Catania, A. CharlesShimoff, EliotMatthews, Byron A.2024-08-272024-08-271987Catania, A. Charles, Eliot Shimoff, and Byron A. Matthews. “Correspondence Between Definitions and Procedures: A Reply to Stokes, Osnes, and Guevremont.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 20, no. 4 (1987): 401–4. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1987.20-401.https://doi.org/10.1901%2Fjaba.1987.20-401http://hdl.handle.net/11603/35887Stokes, Osnes, and Guevremont's (1987) implicit definition of correspondence classes appears dose to ours (Matthews, Shimoff, & Catania, 1987). Their definition, however, is fundamentally procedural and thus may have to be modified as experimental methodologies are refined. The advantage of our contingency-space analysis is that it is independent of specific procedures and focuses attention on problems inherent in some procedural definitions. Specifically, a contingency-space analysis addresses the issue of distinguishing specific instances from classes and reminds us that correspondence can be identified as a class only on the basis of observing a population of opportunities for say/do sequences in which the subject sometimes does not say.4 pagesen-UScontingency-space analysiscorrespondence traininggeneralizationresponse classesverbal behaviorText