JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING: AN EXAMPLE OFRULE-GOVERNED BEHAVIOR?

JOSEPH R. DEACONPAULS VALLEY STATE SCHOOL

EDWARD A. KONARSKI, JR.WESTERN CAROLINA CENTER

Two groups of six mentally retarded adults were exposed to either a "say/do" correspondencetraining program or a "do only" reinforcement procedure to evaluate the suggestion of Rogers-Warren and Baer (1976) that reinforcement of the nonverbal target behavior in the absence of therelevant verbal behavior may account for the behavior changes seen in correspondence training. Theparticipants worked in an experimental setting on a variety of manipulatory responses leading tovarious auditory and visual consequences. Analysis of individual patterns of responding indicatedno apparent differences between the groups during training; four individuals in each group appearedto develop generalized correspondence skills. We condude that the outcome of correspondencetraining may not necessarily be verbal regulation of behavior as is assumed. Rather, we suggest thatthe notion of rule-governed behavior can best account for the type of behavior changes seen incorrespondence studies.DESCRIPTORS: correspondence training, rule-governed behavior, verbal regulation, general-

ized verbal control, mentally retarded

A significant body of research has shown thatthe set of procedures known as correspondencetraining has proven successful in altering the rateof a variety of appropriate and inappropriate be-haviors in preschool and mentally retarded children(e.g., Baer, Williams, Osnes, & Stokes, 1984, 1985;Guevremont, Osnes, & Stokes, 1986; Keogh, Bur-gio, Whitman, & Johnson, 1983; Osnes, Guevre-mont, & Stokes, 1986; Risley & Hart, 1968; Whit-man, Scibak, Butler, Richter, & Johnson, 1982;Williams & Stokes, 1982). These procedures fa-cilitate the development of a relationship betweena person's verbal behavior and subsequent or priornonverbal behaviors. This relationship is developedby the differential reinforcement of matching ver-bal/nonverbal behavior sequences, resulting in anincrease in the rate ofboth the verbal and nonverbalbehaviors. As suggested by Osnes et al. (1986),this outcome makes it appealing to condude thatcorrespondence training leads to the developmentof verbal self-regulation (Lovaas, 1961; Luria,1961). However, because the verbal and nonverbalbehaviors are both followed by reinforcement incorrespondence training, one can predict an increasein both behaviors due to this reinforcement alone.

The increases in behavior that result from corre-spondence training may therefore not reflect thedevelopment of verbal self-regulation but may sim-ply reflect the correlated effects of reinforcement foreach of these behaviors. The possible existence ofsuch a reinforcement mechanism was suggested byRogers-Warren and Baer (1976) but has yet to beexamined. The existence of such a mechanism im-plies that subject verbalizations are unimportant forproducing the behavior changes typically observedin correspondence training programs.A prime rationale for the use of correspondence

training is its presumed development of verbal self-regulation and hence its inherent programming ofverbal mediators to promote maintenance and gen-eralization (Israel, 1978; Whitman et al., 1982).These verbal mediators are not provided by a simplereinforcement mechanism, so generalized correspon-dence would not be predicted from this perspective.Consistent with this reinforcement notion, corre-spondence training has not reliably produced gen-eralized behavior change (e.g., Rogers-Warren &Baer, 1976) and researchers have begun to addreinforcement-based procedures to promote gen-eralization and maintenance (e.g., Baer et al., 1984;

391

1987, 209, 391-400 NumBER 4 (wiNTm 1987)

JOSEPH R. DEACON and EDWARD A. KONARSKI, JR.

Table 1Response Devices and Consequences

Device Consequences

Lever Continuous red lightPlexiglas® panel Slide7.0 cm diameter black button Computer display2.8 cm diameter black button Music2.8 cm diameter red button Electronic beeper1.4 cm diameter black button Video tape (no sound)1.4 cm diameter red button Flashing green light

Guevremont et al., 1986). It is important to de-termine whether the outcome of correspondencetraining is the ability to regulate overt behaviorwith verbalizations that lead to generalized behaviorchange, or whether performance merely reflects theresults of a simple reinforcement contingency thatrequires additional mechanisms to promote gen-eralization.

