2.4.2. Conditions 1-2

2.3. Design

74 Behavior Analysis

2.4. Procedure

2.4.1. Pretest

A between subjects design was used to assess the effects of different perspective-taking protocol on the percentage of correct responses by both relational complexity and relation-type. The independent variable was made up of different formats of presentation deictic frames and it was made up of three levels (Condition 1–3 explained below). The measurement variables were performance on relational complexity, on relation-type and number of repetitions of trials.

At the beginning of each session, participants were given the following instructions:

participant indicated that they did not understand what was required.

The researcher repeated a question twice, if requested to do so by a participant.

After the pretest sessions, participants were assigned to each of three conditions (five subjects in each condition) ensuring that groups were at the same level for deictic relation responding before the experimental condition was implemented. Although in all conditions the way to proceed was the same as for the pretest, the order of the presentation of the trials was randomized in a different sequence to the pretest protocol. This new sequence was the same for all conditions. If the participant requested, the researcher repeated a question a maximum of two times. Any form of corrective feedback was provided for participants' responses.

"I will ask you a number of questions. Your job is to listen to each task and tell me what you think is the correct answer to each question. If you do not understand any question or you need to hear the question once more, feel free to ask for the sentence to be repeated. I cannot tell you when you have answered correctly. So you should pay full attention. Do the best that you can".

Participants were asked if they understood these instructions and then asked to begin. No

To assess the initial level for deictic relations in order to ensure all groups were at the same level, the participants completed a pretest measuring of perspective-taking abilities. The perspective-taking protocol contained a subset of the 18 trials (six per complexity level) used in the Barnes-Holmes protocol. Other studies [10, 14, 21] also used this short version of 18 trials for testing. This pretest protocol contained a random presentation of all three deictic relational frames across all three complexity levels. Each trial consisted of two questions (e.g., "Where am I sitting?/Where are you sitting?"). The actual questions depended on the type of relation being tested. After answering the first question, participants were asked the second question immediately. A correct response to a trial required that the participants answered both questions correctly. No visual aids and no feedback were provided for subjects' responses. The way of proceeding was as follows: the experimenter read all tasks aloud from the perspectivetaking protocol, participants responded orally and the experimenter recorded each response. Condition 1 and Condition 2 were similar to the protocol used in the pretest procedure, but now a range of visual aids were employed to facilitate responding to all of the tasks contained within the protocol. Nevertheless, the actual locations of the visual aids remain fixed in reversed and double reversed trials. For example, if the experimenter said "I am sitting here on the red sofa and you are sitting there on the white sofa", the experimenter had a picture of a red sofa and the participant had a picture of a white sofa. On other hand, if the experimenter said during a reversed trial "if I were you and you were me", the pictures did not change. These items included; two identically sized, differently colored pencils (one blue and one orange); two pictures of sofas (one red and one white); a picture of a pair of scissors; and a picture of a radio. It should be noted that the items were different to the pretest protocol (i.e., red and white sofas vs. black and blue chair). The purpose was to keep the same format as the Barnes-Holmes protocol, but using other stimuli.

Condition 2 was identical to Condition 1, but the length for Condition 2 was twice that of Condition 1, that is, 18 trials in Conditions 1 and 36 trials in Condition 2. This was done since in Condition 2 the two questions per trial were presented as separate trials. According to Lovett and Rehfeldt [22] and Weil et al. [14], the present study explored the hypothesis that a correct response to the first question in a trial could serve as a discriminative stimulus and facilitate a correct response on the second question of that trial. To control the second response and ensure that participants were responding according to the appropriate deictic relation for all questions, in Condition 2 the questions were presented as separate trials. However, in both Condition 1 and Condition 2 a correct response to a trial required that the participant answered both questions correctly. The sequential order of the last 18 trials in Condition 2 was the same as the first 18 trials. During sessions of Conditions 2, participants were given a break of 5 minutes after each 15 minutes of testing (or earlier if requested).

