JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2020, 53, 10–24 NUMBER 1 (WINTER)

The importance of multiple exemplar instruction in the

establishment of novel verbal behavior
DANIELLE L. LAFRANCE
ENDICOTT COLLEGE AND H.O.P.E. CONSULTING, LLC

JONATHAN TARBOX
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND FIRSTSTEPS FOR KIDS

According to traditional linguistic accounts language, and its generative nature, cannot be taught.
From a behavior analytic perspective, language is like any other behavior; it is learned and amenable
to change. Based upon Skinner’s radical behavioral analysis of verbal behavior, specific procedures
have been designed to promote novel verbal relations. However, despite the strength and utility of this
approach, using behavioral principles to understand the generativity of language has been challenging.
Dependent upon the specific theory (e.g., stimulus equivalence, relational frame theory, bidirectional
naming) within the radical behavioral orientation, researchers arrange unique procedures to evaluate
the variables responsible for this phenomenon. This paper presents the commonalities and differences
of two procedures (i.e., multiple exemplar training, multiple exemplar instruction) with examples of
research highlighting the use of both in producing generativity. Further, it describes how multiple
exemplar instruction is independent from other procedures leading to this outcome, and concludes
by providing recommendations for both research and practice.
Key words: generativity, intervention, multiple exemplar instruction, multiple exemplar
training, verbal behavior

Traditional linguistic accounts ascribe the prov-
enance of language to innate human abilities and
account for the generative nature of language as a
function of internal mechanisms or hypothetical
constructs (Chomsky, 1959; Pinker, 1994).
According to these explanations, language is
unlike other forms of behavior, in that this capac-
ity cannot, and need not, be taught. One’s biolog-
ical make-up prepares them to learn language
(Pinker, 1994). The concerning implication is
that language may not be ameliorated through
intervention (LaFrance & Miguel, 2014). In
1957, B. F. Skinner published a behavior-analytic
account refuting this notion. He proposed a tax-
onomy of analytic units (i.e., verbal operants)
The authors would like to thank Caio Miguel for his
suggestions on a previous version of this manuscript.
Address correspondence to: Danielle LaFrance,
H.O.P.E. Consulting, LLC., 7949 California Avenue, Fair
Oaks, CA 95628 (email: dlafrance@hopeconsulting.net)
doi: 10.1002/jaba.611
© 2019 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
10
which comprised all human language. In keeping
with a radical behavioral orientation, Skinner pos-
ited that verbal behavior is like any other behavior
in that it is learned via the individual’s experiences.
Thus, verbal behavior can be both explained and
changed via analyses of behavior–environment
relations. Since Skinner’s original writing, much
research employing behavior-analytic principles to
investigate the development and remediation of
language has been published (e.g., Akers et al.,
2019; Carr & Miguel, 2013; Frampton &
Shillingsburg, 2018; Marcon-Dawson, Vicars, &
Miguel, 2009; Oah & Dickinson, 1989;
Sautter & LeBlanc, 2006; Shafer, 1995; Stauch,
LaLonde, Plavnik, Bak, & Gatewood, 2017;
Wiskow, Matter, & Donaldson, 2018). Taken
together, the results of these studies contradict the
idea of language as an innate and immoveable
entity.
Despite the strength and utility of Skinner’s
analysis of verbal behavior, some may argue that
using behavioral principles to understand the
 MULTIPLE EXEMPLAR INSTRUCTION
inherent complexity of an adult’s language has
been challenging. This complexity, in part, has to
do with the generativity of language (Törneke,
2010). That is, typically developing individuals
often demonstrate novel, and advanced
(e.g., metaphors, analogies) forms of language
without the need for specific teaching. This capac-
ity to demonstrate novel, untaught, and advanced
response forms is a critical feature defining mature
language repertoires. However, explanations of
this repertoire appealing only to stimulus control,
generalization, and motivating operations
(Skinner, 1957) may be unsatisfactory
(e.g., Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001).
For the purposes of this paper, generativity is
used as an umbrella term referring to demonstra-
tions of any novel responses, including stimulus
and response generalization, equivalence, and
emerging operants (i.e., not directly trained). In
contrast, the term generalization is used to refer to
instances in which either previously trained
responses are occasioned by stimuli differing from
those in training (i.e., stimulus generalization), or
instances in which slight variations in response
topography are occasioned by similar stimulus
conditions (i.e., response generalization). Equiva-
lence is used to refer to demonstrations of new
behavioral relations following training of other
relations (e.g., matching A to C after being taught
to match A to B and A to C), and emergence is
used to refer to the demonstration of new response
forms in stimulus conditions in which other
response forms have been taught (e.g., tacting or
manding following echoic training).
Behavior-analytic researchers have begun con-
ducting investigations examining possible mecha-
nisms for language generativity (e.g., Miguel,
2016, 2018; Miguel et al., 2015; Ming & Stewart,
2017; Moran, Walsh, Stewart, McElwee, &
Ming, 2015; Stewart, McElwee, & Ming, 2013).
Much of the work done on this topic is based
upon one of three distinct theoretical frameworks:
stimulus equivalence (Sidman, 1971; 2000), rela-
tional frame theory (RFT; Hayes et al., 2001), or
naming (Horne & Lowe, 1996; 1997) also
11
referred to as bidirectional naming or BiN
(Miguel, 2016). Each approach also has its own
methodological traditions. That is, a researcher’s
framework (i.e., stimulus equivalence, RFT,
BiN), determines the sets of procedures used to
evaluate the variables responsible for generativity.
In stimulus equivalence, research predominantly
relies upon matching-to-sample (MTS) task prepa-
rations, in which several sample (i.e., conditional)
and comparison (i.e., discriminative) stimuli are
presented according to a four-term contingency.
This strategy has been shown to lead to the devel-
opment of classes whose members share the same
function (e.g., Dougher, Augustson, Markham,
Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994; Griffith, Ramos,
Hill, & Miguel, 2018; Lillie & Tiger, 2019;
Saunders, Drake, & Spradlin, 1999; Sidman &
Tailby, 1982). In RFT, the establishment of rela-
tional frames and the genesis of derived behavior is
typically examined via an arranged history of multi-
ple exemplar training (MET; e.g., Baltruschat
et al., 2011; Baltruschat et al., 2012; Berens &
Hayes, 2007; Gould, Tarbox, O’Hora, Noone, &
Bergstrom, 2011; Luciano, Becerra, & Valverde,
2007; Najdowski, Bergstrom, Tarbox, & St. Clair,
2017; Najdowski, St. Clair, Fullen, Child, Per-
sicke, & Tarbox, 2018; Persicke, Tarbox,
Ranick, & St. Clair, 2012; Sivaraman, 2017; Tar-
box, Zuckerman, Bishop, Olive, & O’Hora,
2011). Thus, multiple exemplar training is utilized
within both the stimulus equivalence and RFT
approaches. When studying BiN (Miguel, 2016),
researchers used multiple exemplar instruction
(MEI; e.g., Arntzen & Almas, 2002; Carroll &
Hesse, 1987; Eby, Greer, Tullo, Baker, & Pauly,
2010; Greer, Stolfi, Chavez-Brown, & Rivera-
Valdes, 2005; Greer, Stolfi, & Pistoljevic, 2007;
Olaff, Ona, & Holth, 2017; Speckman, Greer, &
Rivera-Valdes, 2012) to produce interdependence
between speaker and listener repertoires, or
between verbal operants within the same reper-
toire. What follows is a brief description of both
MET and MEI and a short review of some of the
research highlighting the use of both in producing
generativity. A discussion of MEI’s independence
12 DANIELLE L. LAFRANCE and JONATHAN TARBOX
from MET, as well as the implications for MEI’s
use is also included. In the hopes of encouraging
clarity and accuracy, recommendations for both
research and practice are provided.
