independence of operants and stimulus control transfer. Whereas a verbally competent speaker may readily tact after learning to mand, or to respond intraverbally after learning to point to an item, this seemingly automatic transfer of function does not occur easily for individuals with speech-language impairment. For example, in a study of tact, mand, and intraverbal responding (Sundberg, San Juan, Dawdy, & Argiielles, 1990), individuals with traumatic brain injury demonstrated hierarchies of acquisition, showing that verbal functions (e.g., tact, mand) could be acquired from echoic or textual (i.e., letters) control but that stimulus control transfer (Catania, 1998) from one function to another did not occur without direct training.

A growing body of literature in error analysis has shown the functional independence of many language-related responses (e.g., Braam & Poling, 1983; Hall & Sundberg, 1987; Lamarre & Holland, 1985; Luciano, 1986; Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2008; Partington & Bailey, 1993; Petursdottir, Carr, Lechago, & Almason, 2008; Sidman, 1971; Sigafoos, Doss, & Reichle, 1989; Twyman, 1995; Watkins, Pack-Teixeira, & Howard, 1989) and stimulus control transfer has been reported for several verbal functions.

Sweeney-Kerwin, Carbone, O'Brien, Zecchin, and Janecky (2007) transferred control of mand responses by children diagnosed with ASD from nonverbal stimuli (i.e., tact) to appropriate motivating conditions. In another study of children with ASD, Goldsmith, LeBlanc, and Sautter (2006) reported successful transfer of stimulus control to bring tact responses under intraverbal control. A study by Lerman et al. (2005) illustrates particularly well the value of analyzing language responses by their controlling variables. In this study, a child could tact baby but could not mand baby nor emit any baby-related intraverbal responses. The specificity of this type of information, by verbal function, clearly pinpoints treatment goals (e.g., teach mand and intraverbal responses for the same topography as that acquired under tact control).

Clinical competence with stimulus control transfer is particularly useful in identifying appropriate intraverbal targets and in providing treatment that avoids inducing errors with this complex repertoire. Whereas the conditions that might evoke a single mand, tact, or echoic response are fairly straightforward, the variables controlling any particular intraverbal response can be numerous. For instance, a mand requires only sufficient motivating conditions; the tact is evoked by a particular nonverbal stimulus; and an echoic, in general terms, is simply a repetition of an auditory model. On the other hand, a competent speaker has an intraverbal repertoire in which a single response is under the control of tens, perhaps hundreds, of antecedent stimuli that evoke it. For example, under appropriate conditions, we could easily emit the intraverbal response salsa to stimuli such as what's tortilla dip called, let's chop tomatoes to make some..., what dance class are you taking, and any number of other salsa-related questions. But learners with weak speech-language repertoires will be challenged by any one of these stimuli and, as we have suggested, simply teaching a selection, tact, echoic, or mand response is unlikely to result in an extensive salsa repertoire.

A behavioral interpretation of the findings discussed above dissuades us from cognitive explanations of deficits identified through our assessments. Because a learner can point to a dog when asked, but cannot name a dog when he sees one is not well explained by saying that he does not yet have the concept of dog. Instead, we can more profitably turn our attention to the variables that evoke various dog responses to plan and carry out an effective treatment program. We cannot blame learners or their disability for error responses when we have yet to arrange appropriate stimulus conditions that will evoke and strengthen more accurate responses. Indeed, clinicians who understand how to assess error responses in terms of their controlling variables have a distinct advantage in helping learners increase their speech-language skills (Sundberg & Michael, 2001) by strengthening appropriate stimulus conditions under which particular target responses occur.

Functional Assessment in Speech-Language Pathology

A few models (partial or comprehensive) are available for functional assessment of speechlanguage disorders (e.g., Baker et al., 2008; Carr & Durand, 1985; Grow, Kelley, Roane, & Shillingsburg, 2008; Lerman et al., 2005; Partington & Sundberg, 1998; Sundberg, 2008; note: SLPs interested in functional assessment related to feeding disorders are referred to Piazza & Roane, 2009) and researchers have called for increased attention to environmental variables for analysis of communication disorders (e.g., Hyter, 2007; Roth & Spekman, 1984). However, in general, SLPs largely rely on standardized, linguistic-based assessment tools to provide diagnostic information, which are unlikely to inform or adequately support efforts to design appropriate and effective intervention programs. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that speech-language pathologists often turn to criterion-referenced tests to develop appropriate intervention targets, although, absent analyses of causal variables, such informal measures arguably offer no advantage over their standardized counterparts in terms of providing a behavioral analysis of language performances, which we maintain is essential for effective treatment planning.

Database of Speech-Language Tests

As a first step in bridging this gap, it would be helpful to have a "translation" of existing assessment instruments, reinterpreted according to the verbal functions that are represented by their test items. To that end, we examined a group of speech-language tests (Tables 2 through 7) designed to diagnose aphasia, apraxia of speech, articulation and phonological disorders, and language disorders (expressive, receptive, or both). Assessments for other speech-language disorders such as fluency (i.e., stuttering), voice quality, and dysphagia (swallowing disorders) were excluded from the database.

The assessment database consists of 28 standardized speech-language tests that were selected from among those commonly used at a university-based speech and language clinic. The clinic is associated with a graduate program for SLP, which is accredited by ASHA's Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology. Tests are administered to individuals referred for diagnostic purposes or, in the case of established clients, the tests are given to document progress toward therapeutic goals.

The database lists the probable controlling variables for responses required in each test or subtest. For some test items, it is likely that multiple stimuli must be self-generated to emit a "correct" response (e.g., self-echoics). Thus, a more complex analysis may be needed in which additional variables are considered (e.g., joint control, Lowenkron, 2006; emergent relations, Sidman, 1994; see also BarnesHolmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000; autoclitics, Skinner, 1957). Nevertheless, a beginning analysis is offered, listing the test item's probable controlling variables for 5 of Skinner's verbal operants mand, echoic, tact, intraverbal, and textual, and for the nonverbal operant involving listener relations commonly referred to as receptive language.

Procedures

Each test (or subtest) was coded according to the verbal operant represented by the inherent or implied antecedent conditions prescribed by the test and by any other information available with respect to the functional unit represented by each test item. Antecedent conditions included examiner's instructions (e.g., point to, say what I say, tell me about), materials, allowed prompts, and actual or implied motivating operations (Laraway et al., 2003; Michael, 1982, 2004) to evoke appropriate responses. In some assessments, allowed prompts changed the operant being tested by providing additional stimuli that could exert control over the response. Tables 2 through 7 specify these situations (when they could be identified by the test protocol) with the letter P (prompt) under the appropriate operant column, indicating a potential change in, or addition to, the basic operant being tested.

Other factors that informed the coding procedure included controlling variables that were only implied, but not directly tested, due to the nature of the test (i.e., informant assessments, see Table 5). Such indirect assessments are so designated in the Comments column.

Each test or component subtest was coded twice, once by the first author, a board certified behavior analyst and speech-language pathologist, and again by the second author, a graduate-level speech-language pathology student with an undergraduate degree in behavior analysis. In the case of disagreement, an independent behavior analyst reviewed items until agreement was reached.

Code Definitions

Test items were coded according to Skinner's (1957) five basic verbal operants (mand, tact, intraverbal, echoic, textual) or, in the case of nonverbal operants, as receptive items. To be precise, the test items themselves were not operants, but they were coded as such because of the type of functional unit that would exist if a correct response to the test item occurred and was reinforced. It should be noted, however, that in many general testing situations, reinforcement is specifically proscribed (presumably to maintain test integrity). For this reason, no such functions are assumed to be established through the testing procedure with the assessments in our database. For the examiner-practitioner, advantages of withholding reinforcement during assessment should be carefully evaluated as some studies have shown improved test performance under reinforcement, compared to non-reinforcement conditions (e.g., Edlund, 1972; Koegel et al., 1997).

Mand. A test item was coded mand (M) if there was evidence that the item evaluated responses under the control of a motivating operation or if a consequence, provided or implied, was responsespecific (e.g., child says cookie and gets cookie).

Echoic. Items coded echoic (E) presented verbal stimuli for which a correct response would be verbal with point-to-point correspondence. For example, a correct echoic response to the instruction "Say 'what's your name'" would be what's your name.

Tact. A tact (T) code designated items in which a non-verbal stimulus (e.g., picture, object) was presented to evoke a verbal response. For example, an item would be coded T if it instructed the examiner to show a picture of a house, with house being the correct response. Note, however, that in both assessment and instructional situations, it is a frequent practice to add the question what's this when presenting pictures or objects to test "labels." In such cases, a response is more accurately described as being under both tact (house picture) and intraverbal (what's this) stimulus control. Items were also coded T if a nonverbal stimulus was given to evoke verbal responses regarding attributes such as stimulus feature, function, or class (e.g., a correct answer would be bounce or beach instead of ball).

