Test order effects in simultaneous protocols

Simultaneous protocols typically yield poorer stimulus equivalence outcomes than do other protocols commonly used in equivalence research. Two independent groups of three 3-member equivalence sets of stimuli were used in conditional discrimination procedures in two conditions, one using the standard simultaneous protocol and the other using a hybrid simultaneous training and simple-to-complex testing. Participants completed the two conditions in one long session in Experiment 1, but in separate sessions in Experiment 2. The same stimulus sets used in Experiment 1 were randomized for the two conditions in Experiment 2. Overall, accuracy was better with the hybrid than with the standard protocol in both experiments. The equivalence yield was also better under the hybrid than under the standard protocol in each experiment. The results suggest that the order of testing for emergent relations may account for the difficulty often encountered with the standard simultaneous protocol.