PROCEDURAL AND TERMINOLOGICAL
DISTINCTIONS
Clear distinctions in terminology are necessary
to better understand the extant literature on MET
and MEI. These distinctions are proffered not
only to assist readers in interpreting the studies
discussed below, but also in a broader sense. More
specifically, although the terms MET and MEI
are used interchangeably at times (e.g., Byrne,
Rehfeldt, & Aguirre, 2014; Greer & Ross, 2008),
they refer to two different procedures with distinct
parameters and outcomes.
MET
Most interventions referred to as MET include
the presentation of several different exemplars of
the same stimulus (Stokes & Baer, 1977). For
example, when teaching the tact, ‘dog,’ numerous
different pictures of dogs are presented to ensure
responding comes under the control of all appro-
priate stimuli within that class (Skinner, 1957).
Stimuli presented in this context may be highly
(e.g., a Chihuahua, a Boxer, and a Newfound-
land) or minimally (e.g., a Husky, an Akita, and a
German Shepard) discriminable from one
another, may range in shape, size, and color, may
depict dogs in different positions or orientations
(e.g., laying, sitting, standing), and may have dif-
ferent backgrounds (e.g., blank white back-
grounds and more natural contexts). Additionally,
MET can involve the presentation of stimuli
depicting the same teaching target in different for-
mats. These stimuli may range from the object
itself to pictures or abstract line drawings of the
object. For instance, if teaching a child to respond
to the auditory stimulus “dog” as a listener, one
may point to the dog and say “dog” in the pres-
ence of the animal. Other teaching opportunities,
or trials, targeting the same response may entail
the presentation of an array of several photo-
graphs, with a picture of a dog among them. Fur-
ther, a child may be asked to point to a dog
illustrated upon a page in a book. Thus, behaviors
acquired through MET are described as responses
that have come under the control of “stimulus fea-
tures present in the exemplars used during
training,” which are also evoked by subsequent
presentations of “novel stimuli that share these
features” (Marzullo-Kerth, Reeve, Reeve, &
Townsend, 2011, p. 280). Novel behavior
(or generativity) may then be based upon stimulus
generalization, and potentially enhanced or lim-
ited by the extent to which stimuli resemble one
another (Catania, 2013; Jenkins & Harrison,
1960; Young, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson,
1994). After acquiring the tact “dog” in the pres-
ence of a Golden Labrador, a child may, for
instance, also tact similar dogs (e.g., Chocolate
and Black Labradors, Golden Retrievers). In sum-
mary, MET typically consists of the presentation
of different exemplars (Sprague & Horner, 1984)
to a learner whose target response topography typ-
ically remains constant, and training continues
until probes reveal that generalization to
untrained stimuli has occurred.
Alternatively, MET may also be utilized to
teach response generalization (Cooper, Heron, &
Heward, 2007; Holth, 2017). In this type of
application, discriminative stimuli may remain
the same, while the response topography differs
slightly across consecutive trials. When teaching
intraverbals related to personal information, for
example, several different response topographies
may be appropriate. When teaching a child to
respond to the question, “what’s your name” there
are some different response options, with varia-
tions in length and structure, that are likely appro-
priate (e.g., responding with just one’s name,
responding with a more complete sentence like
“My name is ___”). It should be noted, however,
that each different response topography serves the
same function. That is, although several different
response options may produce reinforcement, they
all belong to the same operant class. In this
 MULTIPLE EXEMPLAR INSTRUCTION
example, each response consists of an intraverbal,
evoked by a prior verbal stimulus, and maintain-
ed by generalized conditioned reinforcement
(Skinner, 1957). This is an important point, and
one that will be revisited in the description of
MEI below. Thus, MET may be more accurately
described as a teaching procedure used to system-
atically program for generalization (stimulus or
response) that exemplifies the concept of ‘training
sufficient exemplars’ as discussed in Stokes and
Baer’s (1977) seminal paper.
MEI
Most procedures referred to as MEI in the liter-
ature include rapidly and randomly rotating
instructions targeting different verbal operants
across a series of consecutive trials. For example,
when teaching a child to respond to the stimulus
‘dog,’ consecutive trials within a block may target
selection responses (i.e., listener behavior1), tacts,
echoics, and mands (i.e., speaker behavior) in
quick succession. Antecedents and consequences
are arranged according to Skinner’s (1957) taxon-
omy such that they come to evoke the specific ver-
bal operants to which they correspond. During a
trial targeting a selection response, for example, an
array of pictures which includes a picture of a dog
may be presented. The child may then be
instructed to “find dog,” and a correct selection
results in some form of generalized conditioned
reinforcement, such as praise or a token. During a
tact trial, the correct vocalization “dog” is
occasioned by the presentation of a nonverbal
stimulus (i.e., the picture of the dog); whereas
during an echoic trial, the correct vocalization
“dog” is occasioned by a teacher saying “dog.” In
this case, the learner’s correct vocal response must
have point-to-point correspondence with the
1
Listener behavior is not defined as a verbal operant in
Verbal Behavior (Skinner, 1957), and it is not suggested
that readers begin to refer to listener behavior as such.
Any reference to listener behavior as a verbal operant in
the current paper is purely for ease of reference and
discussion.
13
verbal antecedent. The delivery of generalized
conditioned reinforcement would follow all
correct tacts and echoics. During mand trials,
the teacher ensures an appropriate motivating
operation (MO; Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, &
Poling, 2003; Michael & Miguel, 2020) is in
place, likely via some sort of deprivation proce-
dure, and a correct response results in the man-
ded item.
Generally speaking, procedures referred to as
MEI involve “a special kind of task interspersal of
various novel and acquired exemplars across verbal
operant categories … In this arrangement, the
same target is taught simultaneously as two or
more different verbal operants” (Sidener et al.,
2010, p.15). The distinguishing feature of MEI in
comparison to MET is that the function of
responses across consecutive trials differs. MEI
procedures consist of the rotation of different ver-
bal operants with different functions (e.g., match,
point to, tact, multiply controlled tact) across a
series of consecutive trials (Greer, Stolfi, et al.,
2005). Often, teaching continues across new sets
of stimuli until probe data reveal that teaching
only one operant produces untrained operants for
that same response form (e.g., teaching a listener
response, such as pointing, results in untrained
speaker behavior, such as a tact).
APPLICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
OF MET
As mentioned above, MET has been utilized to
teach both stimulus and response generalization.
Studies targeting stimulus generalization follow-
ing MET have evaluated variations in stimulus
conditions including changes to physical stimulus
properties (e.g., objects versus pictures), changes
in behavior change agents (e.g., parents, teachers,
siblings, peers), and changes in settings or envi-
ronments (e.g., home, school, community). For
example, Parsonson and Baer (1978) evaluated
demonstrations of generalized problem solving
across five young children. Three different activi-
ties (i.e., hammering, storing items in containers,
14 DANIELLE L. LAFRANCE and JONATHAN TARBOX
and lacing) were presented to participants. In
baseline, the experimenters provided specific
items for each activity (e.g., a hammer with a tool
bench, laces with a lace board), along with a
description and model of appropriate engagement
(e.g., using the hammer to drive pegs down into
the tool bench). Correct participant engagement
resulted in praise. Then, a generalization probe
was conducted in which the same activities were
presented, but the specific items associated with
each activity (e.g., the hammer) were removed.
Instead, the experimenters provided participants
with other items that could be used as substitutes
(e.g., a cotton spool instead of a hammer). Five to
seven items were probed for each activity. Follow-
ing the probes, the participants were trained to
use the substitute items to engage in each activity.
The substitute items varied across sessions.
Finally, follow-up probes were conducted to assess
for maintenance. Results showed that all partici-
pants engaged in little to no problem-solving dur-
ing baseline, that training produced generalized
problem-solving within each activity, and that
trained improvisation responses maintained at fol-
low up. Interestingly, however, problem-solving
did not generalize across different activities.
Despite this limitation, the results of this study
support the notion that programming for multiple
stimulus exemplars can lead to the generalization
of important skills.
Studies on MET targeting response generaliza-
tion teach variations in response topographies,
often in combination with the presentation of sev-
eral different stimulus exemplars. For example,
Sprague and Horner (1984) evaluated the effec-
tiveness of different parameters to teach the gener-
alized use of vending machines to students with
disabilities. Students were taught to use a vending
machine in one of three conditions: a) the use of a
single vending machine (i.e., single instance), b)
the use of three different, albeit similar vending
machines (i.e., multiple instances), and c) the use
of three different vending machines that sampled
the full range of both stimulus and response exem-
plars required to obtain items (i.e., general case) via
a multiple baseline design across participants. Base-
line consisted of probing the participants’ profi-
ciency with vending machine usage. Following
baseline, three of the six participants were exposed
to the single-instance condition followed by the
multiple-instance condition. For the remaining
three participants, baseline was followed by single-
instance, multiple-instance, and then general-case
training. Across all participants, general-case train-
ing yielded the highest number of correct
responses during generalization probes.
Overall, the body of literature shows that MET
can be implemented to produce generalization of
important skills such as imitation (e.g., Garcia,
Baer, & Firestone, 1971), mands (e.g., Najdowski,
Bergstrom, et al., 2017), conversation (e.g., Garcia-
Albea, Reeve, Reeve, & Brothers, 2014; Park &
Gaylord-Ross, 1989), vocational skills (e.g., Horner
& McDonald, 1982), sharing (e.g., Marzullo-
Kerth et al., 2011), and helping (e.g., Reeve, Reeve,
Townsend, & Poulson, 2007). Moreover, multiple
exemplars have included several different variations
of stimuli/stimulus conditions, such as peers
(e.g., Hughes, Harmer, Killian, & Niarhos, 1995;
Najdowski et al., 2018), settings (e.g., Miller &
Sloane, 1976; Miltenberger et al., 2013), and appa-
ratuses (e.g., Parsonson & Baer, 1978; Sprague &
Horner, 1984). Although a full review of the
behavior-analytic literature on MET falls outside
the scope of the current paper, the sheer volume of
empirical work, as well as the robustness of the
findings, show that MET can be successfully
applied to produce generativity in the form of
either stimulus or response generalization. Use of
teaching procedures that incorporate both stimulus
and response generalization may be the most effi-
cient and effective way to employ MET.
APPLICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE
OF MEI
Broadly speaking, the literature investigating
the effects of MEI can be categorized into two
subtypes: 1) studies aimed at establishing
bidirectionality between speaker and listener
 MULTIPLE EXEMPLAR INSTRUCTION
repertoires, and 2) studies aimed at examining
the utility of MEI in the development of more
complex forms of generativity (e.g., taking dic-
tation and intraverbal spelling) by establishing
interdependence between verbal operants.
Interpretation of this range of complexity is
perhaps best described as a continuum, with
the establishment of prerequisites (see Greer
et al., 2007) for bidirectionality between
speaker and listener repertoires lying at one end
(i.e., its simplest level), and the emergence of
more sophisticated operants (see Eby et al.,
2010, Luke, Greer, Singer-Dudek, & Keohane,
2011, and Speckman et al., 2012) lying at its
opposite end (i.e., its most complex). A brief
review of both research subtypes is provided
below.
MEI to Establish Bidirectionality
In one of the first demonstrations of its kind,
Greer, Stolfi, et al. (2005) sought to determine
whether MEI would result in transfer between
listener and speaker repertoires with three par-
ticipants with language and developmental
delays. Participants did not demonstrate
responding characteristic of BiN (i.e., emitting
speaker behavior after having learned listener
behavior, or vice versa) prior to the start of the
study. Dependent measures consisted of correct
visual–visual matches, selections (i.e., pointing
to the correct stimulus in the presence of its
dictated name), tacts, and multiply controlled
tacts (i.e., tacts when shown a picture and
asked, “What is this?”). The authors collected
data on the dependent variables across three
sets of five stimuli (for a total of 15 stimuli), in
20-trial blocks (for a total of four different
response types for each stimulus). Target
responses were measured across the following
phases of a multiple baseline design across stim-
ulus sets and participants: 1) pre-experimental
probes for all response types (i.e., matching,
pointing to, tacts, and impure tacts) across all
stimuli; 2) matching instruction for Set
15
1 stimuli; 3) emergence probes for all other
response types for Set 1 stimuli; 4) MEI for Set
2 stimuli; 5) post-MEI probes for all untaught
response types for Set 1 stimuli; 6) matching
instruction for Set 3 stimuli; and 7) emergence
probes of all other response types for Set 3 stim-
uli. Results showed that after matching training
with one set of stimuli, participants demon-
strated a higher number of correct responses in
listener trials (i.e., point to). Interestingly, it
was not until participants received MEI train-
ing with one set of stimuli that improved accu-
racy was observed in speaker trials (i.e., tacts,
multiply controlled tacts). Following MEI, the
researchers observed a high number of correct
responses across all response types (i.e., both
speaker and listener behavior) for the other two
untrained sets of stimuli.
