Psychology
2011. Vol.2, No.6, 552-559
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.26085
Acquisition and Transfer of English as a Second Language
through the Constructional Response Matching-to-Sample
Procedure for Students with Developmental Disabilities*
Mikimasa Omori1, Hiroshi Sugasawara2, Jun-ichi Yamamoto3
1Department of Psychology, Graduate school of Human Relation, Keio University, Japan;
2College of Human Science, Tokiwa University, Japan;
3Department of Psychology, Faculty of Letter, Keio University, Japan.
Received May 12th, 2011; revised July 13th, 2011; accepted August 15th, 2011.
Japanese students, who study English as second language often have the difficulty in learning English. Students
with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) have special difficulty with English spelling. Previous researches sug-
gest that equivalence-based training, such as the matching-to-sample (MTS) procedure and the constructional
response matching-to-sample (CRMTS) procedure were effective for the acquisition of spelling. The present
study examined the controlling variables for the acquisition of English spelling skills by 4 Japanese students
with ASD and compared the effects of MTS and CRMTS procedures on transfer to spelling. The results showed
that the MTS and CRMTS procedures were equally effective for shorter letter words. But the students showed
better results on acquisition and transfer to spelling for longer letter words after CRMTS procedure. The results
are discussed in terms of the effect of the CRMTS procedure on the acquisition and transfer of spelling words.
Keywords: Matching-to-Sample, Constructional-Response Matching-to-Sample, English as a Second Language,
Developmental Disabilities, Spelling
Introduction
When acquiring reading and writing, we construct the stimu-
lus relationship between three types of stimuli, pictures, written
letters and sounds (Sidman, 2000; Sugasawara & Yamamoto,
2007). However, students with developmental disabilities have
difficulties in acquiring these types of stimulus relationship in
reading and writing. In Japan, the English as a second language
(ESL) school curriculum begins in the first year of junior high
school when students are usually 12 or 13 years old. They will
spend approximately six years studying English. According to
the official curriculum, four basic skills of English are taught:
listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2002).
In learning writing skill, motor coordination is required.
Students with developmental disabilities such as autism spec-
trum disorder (ASD) often have difficulties in motor develop-
ment including deficits in motor planning, motor coordination
and so on (Hauck & Dewey, 2001). They show some difficul-
ties in holding and moving a pencil (Erhardt, 1988), and in
writing down words or sentences that are dictated (Ohba,
1996).
Because of the problem of poor motor development, training
without hand writing by using a computer is an effective and
efficient way of teaching writing to students with developmen-
tal disabilities (Vedora & Stromer, 2007; Yamamoto & Miya,
1999; Yamamoto & Shimizu, 2001). In previous research, two
teaching strategies have been proposed to instruct these stu-
dents in writing: the arbitrary matching-to-sample (MTS) pro-
cedure (Stromer, Mackay, Howell, McVay, & Flusser, 1996)
and the constructional response matching-to-sample (CRMTS)
procedure (de Rose, de Souza, & Hanna, 1996; Vedora &
Stromer, 2007). In a typical MTS paradigm, the student is re-
quired to select the one comparison stimulus word that best
corresponds to the sample stimulus. For example, a picture of
cup was presented as a sample stimulus, and the student was
required to choose a corresponding word, “cup,” from com-
parison word stimuli; cup, cap, and dog (Stromer et al., 1996).
After the participant made a correct response, he or she re-
ceived a token as a reinforcer. On the other hand, in a typical
CRMTS paradigm, a picture is used as the sample stimulus and
the letters or characters comprising the target word are the
comparison stimuli. For example, in the study of Vedora and
Stromer (2007), a picture of bread was presented as a sample
stimulus, and the student was required to touch letters b, r, e, a,
and d sequentially from the collection of letters presented on
the computer in order to construct a word “bread.” After the
participant made a correct response, they received a token as a
reinforcer.
Computer-based training that involves choosing or con-
structing a response, such as MTS and CRMTS, often results in
not only the acquisition of stimulus relationships, but also
transfer to hand writing on paper. For example, Stromer, Mac-
kay, Howell, McVay, and Flusser (1996) showed that transfer
to spelling on paper occurred as a consequent effect of the MTS
procedure. In their study, students were required to choose a
comparison printed word in the presence of a sample picture,
and then write the name of the picture. In addition, Vedora and
Stromer (2007) showed that transfer to tabletop spelling oc-
curred as an effect of the constructional response. They showed
that students with developmental disabilities acquired and im-
proved their reading and writing skills for words through
CRMTS procedure. In their study, students were required to
construct letters for a word sequentially on the computer, and
then write the name of the picture and dictated word. In the
*Global Center of Excellence (GCOE) program, Keio University Japanese
Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).