The purpose of this study was to compare theoutcome of a reinforcement (do only) procedurewith correspondence (say/do) training.

METHOD

ParticipantsEighteen mentally retarded persons living in the

community were recruited for participation. Theirmean age was 28 years (standard deviation [SD) =7.3) and their mean full scale IQ score on theWechsler Adult Intelligence Scale was 53 (SD =5.8). Six individuals were dropped from partici-pation because they failed to successfully completethe familiarization phase. The 12 remaining par-ticipants (seven males and five females) were ran-domly assigned to either the correspondence train-ing or the reinforcement group. All participantswere paid the minimum hourly wage for their par-ticipation.

Setting and MaterialsThe study was conducted at two tables in an

experimental room. On one table there was a sav-ings box in which the participant placed extra earn-ings received during the session. The experimental

apparatus, situated on the other table, presentedthe participants with seven different response de-vices associated with a unique audio or visual con-sequence (see Table 1). Each activation of a re-sponse device resulted in the presentation of 5 s ofthe response consequence. An Apple II Plus® mi-crocomputer controlled the apparatus and recordedeach manipulation of the devices on the responsepanel. An audio recorder recorded all verbal inter-actions between the experimenter and participant.

Dependent Variables and RecordingData collection. The frequency of activation of

each response device by a participant was recordedby the microcomputer. The observers (one graduateand one undergraduate student majoring in psy-chology) recorded from the audiotape whether theparticipant made the appropriate verbalization andwhether the experimenter provided appropriate re-inforcement and feedback for that trial. An appro-priate verbalization by the participant was scoredif he or she stated the behavioral intention beingprompted by the experimenter (e.g., "I will onlypress the lever."). Correct reinforcement by theexperimenter consisted ofproviding the appropriatesocial and monetary reinforcement at the time spec-ified by the current experimental phase. Correctfeedback consisted of providing the appropriatetype of feedback at the time specified by the currentexperimental phase (see Procedures for details).

Reliability. Interobserver reliability assessmentson appropriate verbalization by the participant andappropriate reinforcement and feedback by the ex-perimenter were made on 25% of the experimental

392

CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING

trials. Reliability was assessed through overall, oc-currence, and nonoccurrence percentage agreementmeasures as outlined by Hartmann (1977). Allthree reliability scores were 100% for the two ex-perimenter behaviors. For appropriate participantverbalizations, reliability scores were 94% for over-all, 93% for occurrence, and 80% for nonoccur-rence.

Experimental DesignOnce a participant completed the familiarization

phase, the experimental phases were conducted oneper day for 4 consecutive days. Each of these phasesconsisted of 12 trials of 20 responses. The sequenceof experimental phases was the same for bothgroups: Baseline, Verbal Control 1, Treatment (cor-respondence training or reinforcement), and VerbalControl 2. A follow-up phase was conducted 2months after the second verbal control phase. Therewere six participants in each treatment group.

ProceduresFamiliarization. Each participant was first

evaluated for his or her understanding of the con-cept "only" using two tasks. One task consisted ofthe participants having to determine if the exper-imenter selected only one type of item from a dis-play of common objects (e.g., buttons, toy cars,blocks, pencils). The second task required the par-ticipant, upon request, to pick only one type ofobject from a display of items similar to thoseabove. Three participants were eliminated fromparticipation because they did not show evidenceof understanding the concept "only."

Next, the participant was shown how to use theexperimental apparatus using modeling andprompts. To complete this phase, a participant hadto describe correctly the consequences of all sevenresponses three consecutive times without error.Three participants were eliminated from the studyfor their inability to attain this criterion.