Several additional studies examining the effects
of MEI on BiN have been conducted. All such
investigations have used procedures similar to
Greer, Stolfi, et al. (2005). Notably, these results
have been replicated across children with different
disabilities (e.g., learning delays and developmen-
tal disabilities, Greer et al., 2007; autism, Fiorile &
Greer, 2007; Olaff et al., 2017), typically develop-
ing children (Gilic & Greer, 2011), very young
(i.e., 2-year-old) children (Gilic & Greer, 2011),
children with varying numbers of prerequisite
BiN skills (e.g., echoics, tacts, and listener behav-
ior), and children with extremely limited vocal–
verbal repertoires (Fiorile & Greer, 2007).
Despite different procedural manipulations such
as echoic training during MTS instruction
(Cao & Greer, 2018; Hawkins, Kingsdorf, Char-
nock, Szabo, & Gautreaux, 2009; Olaff et al.,
2017) or matching without echoic training
(Gilic & Greer, 2011), results show that BiN did
not emerge until after MEI was implemented.
Studies have also compared MEI to single-
exemplar instruction (SEI; e.g., Greer et al.,
2007), which consists of targeting a single verbal
operant at a time and teaching other verbal oper-
ants separately and sequentially via a series of sim-
ple discrimination contingencies (Green, 2001).
16 DANIELLE L. LAFRANCE and JONATHAN TARBOX
Similar to previous comparisons, participants
exposed to SEI did not demonstrate BiN until
they were also exposed to MEI. Moreover, replica-
tions have shown that many commonly used
teaching components (e.g., MTS, echoic training,
vocal modeling) do not produce BiN in isolation
(Cahill & Greer, 2014). In contrast, these studies
demonstrate that MEI reliably leads to the devel-
opment of BiN.
Taken together, the results of the aforemen-
tioned studies (Cahill & Greer, 2014; Fiorile &
Greer, 2007; Gilic & Greer, 2011; Greer, Stolfi,
et al, 2005; Greer et al., 2007; Olaff et al., 2017)
suggest that MEI can be used to effectively establish
functional interdependence between speaker and
listener repertoires. Most notably, these studies
show that the prerequisite skills required for BiN
(i.e., listener behavior, echoics, and tacts) can be
taught to children with even very limited vocal–
verbal repertoires, and that a subsequent
programmed history of MEI can lead to the devel-
opment of this critical cusp (Bosch & Fuqua,
2001; Rosales-Ruiz & Baer, 1997). These findings
have important implications for intervention pro-
grams teaching language, as BiN has been posited
as a necessary prerequisite for the acquisition of
additional language, as well as a foundational build-
ing block for the subsequent development of more
complex skills, such as categorization, problem-
solving, and analogical reasoning (Carp & Pet-
ursdottir, 2015; Jennings & Miguel, 2017; Kobari-
Wright & Miguel, 2014; Lee, Miguel, Darcey, &
Jennings, 2015; Lowe, Horne, & Hughes, 2005;
Ma, Miguel, & Jennings, 2016; Miguel et al.,
2015; Miguel & Kobari-Wright, 2013; Miguel,
Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2008; Sprinkle &
Miguel, 2013).
Moving Beyond Bidirectionality
Nuzzolo-Gomez and Greer (2004) were the
first to show that MEI can be used to extend
the bidirectionality between speaker and lis-
tener repertoires to more complex responses.
The authors evaluated the effects of MEI on
the emergence of adjective–object mands
(e.g., “I want a red car”) and tacts (e.g., “It’s a
red car”) via a multiple-probe design across par-
ticipants. Experimental conditions were similar
to those conducted in previous studies
(e.g., Fiorile & Greer, 2007; Greer, Stolfi,
et al., 2005), including: 1) pre-experimental
probes of adjective–object mands and tacts; 2)
counterbalanced training of mands and tacts
(i.e., teaching either adjective–object mands or
adjective–object tacts); 3) probes of emergent
adjective–object mands or tacts (for the previ-
ously untrained operant). This sequence was
repeated across three sets of stimuli. Results
showed that all four participants demonstrated
untaught adjective–object mands and tacts only
following MEI, but never following SEI. Addi-
tionally, all participants demonstrated untaught
adjective–object mands and tacts in probes with
two additional stimulus sets after MEI was
implemented with the first stimulus set. These
results point to MEI’s effectiveness in teaching
complex skills. That is, unlike studies using
MEI to establish BiN, participants in the pre-
sent study demonstrated skill transfer across
two different verbal operants (mands and tacts),
with an autoclitic frame (i.e., a sentence).
Nuzzolo-Gomez and Greer’s (2004) findings
have been replicated across participants of dif-
ferent ages (e.g., 3 to 7 years of age), with typi-
cally and atypically developing children (Luke,
et al., 2011), children with autism (Nuzzolo-
Gomez & Greer, 2004; Eby et al., 2010), bilin-
gual children (Luke et al., 2011), and across
verbal topographies (e.g., taking dictation and
vocal spelling, Eby et al., 2010; Greer, Yuan &
Gautreaux, 2005; regular and irregular past
tense verbs, Greer & Yuan, 2008; noun and
adjective forms containing suffixes ending in
‘-er’, Speckman et al., 2012). Further compari-
sons of the differential effectiveness of SEI and
MEI (Eby et al., 2010; Greer & Yuan, 2008;
Speckman et al., 2012) are consistent with pre-
vious research, showing that emergence was not
observed until participants received MEI.
 MULTIPLE EXEMPLAR INSTRUCTION
Collectively, the literature suggests that MEI
can be used to develop bidirectionality between
speaker and listener repertoires, to teach children
complex language skills, and to establish novel
verbal behavior without explicit teaching
(i.e., taking dictation, intraverbal spelling, and
autoclitic frames containing prepositions and
comparatives). As bidirectionality between speaker
and listener repertoires is merely a prerequisite for
the development of an adequate vocal–verbal
repertoire and speaking “with understanding”
(Miguel, 2016, p.129), MEI may have additional
utility in research and practice. However, more
research will need to be conducted before pre-
requisites necessary to produce the generativity
characteristic of adult language repertoires (e.g.,
intraverbal bidirectional naming, Jennings &
Miguel, 2017) can be attained.
Recommendations for Research
With few exceptions (i.e., Arntzen & Almas,
2002; Carroll & Hesse, 1987; Lechago, Carr,
Kisamore, & Grow, 2015; Olaff et al., 2017;
Sidener et al., 2010), the vast majority of studies
published demonstrating the effectiveness of MEI
in producing functional interdependence origi-
nate from the same group of researchers (i.e., Eby
et al., 2010; Fiorile & Greer, 2007; Greer &
Longano, 2010; Greer, Stolfi, et al., 2005; Greer
et al., 2007; Greer & Yuan, 2008; Greer, Yuan,
et al., 2005; Hawkins et al., 2009; Nuzzolo-
Gomez & Greer, 2004; Speckman et al., 2012). It
should be noted that some investigations con-
ducted by independent research laboratories have
failed to replicate the outcomes described above
(e.g., Lechago et al., 2015; Sidener et al., 2010).
