A review of error correction procedures during instruction for children with developmental disabilities

Abstract

Error correction procedures are remedial strategies presented following an incorrect response that increases the probability that a correct response will occur in the future. Error correction is commonly used during skill acquisition programs for children with developmental disabilities; however, the specific strategy used may differ considerably. Recent comparative studies have examined the effect of numerous error correction procedures on the efficiency of acquisition for children with developmental disabilities. Despite considerable merit, minor procedural differences and unique terms for similar procedures likely affect comparisons across studies. Here, we clarify the procedures and findings of these studies and suggest areas of future research.Note. The number of participants in each study whose responding met the mastery criterion in the fewest number of exposures, over the number of participants exposed to the condition is shown in parentheses. Participants with inconclusive findings across sets are not reported.

An evaluation of prompting procedures in error correction for children with autism

“…Despite an argument made against the use of a reinforcer during error correction to avoid prompt dependency (e.g., Greer & Ross, 2008;Yuan et al, 2019), both studies found including a reinforcement component did not reduce the effects of error correction. However, similar to Cariveau et al's (2019) review, these two studies also yielded inconsistent results in their comparisons. For example, while Yuan et al (2019) maintained that their results did not demonstrate a meaningful difference between the two arrangements, Carneiro et al (2019) reported a reinforcement component in error correction might, in fact, result in faster acquisition.…”

“…Practitioners often further arrange a corrective procedure in case of errors. The most common error‐correction procedure is in the form of a remedial trial consisting of a prompt for a learner to perform the correct responses (e.g., Love, Carr, Almason, & Petursdottir, 2009), one or more correct responses from the learner (e.g., Cariveau, La Cruz Montilla, Gonzalez, & Ball, 2019; Pritchard & Malady, 2013), and sometimes a reinforcer (e.g., Carroll, Joachim, St. Peter, & Robinson, 2015; Yuan, Hua, & Zhu, 2019).…”

“…In a recent review by Cariveau et al (2019), they found that the existing error‐correction studies have largely compared the effects of procedures with varying levels of intrusiveness corresponding to their response requirements. Specifically, researchers have compared control, demonstration, active student response, remove and re‐represent, re‐present until correct, and multiple response repetition (see Cariveau et al, 2019). These procedures differ by the number of responses required and the condition under which the response should occur (i.e., prompted or independent).…”

“…For example, active student response and remove and re‐present require the learner to make a correct prompted or independent response, respectively, whereas the learner needs to make multiple correct prompted or independent responses in multiple response repetition and re‐present until correct. While these studies found error correction generally effective in facilitating skill acquisition, the most efficient procedure differed among the participants across the studies (Cariveau et al, 2019).…”

“…Among the error-correction components, a prompt is ubiquitous in the various error-correction arrangements (except for a control condition), regardless of the response requirements or the inclusion (or exclusion) of reinforcement (e.g., Cariveau et al, 2019;Love et al, 2009). However, even though multiple prompts may be used to evoke a correct response, no study to our knowledge has examined the relative effects of error correction with various prompts.…”