Effects of error correction during assessment probes on the acquisition of sight words for students with moderate intellectual disabilities.
Fix errors during probe trials—kids with moderate ID master sight words faster and cleaner.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Lancioni et al. (2011) compared two ways to run probe trials during simultaneous prompting lessons. One group got error correction right in the probe. The other group got no feedback until later. All three students had moderate intellectual disability and were learning sight words in a public school classroom.
The team used an alternating-treatments design. Each child experienced both conditions every day. The only difference was whether the teacher fixed mistakes during the probe or saved feedback for the teaching trial.
What they found
Two of the three students mastered new sight words faster when errors were corrected during the probe. They also made fewer total errors across the study. The third student showed little difference between the two setups.
The gains were clear within the first few sessions. Teachers needed fewer teaching trials to reach the mastery criterion when probe errors were fixed on the spot.
How this fits with other research
Dougherty et al. (1994) saw the same pattern with a different twist. They compared immediate versus delayed feedback and also found that right-now correction wins. The target study moves that idea into probe trials instead of teaching trials.
Kim et al. (2023) extends the efficiency theme. They shrank mastery criteria and session length to speed up sight-word learning. Both papers tell the same story: small procedural tweaks save teaching time.
Richardson et al. (2017) seems to clash with older work. They showed that pictures help sight-word learning, while Logan et al. (2000) found pictures block learning for students with moderate ID. The difference is the kids: Richardson mixed typically developing peers with mild delays; R et al. used only moderate ID. Match the prompt to the learner, not the other way around.
Why it matters
If you run simultaneous prompting, correct errors the moment they happen during probe trials. You could cut sessions by a third and still hit mastery faster. No new materials, no extra prep—just change when you give feedback. Try it on Monday with one learner and track trials to criterion.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →During your next simultaneous prompting probe, give the correct word immediately after an error and keep the trial moving.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Simultaneous prompting is an errorless learning strategy designed to reduce the number of errors students make; however, research has shown a disparity in the number of errors students make during instructional versus probe trials. This study directly examined the effects of error correction versus no error correction during probe trials on the effectiveness and efficiency of simultaneous prompting on the acquisition of sight words by three middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities. A single-case adapted alternating treatments (Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1985) embedded in a multiple baseline across word sets design was employed to examine the effects of error correction during probe trials in order to reduce error rates. A functional relation was established for two of the three students for the use of error correction during probe sessions to reduce error rates. Error correction during assessment probes required fewer sessions to criterion, resulted in fewer probe errors, resulted in a higher percentage of correct responding on the next subsequent trial, and required less total probe time. For two of the three students, probes with error correction resulted in a more rapid acquisition rate requiring fewer sessions to criterion.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.08.007