Additional independent replications on the effects
of MEI are warranted to better understand the
strengths of this procedure.
Generalization appears to be the behavioral
mechanism responsible for the effects of MET. If
this is the case, MET leads to just that—
appropriate responding to untrained stimuli in
novel conditions. This responding, however, may
17
be limited by the extent to which the training stim-
uli resemble stimuli in novel contexts. Although
this outcome is meaningful, its potential for lead-
ing to additional generativity remains limited. In
contrast with MET, the mechanisms responsible
for the effects of MEI are not well understood,
though the authors cited in this review do suggest
a few potentials (e.g., transformation of function,
abstract stimulus control, joint stimulus control,
and the transformation of establishing operations).
If MEI achieves its effects due to the establishment
of abstract (Becker, 1992) or joint stimulus con-
trol2 (Greer, Stolfi, et al., 2005), MEI’s potential
for producing generativity is exponentially greater
than that of MET. Whereas MET varies exemplars
or responses and produces generalization within
the same operant, MEI varies antecedents and con-
sequences in a manner that appears to lead to bidi-
rectional relations across speaker and listener
repertoires as well as verbal operants. This is
important from a perspective of “learning to
learn,” as the structured opportunities to rapidly
respond to different stimuli and MOs in MEI
could help to establish multiple control over
responding (Skinner, 1957). The multiple control
of verbal operants has long been recognized as
essential for developing more complex skills
(Michael, Palmer, & Sundberg, 2011; Miguel,
2016), and is similarly necessary when developing
complex verbal repertoires. However, to date,
there are no empirical evaluations of MEI’s under-
lying mechanisms. Future studies examining this
question would lead to a greater understanding of
MEI’s effects, and could potentially provide clarity
regarding the application of this procedure, to
optimize learning outcomes in practice.
Although a history of training with both MET
and MEI can lead to generativity, this outcome is
achieved in different ways. The main differences
are 1) procedural arrangements and 2) the
2
In Greer, Stolfi, et al., 2005, joint stimulus control is
referred to as instances in which either 1) a single stimulus
comes to exert control jointly over several different
responses, or 2) a single response comes under the control
of several different establishing operations.
18 DANIELLE L. LAFRANCE and JONATHAN TARBOX
outcomes of variation. Therefore, as one might
expect, the type of generativity observed and the
extent to which generativity occurs differ with
each procedure. Research focused on the specific
parameters of each procedure (e.g., teaching single
stimulus exemplars using MEI, teaching multiple
exemplars combined with MEI) and the resulting
outcomes (i.e., BiN, transfer across operants,
stimulus generalization) is necessary. If, for
instance, stimulus generalization is observed to
improve following the use of MEI, this may be
the preferred teaching procedure as it leads to two
(versus one) desired outcomes (i.e., both BiN and
stimulus generalization). The results of such inves-
tigations would help to refine our understanding
of the necessary components of each procedure
and potentially help to streamline teaching by
maximizing efficiency.
It remains unclear how much exposure to MEI
is required before generative verbal behavior
becomes a generalized operant. Individual partici-
pant differences seem to determine the amount of
explicit teaching required for a successful outcome
(e.g., Fiorile & Greer, 2007; Greer & Longano;
2010; Greer, Stolfi, et al., 2005; Olaff et al., 2017).
For instance, one of the three participants in Olaff
et al. (2017) required MEI with two sets of stimuli
prior to demonstrating emergence of both speaker
and listener responses at criterion with a third and
final set of stimuli. A second participant was taught
two sets of stimuli using MEI, but did not meet cri-
terion in naming probes with a third and final set
of stimuli, and a third participant never met criterion
regardless of the number of sets taught in MEI. Dif-
ferent skills also seem to require different amounts of
exposure to MEI before generativity is demonstrated
(Eby et al., 2010). Similarly, different procedural
variations of MEI appear to produce different
degrees of complexity in emergent responses. In fact,
Lechago et al. (2015) concluded that their partici-
pants’ failures to demonstrate novel response forms
following MEI may have been due to the complexity
of the response required (i.e., intraverbal categoriza-
tion) following training of relatively simple response
forms (selection and tacts).
Finally, the effects of other types of procedural
parameters (e.g., prompts, schedules of reinforce-
ment) on MET and MEI, when combined in
teaching packages, remains largely unexplored.
Studies seeking to answer these types of questions
could produce some indication as to when indi-
vidual learners would benefit from each sequence
or combination of teaching procedures, as well as
which teaching strategies enhance or hinder
generativity.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Despite the need for further research, using
MEI as an intervention to produce generativity is
promising. Existing research suggests that the
greatest benefit of MEI lies in its ability to pro-
mote functional interdependence (Skinner, 1957)
between speaker and listener repertoires and
between verbal operants (Gamba, Goyos, & Pet-
ursdottir, 2015). This has significant implications
for treatment programs targeting language delays
and is particularly appealing for behavior analysts
charged with delivering necessary intervention to
children with developmental disabilities. Time
spent in intensive intervention is finite. Therefore,
teaching strategies that optimize learning and
quickly develop skill repertoires which allow
learners to respond to natural contingencies and
continue to learn in these contexts absent of sup-
portive services are needed (LaFrance &
Miguel, 2014).
In the early stages of language development, it
has been observed that individuals use and respond
to language in a manner consistent with the func-
tional independence of verbal operants (Hall &
Sundberg, 1987; Horne & Lowe, 1996;
Lamarre & Holland, 1985; Nuzzolo-Gomez &
Greer, 2004; Skinner, 1957). Otherwise stated,
emitting a response as one verbal operant
(e.g., saying ‘water’ as a mand) will not guarantee
the correct emission of that same response under
different stimulus conditions (e.g., saying ‘water’
as a tact). Over time, however, typically developing
individuals learn to respond appropriately in a
 MULTIPLE EXEMPLAR INSTRUCTION
variety of contexts, and emit the same response
topography across a multitude of stimulus condi-
tions without additional explicit teaching. This
suggests that at some point, functional
interdependence between verbal operants
develops, allowing the individual to respond in
novel (i.e., generative), appropriate, and adaptive
ways to his or her environment. BiN may be the
behavioral cusp (Rosales-Ruiz & Baer, 1997)
responsible for this new flexibility in responding
(Greer, Pohl, Du, & Moschella, 2017), and the
genesis of early generative verbal behavior. This, in
turn, may be key to the development of incidental
learning, which is necessary for a complete lan-
guage repertoire. Thus, BiN is worthy of special
attention, and should occupy an important place
in language intervention. The use of procedures
such as MEI may assist in developing BiN, leading
to incidental learning, more complex language
(Greer et al., 2017), and effective remediation of
language delays.
The place that MEI holds in relation to
other similar procedures (e.g., SEI, discrimina-
tion training, MET) is worthy of discussion.