#### 2.4.3. Condition 3

In contrast to Condition 1 and 2, in the protocol used in Condition 3, most of the trials did not necessarily include the actual words I-you, here-there, and now-then. An example of trial used in this Condition was as follows: "Last Sunday Julian was buying chewing-gum at the sweet shop and this morning he is cutting figures in the classroom. If this morning was last Sunday and if the classroom was the sweet shop, where would he be this morning?" (Full protocol may be obtained by writing to the principal author). As discussed by different authors [4, 6, 20], the terms I-you, here-there, and now-then refer to relational frames that must be functionally and not formally defined. Many phrases common in our daily life often include or replace words coordinated with particular individuals, places, and times (e.g., "It is 2 o'clock and I am eating [here and now], and Anne [you] is still in the school" [there and now]) [23]. From an RFT point of view, "Anne" or "she" may be functionally equivalent to "you" and "the school" may be functionally equivalent to "there." Furthermore, according to Vilardaga et al. [20], in Condition 3 not a single trial used the same content as any other trial. In other words, each trial used names of objects, places, and scenarios that were different to each other. The purpose of this was so that participants were not distracted by the repetition of similar words and to develop a more natural evaluation of the relational responding involved in perspective-taking.

Although each type of trial involved two questions, in line with Vilardaga et al. [20] each question was separated into two equivalent trials. The trials were equivalent because they corresponded to the same deictic relations: simple I-you, simple here-there, simple now-then, reversed I-you, reversed here-there, reversed now-then, double reversed I-you/here-there, and double reversed here-there/now-then. The current protocol consisted of a battery of 36 scenarios, each with a corresponding question. As in the above mentioned Condition 2, the sequential order of the last 18 trials was the same as the first 18 trials.

Another key feature that differentiated this Condition from the Barnes-Holmes protocol was that each reversed and double reversed relation was separated indicating only the part of the reversal of each question. The aim of these modifications was to eliminate fatigue and to facilitate discrimination between reversal cue and double reversal cue. Understanding the difference between the last two levels of complexity of deictic relations requires complex conditional discriminations because the statements are very similar. For example, the sentence "if last Sunday was this morning and this morning was last Sunday" is more like "if last Sunday was this morning and this morning was last Sunday and if the sweet shop was the classroom and the classroom was the sweet shop" than "if last Sunday was this morning" versus "if last Sunday was this morning and if the sweet shop was the classroom". Separating reversal cue becomes more prominent for the differences between reversed and double reversed relations.

In a similar fashion to Vilardaga et al. [20], Condition 3 was presented in written form, although the experimenter also read all tasks aloud. In order to ensure that participants had sufficient reading comprehension skills, they previously read two short texts and answered two questions. The short texts would not be presented in the deictic relational protocol but had a similar format to the questions in Condition 3. Participants who did not answer both questions correctly were excluded (all of the children in the present study read at good level and displayed no reading comprehension problems).

#### 2.5. Results

The percentage of correct responses for each participant in the Deictic Relations Pretest is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that some participants made fewer mistakes on double reversed relations than reversed relations. However double relations can be considered to require the most complex form of relational responding from a theoretical point of view. These outcomes are consistent with other studies [11, 18], which suggest that the structure of the double reversed relations is such that a correct response can be given without engaging in relational responding if the participant is not able to detect the reversal cue. In other words, participants who do not discriminate between simple level and a more complex level of relational framing or the cue "If…then", can answer correctly both simple and double reversed relations.

Participants who demonstrated an overall accuracy rate below 65% across simple trials were removed from the analyses (see Table 1). According to this criterion, four participants were removed from the final analysis (they were participants 6, 17, 22, and 24), resulting in a total sample of 20 participants. Vilardaga et al. [20] and Villatte et al. [13] used a similar criterion as a control for participants who were likely to be randomly responding and therefore not

Assessing Perspective-Taking in Children through Different Formats of Deictic Framing Protocol

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74539

77

engaging in the task.

Note: Relations that reached 100% accuracy are shaded.

Table 1. Percentage of correct responses by relation type in pretest protocol.

