Examination of efficacious, efficient, and socially valid error‐correction procedures to teach sight words and prepositions to children with autism spectrum disorder
A five-option error-correction test quickly finds the speediest fix for each child with autism.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Kodak et al. (2016) tested five different ways to fix reading errors in kids with autism. They wanted to see which method helped each child learn sight words and prepositions fastest. The team ran a quick single-case assessment for every participant to pick the winner.
What they found
The short assessment worked. It pointed to one best procedure for each learner. Four out of five kids shared the same fastest method, so you get a good starting guess for the next student.
How this fits with other research
Schnell et al. (2020) built on this idea. They used the same test-then-pick logic, but for prompt types instead of error fixes. Their larger sample shows the assessment shortcut keeps paying off.
Klaus et al. (2019) looks like a clash at first. They found no speed difference between two prompting tactics for sight words. The key difference is scope: Kodak compared five correction styles, Klaus only two. More choices give the assessment room to reveal a winner.
May (2011) systematic review sets the base. It says massed trials with prompting work for sight words in autism. Kodak adds the next layer—how to correct errors within those trials so each kid moves ahead fastest.
Why it matters
You can copy the five-procedure assessment in under 30 minutes. Run it at the start of any sight-word or preposition program. Drop the slowest methods and keep the one that wins. You save sessions, reduce frustration, and still hit mastery for children with autism.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one target word, run the five-procedure assessment, and keep the fastest correction for the rest of the week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Prior research shows that learners have idiosyncratic responses to error-correction procedures during instruction. Thus, assessments that identify error-correction strategies to include in instruction can aid practitioners in selecting individualized, efficacious, and efficient interventions. The current investigation conducted an assessment to compare 5 error-correction procedures that have been evaluated in the extant literature and are common in instructional practice for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Results showed that the assessment identified efficacious and efficient error-correction procedures for all participants, and 1 procedure was efficient for 4 of the 5 participants. To examine the social validity of error-correction procedures, participants selected among efficacious and efficient interventions in a concurrent-chains assessment. We discuss the results in relation to prior research on error-correction procedures and current instructional practices for learners with ASD.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jaba.310