Intraverbal. A test item was coded intraverbal (IV) if it contained a verbal stimulus to evoke a verbal response that did not match (repeat) the examiner's model. For example, if the verbal stimulus was what's your name, a correct response under the control of intraverbal contingencies might be Riley. Items were also coded IV if a verbal stimulus was presented to evoke verbal responses regarding stimulus attributes such as feature, function, or class (e.g., wheel, ride in, or vehicle instead of car).

Textual. A test item was coded textual (Tx) if the assessment instructed the examiner to present a written stimulus and a correct response required reacting to the written material verbally (i.e., reading). Items were further designated intraverbal (IV) if reading comprehension was required.

Receptive. Items asking the examiner to present an instruction, in which a correct response would be nonverbal, were coded as receptive (R). Examples of R-coded items are point to cup, give me the pencil, and show me jumping. Items were also coded R if a conditional discrimination was required regarding stimulus attributes (e.g., point to the one that has a tail instead of point to dog). Note that other operants are implicated in conditional discriminations and these are designated in the Tables (e.g., echoic, tact).

Finally, items that may have required multiple controlling variables are so designated with the probable operants marked within parentheses.

Following the database (Tables 2-7 below), we present a summary in which we discuss patterns found in our analysis along with implications for future work on this topic.

Results, Discussion, and Considerations for the Future

Information from the speech-language assessment database points to several issues of interest for future investigations.

First, analysis of the database revealed a striking omission in traditional speech-language tests. The mand function, widely regarded as the earliest verbal operant established (Bijou & Baer, 1965; Schlinger, 1995; Sundberg, 2008) and of greatest benefit to speakers (Skinner, 1957), was assessed in only two of the 28 database tests (PLS-4; REEL-3, Bzoch, League, & Brown, 2003). Despite their inclusion, the mand function in these tests was only indirectly evaluated (i.e., informant report, such as parent or caregiver responses, was either required or allowed). This means that relevant motivating conditions for the occurrence of mands were not directly arranged or evaluated for their evocative effects.

Moreover, it is of particular concern that mand contingencies were absent from the three assessments for aphasia, an acquired neurological disorder that often is profoundly damaging to speechlanguage repertoires. It would seem that, of all the verbal functions potentially impaired in aphasia, the mand would be of foremost importance to evaluate and, if weak, to re-establish quickly. Collectively, aphasia tests in the database represent a total of 475 response opportunities for persons with aphasia, yet the tests contained no mand contingencies to evaluate this critically important repertoire for these individuals. Behavioral researchers have begun to offer alternative (i.e., non-traditional) models for the description of aphasia deficits (Baker et al., 2008), but functional evaluation of this critical skill in the repertoires of actual individuals appears unaddressed in this population.

Next, analysis of the assessment database brought the importance of stimulus control into clearer focus on at least two issues related to its identification. Unlike assessments in which controlling stimuli are specified by the test items (e.g., tact, mand), traditional speech-language tests may unintentionally require multiple stimulus control for correct responding. At other times, they may inadvertently provide multiple stimuli (i.e., prompts) when it is undesirable to do so. As a result, test items may be harder or easier than they are meant to be, obscuring the repertoire purportedly being tested. That is, learners would be disadvantaged if they do not have the requisite learning history to respond correctly when doing so requires control by more than one independent variable or when, conversely, multiple stimuli must be in place for the learner to respond correctly to items intended to test a single function.

Several assessments in the database illustrated this issue in which it seemed that several stimuli must, or could, converge to evoke a correct response, thereby risking confounded test results. For example, some assessments (e.g., TOLD-P:3) require the learner to listen to a word and then repeat only part of it (e.g., say 'baseball' without saying 'base'). Although this clearly evaluates echoic control, other repertoires may be required (e.g., intraverbal, autoclitic; Schlinger, 2008; Skinner, 1957), particularly since the correct response must necessarily omit part of the echoic model, as a self-editing response.

Multiple control was also implicated in situations where instructions to the learner seemed ambiguous (e.g., prompting a pointing response with tell me; PLS-4). In this case, although a pointing response is presumably sufficient to be scored as correct, a learner who not only points but also responds verbally (i.e., it's that one!) may have a more sophisticated repertoire than a learner who only points to the answer. If so, this information would be important for treatment planning. Multiple control required for correct responding was also evident in assessment items where the actual function being evaluated changed as a result of prompts allowed during correction procedures. For example, the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation (GFTA-2; Goldman & Fristoe, 2000) consists of asking what's this while showing pictures one at a time. Each response is then evaluated for point-to-point correspondence with the phonemic elements of the (unspoken) model. As such, this test evaluates a tact repertoire (more precisely, a tact-intraverbal repertoire). However, if no response occurs, an echoic prompt is allowed (e.g., say 'house'). Thus, the task changes from one requiring tact/intraverbal control to one that requires echoiconly control. However, because the pictures are presumably still present, the clinician cannot be certain whether there is partial tact control over an echoic response, should one occur.

These examples illustrate the difficulty in trying to assess speech-language skills with assessments that specify only topography, and not contingencies, required for a correct response. That is, individuals without the requisite learning history or those with obvious impairment (e.g., aphasia) may have only part of the skills necessary to perform well on these assessments and, without a clear identification of the variables required for correct responding, the learner's repertoire may appear more or less deficient. Therefore, assessments to identify therapy intervention targets need to clearly identify (1) the stimulus control for various operants that define a competent speech-language repertoire and (2) the foundational, cumulative repertoires that may need to be in place (e.g., tact, listener) to support more complex responding (e.g., intraverbal). This explication should take into consideration recent research and supporting literature regarding complex speech-language skills such as naming and categorization (e.g., Miguel et al., 2008; Petursdottir et al., 2008), equivalence (Sidman, 1994), and other derived relations (e.g., Rosales & Rehfeldt, 2007).

Speech-language assessments yielding a functional hierarchy of skill deficits have the advantage of being more prescriptive for subsequent intervention than are those that yield structural-only descriptions of errors (Baker et al., 2008; Lerman et al., 2005; Sundberg et al., 1990). This is because the independent variables governing, and thus crucial to, behavior change are not typically assessed, described, or otherwise addressed in traditional speech-language assessments (although there is evidence of emerging interest in the contextual communication environment; e.g., Hyter, 2007). One recently published assessment of verbal functions and related language skills is the Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP, Sundberg, 2008), which provides clinicians with a hierarchy of 170 skills developmentally referenced from ages 0--48 months. Skills are balanced across the verbal functions (e.g., mand, tact, intraverbal, echoic) and related areas (e.g., social skills, linguistic skills, reading) in order to avoid the rote responding that can occur when out-of-sequence skills are taught (e.g., intraverbal) without having first established the requisite supporting functions, such as tact and listener repertoires (also see Greer & Ross, 2008). To address behaviors that may interfere with skill acquisition, an additional component test, the VB-MAPP Barriers Assessment, identifies 24 potential learning barriers to which environmental (i.e., behavioral) solutions can be applied in order to maximize instructional efficiency.

Future research needs to establish the clinical efficacy of the VB-MAPP and other function-based speech-language assessments (e.g., Partington & Sundberg, 1998) as they become available. In the meantime, assessments of this sort offer immediate clinical benefit over non-functional speech-language tests because they allow clinicians to identify speaker-listener deficits according to developmental norms in a curricular sequence and, at the same time, they pinpoint the environmental variables that currently control these responses errors. By identifying the variables of which errors are a function, assessments like the VB-MAPP also highlight the stimuli that do not yet control desired speech-language responses; thus, interventions can be designed that incorporate stimulus control transfer procedures for more effective and efficient learning. Practitioners who have yet to access function-based speech-language assessments can nevertheless begin to analyze their existing evaluation tools (some of which may appear in the database) for the likely functions represented by these instruments. This first-step would be invaluable for informing treatments by assisting therapists in the selection and sequencing of appropriate targets for their interventions.

Additional research is needed to further elucidate speaker-listener functions. For example, Poon and Butler (1972) suggest there may be developmental influences on intraverbal relations (e.g., different acquisition stages for how, when, where). As noted earlier, Baker et al. (2008) offer an initial functionbased taxonomy for evaluating speaker-listener repertoires following neurological impairment (i.e., aphasia). Lerman and colleagues (2005) discuss positive treatment implications by including existing responses in functional assessments of the verbal repertoire. Yes-no responding has been assessed and trained across the verbal functions (Shillingsburg, Kelley, Roane, Kisamore, & Brown; 2009) following demonstrations that these responses did not generalize from one operant (e.g., mand) to another (e.g., tact) without specific training. Finally, Carr and Firth (2005) call for researchers and practitioners alike to publish results of individual treatments based on Skinner's (1957) analysis of verbal behavior. Key to this body of evidence would be the contributions of speech pathologists in which speech-language assessments and clinical progress reports include analyses of independent variables (i.e., functions) that are responsible for topographies of interest.

