CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Behavioral and Psychological StudiesAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyCategorization, perception, and language

A functional-analytic model of analogy using the Relational Evaluation Procedure

Open access
Stewart, Ian, Barnes-Holmes, Dermot, Roche, Bryan·2004·The Psychological Record
DOI 10.1007/bf03395491
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf03395491

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The REP has the advantage of allowing large numbers of stimulus relations to be trained in a short space of time using an intuitive procedure that more closely parallels the format of often well-established reading repertoires.

    “This procedure has the advantage of allowing large numbers of stimulus relations to be trained in a short space of time using an intuitive procedure that more closely parallels the format of often well-established reading repertoires.”

    From A derived relations analysis of approach-avoidance conflict: Implications for the behavioral analysis of human anxiety (2011) · cites this paper as Stewart et al., 2004

    The introduction (p. 1) describes the REP as a technique for rapid training and testing, and the discussion of the method (p. 5) says it can generate potentially unconstrained numbers of derived stimulus relations. Our copy does not say that its format parallels established reading repertoires or describe it as intuitive; it also discusses the number of relations that may be observed, rather than specifically the number trained. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. HAYES, S. C.(1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on Verbal Behavior (pp. 19-40). Reno,NV: Context Press.
  2. HAYES, S. C. (1994). Relational frame theory: A functionalapproach to verbal events. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 9-30). Reno, NV: Context Press.
  3. HAYES, S. C., BARNES-HOLMES, D., & ROCHE, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post Skinnerian approach to language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.
  4. ROCHE, B.,STEWART, I., & BARNES-HOLMES, D. (1999). PsyScope: An easyto use graphical system for designing and controlling equivalence experiments. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 17, 5-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B.
Affiliations
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
Corresponding author
Stewart, Ian
ORCID
Venue
The Psychological Record
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-10
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
531-552
ISSN
  • 0033-2933 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-3452
DOI
10.1007/bf03395491
OpenAlex
W1573630380
Cited by
82
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • The Psychological Record (publishedVersion)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ARAN (University of Galway Research Repository) (Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OpenSIUC (Southern Illinois University Carbondale) (submittedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • ARAN (University of Galway Research Repository) (Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ARAN (University of Galway Research Repository) (Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
analogical reasoning, relational frame theory, derived stimulus relations, equivalence relations, functional analysis, stimulus equivalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review