A comparison of error-correction procedures on skill acquisition during discrete-trial instruction

Abstract

Previous research supports the use of a variety of error-correction procedures to facilitate skill acquisition during discrete-trial instruction. We used an adapted alternating treatments design to compare the effects of 4 commonly used error-correction procedures on skill acquisition for 2 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and 3 children with autism spectrum disorder. For all participants, multiple error-correction procedures were effective; however, 1 or 2 specific error-correction procedures led to more efficient skill acquisition for each individual. These results highlight the importance of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of error-correction procedures for individual learners during discrete-trial instruction. We discuss the use of discrete-trial instruction with different populations, implications for using multiple measures of procedural efficiency, and several areas for future research.

Examination of efficacious, efficient, and socially valid error‐correction procedures to teach sight words and prepositions to children with autism spectrum disorder

“…Instruction provided to learners with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and related intellectual disabilities (ID) includes several components, such as the presentation of materials, an opportunity to respond, reinforcement for correct responses, and feedback or error correction for incorrect responses (e.g., Smith, ). An error‐correction procedure is one component of instruction that has a direct impact on the learner's rate of acquisition, the amount of time spent in instruction, and the intrusiveness of the procedures for the learner (Carroll, Joachim, St. Peter, & Robinson, ; McGhan & Lerman, ; Rodgers & Iwata, ; Worsdell et al, ).…”

“…Because several error‐correction procedures that differ in the level of intrusiveness can be used during instruction, previous research has compared the efficacy and efficiency of different error‐correction procedures on skill acquisition (e.g., Carroll et al, ; McGhan & Lerman, ; Rodgers & Iwata, ; Smith, Mruzek, Wheat, & Hughes, ). The results of comparison studies have been described as idiosyncratic because learners frequently respond best to different strategies (e.g., Carroll et al, ; Rodgers & Iwata, ). When several interventions are available and each learner may respond differently to procedures, it is helpful to develop strategies to assess ideal practices for each learner.…”

“…Other studies measured the number of correct responses in each condition (e.g., Barbetta et al, ). Carroll et al () used multiple measures of intervention efficiency, including total sessions, trials to mastery, and total training time. These three efficiency measures corresponded for all of the participants, which is surprising given that the most trials to mastery occurred in the multiple‐response‐repetition condition (participants had to emit five correct prompted responses following an error), yet this condition did not have the longest total training duration.…”

Comparison of interventions to treat prompt dependence for children with developmental disabilities

“…The purpose of this condition was to evaluate whether the skill was in the participant's repertoire and would be more likely to occur if prompts were removed, an extended time period to respond was provided, and reinforcement contingencies were arranged to promote independent correct responding. We selected a 10‐s extended interval duration based on (a) the response interval prior to prompting used in prior studies (e.g., Cividini‐Motta & Ahearn, ), and (b) doubling a common response interval (i.e., 5 s) arranged in skill acquisition studies (e.g., Carroll et al, ; Hausman et al, ) and during the participant's instructional programming during their clinical‐service delivery.…”

Task as Reinforcer: a Reactive Alternative to Traditional Forms of Escape Extinction

“…A wide variety of error correction procedures are available, and there is a recognized need for these to be individualized by student and by skill (Carroll, Joachim, St. Peter, & Robinson, 2015). For some students, error correction procedures may owe as much of their effect to avoidance as is owed to practice (Rodgers & Iwata, 1991), best analyzed through comparison of the relative efficiencies of "thoughtful" and "thoughtless" responding.…”