Identify and Distinguish Among Verbal Operants: A Practical Guide for Clinicians
If you work in ABA—whether you’re assessing a child’s communication, setting language goals, or troubleshooting why a teaching strategy isn’t working—you’ve probably heard the term “verbal operant.” And if you’ve found it confusing, you’re not alone. Many clinicians and caregivers struggle to tell a mand from a tact, or to understand why the same word can function as different operants depending on context. The confusion is understandable, because verbal operants aren’t about what someone says; they’re about why and how they say it.
This guide is for BCBAs, clinic owners, senior RBTs, supervisors, and caregivers who want to move beyond memorizing definitions and actually use operant identification in real clinical work. We’ll walk through each major verbal operant—mand, tact, echoic, intraverbal, and textual—and show how understanding function instead of form changes assessment, goal-setting, and intervention.
What Is a Verbal Operant?
A verbal operant is a functional class of behavior. It’s a way of grouping verbal responses based on what controls them—the antecedent and consequence—rather than what they sound or look like.
This distinction matters enormously. The word “cookie” can be a mand, a tact, or an echoic depending on context. If a hungry child says “cookie” because they want one and you hand them a cookie, that’s a mand. If you show a picture of a cookie and ask “What’s this?” and the child says “cookie,” that’s a tact. If you say “cookie” and the child repeats it, that’s an echoic. Same word, three different operants. Same word, three different teaching strategies.
This is why we say function over form. The function—the controlling antecedent and consequence—tells you what’s really happening, what reinforcement is maintaining the behavior, and how to teach it effectively.
The Five Core Verbal Operants
Mand (Requesting)
A mand is a request or demand. The speaker is trying to get something they want or need.
What controls a mand is motivation. If a child is thirsty and says “water,” the thirst evokes the response. The consequence that reinforces it is receiving water. Without that motivation, the word “water” wouldn’t occur. And the reinforcement has to match what was requested—asking for water and getting juice doesn’t work.
Mands are the most directly functional type of verbal behavior. In clinical work, they’re often a priority because they’re empowering: a child who can request help, a snack, or a break has more control over their world.
Tact (Labeling)
A tact is a label. The speaker is naming or describing something in the environment.
Tacts are controlled by nonverbal stimuli. You show a picture of a dog, and a child says “dog.” You point to a color and the child says “blue.” The nonverbal thing—the picture, object, or event—evokes the label. Tacts are reinforced socially, by praise, attention, or acknowledgment. The child doesn’t get the object itself.
Notice the key difference from mands: the child isn’t trying to get the dog or the blue crayon. They’re simply naming what they see. Tacts build conversational ability and help children talk about their world, which is different from using language to get what they want.
Echoic (Imitating)
An echoic is a repetition of what someone just said.
Echoics are controlled by a verbal model—someone else says something, and the learner repeats it. A teacher says “apple,” and the student says “apple.” Echoics show point-to-point correspondence (the response matches the stimulus sound by sound) and formal similarity (both model and response are spoken).
Echoics are often an early step in speech development and can help with articulation. But practicing echoics alone doesn’t automatically build functional communication. A child who can echo perfectly still might not be able to request, label, or hold a conversation.
Intraverbal (Conversational Response)
An intraverbal is a response to someone else’s words—a conversational exchange.
Intraverbals are controlled by verbal stimuli, but don’t require the learner to repeat what was said. If someone asks “What’s your name?” and you answer “Sam,” that’s an intraverbal. If a friend mentions a movie and you respond with your thoughts, that’s an intraverbal. There’s no point-to-point correspondence. You’re engaging in social back-and-forth, reinforced by the natural give-and-take of conversation.
Intraverbals are crucial for real conversation. They allow someone to participate in discussions, answer questions, share ideas, and maintain relationships.
Textual (Reading Aloud)
A textual operant involves reading written words aloud.
Textuals are controlled by written stimuli. You see the word “STOP” on a sign and say “stop.” The written form controls the spoken response. Textuals show point-to-point correspondence but don’t show formal similarity—the stimulus is written, the response is vocal. It’s a cross-modal operant.
Textual skills build literacy and allow learners to access written information in their environment.
How to Tell Operants Apart: Controlling Variables
The clearest way to identify an operant is to look at what comes before (the antecedent) and what comes after (the consequence).
Mands are controlled by motivation and a specific reinforcer. Before: the learner wants or needs something. After: they get exactly what they asked for.
Tacts are controlled by a nonverbal stimulus and social reinforcement. Before: there’s an object, picture, or event to label. After: the learner gets praise or acknowledgment—not the object itself.
Echoics are controlled by a verbal model spoken by someone else. Before: someone says something. After: the learner repeats it and gets social praise.
Intraverbals are controlled by another person’s words, but the response isn’t a direct repetition. Before: someone asks a question or makes a statement. After: the learner responds conversationally.
Textuals are controlled by written words. Before: there’s text to read. After: the learner reads it aloud.
This framework—always checking the antecedent and consequence—is your clearest path to accurate operant identification.
Why Operant Identification Matters in Real Practice
Getting operant identification right changes how you assess, teach, and measure progress.
