Inserting mastered targets during error correction when teaching skills to children with autism

Research has identified a variety of effective approaches for responding to errors during discrete‐trial training. In one commonly used method, the therapist delivers a prompt contingent on the occurrence of an incorrect response and then re‐presents the trial so that the learner has an opportunity to perform the correct response independently. Some authors recommend inserting trials with previously mastered targets between the prompted response and opportunities to respond independently, but no studies have directly examined the benefits of this approach. In this study, we manipulated the placement of trials with mastered targets during discrete‐trial training to compare the effectiveness of error correction with and without this recommended insertion procedure. Four children with autism participated, and each was taught 18 targets across 3 target sets. Results indicated that embedding trials with mastered targets into error correction may not confer benefits for most children and that doing so may lead to less efficient instruction.     

Analysis of response repetition as an error-correction strategy during sight-word reading

A great deal is known about the effects of positive reinforcement on response acquisition; by contrast, much less research has been conducted on contingencies applied to errors. We examined the effects of response repetition as an error-correction procedure on the sight-word reading performance of 11 adults with developmental disabilities. Study 1 compared single-response (SR) repetition and multiple-response (MR) repetition, and results showed that all 6 participants acquired more sight words with the MR procedure. Study 2 compared MR error correction following every incorrect response (continuous) and following one third of incorrect responses (intermittent), and results showed that all 6 participants acquired more sight words when error correction was continuous. Study 3 compared MR error correction in which errors required practice of the training word (relevant) versus a different word (irrelevant), and results showed that 3 of 9 participants showed better performance under the relevant condition; however, all participants showed improvement even under the irrelevant condition. Findings are discussed in terms of the behavioral processes by which error correction may enhance performance during acquisition.     

Error correction in discrimination training for children with autism

Three procedures for correcting errors made during discrimination training were examined: error statement (saying ‘no’), modeling the correct response, and No Feedback. Six children with autism (age 3–7 years) were taught to match words to pictures with each of the three procedures, and the number of trials to mastery was compared across conditions. Results varied across participants. Two participants performed as well with no feedback as they did with an error correction procedure; two acquired skills slightly more quickly with an error correction procedure than with no feedback, but showed no difference between error correction procedures; one did best with error statement; and one did best with modeling. Results indicate that the choice of error correction procedure can have a large effect on rate of skill acquisition but that the optimal procedure may vary across individuals. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effect of Type of Feedback in Multiple-Choice Testing on Long-Term Retention

We investigated how different types of feedback in multiple-choice testing influence long-term retention. Participants completed an initial multiple-choice test on general-knowledge questions. Then, they were randomly placed into one of the following four conditions: feedback displaying the original question and four alternative options including the correct answer (Feedback 1); feedback displaying the original question and the correct answer (Feedback 2); feedback displaying only the correct answer (Feedback 3); and no feedback (Control). On the final test two days later, participants in the feedback conditions showed improved retention—even participants who received Feedback 3 outperformed the control group, regardless of whether feedback followed correct or incorrect responses. There was no difference between the feedback conditions when feedback followed correct responses, but Feedback 1 was superior to Feedback 3 when feedback followed incorrect responses. The function of feedback in multiple-choice testing is to maintain correct responses and to correct erroneous responses.     

Self-control of feedback during motor learning: accounting for the absolute amount of feedback using a yoked group with self-control over feedback

A traditional control group yoked to a group that self-controls their reception of feedback receives feedback in the same relative and absolute manner. This traditional control group typically does not learn the task as well as the self-control group. Although the groups are matched for the amount of feedback they receive, the information is provided on trials in which the individual may not request feedback if he or she were provided the opportunity. Similarly, individuals may not receive feedback on trials for which it would be a beneficial learning experience. Subsequently, the mismatch between the provision of feedback and the potential learning opportunity leads to a decrement in retention. The present study was designed to examine motor learning for a yoked group with the same absolute amount of feedback, but who could self-control when they received feedback. Increased mental processing of error detection and correction was expected for the participants in the yoked self-control group because of their choice to employ a limited resource in the form of a decreasing amount of feedback opportunities. Participants in the yoked with self-control group committed fewer errors than the self-control group in retention and the traditional yoked group in both the retention and time transfer blocks. The results suggest that the yoked with self-control group was able to produce efficient learning effects and can be a viable control group for further motor learning studies.     

Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses

Previous studies investigating posttest feedback have generally conceptualized feedback as a method for correcting erroneous responses, giving virtually no consideration to how feedback might promote learning of correct responses. Here, the authors show that when correct responses are made with low confidence, feedback serves to correct this initial metacognitive error, enhancing retention of low-confidence correct responses. In 2 experiments, subjects took an initial multiple-choice test on general knowledge facts and made a confidence judgment after each response. Feedback was provided for half of the questions, and retention was assessed by a final cued-recall test. Taking the initial test improved retention relative to not testing, and feedback further enhanced performance. Consistent with prior research, feedback improved retention by allowing subjects to correct initially erroneous responses. Of more importance, feedback also doubled the retention of correct low-confidence responses, relative to providing no feedback. The function of feedback is to correct both memory errors and metacognitive errors.     

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

Prior research shows that learners have idiosyncratic responses to error‐correction procedures during instruction. Thus, assessments that identify error‐correction strategies to include in instruction can aid practitioners in selecting individualized, efficacious, and efficient interventions. The current investigation conducted an assessment to compare 5 error‐correction procedures that have been evaluated in the extant literature and are common in instructional practice for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Results showed that the assessment identified efficacious and efficient error‐correction procedures for all participants, and 1 procedure was efficient for 4 of the 5 participants. To examine the social validity of error‐correction procedures, participants selected among efficacious and efficient interventions in a concurrent‐chains assessment. We discuss the results in relation to prior research on error‐correction procedures and current instructional practices for learners with ASD.     

Teaching multiply controlled intraverbals to children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders

Reciprocal conversations, instructional activities, and other social interactions are replete with multiply controlled intraverbals, examples of which have been conceptualized in terms of conditional discriminations. Although the acquisition of conditional discriminations has been examined extensively in the behavior‐analytic literature, little research has evaluated procedures to establish multiply controlled intraverbals. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effects of procedures based on conditional discrimination training on the acquisition of multiply controlled intraverbals with 7 participants who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. We evaluated the effects of prompt delay with error correction, a differential observing response (DOR), and a DOR plus blocked trials on the acquisition of intraverbals using a multiple baseline design. Accuracy of intraverbal performance increased for at least 1 set of stimuli for all participants under prompt delay with error correction conditions; however, 4 participants required additional teaching (i.e., DOR, modified DOR, modified prompt delay with error correction). Based on these findings, when prompt delay with error correction is not sufficient to establish multiply controlled intraverbals, prompted DORs may be an effective alternative.     

Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test

A key educational challenge is how to correct students' errors and misconceptions so that they do not persist. Simply labelling an answer as correct or incorrect on a short-answer test (verification feedback) does not improve performance on later tests; error correction requires receiving answer feedback. We explored the generality of this conclusion and whether the effectiveness of verification feedback depends on the type of test with which it is paired. We argue that, unlike for short-answer tests, learning whether one's multiple-choice selection is correct or incorrect should help participants narrow down the possible answers and identify specific lures as false. To test this proposition we asked participants to answer a series of general knowledge multiple-choice questions. They received no feedback, answer feedback, or verification feedback, and then took a short-answer test immediately and two days later. Verification feedback was just as effective as answer feedback for maintaining correct answers. Importantly, verification feedback allowed learners to correct more of their errors than did no feedback, although it was not as effective as answer feedback. Overall, verification feedback conveyed information to the learner, which has both practical and theoretical implications.     

Using verification feedback to correct errors made on a multiple-choice test

A key educational challenge is how to correct students’ errors and misconceptions so that they do not persist. Simply labelling an answer as correct or incorrect on a short-answer test (verification feedback) does not improve performance on later tests; error correction requires receiving answer feedback. We explored the generality of this conclusion and whether the effectiveness of verification feedback depends on the type of test with which it is paired. We argue that, unlike for short-answer tests, learning whether one's multiple-choice selection is correct or incorrect should help participants narrow down the possible answers and identify specific lures as false. To test this proposition we asked participants to answer a series of general knowledge multiple-choice questions. They received no feedback, answer feedback, or verification feedback, and then took a short-answer test immediately and two days later. Verification feedback was just as effective as answer feedback for maintaining correct answers. Importantly, verification feedback allowed learners to correct more of their errors than did no feedback, although it was not as effective as answer feedback. Overall, verification feedback conveyed information to the learner, which has both practical and theoretical implications.     