Baseline. During this phase and all subsequentphases, the experimenter initially met with the par-ticipant in a room adjacent to the experimentalroom to receive payment for the time he or she wasto spend working that day. The participant was

then escorted to the experimental room and wasseated in front of the apparatus. The experimenterthen read the following instructions: "(Name), youmay work on any of these things you want to forthe next few minutes. While you are working hereI'll be doing some work at the desk. I won't beable to talk to you because I'll be doing someimportant work also. You may start any time."Upon completion of 20 responses, the apparatuswas programmed to turn off and the experimenterasked the participant to move to the other table inthe room for a brief break lasting approximately 1min. After the break, the panel was reactivated andthe participant was instructed to return to work asdescribed above. This continued for 12 trials. Therewere no specific time restrictions placed on perfor-mance of the responses during each trial.

Verbal control 1. Before initiating this phase,the three responses with the lowest frequency ofoccurrence during baseline were selected as targetbehaviors for the remainder of the study. All re-sponse devices, however, remained present and ac-tive. The participant was told that he or she wouldhave the chance to earn 10 cents a trial contingenton appropriate verbalizations. The participant wasthen seated at the table with the savings box withhis or her back to the apparatus.

Each trial began with the experimenter prompt-ing the participant to verbalize his or her intentionto perform one of the three target behaviors bysaying, "(Name), are you only going to (targetbehavior)?" If the participant responded affirma-tively, the experimenter asked him or her to ver-balize his or her intended behavior: "Okay, youtell me what you are only going to do." The ex-perimenter provided the minimal amount of verbalprompting necessary for the participant to makethe appropriate verbalization. When the participantappropriately verbalized the target behavior, he orshe was told, "(Name), that's good! You said youare going to only (target behavior). Because ofthat you can have this extra money. This extramoney is for saying, I will only (target behavior)."The extra money earned for appropriate verbali-zations was placed in the savings box. The partic-ipant was then directed to sit in front ofthe response

393

JOSEPH R. DEACON and EDWARD A. KONARSKI, JR.

panel and instructed to begin working. After mak-ing 20 responses, the participant was asked to moveto the other table in the room and, after a 1-minbreak, the verbal prompting for the next trial wasinitiated.

The experimenter prompted each participant toverbalize each of the three target behaviors on fourseparate trials to examine initial verbal control ofeach of these behaviors. The target behaviors wereverbalized in a rotating order. After a specific targetbehavior was verbalized, it was not verbalized againuntil each of the other two target behaviors hadbeen verbalized.

Treatment phase. During this phase, one groupof participants received correspondence training ac-cording to a say/do format with one target behaviorwhile the other group received reinforcement (doonly) for one target behavior. The particular targetbehavior was selected at random for each personfrom those tested in the initial verbal control phase.The correspondence training procedure was similarto the verbal control procedure; however, the par-ticipant's appropriate verbalization of target be-haviors no longer resulted in monetary reinforce-ment. This reinforcement was now contingent onthe participant demonstrating correspondence be-tween his or her verbalizations and actual perfor-mance of the referent behavior. When the partic-ipant verbalized his or her intention to perform thespecific target behavior he or she merely receivedverbal praise. The reinforcement criterion for a be-havior undergoing correspondence training requiredthe participant to make the appropriate verbali-zation and perform the specified target behavior onall of the responses for that trial.

Following each trial, the experimenter and par-ticipant continued to meet at the table in the samemanner as in the verbal control phase except thatthe experimenter said either: "(Name), you saidyou were going to work only on (target behavior),and you really did. Because of that I'm going to

give you the extra money." or "(Name), you saidyou were going to work only on (target behavior),but you really didn't, did you? You did some otherthings too. Because of that I can't give you theextra money now. I hope you will try harder nexttime." After the 1-min break, the participant wasasked again to verbalize his or her intention toperform the selected target behavior and returnedto the response panel for the next trial.