During assessment, operant identification helps you understand what function a communication response is serving. If a child uses a behavior problem to get an item, that’s a mand-like function. Understanding the operant lets you design an intervention that teaches a functional alternative with the same reinforcement.
When setting goals, operant identification prevents you from teaching the wrong skill. If a child needs functional requesting, you prioritize mands. If they need to expand conversational skills, you focus on intraverbals. One operant can’t replace another.
During intervention, knowing the operant tells you how to reinforce. A mand is reinforced by the specific item requested. A tact or intraverbal is reinforced socially. If you reinforce a mand with praise instead of the item, you’ve broken the contingency.
In data collection, operant-based definitions make measurement reliable. “The learner will request a preferred item” is clearer than “the learner will communicate.” Clear definitions mean consistent data.
Misidentifying operants can lead to teaching strategies that don’t work—or that accidentally reinforce the wrong behavior.
Common Mistakes in Operant Identification
The most frequent error is assuming the same words always serve the same function. They don’t. The child who says “more” after finishing their snack is manding. The same child pointing at an empty cup and saying “more” when prompted with “What do you want?” is doing something closer to a tact. Context matters.
A second common mistake is focusing only on topography—what the behavior looks like—instead of analyzing antecedents and consequences. Two children might both say “dog” when shown a picture. If one gets praised, that’s a tact. If the other gets a toy dog, that’s a mand. The topography is identical; the operant is different.
Many clinicians also confuse echoic practice with intraverbal development. A child who can echo perfectly might still struggle to answer questions or maintain a conversation. Echoics are a building block, not an endpoint.
Finally, some clinicians treat mands and tacts as interchangeable. They’re not. Teaching a child to label preferred items is valuable, but it’s not the same as teaching them to request those items when they want them.
Operant Identification in Action: Real Examples
Example 1: The Cookie Mand
A 4-year-old reaches for a cookie jar and says “cookie.” A caregiver hands the child a cookie. This is a mand. The establishing operation was desire for the cookie. The consequence—receiving the cookie—maintains the behavior.
Example 2: The Picture Tact
A therapist holds up a picture of a dog and asks “What’s this?” The child says “dog.” The therapist says “Yes, good job!” This is a tact. The nonverbal stimulus controlled the response. The consequence was social praise, not a dog.
Example 3: The Everyday Echoic
A parent reads a bedtime story and says “Once upon a time…” The child repeats “Once upon a time!” with the same sounds and rhythm. This is an echoic. The verbal model controlled the repetition. The child showed point-to-point correspondence and formal similarity.
Example 4: The Conversation Intraverbal
A coworker asks “How was your weekend?” You respond with a story about a hike you took. Your response is an intraverbal. The verbal stimulus evoked your response, but you weren’t echoing it. You answered conversationally.
Example 5: Reading Textual
A student reads aloud from a worksheet: “The cat sat on the mat.” The written words control the vocal response. This is textual reading.
When You Would Use Operant Identification
Operant identification comes into play at every stage of clinical work.
During functional behavior assessment or functional communication assessment, operant identification helps you map what the learner is really doing. Is the challenging behavior serving a mand function? Is current communication mostly tacting, with few mands? This information shapes your intervention.
When setting goals, operant identification guides your priorities. A nonverbal child might benefit first from mand training. Another child might already mand effectively but struggle with intraverbals; conversation-focused intervention would be the priority.
During intervention planning, you select teaching strategies that match the operant. Teaching a mand often uses naturalistic teaching because the learner’s motivation is real. Teaching a tact might use drill or incidental teaching. Teaching intraverbals might involve question-answering activities or peer conversation practice.
In data collection, you operationalize responses by operant so you can track progress. “Student will mand for a break using words” is measurable. “Student will tact 10 classroom objects with 80% accuracy” is measurable.
Ethical Considerations in Operant-Based Teaching
Teaching functional communication is core to ethical ABA practice. This means prioritizing operants that increase the learner’s independence, agency, and dignity.
A common ethical pitfall is teaching verbal topography without teaching functional use. A child who can echo words or label objects but can’t request anything meaningful hasn’t been given real communication power. A learner forced to practice echoics or tacts without access to functional manding might experience frustration or behavior problems. Always ask: does this target increase the learner’s ability to communicate what they need and want?
Informed consent matters too. Guardians and learners deserve to understand what communication skills you’re targeting and why. Using plain language—”We’re going to teach your child to ask for help” instead of “We’re teaching mand acquisition”—supports transparency.
Documentation is essential. Your operational definitions, data, and session notes should clearly justify why you’re teaching this operant to this learner.
Key Takeaways
Verbal operants are defined by function—by what controls and reinforces them—not by the words themselves. The same utterance can be a mand, tact, echoic, or intraverbal depending on context.
Each operant has distinct controlling variables: mands are driven by motivation and reinforced by the specific item requested; tacts are controlled by nonverbal stimuli and reinforced socially; echoics require imitation and show point-to-point correspondence; intraverbals involve conversational response to verbal stimuli; textuals involve reading. Knowing these differences tells you how to teach, what to reinforce, and how to measure progress.
The work of identifying operants makes your assessment more precise, your goals more achievable, your interventions more effective, and your practice more ethical. Learners benefit most when we teach communication that truly functions in their lives.