Using an abbreviated assessment to identify effective error‐correction procedures for individual learners during discrete‐trial instruction

Previous research comparing the effectiveness of error‐correction procedures has involved lengthy assessments that may not be practical in applied settings. We used an abbreviated assessment to compare the effectiveness of five error‐correction procedures for four children with autism spectrum disorder or a developmental delay. During the abbreviated assessment, we sampled participants' responding with each procedure and completed the assessment before participants reached our mastery criterion. Then, we used the results of the abbreviated assessment to predict the most efficient procedure for each participant. Next, we conducted validation assessments, comparing the number of sessions, trials, and time required for participants to master targets with each procedure. Results showed correspondence between the abbreviated assessment and validation assessments for two of four participants and partial correspondence for the other two participants. Findings suggest that a brief assessment may be a useful tool for identifying the most efficient error‐correction procedure for individual learners.     

Detecting and correcting partial errors: Evidence for efficient control without conscious access

Appropriate reactions to erroneous actions are essential to keeping behavior adaptive. Erring, however, is not an all-or-none process: electromyographic (EMG) recordings of the responding muscles have revealed that covert incorrect response activations (termed “partial errors”) occur on a proportion of overtly correct trials. The occurrence of such “partial errors” shows that incorrect response activations could be corrected online, before turning into overt errors. In the present study, we showed that, unlike overt errors, such “partial errors” are poorly consciously detected by participants, who could report only one third of their partial errors. Two parameters of the partial errors were found to predict detection: the surface of the incorrect EMG burst (larger for detected) and the correction time (between the incorrect and correct EMG onsets; longer for detected). These two parameters provided independent information. The correct(ive) responses associated with detected partial errors were larger than the “pure-correct” ones, and this increase was likely a consequence, rather than a cause, of the detection. The respective impacts of the two parameters predicting detection (incorrect surface and correction time), along with the underlying physiological processes subtending partial-error detection, are discussed.     

Modification of articulation errors of pre-delinquents by their peers

Pre-delinquent peers in Achievement Place (a community based family style rehabilitation program based on a token economy) were given points (token reinforcement) to modify the articulation errors of two boys. In Experiment I, using a multiple baseline experimental design, error words involving the /l/, /r/, /th/, and /ting/ sounds were successfully treated by both a group of peers and by individual peers. Also, generalization occurred to words that were not trained. The speech correction procedure used by the peers involved a number of variables including modelling, peer approval, contingent points, and feedback. The individual role of each of these variables was not experimentally analyzed, but it was demonstrated that peers could function as speech therapists without instructions, feedback, or the presence of an adult. It was also found that payment of points to peers for detecting correct articulations produced closer agreement with the experimenter than when they were paid points for finding incorrect articulations. The results were replicated in a second experiment with another subject who had similar articulation errors. In addition, the second experiment showed that peer speech correction procedures resulted in some generalization to the correct use of target words in sentences and significant improvements on standard tests of articulation.     

Stimulus presentation order in receptive identification tasks: A systematic replication

Conflicting recommendations exist in the literature regarding the optimal order of stimulus presentation when teaching auditory–visual conditional discriminations. The present study examined the generality of a previously demonstrated advantage of presenting the auditory sample before visual comparisons (sample‐first condition) over the reverse sequence (comparison‐first condition). Participants were four typically developing 5‐ and 6‐year‐old boys. The procedures of Petursdottir and Aguilar (2016) were systematically replicated with the addition of a prompted error correction trial following each incorrect response. Overall, there were more instances of quicker mastery in the sample‐first condition (four of seven evaluations) than in the comparison‐first condition (two of seven evaluations). A comparison‐first advantage was associated with slower acquisition in both conditions than in the remaining evaluations, and an analysis of stimulus and position bias yielded tentative evidence for unwanted sources of stimulus control.     

Preference assessment training via self‐instruction: A replication and extension

We examined the effects of a self‐instructional and feedback package on participants’ implementation of a paired‐stimulus preference assessment. Specifically, in Experiment 1, we used a multiple baseline design across participants to replicate and extend the results of Graff and Karsten (2012) by evaluating the effectiveness of their self‐instructional manual. A majority of the participants (i.e., 5 of 7 undergraduate students and 4 of 5 in‐home behavior technicians) achieved mastery with the self‐instructional package. The remaining participants met the mastery criterion after brief modeling and feedback sessions. In Experiment 2, we identified the most effective component of the feedback condition from Experiment 1 when a self‐instructional package was not sufficient. Brief feedback sessions in which participants received a list of the targeted responses plus information regarding accuracy of emitted responses was sufficient for 5 of 6 participants to achieve mastery.     

