Comparing the effectiveness of error-correction strategies in discrete trial training.
Test both Independent Probe and Delay error correction—each child has a clear favorite that stays the same across receptive and tact lessons.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Syriopoulou-Delli et al. (2012) tested two ways to fix mistakes during discrete trial training. One way is Independent Probe: after an error, the teacher gives the full prompt once, then moves to the next trial. The other way is Delay: after an error, the teacher waits a few seconds, then re-presents the same trial up to three times.
Three children with autism took part. The team alternated the two correction styles within the same lesson. They tracked correct answers in both receptive “touch car” and tact “what is this?” programs.
What they found
Each child had a clear winner, but the winner was different for every child. One boy learned fastest with Independent Probe, another with Delay, and the third showed little difference. The winning style stayed the same when the team switched from receptive to tact targets.
How this fits with other research
Jessel et al. (2020) extends this work. Eight years later they replaced both old tactics with a new move: after an error, keep the task but switch from rich to lean reinforcement. Their four boys learned faster and liked lessons more, showing error correction is still evolving.
Castañe et al. (1993) foreshadowed the mixed results. In a lab study, most learners never reached error-free learning with delayed prompts alone. Their early warning supports K et al.’s finding that delay-based fixes are not universal.
Castañe et al. (1993) also shows active student response beats passive modeling. That study used immediate child repetition after sight-word errors and got strong gains. K et al. did not test active repetition, so the two papers sit side-by-side, each highlighting a different variable to tweak.
Why it matters
You cannot assume one correction style fits every learner. Run a quick alternating-treatment probe: five trials with Independent Probe, five with Delay, and watch which line climbs. Once you see the winner, use it for both listener and speaker programs. Re-check every few months; the winner has stayed stable in the only study that looked.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one target skill, run ten error trials with Independent Probe and ten with Delay, and graph which method gives more correct responses on the next opportunity.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Error-correction strategies are essential considerations for behavior analysts implementing discrete trial training with children with autism. The research literature, however, is still lacking in the number of studies that compare and evaluate error-correction procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare two error-correction strategies: Independent Probe and Delay across learners with autism in an intensive intervention program. Two studies were conducted. The first study compared the two procedures across receptive tasks for 3 individuals, and differential effects were seen across learners. The second study compared the two procedures across tact trials with two of the same learners and found that individual differences were noted, but in addition, the more effective error-correction strategy was consistent across the two verbal operants (i.e., receptive in Study 1, tacts in Study 2). These combined studies suggest the effectiveness of error-correction strategies may be individualized to the learner but may generalize across operants.
Behavior modification, 2012 · doi:10.1177/0145445511427973