Decreasing errors in reading-related matching to sample using a delayed-sample procedure.

Two adults with intellectual disabilities kept failing regular matching-to-sample tasks. The team flipped the order: they showed the choice cards first, waited five seconds, then showed the sample.

This delayed-sample setup ran on a computer. The adults had to pick the card that matched the sample that appeared later.

Errors dropped sharply once the sample came after the choices. The five-second head start let the learners scan the options before hearing or seeing the target.

LeFrancois et al. (1993) used the same delayed-MTS idea sixteen years earlier. They taught spelling and built new word sets without extra training. The 2009 paper keeps the delay but aims it at error reduction, not new skills.

DeRoma et al. (2004) looks like a clash: they gave kids with autism a three-second delayed cue and won. The 2009 study gives adults with ID a five-second delayed sample and also wins. The gap difference matches the age and task, so both can be right.

Hansen et al. (1989) tried teaching parts of the task one by one and saw little gain. The 2009 shortcut—just reorder the stimuli—beats that heavy lifting.

If your client keeps missing matching trials, pause before adding more prompts or breaking the task apart. Show the comparisons first, wait five seconds, then present the sample. One small timing tweak can cut errors in half and save you minutes of correction each session.