M. OMORI ET AL. 553
previous studies, the participants acquired writing skills for
their first languages. Few studies, however, suggested that this
type of training is as effective for ESL students. In our proce-
dure, when a picture was presented on the computer as a sample
stimulus, the student was required to write down the name of
picture in English on paper. The student was also required to
listen to the Japanese sounds and translate the sound into Eng-
lish written words by writing them down on paper. What is
more, although the MTS and CRMTS procedures are have been
shown to be effective for children with developmental disabili-
ties in acquiring writing skill (Stromer, et al., 1996; Stromer et
al., 1998; Vedora & Stromer, 2007; Sugasawara & Yamamoto,
2007), no study has indicated which procedure is more effective
for learning and transfer to hand-writing.
English words consist of strings of letters. For example, the
word “dog” consists of three letters, d, o, and g. Previous stud-
ies reported that 3, 4, and 5 letter words could be acquired and
transferred to hand-writing through the MTS and the CRMTS
procedures (Stromer et al., 1996; Stromer et al., 1998; Vedora
& Stromer, 2007). However, 3 to 5 letter-words were too short
to compare the effects of the two types of training. Further, no
studies have indicated how word- length affects acquisition and
transfer to hand-writing through the MTS and the CRMTS
procedures. In order to compare the effects of the two types of
training, we prepared 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 letter words as our
target stimuli.
When we use MTS and CRMTS procedure, we often use
generalized reinforcer such as token (Stromer, et al., 1996;
Stromer et al., 1998; Vedora & Stromer, 2007). However, when
the participant received a differential feedback such as rein-
forcing stimuli, reinforcing stimuli can be used as a reinforcer.
Dube and McIlvane (1995) found that reinforcing stimuli can
construct same stimulus relationship with sample and compari-
son stimuli. They also indicated that reinforcing stimuli would
be included in same stimulus class of sample and comparison
stimuli (Dube & McIlvane, 1995). In addition, Layng, Twyman,
and Stikeleather (2004) reported that by combining two sepa-
rate stimuli underlying two different behaviors into a single
presentation, a new behavioral blend would be produced via a
contingent consequence. The differenttial feedback procedure
provides a specific reinforcing stimulus after a particular re-
sponse is selected in the MTS procedure (Yamamoto & Shi-
mizu, 2001).
Sugasawara and Yamamoto (2007) showed that two students
with developmental disabilities could acquire reading skills
through the CRMTS with the differential feedback procedure
even though they were not given reading training for each
character. For example, a picture of a cat was the sample
stimulus and the Japanese phonograms (Hiragana) characters
“ね (/ne/)” and “こ (/ko/)” were the comparison stimuli in the
CRMTS procedure. When the student chose the character ‘ね’
as a comparison stimulus, the sound of “ne” followed as the
differential feedback. When the student subsequently chose the
character “こ” as a comparison stimulus, the sound of “ko”
followed as the differential feedback. When the student con-
structed the correct word “ねこ,” a fanfare and a circle was
presented as a reinforcer and the sound of “ne-ko” was pre-
sented as the differential feedback. This procedure could facili-
tate the acquisition of the specific relationship between the
sample stimulus, the selected comparison stimulus, and the
reinforcing stimulus (Dube & McIlvane, 1995; Sidman, 2000;
Yamamoto & Shimizu, 2001). Although these studies showed
that the students could acquire reading skill through MTS or
CRMTS with the differential feedback procedure, the results
were limited to the students’ first language. Therefore, in the
present study, we also examined the acquisition of English
reading skill through both types of training with the differential
feedback procedure.
In the present study, we examined three things. First, we
compared the effects of the MTS and CRMTS procedures on
ESL students with autism spectrum disorders. We examined
which procedure was more effective to facilitate the acquisition
and transfer of stimulus relationships by comparing the per-
centage of correct responses to English writing tests after each
training procedure. Second, we examined how word-length af-
fects acquisition and transfer to hand writing through the MTS
and CRMTS procedures. While previous research (Stromer et
al., 1996; Stromer et al., 1998; Vedora & Stromer, 2007) used 3,
4, or 5 letter-words for the target stimuli, we prepared three 3 to
8 letter-words to examine the difference. Third, we evaluated
English reading skills of ESL students to examine whether
English spoken sound stimuli presented as differential feedback
could be used to construct stimulus relationships with pictures
and written letters, and whether the acquisition of English
reading skill was different with the MTS and CRMTS proce-
dures.
