PTB founder Dana Meller clarifies confusion to explain derived stimulus relation vs. stimulus equivalence.

Defined as the trained relation of symbolically similar items across two sets of stimuli (i.e., If A=B, and B=C), and without further instruction, the emergence of an untrained connection (i.e.,…

Defined as the trained relation of symbolically similar items and the demonstration of the relation in reverse without additional direct training. (i.e., If A=B, then B=A)

Defined as the untrained acquisition of a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation between stimuli that are in some way related.

A matching-to-sample procedure where clients are taught to match sample and comparison stimuli that are symbolically related, and not physically identical.

Refers to the trained response of matching a stimulus to an identical stimulus and then matching the two stimuli in reverse without additional training. (i.e., If A=A, then A=A)

A matching-to-sample procedure where clients are taught to match sample and comparison stimuli that are not similar to the sample stimulus (i.e., opposites).

A conditional discrimination procedure in which a stimulus is presented and taught to match a secondary stimulus. Reinforcement is delivered for correctly matching the two antecedent stimuli. Matches can include…

A matching-to-sample procedure where clients are taught to match sample and comparison stimuli that are physically identical.

An instructional method based on stimulus equivalence. It maximizes the effectiveness of teaching because a client is directly taught certain targets in such a way that they are able to…

A collection of stimuli identified through stimulus equivalence to evoke the same response.

A product of equivalence-based instruction (EBI), wherein responding is defined by forming a relation between two or more stimuli that is not directly trained and not based on the physical…

Relating, framing and equating. PTB co-founder Dana Meller drills into the generalizability of relational frame theory, equivalence-based instruction, and stimulus equivalence. Would you believe they all go together? Refer to BCBA® Task List (5th ed.) Sections B-15: Define and provide examples of derived stimulus relations; G-21: Use procedures to promote stimulus and response generalization; G-12: Use equivalence-based instruction.

PTB co-founder Dana Meller reviews matching-to-sample procedures, focusing on one specific method where stimuli are not physically identical but have a symbolic relationship. Refer to BCBA® Task List (5th ed.) Section G-12: Use equivalence-based instruction.

PTB co-founder Dana Meller breaks down a BCBA® mock exam question about the concept of stimulus equivalence, focusing on the one that leads to an untrained relation with a reverse relation. Refer to BCBA® Task List (5th ed.) Section G-12: Use equivalence-based instruction.

Test your knowledge of behavior-change procedures as PTB co-founder Dana Meller discusses generative learning and programming for generalization. Dana explains one of the nine procedures for achieving generalization that emphasizes the need to generalize the response across similar stimuli, while recognizing that different stimuli may require different responses. NOTE: Here, Dana mentions there are seven methods for programming for generalization, which is consistent with the literature for the 4th Edition Task List. But, for the 5th Edition Task List, there are additional methods. Refer to BCBA® Task List (5th ed.) Sections G-12: Use equivalence-based instruction and G-21 Use procedures to promote stimulus and response generalization.