When contrasting MET and MEI procedures
more specifically, some important trends with
implications for practice emerge. As each proce-
dure may lead to generativity to varying degrees
(Lechago et al., 2015), the question of when to
use a specific procedure arises. For example,
multiple experiences with different exemplars
of the same stimuli, as is characteristic of
MET, likely leads to a form of stimulus gener-
alization, with each response producing a com-
mon consequence (i.e., serving the same
function). MEI, on the other hand, consists of
the training of multiple operants with respect
to the same stimuli, and other operants. Given
the current body of evidence related to the
application and outcomes of each procedure,
we recommend that practitioners attempting to
produce either functional interdependence
between speaker and listener repertoires or
between verbal operants consider using MEI to
achieve this outcome. If, however, an
19
intervention pertains to generalization, MET
may be the procedure of choice. Until further
research investigating the aforementioned ques-
tions is published, it should not be assumed
that either procedure will lead to both func-
tional interdependence and generalization.
A compounding factor is related to the use
of the terms MET and MEI in the current
behavior-analytic literature. More specifically,
the term MEI has been found to appear in arti-
cles describing procedures in alignment with
MET, and vice versa (e.g., Byrne et al., 2014).
This particular issue will likely not be resolved
until such a time that a terminological change
is proposed for one or both terms and is subse-
quently adopted by the behavior-analytic com-
munity. This is an onerous task, as changing
the behavior-analytic vernacular once terms are
already widely in use can be a lengthy process
(although, see Laraway et al., 2003, and
Miguel, 2016 for examples).
One final recommendation is a cautionary
note. Absent a terminological change, behavior
analysts need not only be precise in the ways
they utilize MET and MEI in intervention, but
also in the way they speak about, and train
others in the use of these procedures. As a par-
ticular field’s language bears upon the cultural
practices of its scientists (Chiesa, 1994; Day,
1983), this point cannot be emphasized
enough. The verbal community directly influ-
ences the way science is conceptualized, which
in turn, affects experimental analysis and appli-
cation. After all, “a particularly desirable conse-
quence of this [verbal] control occurs when
people are equipped by it with new behavior
connected with practices of research which can
then be brought to bear upon an analysis of the
environmental control of behavior” (Day,
1983, p. 100). Precision with respect to the use
of these terms may result in more careful analy-
sis and could help sharpen our understanding
of generativity resulting from these procedures,
lead to more effective application, and optimize
language intervention. Perhaps, for now, the
20 DANIELLE L. LAFRANCE and JONATHAN TARBOX
most conservative approach is to reserve the
term MEI only for procedures aimed at teach-
ing functional interdependence by rotating
between trials focusing on speaker behavior, lis-
tener behavior, or the emission of distinct ver-
bal operants, while reserving the term MET
only for procedures aimed at improving stimu-
lus or response generalization through the sys-
tematic modification of stimuli or responses.
CONCLUSION
As a whole, the science of behavior analysis
has received criticism for its inability to account
for the generative nature of language
(e.g., Chomsky, 1959; Hayes et al., 2001;
Törneke, 2010). If behavior analysis is to
become a more mainstream science, ubiqui-
tously recognized and respected, it must
develop a complete explanation of all behavior.
To do so, the generativity of language so often
attributed by linguists and psychologists alike
(Chomsky, 1959; Pinker, 1994) to innate
abilities and hypothetical constructs, must be
explained via the individual’s learning history.
BiN may be the most basic skill needed
for this characteristic of language (Greer &
Longano, 2010; Miguel, 2016; 2018), and
MEI may represent an empirically validated
demonstration of how behavior–environment
interactions can be arranged to produce gener-
ativity in language, especially for those lacking
it. The distinctions made above, as well as the
brief review of the literature and discussion
related to each procedure is proffered in the
hopes of more clearly distinguishing MEI from
other procedures sharing common terms with
it (i.e., MET), stimulating additional research
on this topic, and providing clarifications
related to practice. Further investigations criti-
cally evaluating this procedure may very well
lead to an understanding of the mechanisms
by which MEI produces its effects, as well as
how it is related to different levels of simple
and complex responding. Contributions on
this front may in turn also lead to a more com-
plete account of generativity, and a science of
behavior better prepared to confront its critics.
REFERENCES
Akers, J. S., Retzlaff, B. J., Fisher, W. W., Greer, B. D.,
Kaminski, A. J., & DeSouza, A. (2019). An evalua-
tion of conditional manding using a four-component
multiple schedule. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
35, 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-018-
0099-9.
Arntzen, W., & Almas, I. K. (2002). Effects of mand-tact
versus tact-only training on the acquisition of tacts.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 419–422.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-419.
Baltruschat, L., Hasselhorn, M., Tarbox, J.,
Dixon, D. R., Najdowski, A. C., Mullins, R. D., &
Gould, E. (2011). Addressing working memory in
children with autism through behavioral intervention.
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 267–276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.04.008.
Baltruschat, L., Hasselhorn, M., Tarbox, J.,
Dixon, D. R., Najdowski, A., Mullins, R. D., &
Gould, E. (2012). The effects of multiple exemplar
training on a working memory task involving sequen-
tial responding in children with autism. Psychological
Record, 62, 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03395820.
Becker, W. (1992). Direct instruction: A twenty-year
review. In R. West & L. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Design
for educational excellence: The legacy of B.F. Skinner
(pp. 71–112). Sopris West: Longmont, CO.
Berens, N. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Arbitrarily applicable
comparative relations: Experimental evidence for a rela-
tional operant. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40,
45–71. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.7-06.
Bosch, S., & Fuqua, R. W. (2001). Behavioral cusps: A
model for selecting target behaviors. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 123–125. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-123.
Byrne, B. L., Rehfeldt, R., & Aguirre, A. A. (2014). Eval-
uating the effectiveness of the stimulus pairing obser-
vation procedure and multiple exemplar instruction
on tact and listener responses in children with autism.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 30, 160–169. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40616-014-0020-0.
Cahill, C. S., & Greer, R. D. (2014). Actions vs. words:
How we can learn both. Acta de Investigación
Psicolôgica, 4, 1716–1745. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S2007-4719(14)70976-7.
Cao, Y., & Greer, R. D. (2018). Mastery of echoics in
Chinese establishes bidirectional naming in Chinese
for preschoolers with naming in English. The Analysis
of Verbal Behavior, 34, 79–99. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40616-018-0106-1.
 MULTIPLE EXEMPLAR INSTRUCTION
Carp, C. L., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2015). Intraverbal
naming and equivalence class formation in children.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104,
223–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.183.
Carr, J. E., & Miguel, C. F. (2013). The analysis of verbal
behavior and its therapeutic applications. In
G. J. Madden (Ed.), APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis.
Volume 2. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13938-013.
Carroll, R. J., & Hesse, B. E. (1987). The effects of alter-
nating mand and tact training on the acquisition of
tacts. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 55–65.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392820.
Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Cornwall-on-
Hudson, NY: Sloan Publishing.
Chiesa, M. (1994). Radical behaviorism: The philosophy and
the science. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative, Inc.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal
Behavior. Language, 35, 27–58.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).
Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Day, W. (1983). On the difference between radical and
methodological behaviorism. Behaviorism, 11,
89–102. Retrieved from. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
27759016.
Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E. M., Markham, M. R.,
Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer
of respondent eliciting and extinction functions
through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331–351.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1994.62-331.
Eby, C. M., Greer, R. D., Tullo, L. D., Baker, K. A., &
Pauly, R. (2010). Effects of multiple exemplar
instruction on transformation of stimulus function
across written and vocal spelling responses by stu-
dents with autism. The Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology – Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 20–31.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100262.
Fiorile, C. A., & Greer, R. D. (2007). The induction of
naming in children with no prior tact responses as a
function of multiple exemplar histories of instruction.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 23, 71–87. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF03393048.
Frampton, S. E., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2018). Teach-
ing children with autism to explain how: A case for
problem-solving? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
51, 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.445.
Gamba, J., Goyos, C., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2015). The
functional independence of mands and tacts: Has it
been demonstrated empirically? The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 31, 10–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40616-014-0026-7.
Garcia, E., Baer, D. M., & Firestone, I. (1971). The
development of generalized imitation within topo-
graphically limited boundaries. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 4, 101–102. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1971.4-101.
21
Garcia-Albea, E., Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., &
Brothers, K. J. (2014). Using audio script fading and
multiple-exemplar training to increase vocal interac-
tions in children with autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 47, 325–343. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.125.
Gilic, L., & Greer, R. D. (2011). Establishing naming in
typically developing two-year-old children as a func-
tion of multiple exemplar speaker and listener experi-
ences. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 157–177.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393099.
Gould, E., Tarbox, J., O’Hora, D., Noone, S., &
Bergstrom, R. (2011). Teaching children with autism a
basic component skill of perspective-taking. Behavioral
Interventions, 26, 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bin.320.
Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for
learners with autism: Advances in stimulus control
technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 16, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/
108835760101600203.
Greer, R. D., & Longano, J. (2010). A rose by naming:
How we may learn how to do it. The Analysis of Ver-
bal Behavior, 26, 73–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03393085.
Greer, R. D., Pohl, P., Du, L., & Moschella, J. L.
(2017). The separate development of children’s lis-
tener and speaker behavior and the intercept as
behavioral metamorphosis. Journal of Behavioral and
Brain Science, 7, 674–704. https://doi.org/10.4236/
jbbs.2017.713045.
Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal behavior anal-
ysis: Inducing and expanding new verbal capabilities in
children with language delays. New York, NY:
Pearson.
Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., Chavez-Brown, M., & Rivera-
Valdes, C. (2005). The emergence of the listener to
speaker component of naming in children as a func-
tion of multiple exemplar instruction. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, 21, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF03393014.
Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., & Pistoljevic, N. (2007). Emer-
gence of naming in preschoolers: A comparison of
multiple and single exemplar instruction. European
Journal of Behavior Analysis, 8, 109–131. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15021149.2007.11434278.
Greer, R. D., & Yuan, L. (2008). How kids learn to say
the darnedest things: The effect of multiple exemplar
instruction on the emergence of novel verb usage.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24, 103–121. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF03393060.
Greer, R. D., Yuan, L., & Gautreaux, G. (2005). Novel
dictation and intraverbal responses as a function of a
multiple exemplar instructional history. The Analysis
of Verbal Behavior, 21, 99–116. https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF03393012.
Griffih, K. R., Ramos, A. L., Hill, K. E., & Miguel, C. F.
(2018). Using equivalence-based instruction to teach
22 DANIELLE L. LAFRANCE and JONATHAN TARBOX
piano skills to college students. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 51, 201–219. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.438.
Hall, G. A., & Sundberg, M. L. (1987). Teaching mands
by manipulating conditioned establishing operations.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 41–53. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03392819.
Hawkins, E., Kingsdorf, S., Charnock, J., Szabo, M., &
Gautreaux, G. (2009). Effects of multiple exemplar
instruction on naming. European Journal of Behavior
Analysis, 10, 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15021149.2009.11434324.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001).
Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of
human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer/
Academic Plenum.
Holth, P. (2017). Multiple exemplar training: Some
strengths and limitations. The Behavior Analyst, 40,
225–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0083-z.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of
naming and other symbolic behaviors. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1997). Toward a theory of
verbal behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 68, 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.
1997.68-271.
Horner, R. H., & McDonald, R. S. (1982). A compari-
son of single instance and general case instruction in
teaching a generalized vocational skill. Journal of the
Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 7–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698200700302.
Hughes, C., Harmer, M. L., Killian, D. J., & Niarhos, F.
(1995). The effects of multiple-exemplar self-
instructional training on high school students’ gener-
alized conversational interactions. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 28, 201–218. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1995.28-201.
Jenkins, H. M., & Harrison, R. H. (1960). Effect of dis-
crimination training on auditory generalization. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 246–253. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0041661.
Jennings, A. M., & Miguel, C. F. (2017). Training
intraverbal bidirectional naming to establish general-
ized equivalence class performances. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 108, 269–289.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.277.
Kobari-Wright, V. V., & Miguel, C. F. (2014). The
effects of listener training on the emergence of cate-
gorization and speaker behavior in children with
autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47,
431–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.115.
LaFrance, D. L., & Miguel, C. F. (2014). Teaching verbal
behavior to children with autism spectrum disorders.
In J. Tarbox, D. R. Dixon, P. Sturmey, &
J. L. Matson (Eds.), Handbook of early intervention
for autism spectrum disorders, Autism and child psycho-
pathology series (pp. 403–436). New York: Springer
Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4939-0401-3_16.
Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. G. (1985). The functional
independence of mands and tacts. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 5–19. https://
doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1985.43-5.
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. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2003.36-407.
Lechago, S. A., Carr, J. E., Kisamore, A. N., &
Grow, L. L. (2015). The effects of multiple exemplar
instruction on the relation between listener and
intraverbal categorization repertoires. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, 31, 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40616-015-0027-1.
Lee, G. P., Miguel, C. F., Darcey, E. K., &
Jennings, A. M. (2015). A further evaluation of the
effects of listener training on the emergence of
speaker behavior and categorization in children with
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 19,
72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2015.04.007.
Lillie, M. A., & Tiger, J. H. (2019). Acquisition and gen-
erative responding following print-to-braille construc-
tion response training with sighted learners. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 52, 286–298. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.516.
Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., & Hughes, J. C. (2005). Nam-
ing and categorization in young children: III. Vocal
tact training and transfer of function. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 47–65. https://
doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2005.31-04.
Luciano, C., Becerra, I. G., & Valverde, M. R. (2007).
The role of multiple-exemplar training and naming
in establishing derived equivalence in an infant. Jour-
nal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87,
349–365. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.08-06.
Luke, N., Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., &
Keohane, D. D. (2011). The emergence of autoclitic
frames in atypically and typically developing children
as a function of multiple exemplar instruction. The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 141–156. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03393098.
