Bibliography

Scientific References

The works INTERLAZA's design draws on. From Sidman's 1971 report of stimulus equivalence through Barnes-Holmes's 2022 review — 55+ years of peer-reviewed behavioral science. They are the foundations of the design, not evidence about the platform itself.

Stimulus Equivalence & MTS 10

Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13. The foundational paper demonstrating equivalence class formation through MTS training.
Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. (1973). Reading and crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalences in severe retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 515–523.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence Relations and Behavior: A Research Story. Boston: Authors Cooperative. Essential book — the full account of the equivalence research program.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.
Arntzen, E., & Sætherbakken, P. S. (2021). An overview of key papers preceding Sidman equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 115(1), 224–241.
Critchfield, T. S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Dougher, M. J. (2018). Editorial: What Sidman did — Historical and contemporary significance of research on derived stimulus relations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 9–32.
Cowley, B. J., Green, G., & Braunling-McMorrow, D. (1992). Using stimulus equivalence procedures to teach name-face matching to adults with brain injuries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 461–475.
de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., & Hanna, E. S. (1996). Teaching reading and spelling: Exclusion and stimulus equivalence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 451–469.
Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 101–114.

Relational Frame Theory 8

Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.) (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. The seminal RFT text — defines all relational frame families, mutual and combinatorial entailment.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cullinan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory and Skinner's Verbal Behavior: A possible synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 69–84.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McEnteggart, C. (2020). Updating RFT (more field than frame) and its implications for process-based therapy. The Psychological Record, 70, 605–624.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Luciano, C., & McEnteggart, C. (2017). From IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analysing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6(4), 434–445.
Barnes-Holmes, D., & Harte, C. (2022). Relational frame theory 20 years on: The Odysseus voyage and beyond. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 117(2), 240–266.
Dymond, S., May, R. J., Munnelly, A., & Hoon, A. E. (2010). Evaluating the evidence base for relational frame theory: A citation analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 33, 97–117.
Steele, D. L., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56(3), 519–555.
Törneke, N. (2010). Learning RFT: An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory and Its Clinical Application. Oakland: New Harbinger. Accessible introduction to RFT for clinicians.

Critical Perspectives & Alternative Accounts 6

Tonneau, F. (2001). Equivalence relations: A critical analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2(1), 1–33. Target article with 19 commentaries and a reply — the central argument that function transfer is not explained by equivalence classes.
Tonneau, F. (2004). Review of Relational Frame Theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 265–268. The logical objection: what is relational is the stimulus, not the response — so a relation can neither be reinforced nor carried to a new task.
Tonneau, F., & González, C. (2004). Function transfer in human operant experiments: The role of stimulus pairings. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81(3), 239–255. Four experiments showing function transfer with no programmed reinforcement, through indirect pairings, and under articulatory suppression.
Tonneau, F., Abreu, N. K., & Cabrera, F. (2004). Sitting on the word "chair": Behavioral support, contextual cues, and the literal use of symbols. Learning and Motivation, 35, 262–273. Word–object functional equivalence is a matter of degree, set by physical support and context.
Tonneau, F. (2005). Behavior analysis, common sense, and logic: Reply to Barnes-Holmes. Behavior and Philosophy, 33, 81–84. The philosophical strand of the debate — realism against the a-ontological reading of behavioral pragmatism.
Freitas, L., Henry, J. E., Kelley, M. E., & Tonneau, F. (2020). The effects of stimulus pairings on autistic children's vocalizations: Comparing forward and backward pairings. Behavioural Processes, 179, 104213. Forward pairing beat both control and backward pairing; the effect was largest in the children with the least language.