Persons assigned to the reinforcement group weretold they would have the chance to earn moremoney but were not specifically instructed how todo so. Although the experimenter had chosen onetarget behavior to reinforce throughout the con-dition, the experimenter did not prompt these par-ticipants to verbalize their intentions to perform theselected target behavior. Instead, at the beginningof each trial, the experimenter merely told the par-ticipant to sit in front of the response panel andgo to work. Following the completion of each trial,the participant and experimenter seated themselvesat the table with the savings box. At this time, theexperimenter provided the participant feedback onhis or her performance of the selected target be-havior by saying, "(Name), you get this extra mon-ey because you worked on only (target behavior).You didn't work on anything else." If the partic-ipant did not perform the selected target behavioron all responses during that trial, the experimenterprovided the following comment: "(Name), I can'tgive you this extra money because you did notwork on only (target behavior). You did someother things too. Try harder next time."

Verbal control 2. The procedures for this con-dition were identical to the first verbal control phase.

Follow-up. The follow-up phase was conducted2 months after completion of the second verbalcontrol phase for those participants who showedevidence ofgeneralized correspondence in that phase.All procedures were identical to the earlier verbalcontrol phases.

Figure 1. Number of responses for the nonverbal target behaviors of each of the six participants in the correspondencetraining group. All data are presented in blocks of two trials. Following baseline, only the performance for the behaviortargeted during that trial block is displayed.

394

CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING

CORRESPONDENCE TRAININGVERBAL VERBAL

BASELINE CONTROL I TREATMENT CONTROL 2 FOLLOW-UPt I 0000 0EA0 AO13A0AE~~~ I I

Fy~~~~~~~~~o < O o W~~~~~~~~~~~~~ EiI I I I

I I000o010o3ooAbOnA0o-

~ ~I

I I I

,I I

I I

II

.I I0I~ I II-AkAm ,b A [ AK) I I

_~~~~~~~~~~~'- I

I- : :/:IO IJI _

1I~~~~~~~III I 13-: CE obb~~i I-~~nonn~~ 13A 13I

I

I

I II I_I I1P41

0

A

A

IIIIIIA

5 10 15 20 25 30

TRIAL BLOCKS

20

15

10

5

020

15

10

5

Uf) 0uJU) 20zG 15

(n 10uJcE 5

20ErLU 15m2 10

Z 5z oLU 20

15

10

50

20

1510

50

III

III

NoI II II II II II II I

JOSEPH R. DEACON and EDWARD A. KONARSKI, JR.

RESULTS

Appropriate reinforcement and feedback by theexperimenter were scored at 100% across all phasesof the study. Appropriate verbalization by the par-ticipants was scored at 99% across all phases of thestudy. These data indicate that the experimenterreliably applied the procedures and that participantsreliably engaged in the appropriate verbal behav-iors.

Figure 1 presents the number of responses forthe target behaviors by the participants in the cor-respondence training group across all phases. Thesedata for the participants of the reinforcement groupare shown in Figure 2. All data are presented inblocks of two trials.

Baseline. The data in both figures indicate allparticipants had consistently low operant levels ofeach of the individually selected behaviors.

Verbal control 1. Two data points resulted foreach of the three behaviors due to the presentationof two-trial blocks of behavior. These data showvirtually no change in the operant level of the targetbehaviors when the participants received reinforce-ment for the appropriate verbalization of their in-tentions to work on only a specified target behavior.This indicated a total lack of correspondence be-tween saying and doing for these behaviors for allindividuals in both groups.

Treatment. The data presented for this phasedepict only the performance of the target behaviorselected for training. Inspection of Figures 1 and 2suggests that the correspondence training and re-inforcement treatments produced relatively com-parable increases in the selected target behaviors.Five of the six participants in the correspondencetraining group reached criterion (20 responses ontarget behavior in a trial) and only one showed nochange over baseline. Three of six participants inthe reinforcement group reached criterion, but two

showed large improvement while falling short ofcriterion. As in the correspondence training group,only one person showed no treatment effect. Theoutcome of this phase provided support for thenotion of Rogers-Warren and Baer (1976) thatcorrespondence training may merely reflect rein-forcement ofthe target behavior because both groupsperformed in a similar fashion despite the differenttraining procedures.