Assessing Perspective-Taking in Children through Different Formats of Deictic Framing Protocol http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74539 77

Table 1. Percentage of correct responses by relation type in pretest protocol.

names of objects, places, and scenarios that were different to each other. The purpose of this was so that participants were not distracted by the repetition of similar words and to develop a

Although each type of trial involved two questions, in line with Vilardaga et al. [20] each question was separated into two equivalent trials. The trials were equivalent because they corresponded to the same deictic relations: simple I-you, simple here-there, simple now-then, reversed I-you, reversed here-there, reversed now-then, double reversed I-you/here-there, and double reversed here-there/now-then. The current protocol consisted of a battery of 36 scenarios, each with a corresponding question. As in the above mentioned Condition 2, the sequen-

Another key feature that differentiated this Condition from the Barnes-Holmes protocol was that each reversed and double reversed relation was separated indicating only the part of the reversal of each question. The aim of these modifications was to eliminate fatigue and to facilitate discrimination between reversal cue and double reversal cue. Understanding the difference between the last two levels of complexity of deictic relations requires complex conditional discriminations because the statements are very similar. For example, the sentence "if last Sunday was this morning and this morning was last Sunday" is more like "if last Sunday was this morning and this morning was last Sunday and if the sweet shop was the classroom and the classroom was the sweet shop" than "if last Sunday was this morning" versus "if last Sunday was this morning and if the sweet shop was the classroom". Separating reversal cue becomes more prominent for the differences between reversed and double

In a similar fashion to Vilardaga et al. [20], Condition 3 was presented in written form, although the experimenter also read all tasks aloud. In order to ensure that participants had sufficient reading comprehension skills, they previously read two short texts and answered two questions. The short texts would not be presented in the deictic relational protocol but had a similar format to the questions in Condition 3. Participants who did not answer both questions correctly were excluded (all of the children in the present study read at good level and displayed no reading

The percentage of correct responses for each participant in the Deictic Relations Pretest is

Table 1 shows that some participants made fewer mistakes on double reversed relations than reversed relations. However double relations can be considered to require the most complex form of relational responding from a theoretical point of view. These outcomes are consistent with other studies [11, 18], which suggest that the structure of the double reversed relations is such that a correct response can be given without engaging in relational responding if the participant is not able to detect the reversal cue. In other words, participants who do not discriminate between simple level and a more complex level of relational framing or the cue

"If…then", can answer correctly both simple and double reversed relations.

more natural evaluation of the relational responding involved in perspective-taking.

tial order of the last 18 trials was the same as the first 18 trials.

reversed relations.

76 Behavior Analysis

comprehension problems).

presented in Table 1.

2.5. Results

Participants who demonstrated an overall accuracy rate below 65% across simple trials were removed from the analyses (see Table 1). According to this criterion, four participants were removed from the final analysis (they were participants 6, 17, 22, and 24), resulting in a total sample of 20 participants. Vilardaga et al. [20] and Villatte et al. [13] used a similar criterion as a control for participants who were likely to be randomly responding and therefore not engaging in the task.

In order to ensure all groups were at the same level of deictic relational responding before implementing the different conditions, they were formed following a set of specific criteria: (1) participants who exceeded only 65% of correct simple trials; (2) those who exceeded 80% of correct simple trials, but failed 80% of reversed relations; (3) those who exceeded 80% of correct simple and reversed trials, and (4) those who exceeded only 80% of reversed trials. Table 2 shows the final composition of groups. Due to double reversed relations being considered to require the most complex form of relational responding, and given the age of the participants, this level of complexity was not taken into account for the formation of groups.

The groups 1, 2 and 3 were assigned to Conditions 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The mean percentages of correct response and standard deviations in term of Condition and relational complexity are presented in Table 3. With regard to Condition 3, although in the original Vilardaga et al. [20] protocol each trial or scenario only had one question, a correction criterion similar to Condition 2 was additionally adopted to check if variability of scenarios would maintain the results even when separating the questions. For this reason, Condition 3 was marked in two different ways. In the first one, Condition 3a, each question per trial was marked as separate trial. That is to say, each question was taken into consideration independently of the other correct one. Although each type of trial had two questions separated into two different trials, a correct response to a trial did not require that the participant answered both questions correctly. The second one, Condition 3b, was similar to Condition 2. A correct response to a trial required the participant to answer both questions correctly. As such, the two questions were marked as one single trial. In short, Condition 3a was marked as if it had 36 trials, while Condition 3b was marked as if it had 18 trials.

