Interlaza

Interbehavioral Psychology

Competency Transfer Model

Varela & Quintana (1995)

A systematic taxonomy for classifying and measuring how far a person can transfer what they have learned to new situations. Rooted in Kantor's interbehavioral field theory, this model provides a precise framework for evaluating the scope and limits of competency transfer — independent of any specific teaching procedure.

Important distinction

The Competency Transfer Model is not a Match-to-Sample (MTS) model. It is a general taxonomy about competency transfer that applies across any learning context. Varela used MTS as an evaluation procedure to measure transfer — the taxonomy itself describes what changes between training and testing, not how training is delivered.

Methodological review note

This page presents the 1995 matrix as a historical taxonomy, not a validated instrument. Of its 15 cells, the published research has tested five (Varela et al., 2001; 2002; 2006), always in second-order matching to sample — a procedure with requirements of its own that any replication must reproduce. INTERLAZA's research module is temporarily withdrawn while it is rebuilt on those published protocols.

Core Concepts

The four factors

Every learning situation can be described along four independent factors. When moving from a training situation to a transfer test, each factor is either held Constant (K) or made Variable (Var). The combination of K and Var across these factors determines the transfer level.

I

Instance

Most concrete

The specific stimulus objects used in the task. If training uses a red circle and a blue square, those are the instances. When Instance is Variable, the transfer test uses entirely different objects (e.g., a green triangle and a yellow star) while everything else stays the same.

M

Modality

The morphological properties of the stimulus object — in Varela's words "colour, brightness, form, size, spatial arrangement and quantity". When Modality is Variable, the transfer test asks about a different property of the same figures: training on colour might test on size. Note: image / written word / spoken word is not the modality — that is the linguistic mode, which Varela et al. (2001) separate explicitly and which is not a column of the 1995 matrix.

R

Relation

The matching criterion that defines what counts as a correct response: identity (=), similarity (≈), or difference (≠). Relation is subordinate to Dimension — it operates within the domain that Dimension defines. When Relation is Variable, the matching rule changes: training on identity matching might test similarity or difference matching.

D

Dimension

Most abstract

The domain the matching criterion belongs to. The ones Varela names are geometric, numeric and semantic. It is the most abstract factor because the relation is subordinate to it: with two circles, a square and three triangles, "the circle will be identical to the square if the dimension is numeric, but identical to the two circles if the dimension is geometric".

K

Constant (K)

The factor remains the same between training and the transfer test. No change on this dimension.

V

Variable (Var)

The factor changes between training and the transfer test. The student must generalize across this change.

Procedure

How the evaluation works

The model follows a structured sequence: establish a baseline through training, then systematically vary factors to measure how far transfer extends.

1

Define the training situation

Fix all four factors: choose specific instances, a sensory modality, a matching relation (identity, similarity, or difference), and a functional dimension (geometric, semantic, etc.). This fully specifies the baseline task.

2

Train to mastery criterion

The student practices with corrective feedback until reaching a stable performance criterion, typically ≥90% accuracy across two consecutive sessions. This ensures the baseline skill is solidly established before transfer is tested.

3

Apply the transfer test

Present new trials where one or more factors have changed — without corrective feedback. This is where Varela's classification enters: which factors are Constant and which are Variable determines the transfer level being tested. The absence of feedback is critical — you are measuring what the student already knows, not teaching new skills.

4

Interpret results

Compare transfer performance against the training baseline. High performance on a transfer level means the student has generalized across those changing factors. Low performance identifies exactly which factor combinations are difficult — giving the instructor a precise map of where to focus intervention.

Classification

The 15-level transfer matrix

By combining the four factors as Constant or Variable, Varela and Quintana identified 15 distinct transfer levels. There is no level where all four factors remain constant — if nothing changes, there is no transfer. The levels are ordered from one variable factor (easiest) to all four variable (hardest).