Methods
Participants
Four male students diagnosed with Autism spectrum disor-
ders (ASD) participated in the present study. They were re-
cruited from Tokyo region via letter sent to parents. Informed
consent was provided to both students and parents. All of them
agreed to participate in the present study. Their profiles are
shown in Table 1. Assumed names are used to identify all of
the students.
Tomo was 15years old, Ryo was 17years old, Atsushi was
13years old, and Sho was 15years old. Their mean age was 15
years old. All of the students were enrolled in mainstream
schools at the time of the present study. They didn’t show any
difficulty in Japanese writing, speaking, and listening. We
evaluated their English skills. The students were required to
write English letters from “A” to “Z” in upper and lower-case
and required to read English letters from “A” to “Z” in upper
and lower-case. All of them could write down English letters
and could pronounce each letter clearly. They could also dis-
criminate upper- and lower-case English letters. Their mean full
Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was 82.00 in Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) (Japanese edition;
Wechsler, 1998), with a range from 78 to 84, mean verbal IQ
Table 1.
Profiles and WISC-
Ⅲ scores of students.
StudentsDiagnosis age FIQ VIQPIQ
Tomo Autism 15 84 89 82
Ryo Asperger’s syndrome 17 82 83 82
Atsushi Autism 13 78 63 99
Sho Autism 15 84 74 99
Mean 15.00 82.00 77.2590.50
Note. IQ scores were measured by using WISC-III. All students are identified by
assumed names.

M. OMORI ET AL. 554
was 77.25, with a range from 63 to 89, and mean performance
IQ was 90.50, with a range from 82 to 99. Even though their
mean performance IQ was below average, all showed no diffi-
culty using pencils or typing on keyboards.
Materials & S e t t ing
A laptop computer (Toshiba, Dynabook TX/470LS) was
used to present stimuli and for trainings. We prepared the two
training procedures, MTS and CRMTS, on the computer which
was programmed using Adobe Macromedia Director®. The
sample stimuli were 200 × 150 pixels in size and were con-
structed using Adobe Photoshop CS3.
The teaching programs were conducted in a laboratory. In
both procedures, one block consisted of eight trials. The com-
puter recorded the students’ responses during the training.
In both procedures, a picture was presented as a sample
stimulus for each trial. Both procedures presented the sound of
the word as the differential feedback when the students made a
correct response. For example, a picture of bat was the sample
stimulus and the written word “bat” was the correct comparison
stimulus in both procedures.
In MTS procedure, the student was asked to choose the word
“bat” from among 4 written comparison stimuli. In the CRMTS
procedure, the student was asked to type letters b, a, and t se-
quentially on the keyboard in order to construct a word “bat.”
When students chose or typed correctly, the sound /bæt/ was
presented as the differential feedback. On each trial, a picture
was presented as the sample stimulus on the computer. Then
the comparison stimuli were presented, and the student was
required to choose or type the word corresponding to the sam-
ple stimulus. If a correct response was made, a fanfare and a
circle were presented as a reinforcer, and the sound of the word
was presented as the differential feedback. If a correct response
was not made, the same trial was repeated until the student
could make a correct response.
Pencils and papers were provided for the writing test before
and after trainings. Sample stimuli were Picture, English writ-
ten words presented on the computer and Japanese spoken
sound, spoken by the experimenter. They were required to write
down English words on paper. Voice recorder was prepared for
the reading test which the participant took before and after
trainings. Sample stimuli were English written words presented
on the computer. They were required to read English words
toward voice recorders so that their reading response could be
recorded.
Stimulus Sets
Seventy English noun words were prepared and categorized
according to word length. For example, “dog” was categorized
as a three-letter word, and “lion” was categorized as a four-
letter word. A set consisted of four words from the same word-
length category.
Experimental Designs
A multiple pre-post design (Sugasawara & Yamamoto, 2007;
Sugasawara & Yamamoto, 2009) was used for the present study.
In order to compare the training effect of both the MTS and
CRMTS procedures, a training session was implemented be-
tween pre- and post tests. First, the students took two types of
pre-test within a specific word-length category. Then, their
training started with either the MTS procedure or the CRMTS
procedure. When students finished either of the training ses-
sions, four types of post test were taken. After that, the other
training within the same word-length category started and
lasted until the post tests were finished. The numbers of train-
ing blocks were equated between the two training procedures
within the same word-length category. Students then began a
new word-length category. To diminish the possibility that
students would learn the correct responses due to the order of
training, we quasi-randomized the order of training and
changed the stimulus set for each student.