Applied RFT, Errorless, BKT & Transfer 26

Rehfeldt, R. A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (Eds.) (2009). Derived Relational Responding: Applications for Students with Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Oakland: New Harbinger. Essential applied reference — translates RFT into teaching protocols for our population.
Murphy, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2005). Derived manding in children with autism: Synthesizing Skinner's verbal behavior with relational frame theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 445–462.
Murphy, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Establishing derived manding for specific amounts with three children: An attempt at synthesizing Skinner's Verbal Behavior with relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 59, 75–92.
Murphy, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2010). Establishing complex derived manding with children with and without a diagnosis of autism. The Psychological Record, 60, 489–503.
O'Connor, J., Rafferty, A., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). The role of verbal behavior, stimulus nameability and familiarity on the equivalence performances of autistic and normally-developing children. The Psychological Record, 59, 53–74.
Dunne, S., Foody, M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Murphy, C. (2014). Facilitating repertoires of coordination, opposition distinction, and comparison in young children with autism. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19(2), 37–47.
Gibbs, A. R., Tullis, C. A., Conine, D. E., & Fulton, A. A. (2024). A systematic review of derived relational responding beyond coordination in individuals with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 36.
Murphy, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2017). Teaching important relational skills for children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability using freely available (GO-IRAP) software. Austin Journal of Autism & Related Disabilities, 3(2), 1041.
Barnes-Holmes, Y., McHugh, L., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking and theory of mind: A relational frame account. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5(1), 15–25.
Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Strand, P., & Friman, P. (2004). Establishing relational responding in accordance with more-than and less-than as generalized operants in young children. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 531–558.
McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54, 115–144. Foundational empirical study of the three deictic frames (I-You, Here-There, Now-Then) across development.
Rehfeldt, R. A., Dillen, J. E., Ziomek, M. M., & Kowalchuk, R. K. (2007). Assessing relational learning deficits in perspective-taking in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. The Psychological Record, 57, 23–47.
Weil, T. M., Hayes, S. C., & Capurro, P. (2011). Establishing a deictic relational repertoire in young children. The Psychological Record, 61, 371–390. Training protocol that directly informs our deictic-frame exercise design.
McHugh, L., & Stewart, I. (Eds.) (2012). The Self and Perspective Taking: Contributions and Applications from Modern Behavioral Science. Oakland: New Harbinger. Comprehensive reference on perspective-taking within RFT.
Ming, S., Stewart, I., & McElwee, J. (2024). Integrating relational frame theory (RFT) and verbal behavior (VB) in early intervention. The Psychological Record, 74.
Arntzen, E. (2012). Training and testing parameters in formation of stimulus equivalence: Methodological issues. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13(1), 123–135.
Fields, L., & Verhave, T. (1987). The structure of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 317–332.
Brodsky, J., & Fienup, D. M. (2018). Sidman goes to college: A meta-analysis of equivalence-based instruction in higher education. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41, 95–119.
Terrace, H. S. (1963). Discrimination learning with and without errors. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 1–27. The foundational errorless learning paper — gradual stimulus fading without errors.
Touchette, P. E. (1971). Transfer of stimulus control: Measuring the moment of transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 347–354.
Mueller, M. M., Palkovic, C. M., & Maynard, C. S. (2007). Errorless learning: Review and practical application for teaching children with pervasive developmental disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 44(7), 691–700.
Leaf, J. B., Sheldon, J. B., & Sherman, J. A. (2010). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and no-no prompting in two-choice discrimination learning with children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 215–228.
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253–278. The foundational BKT paper — defines P(L₀), P(T), P(G), P(S) parameters.
Baker, R. S. J. d., Corbett, A. T., & Aleven, V. (2008). More accurate student modeling through contextual estimation of slip and guess probabilities in Bayesian knowledge tracing. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (LNCS 5091, pp. 406–415).
Yudelson, M. V., Koedinger, K. R., & Gordon, G. J. (2013). Individualized Bayesian knowledge tracing models. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 171–180).
Pelánek, R. (2017). Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: An overview of learner modeling techniques. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27, 313–350.

Teaching as a System & Verbal Behavior 2

Greer, R. D. (2002). Designing Teaching Strategies: An Applied Behavior Analysis Systems Approach. San Diego: Academic Press. The learn unit — the interlocking teacher/student contingency that predicts learning — and the decision protocol: three segments between data points are the earliest a trend can be read, and a flat or falling one means the adult decides now.
Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2008). Verbal Behavior Analysis: Inducing and Expanding New Verbal Capabilities in Children with Language Delays. Boston: Pearson. Verbal capabilities as inducible cusps rather than ages, and the source of a claim that sits under our own work: matching to sample is the procedure used to induce the capacity for sameness, the pre-listener milestone discrimination is built on.

Interbehaviorism, Varela & Ribes 9

Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehavioral Psychology: A Sample of Scientific System Construction. Granville, OH: Principia Press. Foundational text defining stimulus as functional role — source of the concept/instance/stimulus distinction.
Kantor, J. R., & Smith, N. W. (1975). The Science of Psychology: An Interbehavioral Survey. Chicago: Principia Press.
Ribes, E., & López, F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta: un análisis de campo y paramétrico. México: Trillas. Table 10-1 — the five functional contact types the contact-type module is built on.
Ribes-Iñesta, E. (2018). El estudio científico de la conducta individual: una introducción a la teoría de la psicología. México: Manual Moderno.
Serrano, M. (2009). Complejidad e inclusividad progresivas: algunas implicaciones y evidencias empíricas en el caso de las funciones contextual, suplementaria y selectora. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 35 (monográfico), 161–178. Source of the three adjustment indices (differentiality, effectiveness, precision) and of the interpretation bands its authors state are conventional.
Carpio, C. (1994). Comportamiento animal y teoría de la conducta. En L. J. Hayes, E. Ribes & F. López (Eds.), Psicología interconductual (pp. 45–68). Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara.
Varela, J., & Quintana, C. (1995). Comportamiento inteligente y su transferencia. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 21, 47–66. The original paper defining the 15-type transfer matrix.
Varela, J., Padilla, M. A., Cabrera, F., Mayoral, A., Fuentes, T., & Linares, G. (2001). Cinco tipos de transferencia: de la dimensión lingüística a la basada en propiedades morfológico-geométricas de los estímulos. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 27(3), 363–383. The empirical study that led its own authors to call the matrix rows types of transfer rather than a hierarchy of difficulty.
Varela, J. (2008). Conceptos básicos del interconductismo. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara. 2021 revised edition available as open-access PDF via interbehavioral.com.

These are the works INTERLAZA's exercise types, prompting procedures and mastery criteria are built from. For the full literature review and implementation notes, contact our team.