Date of Award


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy



First Advisor

Dr. Jack L. Michael

Second Advisor

Dr. Dale Brethower

Third Advisor

Dr. Alyce M. Dickinson


Many researchers and practitioners have reported dramatic learning gains that they attribute to the fluency procedure, often citing rate of response as a critical feature. Others have been unsuccessful at demonstrating these claims empirically. A variety of differences between methods and procedures that may account for the different outcomes are discussed in this paper. In particular is the difference in outcomes when topography-based as opposed to selection-based responses were targeted for training. Fluency practitioners, and the researchers who have obtained similar positive outcomes, have for the most part used topography-based forms of response during the drill and practice sessions, or sprints, that constitute the bulk of fluency training. Researchers who have targeted selection-based response forms have not produced data consistent with the positive findings of the fluency practitioners. This study examines the relative effects of training involving speed versus practice, and topography-based versus selection-based response forms, and the behavioral processes that may account for differences in observed outcomes.

Access Setting

Dissertation-Open Access

Included in

Psychology Commons