Level Name Instance Modality Relation Dimension Factors changed
1 Extra-Instance V K K K 1
2 Extra-Modal K V K K 1
3 Extra-Relational K K V K 1
4 Extra-Dimensional K K K V 1
Two-factor combinations
5 Extra-Instance-Modal V V K K 2
6 Extra-Instance-Relational V K V K 2
7 Extra-Modal-Relational K V V K 2
8 Extra-Instance-Dimensional V K K V 2
9 Extra-Modal-Dimensional K V K V 2
10 Extra-Relational-Dimensional K K V V 2
Three-factor combinations
11 Extra-Instance-Modal-Relational V V V K 3
12 Extra-Instance-Modal-Dimensional V V K V 3
13 Extra-Instance-Relational-Dimensional V K V V 3
14 Extra-Modal-Relational-Dimensional K V V V 3
All four factors
15 Extra-Total V V V V 4

Reading the table: Each row is a transfer test configuration. K means the factor stays the same as in training. V means the factor changes. Level 15 (Extra-Total) changes everything between training and test. Note that the grouping by number of varying factors is a classification, not a difficulty scale: in Varela et al. (2001) children scored higher on level 5 (two factors) than on level 4 (one), and the hardest tests for both age groups were the extra-relational and extra-dimensional ones regardless of how many factors moved.

Methodological review

What the research has tested

The full matrix has 15 cells; the published research has reproduced five conditions. What follows summarizes what those studies found — without extrapolating to the rest of the taxonomy.

Five conditions tested

Varela et al. (2001) tested the extra-instance, extra-modal, extra-relational, extra-dimensional and combined conditions. The remaining ten cells of the matrix have no published reproductions: they are classification, not finding.

Difficulty does not track the number of factors

In the published data the hardest tests were the extra-relational and extra-dimensional ones — each varying a single factor — and children scored higher on a two-factor condition than on a one-factor one. Ordering tests "from easy to hard" by factor count is not supported by that data.

The procedure is second-order

Every trial opens with a pair of second-order stimuli that Varela calls "el ejemplar" (the exemplar): the pair exemplifies, between its two members, the relation that must hold between the sample and the correct comparison ("el ejemplo"). A replication that omits that arrangement, or turns it into something else, is not measuring what these studies measured.

Pre-training with variability

Varela and Barrón (2006) found that pre-training with varied stimuli facilitates later transfer, compared with training on the same stimuli throughout. It is the finding with the most direct support for practice.

Why this page prescribes no intervention guideline. The matrix is a research taxonomy. Turning it into an intervention guideline — an application order, mastery thresholds, per-level decisions — would require evidence the available publications do not provide. Where the research does inform practice (pre-training variability, verifying learning with untrained instances), INTERLAZA builds it into its teaching modules with sources cited.

Bibliography

References

Kantor, J. R. (1924). Principles of Psychology (Vol. I). Bloomington, IN: Principia Press.

Ribes, E., & López, F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta: Un análisis de campo y paramétrico. México: Trillas.

Varela, J., & Quintana, C. (1995). Comportamiento inteligente y su transferencia. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 21(1), 47–66.

Varela, J., Martínez-Munguía, C., Padilla, M. A., Avalos, M. L., Quevedo, M. C., Lepe, A., Zepeda, I., & Jiménez, B. (2002). Primacía visual II: transferencia ante el cambio de la modalidad del estímulo y el modo lingüístico. Acta Comportamentalia, 10(2).

Varela, J., Martínez-Munguía, C., Padilla, M. A., Ríos, A., Avalos, M. L., & Jiménez, B. (2006). Primacía visual: transferencia ante el cambio de la relación entre estímulos. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 38(1), 119–135.

Varela, J., & Barrón, A. (2006). Efectos de tres tipos de preentrenamiento en la adquisición y transferencia de una tarea de igualación de la muestra. Acta Comportamentalia, 14(2), 145–169.

Transfer verification, in practice

INTERLAZA's Varela research module is temporarily withdrawn while it is rebuilt on the published protocols. What the evidence does support — verifying learning with instances the child never practised — is part of INTERLAZA's teaching modules.

Start free