Analysis of response repetition as an error-correction strategy during sight-word reading.

Eleven adults with developmental disabilities tried to learn new sight words.

Each time they misread a word, the teacher used one of several error-correction approaches.

The researchers compared: repeating the correct word once versus three times, using the correction every time versus only sometimes, and practicing the actual training word versus an unrelated word.

Sessions ran until each person could read all words correctly three times in a row.

Repeating the correct word multiple times after every error produced the best sight-word gains across all participants in Study 1.

Applying the correction consistently—after every error rather than intermittently—led to more words acquired in Study 2.

Even practicing an unrelated word after an error produced some improvement in Study 3, though most participants did better when they practiced the actual training word.

Dube et al. (1998) also found that small trial tweaks speed learning for people with severe ID. They removed an extra step; this paper adds extra repeats.

Lowe et al. (1974) showed that more practice with two trainers gives greetings to many new staff. Here, more repeats give faster sight-word gains.

Courtemanche et al. (2021) asked how much training staff need. This paper asks how much repetition learners need. Both push for the smallest dose that still works.

Next time a learner stumbles on a sight word, have them say the correct word multiple times before moving on. It takes a few extra seconds and can meaningfully improve the words they master. No new materials, no extra staff—just one simple change to error correction.