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

Schneider et al. (2022) asked a simple question: do kids need to hit 90% accuracy once or three times in a row before we call a skill mastered? They ran an alternating-treatments design with children who had mixed diagnoses. Each child learned new tasks under both rules in random order.

One-and-done won. Reaching 90% once produced faster acquisition than waiting for three straight perfect sessions. Maintenance scores later looked the same, so the extra practice bought nothing.

Wong et al. (2022) saw the same speed boost when they checked each sight word alone instead of waiting for the whole set to pass. Both papers show leaner mastery rules save time.

Cordeiro et al. (2022) also found target-level mastery beat set-level mastery for tacts and listener responses. The pattern is clear: smaller units, fewer checks, faster learning.

Vladescu et al. (2021) took a different angle—set size—but the message aligns. Smaller sets (3-6 items) moved faster than big sets (12). Leaner structures speed acquisition no matter where you cut the fat.

Stop running three perfect sessions before you move on. One clean 90% session is enough for most skills. You will free up table time, cut client frustration, and still keep the skill alive weeks later. Try it with tacts, intraverbals, or daily living tasks next week and track how many sessions you save.