The Application of Mastery Criterion to Individual Operants and the Effects on Acquisition and Maintenance of Responses

The use of performance criteria for determining “mastery” in discrete‐trial instruction: A call for research

“…That is, high performance of the other skills would contribute toward the criterion level being met even if one was still somewhat inaccurate. In two recent studies, Wong and Fienup (in press) and Wong et al (2021) demonstrated this effect in the context of sight-word instruction for seven children with ASD. Acquisition was faster and maintenance was similar or relatively stronger when the performance criterion was applied to individual targets within a set (with target replacement) compared to an entire set without replacement.…”

“…We suggest that the term "mastery criterion" be reserved for instances in which behavior reaches not only an initial accuracy criterion, but also other relevant goals such as generalization and maintenance. See alsoRichling et al (in press).2 For instructional arrangements in which trials are not aggregated into sessions or trial blocks, the criterion level and criterion-level frequency value can be expressed in terms of a specific number of consecutive correct trials.3 Although McDougale et al (2020) did not limit their review to studies that used DTI, the fact that the majority of studies used trial-based performance criteria establishes the relevance of the McDougale et al findings to the present review.4 Other recent studies have focused on other aspects and uses of performance criteria, including evaluating criterion-level rigor on derived relations(Fienup & Brodsky, 2017) and the effects of applying mastery criteria to individual versus sets of verbal operants(Wong et al, 2021).…”

Units of analysis in acquisition‐performance criteria for “mastery”: A systematic replication

“…Wong et al (2021) shed light on this apparent discrepancy within our field: the rejection of aggregating performances across individuals but apparent acceptance of aggregating performances within an individual. Wong et al noted two potential problems with aggregating independent responses into a single measure of performance: (1) aggregating performance may mask one or more responses that are not accurate (e.g., “if an instructor teaches a set of four operants, each with five response opportunities per session and a mastery criterion of 90% correct, a student can be declared to have mastered the set of operants despite responding with only 60% accuracy [3/5 correct] to one of the operants,” p. 3), and (2) aggregated performances may be most representative of the slowest to learn responses.…”

“…Wong et al’s (2021) study joined an emerging body of literature evaluating acquisition‐performance criteria with children with disabilities 2 . Other studies in this area have demonstrated the importance of requiring high levels of accuracy during acquisition and the relation between acquisition performances and response maintenance.…”

A preliminary comparison of mastery criterion frequency values: Effects on acquisition and maintenance

“…Therefore, it is important for researchers to examine how to improve efficiency and maintain effectiveness. “Saved” instructional time from implementing efficient teaching can be allocated to teaching new functional skills, which would have a collateral effect on how many functional skills a child has the opportunity to acquire (Wong et al., 2021; Wong & Fienup, in press).…”