Verbal control 2 and follow-up. Inspection ofFigures 1 and 2 shows that four participants ineach group maintained the trained target behaviorat a level comparable to that attained during thetreatment phase and also displayed strong evidenceof generalization to the two untrained responses.Using the contingency-space analysis suggested byMatthews, Shimoff, and Catania (1987), it appearsthat generalized correspondence was developed ineach group. That is, after training, the probabilityof engaging in either the trained or untrained targetbehaviors was directly related to the participants'verbal behavior. When a participant verbalized aparticular behavior the probability of actually en-gaging in that behavior was very high, whereas theprobability of engaging in the target behavior wasvery low in the absence of the relevant verbalization.Furthermore, these outcomes were fully maintainedthrough the 2-month follow-up for each individual.

DISCUSSION

The results indicating little, if any, differencebetween the generalized correspondence behaviorof individuals exposed to either a say/do or doonly training procedure suggest that researchers mustaddress two related issues regarding correspondencetraining. The first is to determine the conditionsrequired for developing correspondence betweenverbal and nonverbal behavior. The second is to

Figure 2. Number of responses for the nonverbal target behaviors of each of the six participants in the reinforcementgroup. All data are presented in blocks of two trials. Following baseline, only the performance of the behavior targeted forthat trial block is displayed. Only participants displaying generalized correspondence following training participated in thefollow-up.

396

CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING 397

REINFORCEMENTVERBAL VERBAL

BASELINE CONTROL I TREATMENT CONTROL 2 FOLLOW-UP

20 - cO,AOOApolAOOA15 /110 I IQ/ _O

j 20 iC t OO oLO1

2)10 - I A003I I OoA15

o 13

rc 0: |l[3tA/I

z20

15 I I

o ~~~I10 _

15- Al

55 ootOOOOOOeoA P

mto

5 10 15 20 25 30

TRIAL BLOCKS

JOSEPH R. DEACON and EDWARD A. KONARSKI, JR.

determine exactly what participants are learning incorrespondence training.

Regarding the first issue, researchers (e.g., Israel& Brown, 1977; Israel & O'Leary, 1973) haveemphasized reinforcement of a particular verbal/nonverbal sequence as the key variable in the de-velopment of correspondence (Paniagua & Baer,1982). In this study, however, individuals in thereinforcement group apparently developed gener-alized correspondence yet were never reinforced forthe overt sequence of saying then doing used in thecorrespondence training group and in other relatedstudies. This outcome lends support to the rein-forcement notion of Rogers-Warren and Baer(1976). Whereas logic would dictate the necessityof some relevant verbal behavior by the subject todevelop correspondence, apparently it need not beovert or necessarily prompted by the experimenter.Furthermore, Paniagua and Baer (1982) presentedevidence that correspondence is a chain of behaviorsthat can be developed by presenting reinforcementat various points along the sequence, not only atthe end of the sequence. Clearly, these data indicatethat the process of developing correspondence ismore complex than simply reinforcing a verbal/nonverbal sequence of behaviors.

The second major issue that needs to be ad-dressed is what is being learned during correspon-dence training. Researchers in this area (e.g., Rog-ers-Warren & Baer, 1976; Whitman et al., 1982;Williams & Stokes, 1982) have typically assumedthat correspondence training produces verbal self-regulation as described by Lovaas (1961) and Luria(1961). According to their thinking, verbal self-regulation develops from the social interactions be-tween parent and child. Initially, young children'sbehavior is largely controlled by parental verbali-zations. Eventually, children incorporate these ver-balizations as their own and use them to guide theirown behavior just as their parents' words once did.At first, children state these verbalizations overtly,but over time, they become covert. Logical argu-ment and the results of this study, however, suggestthat correspondence training may not necessarilyestablish such verbal regulation. First, most re-searchers have relied on the correlated increases inverbal and nonverbal behaviors seen in their studies

