- Applied Behavior Analysis Skill Acquisition Programming Questions and Answers Flashcards

A behavior analyst is designing a skill acquisition program for a learner who has mastered labeling colors receptively but fails to generalize the skill to novel stimuli. Which programming strategy most directly addresses this deficit while minimizing prompt dependency?

Answer: Implement multiple exemplar training across varied stimulus sets and environments before fading prompts

Multiple exemplar training (MET) directly targets stimulus generalization by exposing the learner to varied instances of the stimulus class across environments and people. This builds a broader stimulus control class, reducing the risk that learning is limited to training-specific exemplars. Increasing reinforcement density (B) addresses motivation but not generalization. Time delay (C) helps acquire untrained stimuli but does not build a generalized repertoire on its own. Switching to tacts (D) changes the operant class rather than fixing generalization of the existing receptive skill.

During discrete trial teaching, a supervisor notices that a trainee is presenting the SD for a target skill while the learner is mid-response on a previous trial. Which dimension of procedural integrity does this most directly violate, and what is the likely behavioral consequence?

Answer: Inter-trial interval integrity; increases the probability of stimulus-response chaining between consecutive trials

Presenting the SD before the prior response and its consequence are fully complete collapses the inter-trial interval (ITI). A proper ITI separates trials and prevents the learner from chaining the end of one trial to the beginning of the next — a phenomenon called intertrial chaining. This is an inter-trial interval integrity violation. While data quality is also affected, the primary behavioral consequence is intertrial stimulus-response chaining, not inflation of mastery data (D), which is a data-recording issue rather than a behavioral learning consequence.

A learner with ASD has mastered 40 tacts under one instructor but shows near-zero performance with a new instructor who uses identical procedures. The MOST parsimonious interpretation consistent with ABA principles is:

Answer: The learner's tact behavior is under narrow instructor-specific stimulus control rather than under control of the object itself

Near-zero performance with a new instructor who uses identical procedures indicates that the instructor's person-specific cues (voice, appearance, mannerisms) are functioning as part of the controlling SD rather than the object itself. This is a narrow stimulus control problem — the antecedent stimulus that controls the behavior is the specific instructor, not the referent. Fluency (B) concerns rate and endurance, not instructor generalization. Reinforcer value (C) is possible but is not the most parsimonious explanation given identical procedures. Option D conflates generalization deficits with skill deficits — the learner does have the skill, but not under the correct stimulus control.

A BCBA is programming a chaining procedure for a 12-step hand-washing routine. Data show the learner consistently masters steps 1–4 quickly, then stalls at step 5 regardless of prompt level. According to behavior chain analysis, the MOST appropriate adjustment is:

Answer: Conduct a task analysis re-evaluation to determine whether step 5 should be broken into smaller component steps

When a learner consistently fails at a specific step despite appropriate prompting, the task analysis itself may be the problem — step 5 may require prerequisite behaviors or sub-steps that are not yet in the learner's repertoire. Re-evaluating the task analysis to decompose step 5 into smaller, learnable units is the most analytically sound response. Switching chaining methods (B) addresses sequencing order, not a specific step barrier. Altering prompt level and reinforcer magnitude at step 5 only (C) is a procedural patch that doesn't address why step 5 is problematic. Mass trials in isolation (D) may help but should follow, not precede, a task analysis review.

A behavior analyst observes that a learner consistently responds correctly to a tact SD only when the therapist pauses 2 seconds after placing the object in front of the learner, but not when the object is simply present in the environment. This pattern BEST illustrates which concept?

Answer: The pause is functioning as part of a conditional discriminative stimulus rather than the object serving as the sole SD

The learner responds only when the object AND the specific pause occur together, meaning the pause has become part of the compound antecedent that controls the tact — a conditional SD. The object alone is insufficient to evoke the response, which indicates the therapist's pause is functioning as a necessary antecedent element rather than a neutral event. Option B describes time delay as a teaching procedure, but the problem here is the result of relying on the pause, not its intended use. Option C (motivating operation) could affect the strength of the response but does not explain why the pause specifically is required. Option D is plausible but less precise — the issue is conditional stimulus control, not a two-SD response chain.

A learner has achieved mastery criteria on receptive identification of 20 nouns, but assessment reveals the learner cannot emit any of the same words as tacts, mands, or intraverbals. From a Skinnerian verbal behavior analysis, this outcome is BEST explained by:

Answer: Verbal operants are functionally independent; training one operant does not automatically produce other operants with the same topography

Skinner's analysis in 'Verbal Behavior' (1957) explicitly treats mands, tacts, echoics, and intraverbals as functionally independent operants. Each is controlled by different antecedents and maintained by different consequences. Therefore, mastery of a receptive (listener) behavior does not automatically produce tacts (controlled by object + generalized reinforcement), mands (controlled by MO + specific reinforcement), or intraverbals (controlled by verbal stimuli). Option B uses cognitive/semantic language inconsistent with behavior-analytic terminology. Option C describes a generalization deficit but does not explain why other operant classes are absent — the learner did not fail to generalize within the receptive class; they simply lack other verbal operants. Option D is partially true but oversimplifies — echoic training is not the only path to other verbal operants.