Effects of omission and commission errors during tact instruction

Tamrazi et al. (2023) taught new tacts to kids with autism over Zoom. They used an alternating-treatments design to test three reinforcement styles: perfect timing, skipping praise (omission), or praising the wrong answer (commission).

Each child got the same picture-naming trials, but the teacher varied when the praise landed. The goal was to see which error slowed learning the least.

Perfect reinforcement won: kids reached mastery fastest when every correct answer got praise. When the teacher had to err, skipping praise hurt less than handing out praise for the wrong response.

In most comparisons, omission beat commission. The take-home: if your timing slips, stay quiet rather than cheer the wrong answer.

Cortes et al. (2022) also ran tact lessons over telehealth and found no speed difference between general and descriptive praise. Together, the two studies show that the kind of praise matters less than whether the praise lands on the right response.

Cordeiro et al. (2022) and Wong et al. (2022) used the same alternating-treatments design to test mastery rules. They proved that checking each target individually, not the whole set, cuts sessions in half. Tamrazi adds a second layer: once you pick a fast mastery rule, keep your reinforcement clean to squeeze out even more speed.

Mouridsen et al. (2002) showed that adding a mand component speeds tact acquisition. The 2023 study keeps that efficiency theme but shows that sloppy reinforcement can erase those gains.

You already run tight discrete trials; this paper tells you to guard the praise switch. On telehealth sessions, network lag can make you late. If you miss the window, count to one and stay quiet instead of throwing praise at the wrong moment. Your learner will still master the tact, just not as fast as when your timing is perfect.