performance for double reversed relations was achieved in Condition 3a. Condition 2 produced the weakest performances for all levels of relational complexity. Both Condition 1 and Condition 3a/b achieved better results on simple and reversed relations than pretest (see Tables 2 and 3), but both Conditions performed worse for double reversed than pretest. A possible reason for this may be that the participants were able to detect the reversal cue on double reversed with these Conditions versus pretest procedure, but they did not have sufficient ability to answer in accordance with double reversed. In other words, compared with responding to double relations as if they were simple relations, during Condition 1 and Condition 3a/b the participants

Assessing Perspective-Taking in Children through Different Formats of Deictic Framing Protocol

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74539

79

Comparison of means between the three conditions was performed using non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U). Since the sample size was small and assumption of normality is not met, it was decided to use non-parametric tests. According to relational complexity, the differences between Condition 1 and Condition 2 (p < 0.02) as well as Condition 2 and Condition 3a were significant (p < 0.05) in reversed relations. For all other comparisons, the differences were non-

With regards to the different ways of marking in Condition 3, when the questions were taken into consideration independently of each other for marking (i.e., Condition 3a), Condition 3 achieved better results than when the two questions per trial were marked as one single trial (Condition 3b). However, the differences were non-significant. Furthermore, Condition 3b

The results for relation type for all Conditions are presented in Table 4. The number of correct responses on I-YOU/ HERE-THERE double reversals in Condition 2 was zero. The data indicated that Condition 1 achieved the best performance for all types of simple relations, as well as I-YOU reversed relations and NOW-THEN reversed relations, but on HERE-THERE

achieved better results than Condition 2, which was marked in the same way.

responded as if double reversed relations were reversed relations.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for relational complexity in each condition.

Note: The best result for each relational complexity is shaded.

significant.

In general, the data indicate that correct answers decrease as a function of relational complexity (see Table 3). Particularly, the best performance on the simple and on reversed relations was achieved in Condition 1, however it underwent a sharp decline for the double reversals. The best


Note: The order in which participants of each group are displayed in the table corresponds to the order of specific criteria displayed in the text. For example, participant 1 is equivalent to participants 9 and 13 because they reached the first criterion.

Table 2. Composition of the groups and mean percentage of correct responses by relational complexity in each group.


Note: The best result for each relational complexity is shaded.

In order to ensure all groups were at the same level of deictic relational responding before implementing the different conditions, they were formed following a set of specific criteria: (1) participants who exceeded only 65% of correct simple trials; (2) those who exceeded 80% of correct simple trials, but failed 80% of reversed relations; (3) those who exceeded 80% of correct simple and reversed trials, and (4) those who exceeded only 80% of reversed trials. Table 2 shows the final composition of groups. Due to double reversed relations being considered to require the most complex form of relational responding, and given the age of the participants,

The groups 1, 2 and 3 were assigned to Conditions 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The mean percentages of correct response and standard deviations in term of Condition and relational complexity are presented in Table 3. With regard to Condition 3, although in the original Vilardaga et al. [20] protocol each trial or scenario only had one question, a correction criterion similar to Condition 2 was additionally adopted to check if variability of scenarios would maintain the results even when separating the questions. For this reason, Condition 3 was marked in two different ways. In the first one, Condition 3a, each question per trial was marked as separate trial. That is to say, each question was taken into consideration independently of the other correct one. Although each type of trial had two questions separated into two different trials, a correct response to a trial did not require that the participant answered both questions correctly. The second one, Condition 3b, was similar to Condition 2. A correct response to a trial required the participant to answer both questions correctly. As such, the two questions were marked as one single trial. In short, Condition 3a was marked as if it had 36 trials, while Condition 3b was marked as if it had 18 trials.