to make their conclusion ofverbal regulation. How-ever, correlation does not necessarily imply causa-tion; both behaviors could increase due to the effectsof other variables. Second, most studies have failedto assess pretraining levels of verbal regulation onall target and generalization behaviors as was donein the present study (Baer et al., 1985). Unless itis determined prior to training that an individualcannot control his or her behavior with verbaliza-tions, it cannot be concluded that training resultedin the development of this skill. Third, a key pre-diction based on verbal regulation is that it shouldlead to maintenance and generalization of behaviorbecause it provides adequate verbal mediators (Is-rael, 1978). Recent research has added reinforce-ment-based generalization strategies to correspon-dence training because by itself, correspondencetraining has not been found to consistently producegeneralized behavior changes (Baer et al., 1984,1985; Guevremont et al., 1986). This failure toconsistently promote generalization argues againstthe conclusion that verbal regulation of behaviorhas been developed. Fourth, it seems unlikely thatverbal regulation can be developed within the timeframe ofmost correspondence studies. In this study,for example, two groups of mentally retarded adultswho had failed to acquire verbal regulation showedevidence of generalized correspondence after 12training trials. Such rapid acquisition of this skillcannot be readily predicted from the perspective ofLovaas (1961) and Luria (1961), who emphasizedthat the emergence of verbal self-regulation was aslow, developmental process involving many par-ent-child interactions.

Perhaps the procedures of correspondence train-ing and its outcomes can best be understood interms of the concept of rule-governed behavior(Baldwin & Baldwin, 1986) rather than the formof verbal self-regulation described by Lovaas (1961)and Luria (1961). Rule-governed behavior devel-ops when people are given, or generate on theirown, a verbal description of the contingencies ofreinforcement in a situation (i.e., a rule) and arereinforced for following that rule. A dose look atcorrespondence training indicates that the proce-dures appear to foster development of a rule andto provide reinforcement for following it. All of the

398

CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING 399

information necessary for rule development is con-tained in the verbal interactions between the par-ticipant and the experimenter. Information on whatthe participant is expected to do is provided firstby prompting verbalization of the target behavior.Feedback after the opportunity to perform the tar-get behavior further informs the participant aboutthe entire sequence of events critical to understand-ing the contingency and is essentially a statementofthe rule to be developed. That is, typical feedbackin correspondence training includes informationabout what the participant said (e.g., "You saidyou were going to (response) . . ."), and how itrelates to what the participant actually did (e.g.,". . . and you did (or didn't) (response)."). It alsoincludes information about the contingency of re-inforcement in operation (e.g., "Because you did,you get (reinforcer)." or, "Because you didn't, youdon't get (reinforcer).").

Once the rule is developed, there are severalpotential sources of reinforcement for following it.These sources include the social interactions be-tween the experimenter and subject that occurthroughout the training sequence, the contingenciesprovided by the natural environment for engagingor not engaging in the target behavior, and, ofcourse, the reinforcement delivered by the experi-menter as part of the training.

Although it seems that all of the necessary in-gredients for developing rule-governed behavior arepresent in correspondence training, a participantmay not actually form a rule or may form aninappropriate one. One rule that might be devel-oped is, "To get the (reinforcer), I have to do whatI say (or what the experimenter said)." This ruleshould result in the subject developing generalizedcorrespondence because it is not specific to a par-ticular overt behavior and might be called a gen-eralized correspondence rule. A second rule mightbe, "To get the (reinforcer), I have to say and do(response)." This rule should result in correspon-dence for the target behavior but generalized cor-respondence would not be expected because it isspecific to a particular overt behavior. This mightbe called a discriminated correspondence rule. Athird rule might be an incorrect one, perhaps likelyto be generated early in training, for example, "I

get the (reinforcer) when the experimenter asks meto say something." An incorrect rule would beexpected to result in the display of neither discrim-inated nor generalized correspondence. Finally, sub-jects may fail to produce any rule at all and, ofcourse, no form of correspondence would be ex-pected.