There is much to be explained in verbal behavior (Sundberg, 1991) and much is still speculative (Palmer, 1998). Nevertheless, the utility of our assessments will be strengthened by a more thorough accounting of the observable variables that control speech-language behavior. If it is true that "learning occurs best when embedded within functional activities" (Rowland & Schweigert, 1993, p. 173), then assessment that includes a functional account is essential.

References

(Asterisk indicates references in assessment database)

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1993). Definitions of communication disorders and variations. Retrieved April 4, 2010, http://www.asha.org/docs/html/RP1993-00208.html.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2009). Directory of speech-language pathology assessment instruments. Retrieved December 31, 2009, http://www.asha.org/assessments.aspx.

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). In J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisa (Eds.), How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Baker, J. C., LeBlanc, L. A., & Raetz, P. B. (2008). A behavioral conceptualization of aphasia. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24, 147-158.

* Bankson, N. W., & Bernthal, J. E. (1990). Bankson-Bernthal test of phonology. Chicago, IL: Applied Symbolix.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cullinan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory and Skinner's Verbal Behavior: A possible synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 69-84.

Bates, E. (1976). Language in context: Studies in the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.

Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1965). Child development: Vol. 2. Universal stage of infancy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Bourgeois, M. S. (1992). Evaluating memory wallets in conversations with persons with dementia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1344-1357.

Braam, S. J., & Poling, A. (1983). Development of intraverbal behavior in mentally retarded individuals through transfer of stimulus control procedures: Classification of verbal responses. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 279-302.

* Brownell, R. (2000). Receptive one-word picture vocabulary test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.

* Bzoch, K. R., League, R., & Brown, V. L. (2003). Receptive-expressive emergent language test (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.

Carr, J. E., & Firth, A. M. (2005). The verbal behavior approach to early and intensive behavioral intervention for autism: A call for additional empirical support. Journal of Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention, 2, 18-27.

* Carrow-Woolfolk, T. (1999). Test for auditory comprehension of language (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Catania, A. C. (2006). Words as behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 87-88.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

* Dabul, B. (2000). Apraxia battery for adults (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Damico, J. S. (1993). Language assessment in adolescents: Addressing critical issues. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 24, 29-35.

* Dawson, J. I., Stout, C. E., & Eyer, J. A. (2003). The structured photographic expressive language test (3rd ed.). DeKalb, IL: Janelle.

Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (1994). Learning and complex behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Duchan, J. F. (2008). Getting here: A short history of speech pathology in America. Retrieved December 24, 2009, from http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~duchan/history.html.

Duker, P. C. (1999). The verbal behavior assessment scale (VerBAS): Construct validity, reliability, and internal consistency. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 347-353.

*Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Dwyer-Moore, K. J., & Dixon, M. R. (2007). Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior of elderly adults in long-term care. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 679-683.

Edlund, C. V. (1972). The effect on the behavior of children, as reflected in the IQ scores, when reinforced after each correct response. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 317-319.

Esch, B. (2009). Early communication: 4 obstacles to success. Autism and Related Developmental Disabilities SIG Newsletter, 25, 1-2.

* Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D. J., Dale, P. S., Reznick, S. J., & Bates, E. (2007). MacArthurBates communicative development inventories. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Frost, L., & Bondy, A. (2002). The picture exchange communication system (PECS) training manual (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: Pyramid.

Frost, L., & Bondy, A. (2006). A common language: Using B. F. Skinner's verbal behavior for assessment and treatment of communication disabilities in SLP-ABA. The Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 103-109.

* Gardner, M. F. (1990). Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.

* German, D. J. (2000). Test of word finding: TWF-2 (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

* Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (2000). Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Goldsmith, T. R., LeBlanc, L. A., & Sautter, R. A. (2007). Teaching intraverbal behavior to children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 1-13.

Grow, L. L., Kelley, M. E., Roane, H. S., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2008). Utility of extinction-induced response variability for the selection of mands. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 15-24.

Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal behavior analysis: Inducing and expanding new verbal capabilities in children with language delays. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Hall, G., & Sundberg, M. L. (1987). Teaching mands by manipulating conditioned establishing operations. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 41-53.

Hart, B., & Rogers-Warren, A. (1978). A milieu approach to teaching language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Language intervention strategies (pp. 193-235). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Hegde, M. N. (1998). Treatment procedures in communicative disorders (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hegde, M. N. (2008). Meaning in behavioral analysis. The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 2.4-3.1, 1-24.

Hegde, M. N., & Maul, C. A. (2006). Language disorders in children: An evidence-based approach to assessment and treatment. Boston, MA: Pearson.

* Helm-Estabrooks, N. (1992). Test of oral and limb apraxia. Chicago, IL: Applied Symbolix.

* Helm-Estabrooks, N., Ramsberger, G., Morgan, A. R., & Nicholas, M. (1989). Boston assessment of severe aphasia. Chicago, IL: Applied Symbolix.

* Hickman, L. A. (1997). The apraxia profile. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

* Hodson, B. W. (2004). Hodson assessment ofphonological patterns (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hyter, Y. D. (2007). Pragmatic language assessment: A pragmatics-as-social practice model. Topics in Language Disorders, 27, 128-145.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197-209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20, 1982).

* Kaufman, N. R. (1995). Kaufman speech praxis test. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

* Kertesz, A. (2007). Western aphasia battery revised. San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp.

* Khan, L., & Lewis, N. (2002). Khan-Lewis phonological analysis (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Kodak, T., Northup, J., & Kelley, M. E. (2007). An evaluation of the types of attention that maintain problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 167-171.

Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (1995). Teaching children with autism: Strategies for initiating positive interactions and improving learning opportunities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., & Smith, A. (1997). Variables related to differences in standardized test outcomes for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 233-243.

Kouri, T. A. (2005). Lexical training through modeling and elicitation procedures with late talkers who have specific language impairment and developmental delays. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 157-171.

Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. G. (1985). The functional independence of mands and tacts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 5-19.

* LaPointe, L., & Horner, J. (1998). Reading comprehension battery for aphasia (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 407-414.

LaRue, R., Weiss, M. J., & Cable, M. K. (2008). Functional communication training: The role of speech pathologists and behavior analysts in serving students with autism. The Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 3.2-3.3, 26-34.

LeBlanc, L. A., Dillon, C. M., & Sautter, R. A. (2009). Establishing mand and tact repertoires. In R. A. Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities: A progressive guide to change (pp. 79-108). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Lerman, D. C., Parten, M., Addison, L. R., Vorndran, C. M., Volkert, V. M., & Kodak, T. (2005). A methodology for assessing the functions of emerging speech in children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 303-316.

* Lippke, B. A., Dickey, S. E., Selmar, J. W., & Soder, A. L. (1997). Photo articulation test (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Lodhi, S., & Greer, R. D. (1989). The speaker as listener. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 353-359.

Lovaas, O. I., & Smith, T. (2003). Early and intensive behavioral intervention in autism. In A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-basedpsychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 325340). New York: Guilford.

Lowenkron, B. (2006). An introduction to joint control. The Analysis ofVerbal Behavior, 22, 123-127.

Luciano, M. C. (1986). Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of productive intraverbal behavior through transfer of stimulus control procedures. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 1-20.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivating functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155.

Michael, J. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis (rev. ed.). Kalamazoo, MI: Society for the Advancement of Behavior Analysis.

Miguel, C. F., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2009). Naming and frames of coordination. In R. A. Rehfeldt & Y.

Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities: A progressive guide to change (pp. 129-148). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Miguel, C. F., Petursdottir, A. I., Carr, J. E., & Michael, J. (2008). The role of naming in stimulus categorization by preschool children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 383405.

Miltenberger, R. G. (2001). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

National Autism Center (2009). Evidence-based practice and autism in the schools: A guide to providing appropriate interventions to students with autism spectrum disorders. Randolph, MA: National Autism Center.

* Newcomer, P. L., & Hammill, D. D. (1988). Test of language development--primary (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

Nicolosi, L., Harryman, E., & Kresheck, J. (1978). Terminology of communication disorders: Speech, language, hearing. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Notari, A., & Bricker, D. (1990). The utility of a curriculum-based assessment instrument in the development of individualized education plans for infants and young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 117-132.

Novak, G. (1996). Developmental psychology: Dynamical systems and behavior analysis. Reno, NV: Context Press.

Novak, G., & Pelaez, M. (2004). Child and adolescent development: A behavioral systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ogletree, B. T., & Oren, T. (2001). Application of ABA principles to general communication instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 102-109.