In general, the data indicate that correct answers decrease as a function of relational complexity (see Table 3). Particularly, the best performance on the simple and on reversed relations was achieved in Condition 1, however it underwent a sharp decline for the double reversals. The best

Note: The order in which participants of each group are displayed in the table corresponds to the order of specific criteria displayed in the text. For example, participant 1 is equivalent to participants 9 and 13 because they reached the first

Table 2. Composition of the groups and mean percentage of correct responses by relational complexity in each group.

criterion.

78 Behavior Analysis

this level of complexity was not taken into account for the formation of groups.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for relational complexity in each condition.

performance for double reversed relations was achieved in Condition 3a. Condition 2 produced the weakest performances for all levels of relational complexity. Both Condition 1 and Condition 3a/b achieved better results on simple and reversed relations than pretest (see Tables 2 and 3), but both Conditions performed worse for double reversed than pretest. A possible reason for this may be that the participants were able to detect the reversal cue on double reversed with these Conditions versus pretest procedure, but they did not have sufficient ability to answer in accordance with double reversed. In other words, compared with responding to double relations as if they were simple relations, during Condition 1 and Condition 3a/b the participants responded as if double reversed relations were reversed relations.

Comparison of means between the three conditions was performed using non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U). Since the sample size was small and assumption of normality is not met, it was decided to use non-parametric tests. According to relational complexity, the differences between Condition 1 and Condition 2 (p < 0.02) as well as Condition 2 and Condition 3a were significant (p < 0.05) in reversed relations. For all other comparisons, the differences were nonsignificant.

With regards to the different ways of marking in Condition 3, when the questions were taken into consideration independently of each other for marking (i.e., Condition 3a), Condition 3 achieved better results than when the two questions per trial were marked as one single trial (Condition 3b). However, the differences were non-significant. Furthermore, Condition 3b achieved better results than Condition 2, which was marked in the same way.

The results for relation type for all Conditions are presented in Table 4. The number of correct responses on I-YOU/ HERE-THERE double reversals in Condition 2 was zero. The data indicated that Condition 1 achieved the best performance for all types of simple relations, as well as I-YOU reversed relations and NOW-THEN reversed relations, but on HERE-THERE


more complex level of deictic relations because the participant must first change perspective from I to You in order to then change perspective from You to Other. That is to say, I-You frame would be a prerequisite relation in order to be able to respond to an Other-Other relation. The same could happen on NOW-THEN relations. As is the case of Vilardaga et al. [20], this condition used more complex temporal relations than today-yesterday (i.e., 3 h ago, this morning, right now, last Sunday, next Summer…). According to Hayes et al. [4], abstracting relational responding along temporal comparatives is a highly verbal action. Hayes, Fox, Gifford, Wilson, Barnes-Holmes and Healy [24] asked how "the future" can be presented, meaning that time is inherently more abstract. Due to the fact that temporal frames tend to emerge later in development, more complex temporal concepts could make performance for temporal deictic relations worse. Contrary to the abstraction used in temporal relations, HERE-THERE relations in Condition 3 were represented by specific natural contexts (e.g., Margarita is buying some drinks in the supermarket and Victoria is studying in the English school). According to the outcomes, the HERE-THERE reversed relation (i.e., if here was there) could require a more abstract ability than specific place reversed (i.e., if the supermarket was the classroom). This could be a possible reason for the better results the HERE-THERE reversed relation achieved in Condition 3.

Assessing Perspective-Taking in Children through Different Formats of Deictic Framing Protocol

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74539

81

The present study suggests that the variability between scenarios allows for the fact that the participants are not distracted by the repetition of similar words and to facilitate deictic relational responding. These results are consistent with those in Vilardaga et al. [20]. However, although the protocol used in Condition 3 was an adaption developed specifically to fit a child population from Vilardaga et al. [20], Study 1 shows that some scenarios could be too complicated for the sample used. Perhaps the verbal repertoire of this age group was not sufficiently developed to allow deictic relational responding with more complex concepts. For example, the temporal concepts used may not be suitable for early or middle childhood. The purpose of Study 2

With regard to the performances observed in Study 1, the current study was designed to determine whether a specific deictic protocol, maintaining the structure of the I-YOU and NOW-THEN relations in Condition 1, but following the variability in scenarios developed by

Five typically developing children with no known disabilities participated in this study (3 girls and 2 boys). They were carried over from Study 1 and were selected from the pretest procedure in the previous study. Since the participants have been evaluated in the Pretest of the previous study, consent is already available authorizing their participation. The school and the recruitment procedure were the same as Study 1. These children had not participated in any of

Vilardaga et al. [20], would facilitate the participant's relational performances.

was to adapt the variability on trials to especially fit a childhood population.