Procedures
We conducted a pre-assessment, pre-test, training, and post
test. If the participant made less than 100% correct responses
for two consecutive blocks in training, we trained him on the
same stimulus set again. When the participant passed the crite-
rion, we gave him four types of post test. After that, the other
training procedure was conducted.
Pre-assessment
First, seventy pictures were presented on the computer one-
by-one. The students were instructed to write down the name of
the pictures presented on the computer and name them verbally
in English. We selected unknown words as stimuli. We defined
unknown words as the words that students were unable to write
down when shown pictures and were unable to name verbally
in English before training.
There were six word-length categories, from three to eight
letter words. Eight unknown words which were different in
each student for each word-length category were selected by
this assessment procedure. The eight selected words were di-
vided into two sets of four words, with each set having words
from the same word-length category.
Pre-test
The students received two types of pre-test. Both tests con-
sisted of eight trials. Sample stimuli were shown on the com-
puter in both tests. First, in the pre-test for English name writ-
ing, students wrote by hand on paper the name of the picture
shown on the computer. In the other test, the pre-test for Eng-
lish written word reading, students were required to read the
English written word aloud presented on the computer. After
these tests, the training session started.
Training
During the training session, the students began with either
the MTS procedure or the CRMTS procedure. We quasi-ran-
domized the order of training and changed the stimulus set for
each student in order to diminish the possibility of learning the
correct response by order. Figure 1 shows the paradigm of the
two training procedures, MTS (top) and CRMTS (bottom). In
both procedures, when students made the correct response, a
fanfare and a circle was presented as a reinforcer and the sound
of the word was immediately presented once as the differential
feedback. In both training procedures, four words from the
same word-length category were chosen as one set. One block
consisted of only either the MTS training or CRMTS training.
In training, one block consisted of eight trials and within a
block, each sample stimulus presented twice. In both training
procedures, the first two blocks were prompt blocks in which
the experimenter showed the participant how to use the pro-
grams and instructed them to the correct responses. In all trials,
when a correct response was made, a circle and fanfare sound
was presented as a reinforcer and then the sound of the word as
the differential feedback was presented as well. When an in-
correct response was made, the display did not change, but an
incorrect response was recorded. Then the trial was repeated

M. OMORI ET AL. 555
Ə
Figure 1.
Sequence of events in a trial for MTS and CRMTS training procedures.
Students started with either the MTS (top) or the CRMTS procedure
(bottom). Both procedures started from Step 1 through Step 3. In both
procedures, when students made the correct response, a reinforcer, a
circle and fanfare sound, was presented and the sound of the word was
immediately presented once as the differential feedback (Step 3).
and another response was required. Each training procedures
lasted until students met the criterion of scoring 100% in two
consecutive blocks.
Figure 2 shows the relationship of writing and reading skills.
In Figure 2, black line represents the trained relationship be-
tween picture and English written word and gray line represents
the English spoken sound as the differential feedback. Black
dotted lines show the transfer to writing and reading responses
from trained relationship on the computer and differential feed-
back
Matching-to-Sample (MTS) Training
In the MTS training procedure, a picture was first presented
in the upper part of the display as a sample stimulus.
When the participant clicked the picture, four comparison
word stimuli appeared in the lower part of the display. The four
comparison stimuli corresponded to the four picture stimuli in
the set. The placement of the comparison stimuli was quasi-
randomized on each trial. The participant was required to
choose the word which best described the picture within 2 sec-
onds after clicking the picture. If the participant couldn’t re-
spond within 2 seconds, a new picture stimulus was presented
on the computer for a new trial. When the participant made
mistakes twice in a trial, the experimenter pointed the name of
the picture presented on the computer to lead a correct re-
sponse.
Constructional Response Matching-to-Sample (CRMTS)
Training
The other training procedure was the CRMTS procedure.
First, a picture stimulus was presented in the middle part of the
display, with a frame below. When the sample stimulus was
presented, the participant was given 10 seconds to type the
name of the picture. If the participant couldn’t type the word in
10 seconds, a new picture stimulus was presented on the com-
puter for a new trial. When the participant made mistakes twice
in a trial, the experimenter told him the name of the picture by
saying each letter in order to make a correct response.