Support for this approach to understanding cor-respondence training is seen in a study by Williamsand Stokes (1982). Following the failure of cor-respondence training, their subjects practiced anexample of the generalized correspondence rule dis-cussed above: "You have to do what you say youwill do." The training of this rule produced cor-respondence, thereby supporting the presence of arule to develop this behavior. The results of thepresent experiment can also be understood fromthe perspective of correspondence training as pro-ducing rule-governed behavior, because this per-spective would predict (as did occur) no differentialoutcome between say/do correspondence trainingand reinforcement for doing. That is because thefeedback given to both groups contained sufficientinformation for rule development as described aboveand reinforcement was available in each paradigm.So although the reinforcement group was not re-quired to "say," they nonetheless could have de-veloped a rule from the feedback they were given.

In condusion, this theory of correspondencetraining as developing rule-governed behavior isquite tentative due to the fact that there is no directevidence to support it at present. It is, however, atestable theory. Data to evaluate it could be ob-tained by exposing people lacking correspondenceskills (e.g., preschool children or mentally retardedpersons) to various training conditions that shouldcorrelate with the development of the different typesof correspondence rules discussed in this paper anddetermining whether subsequent respondingmatches those rules.

REFERENCES

Baer, R. A., Williams, J. A., Osnes, P. G., & Stokes, T. F.(1984). Delayed reinforcement as an indiscriminablecontingency in verbal/nonverbal correspondence training.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 429-440.

Baer, R. A., Williams, J. A., Osnes, P. G., & Stokes, T. F.

400 JOSEPH R. DEACON and EDWARD A. KONARSKI, JR.

(1985). Generalized verbal control and correspondencetraining. Behavior Modification, 9, 477-489.

Baldwin, J. D., & Baldwin, J. I. (1986). Behavior prin-ciples in everyday life (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Guevremont, D. C., Osnes, P. G., & Stokes, T. F. (1986).Programming maintenance after correspondence traininginterventions with children.Journal ofApplied BehaviorAnalysis, 19, 215-219.

Hartmann, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice ofinterobserver reliability estimates. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 10, 103-116.

Israel, A. C. (1978). Some thoughts on correspondencebetween saying and doing. Journal ofApplied BehaviorAnalysis, 11, 271-276.

Israel, A., & Brown, M. S. (1977). Correspondence train-ing, prior verbal training, and control of nonverbal be-havior via control of verbal behavior.Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 10, 333-338.

Israel, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1973). Developing corre-spondence between children's words and deeds. ChildDevelopment, 44, 575-581.

Keogh, D., Burgio, L., Whitman, T., &Johnson, M. (1983).Development of listening skills in retarded children: Acorrespondence training program. Child and Family Be-havior Therapy, 5(1), 51-71.

Lovaas, 0. I. (1961). Interaction between verbal and non-verbal behavior. Child Development, 32, 329-336.

Luria, A. R. (1961). The role of speech in the regulationof normal and abnormal behavior. New York: Perga-mon Press.

Matthews, B. A., Shimoff, E., & Catania, A. C. (1987).

Saying and doing: A contingency-space analysis. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 69-74.

Osnes, P. G., Guevremont, D. C., & Stokes, T. F. (1986).If I say I'll talk more, then I will: Correspondence trainingto increase peer-directed talk by socially withdrawn chil-dren. Behavior Modification, 10(3), 287-299.

Paniagua, F. A., & Baer, D. M. (1982). The analysis ofcorrespondence as a chain reinforceable at any point.Child Development, 53, 786-798.

Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. (1968). Developing correspon-dence between the nonverbal and verbal behavior of pre-school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1, 267-281.

Rogers-Warren, A., & Baer, D. M. (1976). Correspon-dence between saying and doing: Teaching children toshare and praise.Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis,9, 335-354.

Whitman, T. L., Scibak, J. W., Butler, K. M., Richter, R.,& Johnson, M. R. (1982). Improving classroom be-havior in mentally retarded children through correspon-dence training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,15, 545-564.

Williams, J. A., & Stokes, T. F. (1982). Some parametersof correspondence training and generalized verbal control.Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 4, 11-31.

Received January 9, 1987Initial editorial decision March 17, 1987Revision received May 22, 1987Final acceptance July 6, 1987Action Editor, Ron Van Houten