3. Study 2

3.1. Participants

the conditions of Study 1.

Note: The best result for each relational type is shaded.

Table 4. Means and standard deviations for relational type in each condition.

reversed relations it did not. In this case, Condition 3a achieved the highest score. Regarding to double reversed relations, Condition 3a achieved the best performance for these two types of these relations.

Non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U) revealed significant differences between Condition 1 and Condition 2 in NOW-THEN reversed relations (<0.04), between Condition 2 and Condition 3a in HERE-THERE reversed relations (<0.01), and between Condition 2 and Condition 3b in HERE-THERE reversed relations (<0.04).

In connection with the number of trials being repeated per condition, Condition 3 was the only one in which no trial was repeated. Furthermore, in Condition 1 and 2 some participants asked whether the trial had been done before (e.g. "but you have already asked me this question before", "I don't understand why you are asking me again", "Did I make a mistake? Because you are asking me that question again").

The results from Condition 1-3a/b can be discussed as follows. Condition 1 relinquished first position when the two questions per trial were presented as separate trials (see Condition 2 in Tables 3, 4). These findings are consistent with the results of other studies [14, 22], and they confirmed our initial hypothesis that a correct response to the first question of a trial could serve as a discriminative stimulus and facilitate a correct response for the second question of that trial.

Overall, Condition 3 finished in first or second position for the majority of relation types (see Table 4). However, it gave the weakest performances on I-YOU reversed relations. It should be recalled that the structure of the I-You relations in Condition 3 can be described as Other-Other relations because the trials enquiring about the perspective of the characters included in the scenario. According to Lovett and Rehfeldt [22], it could be that Other-Other relations are a more complex level of deictic relations because the participant must first change perspective from I to You in order to then change perspective from You to Other. That is to say, I-You frame would be a prerequisite relation in order to be able to respond to an Other-Other relation. The same could happen on NOW-THEN relations. As is the case of Vilardaga et al. [20], this condition used more complex temporal relations than today-yesterday (i.e., 3 h ago, this morning, right now, last Sunday, next Summer…). According to Hayes et al. [4], abstracting relational responding along temporal comparatives is a highly verbal action. Hayes, Fox, Gifford, Wilson, Barnes-Holmes and Healy [24] asked how "the future" can be presented, meaning that time is inherently more abstract. Due to the fact that temporal frames tend to emerge later in development, more complex temporal concepts could make performance for temporal deictic relations worse. Contrary to the abstraction used in temporal relations, HERE-THERE relations in Condition 3 were represented by specific natural contexts (e.g., Margarita is buying some drinks in the supermarket and Victoria is studying in the English school). According to the outcomes, the HERE-THERE reversed relation (i.e., if here was there) could require a more abstract ability than specific place reversed (i.e., if the supermarket was the classroom). This could be a possible reason for the better results the HERE-THERE reversed relation achieved in Condition 3.

The present study suggests that the variability between scenarios allows for the fact that the participants are not distracted by the repetition of similar words and to facilitate deictic relational responding. These results are consistent with those in Vilardaga et al. [20]. However, although the protocol used in Condition 3 was an adaption developed specifically to fit a child population from Vilardaga et al. [20], Study 1 shows that some scenarios could be too complicated for the sample used. Perhaps the verbal repertoire of this age group was not sufficiently developed to allow deictic relational responding with more complex concepts. For example, the temporal concepts used may not be suitable for early or middle childhood. The purpose of Study 2 was to adapt the variability on trials to especially fit a childhood population.
