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

Cariveau et al. (2019) read every error-correction paper they could find. They sorted the ways teachers respond after a learner goofs. The goal was a clear map of 'what to do when the kid picks the wrong card.'

The review covers children with developmental disabilities. No new kids were taught; instead, old studies were grouped like baseball cards.

No single 'best' error fix exists. Some studies praise, some repeat the trial, some show the right answer. The names for these moves change from paper to paper, so comparing them is like comparing apples to trucks.

Because labels are messy, we still can't say which style helps kids learn fastest.

Mulder et al. (2020) looked only at 'errorless' tactics and found stimulus fading usually wins. Cariveau's wider view says the field is too jumbled to crown a winner. The two papers agree fading is popular; the review just adds 'we need cleaner tests.'

Dougherty et al. (1994) showed immediate fixes beat delayed fixes for sight words. Cariveau lists that study as one procedural flavor, reminding us timing matters.

Godinez et al. (2024) found kids often prefer corrective feedback over pure praise. The review didn't cover learner choice, so the new study extends the menu of options.

Friedling et al. (1979) told teachers to pick the simplest procedure first. Cariveau echoes the call: test simple vs. fancy corrections head-to-head.

You probably have a 'go-to' correction routine. This paper says label it clearly in your notes and track how well it works. Until the field agrees on names and runs clean comparisons, your single-case data matter. Try switching timing (immediate vs. delayed), try repeating the trial, try a quick prompt, and graph the results. Sharing well-named procedures will speed up the hunt for the best fix.