Intertrial interval duration and learning in autistic children.
A one-second pause between trials speeds up correct answers and skill mastery in autistic children.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with autistic children in a one-to-one teaching setup. They used short (1 s) or long (4 s) pauses between trials in a discrete-trial program.
Each child served as their own control. The design let the researchers see how the same child did with fast versus slow pacing.
What they found
Kids answered correctly more often when the pause was only one second. They also mastered new skills faster with the quick pace.
The longer four-second pause slowed learning for every child tested.
How this fits with other research
Cariveau et al. (2016) ran a similar test and got the same result: two-second pauses beat longer ones. Their work adds that mixing trial types helps even more.
Black et al. (2016) pushed the idea further. When they plotted learning by total seconds instead of sessions, the one-second gap again came out on top.
Cox et al. (2015) looks like the opposite story: shorter pauses made rats and pigeons pick the quick, small reward. The clash disappears when you note the species and task. Animals in a self-control game act impulsive; kids in DTT just learn quicker.
Why it matters
Next time you run table work, set your timer to one second after the consequence. No need to fill the silence with extra words. A brisk pace keeps attention tight and trials mounting, which adds up to faster skill gains for your learners.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cut your intertrial pause to one second and count ten trials—note any jump in correct responses.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study investigated the influence of intertrial interval duration on the performance of autistic children during teaching situations. The children were taught under the same conditions existing in their regular programs, except that the length of time between trials was systematically manipulated. With both multiple baseline and repeated reversal designs, two lengths of intertrial interval were employed; short intervals with the SD for any given trial presented approximately one second following the reinforcer for the previous trial versus long intervals with the SD presented four or more seconds following the reinforcer for the previous trial. The results showed that: (1) the short intertrial intervals always produced higher levels of correct responding than the long intervals; and (2) there were improving trends in performance and rapid acquisition with the short intertrial intervals, in contrast to minimal or no change with the long intervals. The results are discussed in terms of utilizing information about child and task characteristics in terms of selecting optimal intervals. The data suggest that manipulations made between trials have a large influence on autistic children's learning.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-91