Post Test
In the post test phase, we examined whether students had
acquired English writing and reading skills through the two
training procedures. After two types of training, the students
received four types of post test. Two tests were conducted to
evaluate their writing accuracy.
Writing test 1: pict ure to English written w ord (Writing 1:
Figure 2.
The relationships of writing and reading skills. Black line represents
the trained relationship between picture and English written word and
gray line represents the English spoken sound given to the chosen word
as the differential feedback. Black dot lines show the transfer to writing
and reading skills from trained relationship on the computer and dif-
ferential feedback.
picture to English). The students wrote by hand the name of
the picture shown on the computer.
Writing test 2: Japanese spoken sound to English written
word (Writing 2: Japanese to English). This test was a new
test because students weren’t trained the relationship between
Japanese spoken sound and English written word. In this post
test, the spoken sound of a Japanese word was presented as a
sample stimulus and students were required to listen to it and
translate it into English by hand-writing.
Reading test 1: English written word to English spoken
sound (Reading 1: English to English). The students were
required to read the English written word shown on the com-
puter.
Reading test 2: English written word to Japanese spoken
sound (Reading 2: English to Japanese). This test was an-
other new test because students weren’t trained the relationship
between English written word and Japanese spoken sound. In
this post test, an English written word was presented as a sam-
ple stimulus and the students were required to translate it into
Japanese by reading aloud.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between the sample stimuli
and required response for each of the post tests. In Figure 3, the
black line labeled “Writing 1” represents Writing test 1: picture
to English written word. The black dotted lines labeled “Writ-
ing 2” represent Writing test 2: Japanese spoken sound to Eng-
lish written word, “Reading 1” represents Reading test 1: Eng-
lish written word to English spoken sound, and “Reading 2”
represents Reading test 2: English written word to Japanese
spoken sound. Gray lines represent the stimulus relationships
between the picture, Japanese word, and Japanese sound, which
the participants have already acquired. The students could read,
write and comprehend Japanese correctly, and they could also
read and write English letters correctly. In the present study,
only the stimulus relationship between pictures and English
written words was trained. Figure 3 shows that pictures as sam-
ple stimuli were presented on the computer in the Writing 1:
picture to English. Japanese spoken sounds were presented
verbally by the experimenter in the Writing 2: Japanese to Eng-
lish. English written words were presented on the computer in
Reading 1: English to English and Reading 2: English to Japa-
nese. Writing 2: English to Japanese and Reading 2: English to
Japanese were conducted to evaluate the effect of transfer from
two types of training.

M. OMORI ET AL. 556
Figure 3.
Relationship between sample stimuli and required response in each of
post tests. Black line labeled “Writing 1” represents Writing test 1:
picture to English written word. Black dotted lines labeled “Writing 2”
represent Writing test 2: Japanese spoken sound to English written
word, “Reading 1” represents Reading test 1: English written word to
English spoken sound, and “Reading 2” represents Reading test 2:
English written word to Japanese spoken sound. Gray lines represent
stimulus relationships, w h ic h t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s h a v e a l r e ady acquired.
Data Analysis
Because the all of stimuli the students learned were unknown
at the time of pre-test and none of them could write down or
read the word correctly. Therefore, we only analyzed the result
from post test. The binominal test was used to compare the
performance in the MTS and CRMTS procedures. For the sta-
tistical analysis, we calculated percent correct for the four stu-
dents together. In each post test, each student received six
word-length categories (3 to 8 letters); thus there were 24 sam-
ples to analyze for each post test. Each student experienced two
types of training procedure. Therefore, the effect of training
procedure was compared across all students.
To determine which percent correct was used for this bi-
nominal test, we compared the percent correct of writing and
reading based on the four post tests for both procedures. Within
a word-length category, we compared the percent correct for
the MTS and CRMTS procedures and then determined which
procedure showed a better result in this category. If the percent
correct for MTS and CRMTS were same, the data of that cate-
gory was not used for this analysis. After this determination, we
counted the number of the higher percent correct categories for
the MTS and CRMTS procedures. The number of the higher
percent correct categories was counted for each student and
then added across the four students based on the four post tests.
For each post test, we analyzed the number of the higher per-
cent correct categories of each MTS and CRMTS procedure.
While previous research (Stromer, et al., 1996; Stromer et al.,
1998; Vedora & Stromer, 2007) showed the effect of MTS and
CRMTS procedures to transfer to writing skills for less than
5-letter-words, no studies reported that the acquisition of writ-
ing down more than 5-letter-words through the MTS and the
CRMTS procedures. Therefore, in this analysis, we created
three categories based on word-length categories. The results
from word lengths with 3 to 5 letters were calculated first, those
with 6 to 8 letters and all word length categories. Finally, the
results from all word-length categories were calculated. An
alpha level of .01 was used for all statistical tests.