Palmer, D. C. (1998). The speaker as listener: The interpretation of structural regularities in verbal behavior. The Analysis ofVerbal Behavior, 15, 3-16.

Palmer, D. C. (2000). Chomsky's nativism: A critical review. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 17, 39-50.

Partington, J. W., & Bailey, J. S. (1993). Teaching intraverbal behavior to preschool children. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 9-18.

Partington, J. W., & Sundberg, M. L. (1998). The assessment of basic language and learning skills (The ABLLS). Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior Analysts.

Petursdottir, A. I., Carr, J. E., Lechago, S. A., & Almason, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of intraverbal training and listener training for teaching categorization skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 53-68.

Piazza, C. C., & Roane, H. S. (2009). Assessment of pediatric feeding disorders. In J. L. Matson, F. Andrasik, & M. L. Matson (Eds.), Assessing childhoodpsychopathology and developmental disabilities (pp. 471-490). New York: Springer.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. NY: Harper Collins.

Poon, W., & Butler, K. G. (1972). Evaluation of intraverbal responses in five- to seven-year-old children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 15, 303-307.

Prizant, B. M., & Duchan, J. F. (1981). The functions of immediate echolalia in autistic children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 241-249.

Rehfeldt, R. A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities: A progressive guide to change. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Romanczyk, R. G., Lockshin, S., & Matey, L. (2001). The children's unit for treatment and evaluation. In J. S. Handleman & S. L. Harris (Eds.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (pp. 49-94). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Rosales, R., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2007). Contriving transitive conditioned establishing operations to establish derived manding skills in adults with severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 105-121.

Roth, F. P., & Spekman, N. J. (1984). Assessing the pragmatic abilities of children: Part 1. Organizational framework and assessment parameters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 2-11.

Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (1993). Analyzing the communication environment to increase functional communication. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 161-176.

Rvachew, S. (1994). Speech perception training can facilitate sound production learning. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 347-357.

Sautter, R. A., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2006). Empirical applications of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior with humans. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 35-48.

Schlinger, H. D. (1995). A behavior analytic view of child development. New York: Plenum Press.

Schlinger, H. D. (2008). Conditioning the behavior of the listener. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8, 309-322.

Schlinger, H. D., & Poling, A. D. (1998). Introduction to scientific psychology. New York: Plenum.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.

*Secord, W. A., & Donohue, J. S. (2002). Clinical assessment of articulation and phonology. Greenville, SC: Super Duper.

*Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals ages 5-8 (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Shillingsburg, M. A., Kelley, M. E., Roane, H. S., Kisamore, A., & Brown, M. R. (2009). Evaluation and training of yes-no responding across verbal operants. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 209-223.

Sidman, M. (1971). The behavioral analysis of aphasia. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 8, 413-422.

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

Sigafoos, J., Doss, S., & Reichle, J. (1989). Developing mand and tact repertoires with persons with severe developmental disabilities with graphic symbols. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 165-176.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Spradlin, J. E. (1963). Assessment of speech and language of retarded children: The Parsons language sample. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders Monograph, 10, 8-31.

Spradlin, J. E., & Siegel, G. M. (1982). Language training in natural and clinical environments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 2-6.

Sundberg, M. L. (1991). 301 research topics from Skinner's book Verbal Behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 81-96.

Sundberg, M. L. (2008). VB-MAPP: Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program. Concord, CA: AVB Press.

Sundberg, M. L., & Michael, J. (2001). The benefits of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior for children with autism. Behavior Modification, 25, 698-724.

Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental disabilities. Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior Analysts.

Sundberg, M. L., San Juan, B., Dawdy, M., & Arguelles, M. (1990). The acquisition of tacts, mands, and intraverbals by individuals with traumatic brain injury. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 8399.

Sweeney-Kerwin, E. J., Carbone, V. J., O'Brien, L., Zecchin, G., & Janecky, M. N. (2007). Transferring control of the mand to the motivating operation in children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 23, 89-102.

Twyman, J. S. (1996). The functional independence of impure mands and tacts of abstract stimulus properties. The Analysis ofVerbal Behavior, 13, 1-19.

* Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive test ofphonological processing for ages 5 and 6. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

* Wallace, G., & Hammill, D. (1994). Comprehensive receptive and expressive vocabulary test. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Watkins, C. L., Pack-Teixeira, L., & Howard, J. S. (1989). Teaching intraverbal behavior to severely retarded children. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 69-81.

* Wiig, E. H., Secord, W. A., & Semel, E., (2004). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals preschool (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp.

Williams, G., & Greer, R. D. (1993). A comparison of verbal-behavior and linguistic-communication curricula for training developmentally delayed adolescents to acquire and maintain vocal speech. Behaviorology, 1, 31-46.

*Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive vocabulary test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

*Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002). Preschool language scale (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Author Contact Information

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the first author.

Barbara E. Esch

Esch Behavior Consultants, Inc.

P. O. Box 20002

Kalamazoo, MI 49019

Phone: 561-676-7212

E-mail: besch1@mac.com

Kate B. LaLonde

Esch Behavior Consultants, Inc.

P.O.Box 20002

Kalamazoo, MI 49019

John W. Esch

Esch Behavior Consultants, Inc.

P. O. Box 20002

Kalamazoo, MI 49019
Table 1. Descriptions of five elementary verbal operants
(Skinner, 1957)

Verbal Antecedent events that Response
Operant evoke the operant

Mand Motivating conditions Asking (e.g., Airplane)
 (e.g., wants toy airplane)

Echoic Verbal stimulus (vocal) Repeating (e.g., Airplane)
 (e.g., "Say 'airplane'")

Tact Nonverbal stimulus (e.g., Labeling (e.g., Look Mommy,
 Airplane flies overhead) Airplane!)

Intraverbal Verbal stimulus (any) Conversation (e.g., No,
 (e.g., "Did you arrive by airplane)
 train?")

Textual Verbal stimulus (textual) Reading (e.g., Airplane)
 (e.g., Word: AIRPLANE)

Verbal Consequent events that
Operant strengthen the operant

Mand Specified by the mand
 (e.g., Gets toy airplane)

Echoic Generalized social
 reinforcers (e.g.,
 "Right!")

Tact Generalized social
 reinforcers (e.g., Mom:
 "Wow! That's really big!")

Intraverbal Generalized social
 reinforcers (e.g., "Oh, how
 was the flight?")

Textual Generalized social
 reinforcers (e.g., "Good
 reading!")

NOTE: Functions that may involve complex language behavior (e.g.,
problem solving, remembering, joint control, emergent relations)
are outside the scope of this paper. Readers interested in these
topics are referred to Donahoe and Palmer (1994), Lowenkron (2006),
or Rehfeldt and Barnes-Holmes (2009).

Table 2. Aphasia Tests

 Implied Function of
 lest items (3)

 Verbal

 Test and Sub-test name or
 author(s) description Mand Echoic Tact

Boston Items 1-8
Assessment Items 9-11 (x)
of Severe Items 12-17
Aphasia Items 18-23 x
(BASA) Items 24-27 (x)
Helm- Item 28 x
Estabrooks Items 29-30 x
at al. (1989) Items 31-32 (x)
 Items 33-35 x
 Items 36-37 (x)
 Items 38-40 (x)
 Items 41-43 (x)
 Items 44-46 (x)
 Items 47-49 (x) x
 Items 50-54 x
 Item 55 (x)
 Items 56-59
 Items 60-61 (x)

Reading Subtest 1: Word-Visual (x) x
Comprehen Subtest 2: Word-Auditory (x) x
sion battery Subtest 3: Word-Semantic (x) x
for Aphasia Subtest 4: Functional
(RCBA-2) Reading (x) x
LaPointe & Subtest 5: Synonyms (x) x
Horner Subtest 6: Sentence-Picture (x) x
(1998) Subtest 7: Paragraph-Picture (x) x
 Subtest 8: Paragraph-Factual (x)
 Subtest 9:
 Paragraph-Inferential (x)
 Subtest 10: Morpho-Syntax (x)
 Subtest 11: Letter
 Discrimination (x)
 Subtest 12: Letter Naming
 Subtest 13: Letter
 Recognition (x)
 Subtest 14: Lexical Decision (x)
 Subtest 15: Semantic
 Categorization
 Subtest 16: Oral Reading:
 Words
 Subtest 17: Oral Heading:
 Sentences

Western Spontaneous Speech
Aphasia A: Conversational
Battery Questions
Revised B: Picture Description x
Kertesz Auditory Verbal
(2007) Comprehension
 A: Yes/No Questions (x)
 B: Auditory Word
 Recognition
 C: Sequential Commands
 Repetition x
 Naming & Word Finding
 A: Object Naming P x
 B: Word Fluency
 C: Sentence Completion
 D: Responsive Speech

 Implied Function of
 lest items (3)

