A comparison of error-correction procedures on skill acquisition during discrete-trial instruction.
Quickly test and pick the error-correction style that produces the fastest learning for each individual child.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran an alternating-treatments design with five children who had autism or ADHD.
Each child got the same lessons, but the teacher switched among four common error-correction styles every day.
They tracked how fast each child mastered new skills under each style.
What they found
Every child learned with all four styles, but one or two styles were clearly faster for each child.
No single style won for everyone; the best fit was child-specific.
How this fits with other research
Jobin (2019) used the same quick-switch method to compare DTT and PRT and also found child-specific winners.
Bergmann et al. (2023) updated the field by showing that fine-grained, component-by-component fidelity checks catch more teaching errors than broad Likert scales.
The 2015 study looked at learner speed, while Bowe et al. (2018) later showed how to fix staff error-correction mistakes with the PDC-HS.
Together, the papers say: pick the procedure that works fastest for the child, then use sharp fidelity tools to keep staff doing it right.
Why it matters
You can waste weeks sticking to one error-correction style that feels "best." Instead, run a brief mini-experiment: rotate styles across a few days, graph acquisition speed, and lock in the winner for that learner. Pair this with component fidelity checks to be sure staff deliver the chosen style correctly.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one learner, run two error-correction styles across two sets of targets, count correct responses per minute, and keep the faster style.
02At a glance
03Original 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.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2015 · doi:10.1002/jaba.205