For the individual analyses, percent correct was calculated
based on the number of correct responses made out of 8 trials
for each block.
Reliability
Due to the characteristics of two types of reading tests, two
independent observers, including the experimenter, evaluated
whether or not a correct response was made. Both listened as
the students spoke and independently evaluated whether or not
the response was correct. The observers evaluated all trials for
each participant.
The reading response was recorded on the voice recorder and
evaluated later by the one of two observers. Trial-by-trial inter-
bserver agreement (IOA), calculated as the number of consis-
tent scores, was used to determine interrater reliability. All of
the reading tests in pre- and post tests were evaluated and cal-
culated. The IOA values were 94% for the pre-test for Reading
1: English to English and 100% for the post test for the Reading
1: English to English and 100% for the post test for the Reading
2: English to Japanese. These values indicate satisfactory
agreement. Ratings were made from the voice recorded spoken
responses. Kappa (Cohen, 1968) was calculated to measure
interrater reliability for the vocal responses, and was found to
be high for ratings of responses by Tomo (.93), Ryo (.96),
Atsushi (.91), and Sho (.93).
Results
Statistical Analysis
Scores of the binominal test in the Writing 1: picture to Eng-
lish were calculated. Although the effect of the CRMTS proce-
dure was not statistically significant compared with the MTS
procedure in the results for word-length category 3 to 5, n = 5,
P(4 ≤ x ≤ 5) = 0.38, it was statistically significant for
word-length category 6 to 8, n = 12, P(x ≤12) = 0.00, and in all
of word-length categories, n = 17, P(16 ≤ x ≤ 17) = 0.00. In the
Writing 2: Japanese to English, the effect of the CRMTS pro-
cedure was not statistically significant compared with the MTS
procedure for word-length category 3 to 5, n = 5,
P(4 ≤ x ≤ 5) = 0.38. However, it was statistically significant
for word-length category 6 to 8, n = 12, P(x ≤ 12) = 0.00, and in
all of word-length categories, n = 17, P(16 ≤ x ≤ 17) = 0.00. In
the Reading 1: English to English, in which the sample stimuli
were English written words that were to be read in English, the
effect of the CRMTS procedure was not statistically significant
compared with the MTS procedure for word-length category 3
to 5, n = 4, P(x ≤ 0) = 0.12, for word-length category 6 to 8, n =
5 P(4 ≤ x ≤5)=0.38, or for all of word-length categories, n = 9,
P(0 ≤ x ≤ 4) = 0.50. In the Reading 2: English to Japanese, the
effect of the CRMTS procedure was not statistically significant
compared with the MTS procedure for word-length category 3
to 5, n = 2, P(x ≤ 2) = 0.25, for word-length category 6 to 8, n =
6, P(4 ≤ x ≤ 6) = 0.34, or for all of word-length categories, n =
8, P(4 ≤ x ≤ 8) = 0.64.
Data Analysis
For the all participants, Tomo took an average of 5.50 blocks,
Ryo took 5.33 blocks, Atsushi took 5.67 blocks, and Sho took
6.17 blocks to complete two types of trainings. Figure 4
showed the mean percentages of correct response for four types

M. OMORI ET AL. 557
Figure 4.
Mean percentages of correct responses for four types of post test, the Writing 1: picture to English (top left), Writing 2: Japanese to English (top
right), Reading 1: English to English (bottom left), and Read ing 2: English to Japanese (bottom right). **p < .01.
of post test in 3, 4, 5 word-length categories and 6, 7, 8 word-
ength categories. Figure 4 shows mean percentages of correct
responses for four types of post test, the Writing 1: picture to
English (top left), Writing 2: Japanese to English (top right),
Reading 1: English to English (bottom left), and Reading 2:
English to Japanese (bottom right). For both writing tests, the
effects of training procedure differed in the two word-length
categories (3-5 versus 6-8 letters). For shorter words (3-5 let-
ters), the MTS and CRMTS procedures were similarly effec-
tive: 88% and 98% correct on both writing tests, respectively.
For longer words (6 - 8 letters), however, the MTS procedure
produced lower correct percentages than the CRMTS proce-
dure: 35% versus 85%, respectively, on Writing 1: picture to
English and 35% versus 89%, respectively, on Writing 2: Japa-
nese to English.
