Nesrhtens…..

In the recent issue of The Behavior Analyst, no 32 – 2009, Stewart and McElwee brings up an interesting and potentially important point in describing and reporting research on relational responding; the use of terminology. As with all behavior analytic, and should be with all other research, the use of standardized terminology is a precondition for replication and for applying the research in practice. So it´s an important issue to address.

Stewart and McElwee reviews two papers, Berens and Hayes (2009) and Fin and Harrington (2007), where both studies has been using a procedures to establish contextual cues for generalizing relational responding. But there is according to Stewart and McElwee an inconsistency in the use of term, as I quite agree on.

And I really find it useful to adapt their conclusion and suggestion to a solution to avoid such inconsistencies in the future:

labeling in studies on relational responding should focus on the functional target of the protocol with respect to the behavior of the experimental subject rather than on some alternative feature of the protocol.

This of course not in conflict with investigating different aspects of teaching protocols, but as a mean to uphold a consistent terminology supporting applying the findings and replication.

Related posts:

1. Derived relational responding
2. Derived Relational Responding Applications for Learners with Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities: A Progressive Guide to Change
3. Derived relational responding and EIBI