 Verbal

 Test and Sub-test name or
 author(s) description Intraverbal Textual

Boston Items 1-8 x P (b)
Assessment Items 9-11 (x) (x)
of Severe Items 12-17 x
Aphasia Items 18-23
(BASA) Items 24-27
Helm- Item 28 (x)
Estabrooks Items 29-30 (x)
at al. (1989) Items 31-32
 Items 33-35 x
 Items 36-37
 Items 38-40 (x) (x)
 Items 41-43
 Items 44-46 (x) (x)
 Items 47-49 x
 Items 50-54 x
 Item 55 (x) (x)
 Items 56-59
 Items 60-61 x

Reading Subtest 1: Word-Visual (x) x
Comprehen Subtest 2: Word-Auditory (x) x
sion battery Subtest 3: Word-Semantic (x) x
for Aphasia Subtest 4: Functional
(RCBA-2) Reading (x) x
LaPointe & Subtest 5: Synonyms (x) x
Horner Subtest 6: Sentence-Picture (x) x
(1998) Subtest 7: Paragraph-Picture (x) x
 Subtest 8: Paragraph-Factual x x
 Subtest 9:
 Paragraph-Inferential x x
 Subtest 10: Morpho-Syntax (x) x
 Subtest 11: Letter
 Discrimination x (x)
 Subtest 12: Letter Naming x
 Subtest 13: Letter
 Recognition x
 Subtest 14: Lexical Decision (x) x
 Subtest 15: Semantic
 Categorization x x
 Subtest 16: Oral Reading:
 Words x
 Subtest 17: Oral Heading:
 Sentences x

Western Spontaneous Speech
Aphasia A: Conversational
Battery Questions x
Revised B: Picture Description x
Kertesz Auditory Verbal
(2007) Comprehension
 A: Yes/No Questions x
 B: Auditory Word
 Recognition x
 C: Sequential Commands
 Repetition
 Naming & Word Finding
 A: Object Naming (x)
 B: Word Fluency x
 C: Sentence Completion x
 D: Responsive Speech x

 Nonverbal

 Test and Sub-test name or
 author(s) description Listener

Boston Items 1-8
Assessment Items 9-11 x
of Severe Items 12-17 x
Aphasia Items 18-23
(BASA) Items 24-27 x
Helm- Item 28
Estabrooks Items 29-30 P
at al. (1989) Items 31-32 x
 Items 33-35 (x)
 Items 36-37 x
 Items 38-40 x
 Items 41-43 x
 Items 44-46 x
 Items 47-49
 Items 50-54
 Item 55 x
 Items 56-59 x
 Items 60-61

Reading Subtest 1: Word-Visual x
Comprehen Subtest 2: Word-Auditory x
sion battery Subtest 3: Word-Semantic x
for Aphasia Subtest 4: Functional
(RCBA-2) Reading x
LaPointe & Subtest 5: Synonyms x
Horner Subtest 6: Sentence-Picture x
(1998) Subtest 7: Paragraph-Picture x
 Subtest 8: Paragraph-Factual x
 Subtest 9:
 Paragraph-Inferential x
 Subtest 10: Morpho-Syntax x
 Subtest 11: Letter
 Discrimination
 Subtest 12: Letter Naming (x)
 Subtest 13: Letter
 Recognition x
 Subtest 14: Lexical Decision x
 Subtest 15: Semantic
 Categorization
 Subtest 16: Oral Reading:
 Words
 Subtest 17: Oral Heading:
 Sentences

Western Spontaneous Speech
Aphasia A: Conversational
Battery Questions
Revised B: Picture Description
Kertesz Auditory Verbal
(2007) Comprehension
 A: Yes/No Questions
 B: Auditory Word
 Recognition x
 C: Sequential Commands x
 Repetition
 Naming & Word Finding
 A: Object Naming
 B: Word Fluency
 C: Sentence Completion
 D: Responsive Speech

 Test and Sub-test name or
 author(s) description Comments

Boston Items 1-8
Assessment Items 9-11
of Severe Items 12-17 Imitative prompts
Aphasia Items 18-23
(BASA) Items 24-27 Imitative prompts
Helm- Item 28
Estabrooks Items 29-30
at al. (1989) Items 31-32
 Items 33-35
 Items 36-37
 Items 38-40
 Items 41-43
 Items 44-46
 Items 47-49
 Items 50-54
 Item 55
 Items 56-59 Includes match-to-sample
 Items 60-61

Reading Subtest 1: Word-Visual
Comprehen Subtest 2: Word-Auditory
sion battery Subtest 3: Word-Semantic
for Aphasia Subtest 4: Functional
(RCBA-2) Reading
LaPointe & Subtest 5: Synonyms
Horner Subtest 6: Sentence-Picture
(1998) Subtest 7: Paragraph-Picture
 Subtest 8: Paragraph-Factual
 Subtest 9:
 Paragraph-Inferential
 Subtest 10: Morpho-Syntax
 Subtest 11: Letter
 Discrimination
 Subtest 12: Letter Naming
 Subtest 13: Letter
 Recognition
 Subtest 14: Lexical Decision
 Subtest 15: Semantic
 Categorization
 Subtest 16: Oral Reading:
 Words
 Subtest 17: Oral Heading:
 Sentences

Western Spontaneous Speech
Aphasia A: Conversational
Battery Questions
Revised B: Picture Description
Kertesz Auditory Verbal
(2007) Comprehension
 A: Yes/No Questions
 B: Auditory Word
 Recognition
 C: Sequential Commands
 Repetition
 Naming & Word Finding
 A: Object Naming
 B: Word Fluency Categories
 C: Sentence Completion Fill-in-blank
 D: Responsive Speech WH-questions

(a) Items marked (x) indicate additional operant repertoires
required or assessed by this item

(b) Correction prompts may additionally assess this operant

Table 3. Apraxia Tests

 Implied function
 of test items (a)

 Verbal

 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Mand Echoic

Apraxia battery
for Adults
(ABA-2) Diadochokinetic Rate x
Dabul (2000)
 Increasing Word Length x
 (A & B)

 Limb Apraxia & Oral
 Apraxia

 Latency Time and Utterance
 Time for Polysyllabic Words

 Repeated trials x

 Inventory of Articulation
 Characteristics of Apraxia

Kaufman Speech x
Praxis Test for
Children (KSPT)
Kaufman (1995)

Test of Oral and Limb Apraxia: Proximal
Limb Apraxia Gestures
(TOLA)
Helm-Estabrooks Limb Apraxia: Distal
(1992) Gestures

 Oral Apraxia

 Gestured Pictures

The Apraxia Volitional Oral Movement-- x
Profile: Verbal
Preschool (P)
School-age (S) Diadochokinesis x
Hickman (1997) Words (repetition) (P) x
 (S) Difficult word x
 repetition
 Phrases and Sentences (P, S) x
 (S) Rhymes x
 (S) Counting P (b)
 (S) Prosody x

 Connected Speech Sample (x)

 Implied function
 of test items (a)

 Verbal

 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Tact

Apraxia battery
for Adults
(ABA-2) Diadochokinetic Rate
Dabul (2000)
 Increasing Word Length
 (A & B)

 Limb Apraxia & Oral
 Apraxia

 Latency Time and Utterance x
 Time for Polysyllabic Words

 Repeated trials

 Inventory of Articulation x
 Characteristics of Apraxia

Kaufman Speech
Praxis Test for
Children (KSPT)
Kaufman (1995)

Test of Oral and Limb Apraxia: Proximal
Limb Apraxia Gestures
(TOLA)
Helm-Estabrooks Limb Apraxia: Distal
(1992) Gestures

 Oral Apraxia

 Gestured Pictures

The Apraxia Volitional Oral Movement--
Profile: Verbal
Preschool (P)
School-age (S) Diadochokinesis
Hickman (1997) Words (repetition) (P)
 (S) Difficult word
 repetition
 Phrases and Sentences (P, S)
 (S) Rhymes
 (S) Counting x
 (S) Prosody

 Connected Speech Sample x

 Implied function
 of test items (a)

 Verbal

 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Intraverbal

Apraxia battery
for Adults
(ABA-2) Diadochokinetic Rate
Dabul (2000)
 Increasing Word Length
 (A & B)

 Limb Apraxia & Oral
 Apraxia

 Latency Time and Utterance (x)
 Time for Polysyllabic Words

 Repeated trials (x)

 Inventory of Articulation x
 Characteristics of Apraxia

Kaufman Speech
Praxis Test for
Children (KSPT)
Kaufman (1995)

Test of Oral and Limb Apraxia: Proximal
Limb Apraxia Gestures
(TOLA)
Helm-Estabrooks Limb Apraxia: Distal
(1992) Gestures

