An assessment of error-correction procedures for learners with autism.
A five-minute error-correction test picks the fastest DTT fix for most kids with autism.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with five children with autism. Each child was four to six years old.
They tried four quick error-correction styles in five-minute mini-sessions. Then they kept the best style for full lessons.
The four styles were: model, repeat, lead-to-correct, and trial-and-error plus model.
What they found
Four of the five kids learned fastest with the style that won the mini-test. The result held for weeks.
One child showed no clear winner; all styles worked about the same for him.
How this fits with other research
Koegel et al. (2014) ran a near-copy study. They also compared DTT tweaks and saw one method beat the rest. Their paper calls itself a 'systematic replication' of this one.
Hoch et al. (2007) tested error correction too, but with adults and video clips. They found that letting learners re-watch and then finish the step fixed errors. Same concept, new tool.
Knopp et al. (2023) stretched DTT into telehealth. Kids still mastered labels, showing the field is moving lessons online without losing punch.
Why it matters
You can save weeks of teaching time. Run the five-minute assessment first, then pick the winning correction style. It takes less than one coffee break and works for most kids with autism.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before your next DTT program, test all four error fixes for five minutes each and keep the one with the steepest learning curve.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Prior research indicates that the relative effectiveness of different error-correction procedures may be idiosyncratic across learners, suggesting the potential benefit of an individualized assessment prior to teaching. In this study, we evaluated the reliability and utility of a rapid error-correction assessment to identify the least intrusive, most effective procedure for teaching discriminations to 5 learners with autism. The initial assessment included 4 commonly used error-correction procedures. We compared the total number of trials required for the subject to reach the mastery criterion under each procedure. Subjects then received additional instruction with the least intrusive procedure associated with the fewest number of trials and 2 less effective procedures from the assessment. Outcomes of the additional instruction were consistent with those from the initial assessment for 4 of 5 subjects. These findings suggest that an initial assessment may be beneficial for identifying the most appropriate error-correction procedure.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2013 · doi:10.1002/jaba.65