Ma, M. L., Miguel, C. F., & Jennings, A. M. (2016).
Training intraverbal naming to establish equivalence
class performances. Journal of the Experimental Analy-
sis of Behavior, 105, 409–426. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jeab.203.
Marcon-Dawson, A., Vicars, S. M., & Miguel, C. F.
(2009). Publication trends in The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior: 1999-2008. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
25, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393076.
Marzullo-Kerth, D., Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., &
Townsend, D. B. (2011). Using multiple exemplar
training to teach a generalized repertoire of sharing to
children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior
 MULTIPLE EXEMPLAR INSTRUCTION
Analysis, 44, 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2011.44-279.
Michael, J., & Miguel, C. F. (2020). Motivating opera-
tions. In J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, &
W. L. Heward (Eds.), Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd
ed., pp. 372–394). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Michael, J., Palmer, D. C., & Sundberg, M. L. (2011).
The multiple control of verbal behavior. The Analysis
of Verbal Behavior, 27, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.
1007/bf03393089.
Miguel, C. F. (2016). Common and intraverbal bidirectional
naming. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32, 125–138.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0066-2.
Miguel, C. F. (2018). Problem-solving, bidirectional nam-
ing, and the development of verbal repertoires. Behav-
ior Analysis Research and Practice, 18, 340–353.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000110.
Miguel, C. F., Frampton, S. E., Lantaya, C. A.,
LaFrance, D., Quah, K., Meyer, C. S., …
Fernand, J. K. (2015). The effects of tact training on
the development of analogical reasoning. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104, 96–118.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.167.
Miguel, C. F., & Kobari-Wright, V. V. (2013). The
effects of tact training on the emergence of categori-
zation and listener behavior in children with autism.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 669–673.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.62.
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, 383–405.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008-89-383.
Miller, S. J., & Sloane, H. N. (1976). The generalization
effects of parent training across stimulus settings.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 355–370.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1976.9-355.
Miltenberger, R. G., Roberts, J. A., Ellingson, S.,
Galensky, T., Rapp, J. T., Long, E. S., &
Lumley, V. A. (2013). Training and generalization of
sexual abuse prevention skills for women with mental
retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32,
385–388. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-385.
Ming, S., & Stewart, I. (2017). When things are not the
same: A review of research into relations of difference.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 429–455.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.367.
Moran, L., Walsh, L., Stewart, I., McElwee, J., &
Ming, S. (2015). Correlating derived relational
responding with linguistic and cognitive ability in
children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 19, 32–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.12.015.
Najdowski, A. C., Bergstrom, R., Tarbox, J., & St.
Clair, M. (2017). Teaching children with autism to
respond to disguised mands. Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis, 50, 733–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.413.
23
Najdowski, A. C., St. Clair, M., Fullen, J. A., Child, A.,
Persicke, A., & Tarbox, J. (2018). Teaching children
with autism to identify and respond appropriately to
the preferences of others during play. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 890–898. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.494.
Nuzzolo-Gomez, R., & Greer, R. D. (2004). Emergence
of untaught mands or tacts of novel adjective-object
pairs as a function of instructional history. The Analy-
sis of Verbal Behavior, 20, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF03392995.
Oah, S., & Dickinson, A. M. (1989). A review of empiri-
cal studies of verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 7, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03392837.
Olaff, H. S., Ona, H. N., & Holth, P. (2017). Establish-
ment of naming in children with autism through
multiple response-exemplar training. Behavioral
Development Bulletin, 22, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.
1037/bdb0000044.
Park, H. S., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1989). A problem solv-
ing approach to social skills training in employment
settings with mentally retarded youth. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 373–380. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1989.22-373.
Parsonson, B. S., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Training gener-
alized improvisation of tools by preschool children.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 363–380.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-363.
Persicke, A., Tarbox, J., Ranick, J., & St. Clair, M.
(2012). Establishing metaphorical reasoning in chil-
dren with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disor-
ders, 6, 913–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.
2011.12.007.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., Townsend, D. B., &
Poulson, C. L. (2007). Establishing a generalized rep-
ertoire of helping behavior in children with autism.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 123–136.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.11-05.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps:
A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,
533–544. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-533.
Saunders, R. R., Drake, K. M., & Spradlin, J. E. (1999).
Equivalence class establishment, expansion, and mod-
ification in preschool children. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 195–214. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jeab.1999.71-195.
Sautter, R. A., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2006). Empirical appli-
cations of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior with
humans. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393025.
Shafer, E. (1995). A review of interventions to teach a
mand repertoire. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 12,
53–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392897.
24 DANIELLE L. LAFRANCE and JONATHAN TARBOX
Sidener, T. M., Carr, J. E., Karsten, A. M.,
Severtson, J. M., Cornelius, C. E., &
Heinicke, M. R. (2010). Evaluation of single and
mixed verbal operant arrangements for teaching
mands and tacts. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 26,
15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393079.
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equiva-
lences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14,
5–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the rein-
forcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jeab.2000.74-127.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimina-
tion vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing
paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
37, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5.
Sivaraman, M. (2017). Using multiple exemplar training
to teach empathy skills to children with autism. The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 4, 337–346. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40617-017-0183-y.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Cop-
ley Publishing Group.
Speckman, J., Greer, R. D., & Rivera-Valdes, C. (2012).
Multiple exemplar instruction and the emergence of
generative production of suffixes as autoclitic frames.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 83–99. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF03393109.
Sprague, J. R., & Horner, R. H. (1984). The effects of
single instance, multiple instance, and general case
training on generalized vending machine use by mod-
erately and severely handicapped students. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 273–278. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1984.17-273.
Sprinkle, E. C., & Miguel, C. F. (2013). Establishing
derived textual activity schedules in children with
autism. Behavioral Interventions, 28, 185–202.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1365.
Stauch, T., LaLonde, K., Plavnick, J. B., Bak, M. Y., &
Gatewood, K. (2017). Intraverbal training for indi-
viduals with autism: The current status of multiple
control. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 33, 98–116.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-017-0079-5.
Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2013). Language
generativity, response generalization and derived rela-
tional responding. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
29, 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393131.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technol-
ogy of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1977.10-349.
Tarbox, J., Zuckerman, C. K., Bishop, M. R.,
Olive, M. L., & O’Hora, D. P. (2011). Rule-
governed behavior: Teaching a preliminary repertoire
of rule-following to children with autism. The Analy-
sis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 125–139. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF03393096.
Törneke, N. (2010). Learning RFT: An introduction to
relational frame theory and its clinical application.
Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Wiskow, K. M., Matter, A. L., & Donaldson, J. M.
(2018). An evaluation of lag schedules and prompting
methods to increase variability of naming category
items in children with autism spectrum disorder. The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 34, 100–123. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40616-018-0102-5.
Young, J. M., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., &
Poulson, C. L. (1994). Generalized imitation and
response-class formation in children with autism.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 685–697.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-685.
Received September 26, 2017
Final acceptance June 19, 2019
Action Editor, Tiffany Kodak