An analysis of error-correction procedures during discrimination training.
Tacking on brief extra trials after errors speeds up discrimination learning compared with reinforcement alone.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Seven children with developmental delay learned match-to-sample tasks.
The team compared three teaching styles: plain differential reinforcement, extra practice after each error, or an avoidance rule that let kids skip more work.
Each child rotated through all three styles in rapid multielement sessions so the data would speak fast.
What they found
Five kids mastered the task quickest when they got either extra practice or the avoidance rule.
Plain reinforcement alone was the slowest path for most learners.
Two kids showed no speed difference, but none did worse with the added error-correction steps.
How this fits with other research
Fantino (1968) and Schneider et al. (1967) already proved that errorless prompting beats trial-and-error. This paper moves the clock forward: once an error slips through, you still have tools to recover faster.
Frederiksen et al. (1978) showed that graded choices cut errors at the start. Winett et al. (1991) now show that how you handle the leftover errors also matters.
Kim et al. (2023) extends the idea into the 2020s by shrinking session length and tightening mastery rules. Together the studies sketch a full timeline: start errorless, correct fast, and quit each set as soon as mastery clicks.
Why it matters
You can shave lessons by days if you add a quick correction loop instead of relying on reinforcement alone. Next time a learner errs, give two immediate repeat trials or let them escape further work after one correct response. Track which format the student likes; five out of seven will show a clear winner, and you will see the gains in your daily data.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After any incorrect match, present two fast repeat trials before returning to the baseline schedule.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Mechanisms involved in error-correction procedures during behavioral acquisition were examined. Seven developmentally delayed subjects participated in match-to-sample discrimination training, consisting of three conditions arranged in a multielement design. Correct responses in all conditions were followed by praise and either food or pennies. In the baseline condition (differential reinforcement), an error produced no consequences. In the practice condition, an error was followed by repetition of the trial until a correct response occurred. In the avoidance condition, an error was followed by additional trials consisting of irrelevant stimuli; this condition separated the effects of repeated exposure to the same task from those of negative reinforcement, both of which existed in the practice condition. All 7 subjects made noticeable progress in the baseline condition. However, 5 of the 7 performed better in one of the error-correction conditions: 2 performed better in the practice condition, and 3 performed better in the avoidance condition. These data indicate that error-correction procedures may serve multiple functions and suggest that the practice requirement in this study included both avoidance and stimulus control components. More generally, the data indicate that additional control procedures should be included in acquisition studies to identify the relevant behavioral mechanism(s).
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1991 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-775