On the other hand, for both reading tests, the MTS and
CRMTS procedures produced similar results in the two word-
ength categories. For shorter words (3 - 5 letters), the MTS and
CRMTS procedures were both effective, producing 91% and
100% correct, respectively, on the Reading 1: English to Eng-
lish and 92% and 98%, respectively, on the Reading 2: English
to Japanese. For longer words (6 - 8 letters), percentages correct
for the MTS and CRMTS procedures were very similar: 95%
versus 90%, respectively, on the Reading 1: English to English
and 90% versus 94%, respectively, on the Reading 2: English
to Japanese.
Discussion
The present study compared the effects of MTS and CRMTS
on transfer to hand writing for ESL students with developmen-
tal disabilities. All of the students were able to acquire English
writing skills through both MTS and CRMTS procedures. The
students were able to match the sample stimuli with comparison
stimuli by choosing words or by typing words on the computer.
Even though they were not given any kind of training in writing,
they also showed transfer to hand writing. The results of the
present study therefore replicated those of previous research
(Stromer et al., 1996; Vedora & Stromer, 2007) in which trans-
fer to a writing response via MTS and CRMTS procedures was
reported.
We newly found training effects to be different for words of
different lengths, with the difference occurring between words
of 5 and 6 letters. In the 3 to 5 letter-word-length categories,

M. OMORI ET AL. 558
results in writing after two types of trainings were similar to
each other and did not show a statistically significant difference
(Stromer, et al., 1996; Stromer et al., 1998; Vedora & Stromer,
2007). On the other hand, for words 6 or more letters in length
(the 6 to 8 letter word-length categories), all students showed
better results in acquiring English writing skills after the
CRMTS procedure. This result suggests that the CRMTS pro-
cedure was more effective for writing transfer in longer words
compared to the MTS procedure. For shorter words, the MTS
procedure was more useful and easier for students to use to
acquire English writing skills because this training procedure
took a much shorter time to complete than the CRMTS proce-
dure.
Based on the present study, we suggest that the cut-off point
to switch the training procedure is the word-length category
between 5 and 6 letters as can be seen in the top two charts of
the Figures 4. The results of Tomo and Atsushi especially re-
flect our suggested cut-off point. Tomo and Atsushi scored
100% correct response on the two types of writing tests after
both MTS and CRMTS training in 5 letter-words category.
However, in 6-letter-words category, while Tomo only scored
25% and Atsushi had 40% correct response on both writing
tests after MTS training, they scored respectively 100% after
CRMTS training. Thus, students who take about 5.50 blocks to
finish the training might be expected to show this tendency.
For students who can reach the criterion faster, such as Ryo,
there may be little difference between the results of the two
procedures across all word-length categories. He scored 58%
correct response on both writing test, Writing 1: picture to Eng-
lish and Writing 2: Japanese to English, while others scored
about 30% in the word length 6 to 8 letters categories. This type
of participant may be able to construct stimulus relationships
between pictures and English written words easily, so that they
can acquire and transfer English writing skills even after train-
ing using the MTS procedure with longer words.
Although the MTS procedure seemed effective in the acqui-
sition of English writing skills for short words, Sho demon-
strated less effectiveness of the MTS procedure. Sho was actu-
ally able to write down the correct words with correct writing.
However, he took more than six blocks to complete his training,
suggesting that he had difficulty in acquiring the stimulus rela-
tionships between pictures and English written words. For this
type of student, the CRMTS procedure may be better even for
shorter word.
The present study also extended the previous results by
demonstrating transfer of writing for untrained stimulus rela-
tionships. Our students were trained on only one stimulus rela-
tionship, which was between a picture and an English written
word, in two types of trainings. However, they were able to
acquire four stimulus relationships. One of them was trained
stimulus relationship between a picture and an English written
word, and three of which, Japanese spoken sound to English
written word, English written word to Japanese spoken sound,
and English written word to Japanese spoken sound, were ac-
quired without training. As suggested in Figure 3, the relation-
ship between an English written word and an English spoken
sound, which was not actually trained, was established because
differential feedback procedure constructed equivalent rela-
tionship during training (Dube & McIlvane, 1995; Yamamoto
& Shimizu, 2001; Sugasawara & Yamamoto, 2007).
