Table 1.

Summary of strengths and limitations of procedures for establishing intraverbal repertoires.

Procedures	Strengths	Limitations
Peer mediated interventions	Effective High social validity Effective across subclasses intraverbals Generalization data reported	Loose operational definitions Weak data collection procedures Use of contrived reinforcement contingencies
Transfer of stimulus control	Effective Untrained responses emerged Good operational definitions and measurement systems Limited to categorical intraverbals	Target behaviors not always intraverbals Generalization outside of sessions Use of contrived reinforcement contingencies
Video modeling	Focus on conversational intraverbals	Little generalization to novel stimuli
Conversation skills training	Effective	Required extended participant attending Little generalization or maintenance data Responses under the control of non-verbal stimuli rather than verbal stimuli in some studies Procedures not described in detail
Discrete trial training (DTT)	Effective	Generally reported concerns with DTT procedures (e.g., rote responses, generalization, etc.)
Direct Instruction Instruction (DI)	Effective for academic intraverbal repetoires Teaches more in less time Fills in gaps Maximizes time spent on instruction	Not commonly employed to teach non-academic intraverbal repertoires Programmed and scripted lessons No demonstrated effectiveness with individuals without some intraverbal repertoires
Precision Teaching (PT)	Effective in establishing intraverbal repertoires regardless of the form of the stimuli controlling the response Employed with a variety of instructional strategies Employed across a variety of populations and age ranges Investigations specific to retention, endurance, application, and stability	Data not well documented and published Not descriptive in specific PT components used in interventions Focus on academic intraverbals