 Oral Apraxia

 Gestured Pictures

The Apraxia Volitional Oral Movement--
Profile: Verbal
Preschool (P)
School-age (S) Diadochokinesis
Hickman (1997) Words (repetition) (P)
 (S) Difficult word
 repetition
 Phrases and Sentences (P, S)
 (S) Rhymes
 (S) Counting
 (S) Prosody

 Connected Speech Sample

 Implied function
 of test items (a)

 Verbal

 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Textual

Apraxia battery
for Adults
(ABA-2) Diadochokinetic Rate
Dabul (2000)
 Increasing Word Length
 (A & B)

 Limb Apraxia & Oral
 Apraxia

 Latency Time and Utterance
 Time for Polysyllabic Words

 Repeated trials

 Inventory of Articulation x
 Characteristics of Apraxia

Kaufman Speech
Praxis Test for
Children (KSPT)
Kaufman (1995)

Test of Oral and Limb Apraxia: Proximal
Limb Apraxia Gestures
(TOLA)
Helm-Estabrooks Limb Apraxia: Distal
(1992) Gestures

 Oral Apraxia

 Gestured Pictures

The Apraxia Volitional Oral Movement--
Profile: Verbal
Preschool (P)
School-age (S) Diadochokinesis
Hickman (1997) Words (repetition) (P)
 (S) Difficult word
 repetition
 Phrases and Sentences (P, S)
 (S) Rhymes
 (S) Counting
 (S) Prosody

 Connected Speech Sample

 Nonverbal

 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Listener

Apraxia battery
for Adults
(ABA-2) Diadochokinetic Rate x
Dabul (2000)
 Increasing Word Length
 (A & B)

 Limb Apraxia & Oral
 Apraxia

 Latency Time and Utterance
 Time for Polysyllabic Words

 Repeated trials

 Inventory of Articulation
 Characteristics of Apraxia

Kaufman Speech x
Praxis Test for
Children (KSPT)
Kaufman (1995)

Test of Oral and Limb Apraxia: Proximal x
Limb Apraxia Gestures
(TOLA)
Helm-Estabrooks Limb Apraxia: Distal x
(1992) Gestures

 Oral Apraxia x

 Gestured Pictures x

The Apraxia Volitional Oral Movement-- x
Profile: Verbal
Preschool (P)
School-age (S) Diadochokinesis x
Hickman (1997) Words (repetition) (P) x
 (S) Difficult word x
 repetition
 Phrases and Sentences (P, S) x
 (S) Rhymes x
 (S) Counting
 (S) Prosody x

 Connected Speech Sample

 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Comments

Apraxia battery Requires
for Adults comprehension
(ABA-2) Diadochokinetic Rate of "as
Dabul (2000) many as" and
 Increasing Word Length "as fast as"
 (A & B)

 Limb Apraxia & Oral Imitative
 Apraxia prompts

 Latency Time and Utterance
 Time for Polysyllabic Words

 Repeated trials Also requires
 self-echoic
 Inventory of Articulation
 Characteristics of Apraxia

Kaufman Speech
Praxis Test for
Children (KSPT)
Kaufman (1995)

Test of Oral and Limb Apraxia: Proximal Imitative
Limb Apraxia Gestures prompts
(TOLA)
Helm-Estabrooks Limb Apraxia: Distal Imitative
(1992) Gestures prompts

 Oral Apraxia Imitative
 prompts

 Gestured Pictures

The Apraxia Volitional Oral Movement--
Profile: Verbal
Preschool (P)
School-age (S) Diadochokinesis
Hickman (1997) Words (repetition) (P)
 (S) Difficult word
 repetition
 Phrases and Sentences (P, S) Requires
 (S) Rhymes prosody
 (S) Counting echoic
 (S) Prosody

 Connected Speech Sample Morpheme/in
 telligibility
 analysis

(a) Items marked (x) indicate additional operant repertoires required
or assessed by this item

(b) Correction prompts may additionally assess this operant

Table 4. Articulation/Phonology Tests

 Implied
 function of
 test items
 (a)

 Verbal

Test and authors) Sub-test name or description Mand Echoic

Bankson-Bernthal Test P (b)
of Phonology (BBTOP)
Bankson & Bernthal
(1990)

Clinical Assessment of Articulation Inventory: P
Articulation and consonants
Phonology (CAAP) Articulation Inventory:
Secord & Donohue sentences x
(2002) Phonological Processs Probes P

Comprehensive Test of Elision x
Phonological Rapid Color Naming
Processing for ages 5 Blending Words x
and 6(CTOPP) Sound Matching x
Wagner et al. (1999) Rapid Object Naming
 Memory for Digits x
 Nonword repetition x
 Blending Nonwords x

Goldman-Fristoe Test P
of Articulation (GFTA-
2)
Goldman & Fristoe
(2000)

Hodson Assessment of P
Phonological Patterns
(HAPP-3)
Hodson (2004)

Khan-Lewis P
Phonological Analysis
(KLPA-2)
Khan & Lewis (2002)

Photo Articulation Test P
(PAT-3)
Lippke et al. (1997)

 Implied
 function of
 test items
 (a)

 Verbal

Test and authors) Sub-test name or description Tact

Bankson-Bernthal Test x
of Phonology (BBTOP)
Bankson & Bernthal
(1990)

Clinical Assessment of Articulation Inventory: x
Articulation and consonants
Phonology (CAAP) Articulation Inventory:
Secord & Donohue sentences
(2002) Phonological Processs Probes x

Comprehensive Test of Elision
Phonological Rapid Color Naming x
Processing for ages 5 Blending Words
and 6 (CTOPP) Sound Matching x
Wagner et al. (1999) Rapid Object Naming x
 Memory for Digits
 Nonword repetition
 Blending Nonwords

Goldman-Fristoe Test x
of Articulation (GFTA-
2)
Goldman & Fristoe
(2000)

Hodson Assessment of x
Phonological Patterns
(HAPP-3)
Hodson (2004)

Khan-Lewis x
Phonological Analysis
(KLPA-2)
Khan & Lewis (2002)

Photo Articulation Test x
(PAT-3)
Lippke et al. (1997)

 Implied
 function of
 test items (a)

 Verbal

Test and authors) Sub-test name or description Intraverbal

Bankson-Bernthal Test
of Phonology (BBTOP)
Bankson & Bernthal
(1990)

Clinical Assessment of Articulation Inventory: P
Articulation and consonants
Phonology (CAAP) Articulation Inventory:
Secord & Donohue sentences
(2002) Phonological Processs Probes

Comprehensive Test of Elision x
Phonological Rapid Color Naming x
Processing for ages 5 Blending Words x
and 6 (CTOPP) Sound Matching x
Wagner et al. (1999) Rapid Object Naming x
 Memory for Digits
 Nonword repetition
 Blending Nonwords

Goldman-Fristoe Test (x)
of Articulation (GFTA-
2)
Goldman & Fristoe
(2000)

Hodson Assessment of (x)
Phonological Patterns
(HAPP-3)
Hodson (2004)

Khan-Lewis (x)
Phonological Analysis
(KLPA-2)
Khan & Lewis (2002)

Photo Articulation Test (x)
(PAT-3)
Lippke et al. (1997)

 Implied
 function of
 test items
 (a)

 Verbal

Test and authors) Sub-test name or description Textual

Bankson-Bernthal Test
of Phonology (BBTOP)
Bankson & Bernthal
(1990)

Clinical Assessment of Articulation Inventory:
Articulation and consonants
Phonology (CAAP) Articulation Inventory:
Secord & Donohue sentences
(2002) Phonological Processs Probes

Comprehensive Test of Elision
Phonological Rapid Color Naming
Processing for ages 5 Blending Words
and 6 (CTOPP) Sound Matching
Wagner et al. (1999) Rapid Object Naming
 Memory for Digits
 Nonword repetition
 Blending Nonwords

Goldman-Fristoe Test
of Articulation (GFTA-
2)
Goldman & Fristoe
(2000)

Hodson Assessment of
Phonological Patterns
(HAPP-3)
Hodson (2004)

Khan-Lewis
Phonological Analysis
(KLPA-2)
Khan & Lewis (2002)

Photo Articulation Test
(PAT-3)
Lippke et al. (1997)

 Nonverbal

Test and authors) Sub-test name or description Listener

Bankson-Bernthal Test
of Phonology (BBTOP)
Bankson & Bernthal
(1990)

Clinical Assessment of Articulation Inventory:
Articulation and consonants
Phonology (CAAP) Articulation Inventory:
Secord & Donohue sentences
(2002) Phonological Processs Probes

Comprehensive Test of Elision (x)
Phonological Rapid Color Naming (x)
Processing for ages 5 Blending Words
and 6 (CTOPP) Sound Matching
Wagner et al. (1999) Rapid Object Naming
 Memory for Digits
 Nonword repetition
 Blending Nonwords