Establishing initial auditory‐visual conditional discriminations and emergence of initial tacts in young children with autism spectrum disorder

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often display impaired listener skills, and few studies have evaluated procedures for establishing initial auditory‐visual conditional discrimination skills. We developed and evaluated a treatment package for training initial auditory‐visual conditional discriminations based on the extant research on training such discriminations in children with ASD with at least some preexisting skills in this area. The treatment package included (a) conditional‐only training, (b) prompting the participant to echo the sample stimulus as a differential observing response, (c) prompting correct selection responses using an identity‐match prompt, (d) using progressively delayed prompts, and (e) repeating trials until the participant emitted an independent correct response. Results indicated all participants mastered all listener targets, and the two participants for whom we tested the emergence of corresponding tacts showed mastery of most tacts without direct training. We discuss these results relative to prior research on listener skills and tacts.     

Personality,expectations, and response strategies in multiple‐choice question examinations in university students: a test of Gray's hypotheses

The relation between personality and type of error made in multiple‐choice examinations when correction for guessing is applied was investigated across two studies. Our general hypothesis was that disinhibited subjects (those scoring high on the Sensitivity to Reward (SR) scale and/or low on the Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) scale) would make more incorrect responses and fewer omission errors (blanks) than inhibited subjects (those with high SP and/or low SR scores). The meta‐analyses of 19 examinations in study 1 confirmed our hypotheses for SP, SR, and extraversion. Regression analyses on effect sizes revealed that SP differences were obtained in examinations with low marks, whereas SR differences were obtained in examinations with more responses and fewer questions. Study 2 showed that a low‐mark expectation increased omissions in high‐SP subjects, whereas a high‐mark expectation increased incorrect responses in high‐SR subjects. These results suggest two different mechanisms mediating inhibition/disinhibition: one associated with aversive motivation, and the other with appetitive motivation. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Receiving right/wrong feedback: Consequences for learning

Prior work suggests that receiving feedback that one's response was correct or incorrect (right/wrong feedback) does not help learners, as compared to not receiving any feedback at all (Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005). In three experiments we examined the generality of this conclusion. Right/wrong feedback did not aid error correction, regardless of whether participants learned facts embedded in prose (Experiment 1) or translations of foreign vocabulary (Experiment 2). While right/wrong feedback did not improve the overall retention of correct answers (Experiments 1 and 2), it facilitated retention of low-confidence correct answers (Experiment 3). Reviewing the original materials was very useful to learners, but this benefit was similar after receiving either right/wrong feedback or no feedback (Experiments 1 and 2). Overall, right/wrong feedback conveys some information to the learner, but is not nearly as useful as being told the correct answer or having the chance to review the to-be-learned materials.     

Errors without conflict: implications for performance monitoring theories of anterior cingulate cortex

Recent theories of the neural basis of performance monitoring have emphasized a central role for the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Replicating an earlier event-related potential (ERP) study, which showed an error feedback negativity that was modeled as having an ACC generator, we used event-related fMRI to investigate whether the ACC would differentiate between correct and incorrect feedback stimuli in a time estimation task. The design controlled for response conflict and frequency and expectancy effects. Although participants in the current study adjusted their performance following error feedback, we did not observe error feedback-evoked ACC activity. In contrast, we did observe ACC activity while the same subjects performed the Stroop task, in which an area of the ACC activated during both conflict and error trials. These findings are inconsistent with previous dipole models of the error feedback negativity, and suggest the ACC may not be involved in the generation of this ERP component. These results question involvement of the ACC in the detection of errors per se when controlling for conflict.     

Timeout as a reinforcer for errors in a serial position task

After learning to press keys in a predetermined serial position sequence, with timeouts scheduled as a consequence of errors, monkeys developed stereotyped errors. As soon as a new trial started, the animals would make an error. On trial after trial, they pressed the same incorrect key at the first member of the sequence, even though they had previously learned the sequence. First-member errors occurred even when sequences of fully bright keys marking correct choices were presented. When timeout was eliminated as a consequence of one first-member error, subjects switched to an error that did produce the timeout. When all first-member errors failed to produce timeout the monkeys ceased responding. Both prefeeding and reduction in reinforcement density resulted in stereotyped errors occurring earlier in the session.