On the role of trial types in tests for stimulus equivalence

55 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Effects of Different Training Structures in the Establishment of Conditional Discriminations and Subsequent Performance on Tests for Stimulus Equivalence (2010, unknown): “These findings are in accordance with a number of other studies (Arntzen & Holth, 1997, 2000a; Arntzen & Lian, in press; Eilifsen & Arntzen, 2009; Holth & Arntzen, 1998, 2000; R. R. Saunders et al., 2005; Spencer & Chase, 1996).”
Training Structures and the Formation of Equivalence Classes (2011, unknown): “These results are also in accordance with previous findings (e.g., Arntzen et al., 2010; Arntzen & Holth, 1997, 2000; Training Structures and Equivalence Classes Arntzen & Lian, 2010; Eilifsen & Arntzen, 2009; Holth & Arntzen, 1998, 2000; R. R. Saunders et al., 2005; Spencer & Chase, 1996).”
Training and Testing Parameters in Formation of Stimulus Equivalence: Methodological Issues (2012, background): “…outcomes across studies include the types of test trials (e.g., global equivalence trials only) included in testing (R. R. Saunders et al., 2005), thinning of the probability of programmed consequences, and whether baseline performance was intact during testing (Eilifsen & Arntzen, 2009).”