Goldman-Fristoe Test
of Articulation (GFTA-
2)
Goldman & Fristoe
(2000)

Hodson Assessment of
Phonological Patterns
(HAPP-3)
Hodson (2004)

Khan-Lewis
Phonological Analysis
(KLPA-2)
Khan & Lewis (2002)

Photo Articulation Test
(PAT-3)
Lippke et al. (1997)

(a) Items marked (x) indicate additional operant repertoires
required or assessed by this item

(b) Correction prompts may additionally assess this operant

Table 5. Receptive-Expressive Language Tests

 Implied
 function
 of test
 items (a)

 Verbal

Test and author(s) Sub-test name or description Mand

Clinical Evaluation of Concepts & Following
Language Fundamentals Directions
Ages 5-8 (CELF-4) Word Structure
Semel et al. (2003) Recalling Sentences
 Formulated Sentences
 Word Classes 1 (ages 5-7)
 Word Classes 2 (ages 8-21)
 Sentence Structure
 Expressive Vocabulary
 Understanding Spoken
 Paragraphs
 Phonological Awareness
 Word Associations
 Number Repetition
 Familiar Sequences
 Rapid Automatic Naming
 Pragmatics Profile

Clinical Evaluation of Sentence Structure
Language Fundamentals Word Structure
Preschool Expressive Vocabulary
(CELF-P2) Concepts & Following
Wiig et al. (2004) Directions
 Recalling Sentences
 Basic Concepts
 Word Classes (Ages 4-6)
 Recalling Sentences in Context
 Phonological Awareness

Comprehensive Receptive Vocabulary
Receptive and Expressive Expressive Vocabulary
Vocabulary Test
(CREVT)
Wallace & Hammill
(1994)

MacArthur-Bates Checklist of words, phrases,
Communicative sentences
Development Inventories Instructions to mark words
Fenson et al. (2007) child uses

Preschool Language Auditory Comprehension
Scale (PLS-4)
Zimmerman et al. (2002) Expressive Communication x

Receptive-Expressive Receptive
Emergent Language Test Expressive x
(REEL-3)
Bzoch et al. (2003)

Test of Language Picture Vocabulary
Development--Primary Relational Vocabulary
(TOLD-P:3) Oral Vocabulary
Newcomer & Hamill Grammatic Understanding
(1988) Sentence Imitation
 Grammatic Completion
 Word Discrimination
 Phonemic Analysis
 Word Articulation

 Implied
 function
 of test
 items (a)

 Verbal

Test and author(s) Sub-test name or description Echoic

Clinical Evaluation of Concepts & Following
Language Fundamentals Directions
Ages 5-8 (CELF-4) Word Structure
Semel et al. (2003) Recalling Sentences x
 Formulated Sentences (x)
 Word Classes 1 (ages 5-7) (x)
 Word Classes 2 (ages 8-21) (x)
 Sentence Structure (x)
 Expressive Vocabulary
 Understanding Spoken
 Paragraphs
 Phonological Awareness x
 Word Associations P (b)
 Number Repetition x
 Familiar Sequences x
 Rapid Automatic Naming
 Pragmatics Profile

Clinical Evaluation of Sentence Structure (x)
Language Fundamentals Word Structure
Preschool Expressive Vocabulary
(CELF-P2) Concepts & Following (x)
Wiig et al. (2004) Directions
 Recalling Sentences x
 Basic Concepts (x)
 Word Classes (Ages 4-6) (x)
 Recalling Sentences in Context x
 Phonological Awareness x

Comprehensive Receptive Vocabulary (x)
Receptive and Expressive Expressive Vocabulary
Vocabulary Test
(CREVT)
Wallace & Hammill
(1994)

MacArthur-Bates Checklist of words, phrases,
Communicative sentences
Development Inventories Instructions to mark words
Fenson et al. (2007) child uses

Preschool Language Auditory Comprehension (x)
Scale (PLS-4)
Zimmerman et al. (2002) Expressive Communication x

Receptive-Expressive Receptive x
Emergent Language Test Expressive x
(REEL-3)
Bzoch et al. (2003)

Test of Language Picture Vocabulary (x)
Development--Primary Relational Vocabulary
(TOLD-P:3) Oral Vocabulary
Newcomer & Hamill Grammatic Understanding (x)
(1988) Sentence Imitation x
 Grammatic Completion
 Word Discrimination (x)
 Phonemic Analysis x
 Word Articulation P

 Implied
 function
 of test
 items (a)

 Verbal

Test and author(s) Sub-test name or description Tact

Clinical Evaluation of Concepts & Following
Language Fundamentals Directions
Ages 5-8 (CELF-4) Word Structure x
Semel et al. (2003) Recalling Sentences
 Formulated Sentences x
 Word Classes 1 (ages 5-7) (x)
 Word Classes 2 (ages 8-21) (x)
 Sentence Structure (x)
 Expressive Vocabulary x
 Understanding Spoken
 Paragraphs
 Phonological Awareness
 Word Associations
 Number Repetition
 Familiar Sequences
 Rapid Automatic Naming x
 Pragmatics Profile

Clinical Evaluation of Sentence Structure (x)
Language Fundamentals Word Structure x
Preschool Expressive Vocabulary x
(CELF-P2) Concepts & Following (x)
Wiig et al. (2004) Directions
 Recalling Sentences
 Basic Concepts (x)
 Word Classes (Ages 4-6) (x)
 Recalling Sentences in Context
 Phonological Awareness

Comprehensive Receptive Vocabulary (x)
Receptive and Expressive Expressive Vocabulary
Vocabulary Test
(CREVT)
Wallace & Hammill
(1994)

MacArthur-Bates Checklist of words, phrases,
Communicative sentences
Development Inventories Instructions to mark words
Fenson et al. (2007) child uses

Preschool Language Auditory Comprehension (x)
Scale (PLS-4)
Zimmerman et al. (2002) Expressive Communication x

Receptive-Expressive Receptive x
Emergent Language Test Expressive x
(REEL-3)
Bzoch et al. (2003)

Test of Language Picture Vocabulary (x)
Development--Primary Relational Vocabulary
(TOLD-P:3) Oral Vocabulary
Newcomer & Hamill Grammatic Understanding (x)
(1988) Sentence Imitation
 Grammatic Completion
 Word Discrimination
 Phonemic Analysis
 Word Articulation x

 Implied
 function
 of test
 items (a)

 Verbal

Test and author(s) Sub-test name or description Intraverbal

Clinical Evaluation of Concepts & Following
Language Fundamentals Directions
Ages 5-8 (CELF-4) Word Structure x
Semel et al. (2003) Recalling Sentences
 Formulated Sentences x
 Word Classes 1 (ages 5-7) x
 Word Classes 2 (ages 8-21) x
 Sentence Structure (x)
 Expressive Vocabulary x
 Understanding Spoken
 Paragraphs x
 Phonological Awareness (x)
 Word Associations x
 Number Repetition (x)
 Familiar Sequences (x)
 Rapid Automatic Naming
 Pragmatics Profile

Clinical Evaluation of Sentence Structure (x)
Language Fundamentals Word Structure x
Preschool Expressive Vocabulary x
(CELF-P2) Concepts & Following
Wiig et al. (2004) Directions
 Recalling Sentences
 Basic Concepts (x)
 Word Classes (Ages 4-6) x
 Recalling Sentences in Context
 Phonological Awareness (x)

Comprehensive Receptive Vocabulary
Receptive and Expressive Expressive Vocabulary x
Vocabulary Test
(CREVT)
Wallace & Hammill
(1994)

MacArthur-Bates Checklist of words, phrases,
Communicative sentences
Development Inventories Instructions to mark words
Fenson et al. (2007) child uses

Preschool Language Auditory Comprehension (x)
Scale (PLS-4)
Zimmerman et al. (2002) Expressive Communication x

Receptive-Expressive Receptive x
Emergent Language Test Expressive x
(REEL-3)
Bzoch et al. (2003)

Test of Language Picture Vocabulary
Development--Primary Relational Vocabulary x
(TOLD-P:3) Oral Vocabulary x
Newcomer & Hamill Grammatic Understanding
(1988) Sentence Imitation
 Grammatic Completion x
 Word Discrimination x
 Phonemic Analysis x
 Word Articulation x

 Implied
 function
 of test
 items (a)

 Verbal

Test and author(s) Sub-test name or description Textual

Clinical Evaluation of Concepts & Following
Language Fundamentals Directions
Ages 5-8 (CELF-4) Word Structure
Semel et al. (2003) Recalling Sentences
 Formulated Sentences
 Word Classes 1 (ages 5-7)
 Word Classes 2 (ages 8-21)
 Sentence Structure
 Expressive Vocabulary
 Understanding Spoken
 Paragraphs
 Phonological Awareness
 Word Associations
 Number Repetition
 Familiar Sequences
 Rapid Automatic Naming
 Pragmatics Profile