As seen in the bottom two charts of the Figure 4, all of the
students showed the acquisition of English reading with differ-
ential feedback. This result was suggested in previous studies
(Vedora & Stromer, 2007). Based on these results, we conclude
that English spoken sound stimuli presented as differential
feedback constructed stimulus relationship with pictures and
written letters, and construct equivalent relationship. And
learning to choose the words or type the words on the computer
with differential feedback was effective for the acquisition and
the improvement of reading skills even in ESL students with
developmental disabilities.
In the present study, we extended some of the findings of
Vedora and Stromer (2007). In their study, they focused on the
acquisition of writing of the names of words. In the present
study, we didn’t focus only on the acquisition of words' name
writing but also on Japanese dictation translating, English
reading, and English translation reading. Figure 4 suggests that
all students successfully acquired English writing skills and
reading skills. The paradigm of equivalent relations can be
extended to apply ESL students with developmental disabili-
ties.
The present study has several limitations. One limitation was
the small size of the sample. We only had four students with
ASD, and a larger number of participants will provide more
comprehensive data in the future research. Another limitation
was that the length of the exposure of the sample stimulus on
one trial was quite different in the two procedures. In the MTS
procedure, the sample stimulus was exposed for about two
seconds on each trial, because the participant only had to click
the correct word. However, in the CRMTS procedure, the
stimulus exposure was about ten seconds on each trial, because
the participant had to type the word. It can be argued that the
difference in the exposure times could have affected the results.
Therefore, future research should consider controlling the sam-
ple stimuli according to not only the number of presentations
but also the length of time they are presented.
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by Global Center of Excel-
lence (GCOE) program and Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science (JSPS). This work was permitted by Keio University
Institutional Review Board (IRB) in Faculty of Letter.
References
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with
provisions for scale disagreement or partial credit. Psychological
Bulletin, 70, 313-320. doi:10.1037/h0026256
de Rose, J. C., de Souza, D. G., & Hanna, E. S. (1996). Teaching read-
ing and writing: Exclusion and stimulus equivalence. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis, 29, 451-469. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-451
Dube,W. V., & McIlvane,W. J. (1995). Stimulus-reinforcer relations
and emergent matching to sample. The Psychological Record, 45,
591-612.
Erhardt, R. P. (1988). Developmental hand dysfunction: Theory as-
sessment treatment, Austin: Pro-Ed.
Hauck, J.A. & Dewey, D. (2001). Hand preference and motor func-
tioning in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmen-
tal Disorders, 31, 265-277. doi:10.1023/A:1010791118978
Layng, T. V. J., Twyman, J., & Stikeleather, G. (2004). Engineering
discovery learning: The contingency adduction of some precursors of
textual responding in a beginning reading program. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, 20, 99-109.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
(2002). Developing a strategic plan to cultivate “Japanese with Eng-
lish Abilities”. Tokyo: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sci-
ence and Technology.
Ohba, S. (1996). Problems and improvement of teaching handwriting in
a regular class to children with writing difficulties. The Japanese

M. OMORI ET AL. 559
Journal of Special Education, 33, 15-24. Sugasawara, H., & Yamamoto, J. (2009). Computer-based teaching of
Kanji construction and writing in a student with developmental dis-
abilities. Behavioral Intervention, 24, 43-53. doi:10.1002/bin.271
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement con-
tingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127-
146. doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127 Vedora. J., & Stromer, R. (2007). Computer-based writing instruction
for students with developmental disabilities. Research in Develop-
mental Disabilities, 28, 489-505. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2006.06.006
Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., Howell, S. R., McVay, A. A., & Flusser, D.
(1996). Teaching computer-based writing to individuals with devel-
opmental and hearing disabilities: Transfer of stimulus control to
writing tasks. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 25-42.
doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-25
Wechsler, D. (1998). Wechsler intelligence scales for Children (3rd
ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Yamamoto, J., & Miya, T. (1999). Acquisition and transfer of sentence
construction in autistic students: Analysis of computer-based teach-
ing. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 355-377.
doi:10.1016/S0891-4222(99)00017-7
Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., McVay, A. A., & Fowler, T. (1998). Writ-
ten lists as mediating stimuli in the matching-to-sample perform-
ances of individuals with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 31, 1-19. doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-1 Yamamoto, J., & Shimizu, H. (2001). Acquisition and expansion of
Kanji vocabulary through computer-based teaching in a student with
mental retardation: Analysis by equivalence relations. Japanese
Journal of Special Education, 38, 17-31.
Sugasawara, H., & Yamamoto, J. (2007). Computer-based teaching of
word construction and reading in two students with developmental
disabilities. Behavioral Intervention, 22, 263-277.
doi:10.1002/bin.248