A procedural analysis of correspondence training techniques

Abstract

A variety of names have been given to procedures used in correspondence training, some more descriptive than others. In this article I argue that a terminology more accurately describing actual procedures, rather than the conceptual function that those procedures are assumed to serve, would benefit the area of correspondence training. I identify two documented procedures during the reinforcement of verbalization phase and five procedures during the reinforcement of correspondence phase and suggest that those procedures can be classified, or grouped into nonoverlapping categories, by specifying the critical dimensions of those procedures belonging to a single category. I suggest that the names of such nonoverlapping categories should clearly specify the dimensions on which the classification is based in order to facilitate experimental comparison of procedures, and to be able to recognize when a new procedure (as opposed to a variant of one already in existence) is developed. Future research involving comparative analysis across and within procedures is discussed within the framework of the proposed classification.