Clinical Evaluation of Sentence Structure
Language Fundamentals Word Structure
Preschool Expressive Vocabulary
(CELF-P2) Concepts & Following
Wiig et al. (2004) Directions
 Recalling Sentences
 Basic Concepts
 Word Classes (Ages 4-6)
 Recalling Sentences in Context
 Phonological Awareness

Comprehensive Receptive Vocabulary
Receptive and Expressive Expressive Vocabulary
Vocabulary Test
(CREVT)
Wallace & Hammill
(1994)

MacArthur-Bates Checklist of words, phrases,
Communicative sentences
Development Inventories Instructions to mark words
Fenson et al. (2007) child uses

Preschool Language Auditory Comprehension
Scale (PLS-4)
Zimmerman et al. (2002) Expressive Communication

Receptive-Expressive Receptive
Emergent Language Test Expressive
(REEL-3)
Bzoch et al. (2003)

Test of Language Picture Vocabulary
Development--Primary Relational Vocabulary
(TOLD-P:3) Oral Vocabulary
Newcomer & Hamill Grammatic Understanding
(1988) Sentence Imitation
 Grammatic Completion
 Word Discrimination
 Phonemic Analysis
 Word Articulation

 Nonverbal

Test and author(s) Sub-test name or description Listener

Clinical Evaluation of Concepts & Following x
Language Fundamentals Directions
Ages 5-8 (CELF-4) Word Structure
Semel et al. (2003) Recalling Sentences
 Formulated Sentences (x)
 Word Classes 1 (ages 5-7) x
 Word Classes 2 (ages 8-21) x
 Sentence Structure x
 Expressive Vocabulary
 Understanding Spoken
 Paragraphs
 Phonological Awareness
 Word Associations
 Number Repetition
 Familiar Sequences
 Rapid Automatic Naming
 Pragmatics Profile

Clinical Evaluation of Sentence Structure x
Language Fundamentals Word Structure
Preschool Expressive Vocabulary
(CELF-P2) Concepts & Following x
Wiig et al. (2004) Directions
 Recalling Sentences
 Basic Concepts x
 Word Classes (Ages 4-6) x
 Recalling Sentences in Context
 Phonological Awareness

Comprehensive Receptive Vocabulary x
Receptive and Expressive Expressive Vocabulary
Vocabulary Test
(CREVT)
Wallace & Hammill
(1994)

MacArthur-Bates Checklist of words, phrases,
Communicative sentences
Development Inventories Instructions to mark words
Fenson et al. (2007) child uses

Preschool Language Auditory Comprehension x
Scale (PLS-4)
Zimmerman et al. (2002) Expressive Communication

Receptive-Expressive Receptive x
Emergent Language Test Expressive
(REEL-3)
Bzoch et al. (2003)

Test of Language Picture Vocabulary x
Development--Primary Relational Vocabulary
(TOLD-P:3) Oral Vocabulary
Newcomer & Hamill Grammatic Understanding x
(1988) Sentence Imitation
 Grammatic Completion
 Word Discrimination
 Phonemic Analysis
 Word Articulation

Test and author(s) Sub-test name or description Comments

Clinical Evaluation of Concepts & Following
Language Fundamentals Directions
Ages 5-8 (CELF-4) Word Structure
Semel et al. (2003) Recalling Sentences
 Formulated Sentences
 Word Classes 1 (ages 5-7)
 Word Classes 2 (ages 8-21)
 Sentence Structure
 Expressive Vocabulary
 Understanding Spoken
 Paragraphs
 Phonological Awareness
 Word Associations
 Number Repetition
 Familiar Sequences
 Rapid Automatic Naming
 Pragmatics Profile Informant

Clinical Evaluation of Sentence Structure
Language Fundamentals Word Structure
Preschool Expressive Vocabulary
(CELF-P2) Concepts & Following
Wiig et al. (2004) Directions
 Recalling Sentences
 Basic Concepts
 Word Classes (Ages 4-6)
 Recalling Sentences in Context
 Phonological Awareness

Comprehensive Receptive Vocabulary
Receptive and Expressive Expressive Vocabulary
Vocabulary Test
(CREVT)
Wallace & Hammill
(1994)

MacArthur-Bates Checklist of words, phrases,
Communicative sentences Informant
Development Inventories Instructions to mark words
Fenson et al. (2007) child uses

Preschool Language Auditory Comprehension Allows
Scale (PLS-4) informant
Zimmerman et al. (2002) Expressive Communication Allows
 informant

Receptive-Expressive Receptive Informant
Emergent Language Test Expressive Informant
(REEL-3)
Bzoch et al. (2003)

Test of Language Picture Vocabulary
Development--Primary Relational Vocabulary
(TOLD-P:3) Oral Vocabulary
Newcomer & Hamill Grammatic Understanding
(1988) Sentence Imitation
 Grammatic Completion
 Word Discrimination
 Phonemic Analysis
 Word Articulation

(a) Items marked (x) indicate additional operant repertoires required
or assessed by this item

(b) Correction prompts may additionally assess this operant

Table 6. Expressive Language Tests

 Implied function of
 test items (a)

 Verbal
 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Mand Echoic Tact

Expressive One- x
Word Picture
Vocabulary lest
(LOWPVT)
Gardner (1990)

Expressive x
Vocabulary Test
(EVT)
Williams (1997)

Structured x
Photographic
Expressive
Language Test
(SPELT-3)
Dawson et al.
(2003)

Test of Word
Finding Picture Naming Nouns P (b) x
(TWF-2)
German (2000)
 Sentence Completion
 Naming P
 Picture Naming Verbs P x

 Picture Naming Categories P x

 Implied function of
 test items (a)

 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Intraverbal Textual

Expressive One- (x)
Word Picture
Vocabulary lest
(LOWPVT)
Gardner (1990)

Expressive x
Vocabulary Test
(EVT)
Williams (1997)

Structured x
Photographic
Expressive
Language Test
(SPELT-3)
Dawson et al.
(2003)

Test of Word
Finding Picture Naming Nouns
(TWF-2)
German (2000)
 Sentence Completion
 Naming x
 Picture Naming Verbs

 Picture Naming Categories

 Nonverbal
 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Listener Comments

Expressive One-
Word Picture
Vocabulary lest
(LOWPVT)
Gardner (1990)

Expressive
Vocabulary Test
(EVT)
Williams (1997)

Structured
Photographic
Expressive
Language Test
(SPELT-3)
Dawson et al.
(2003)

Test of Word Accuracy
Finding Picture Naming Nouns (x) plus
(TWF-2) response
German (2000) time
 Sentence Completion
 Naming (x)
 Picture Naming Verbs (x)
 Accuracy
 plus
 Picture Naming Categories (x) response
 time

(a) Items marked (x) indicate additional operant repertoires required
or assessed by this item

(b) Correction prompts may additionally assess this operant

Table 7. Receptive Language Tests

 Implied function of
 test items (a)

 Verbal
 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Mand Echoic Tact

Peabody Picture (x) (x)
Vocabulary Test
(PPVT-3)
Dunn el al.
(1997)

Receptive One- (x) (x)
Word Picture
Vocabulary lest
(ROWPVT)
Brownell (2000)

Test for Auditory Vocabulary (x) (x)
Comprehension
of Language Grammatical Morphemes (x) (x)
(TACL-3)
Carrow-Woolfolk Elaborated Phrases and (x) (x)
(1999) Sentences

 Implied function of
 test items (a)

 Verbal

 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Intraverbal Textual

Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test
(PPVT-3)
Dunn el al.
(1997)

Receptive One-
Word Picture
Vocabulary lest
(ROWPVT)
Brownell (2000)

Test for Auditory Vocabulary
Comprehension
of Language Grammatical Morphemes
(TACL-3)
Carrow-Woolfolk Elaborated Phrases and
(1999) Sentences

 Nonverbal
 Sub-test name or
Test and author(s) description Listener

Peabody Picture x
Vocabulary Test
(PPVT-3)
Dunn el al.
(1997)

Receptive One- x
Word Picture
Vocabulary lest
(ROWPVT)
Brownell (2000)

Test for Auditory Vocabulary x
Comprehension
of Language Grammatical Morphemes x
(TACL-3)
Carrow-Woolfolk Elaborated Phrases and x
(1999) Sentences

(a) Items marked (x) indicate additional operant repertoires
required or assessed by this item
COPYRIGHT 2010 Behavior Analyst Online
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Esch, Barbara E.; LaLonde, Kate B.; Esch, John W.
Publication:The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis
Date:May 13, 2010
Words:14747
Previous Article:Behavioral vs. cognitive views of speech perception and production.
Next Article:Effects of a speaker immersion procedure on the production of verbal operants.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2015 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters