Overcorrection: Reviewed, revisited and revised.

The authors read every overcorrection paper they could find. They saw the same word used for many different steps.

They wrote a map that splits the mess into two clear roads: restitutional and positive-practice.

Restitutional means the learner fixes the mess they made and makes the scene better than before.

Positive-practice means the learner repeats the right move many times without fixing anything.

Papers that mix the two labels give you no clue what was really done.

Horner et al. (2022) also say sloppy names hurt our science. They pick on single-case reports; E et al. pick on punishment labels.

Manolov et al. (2022) give you a new graph to judge if an effect repeats. You can plug the clearer labels from E et al. into that graph to see if restitution works better than practice.

Baum (2021) tells us to watch behavior as a steady stream, not clicks. If you follow both tips you will time the restitution or practice moves to the actual behavioral stream.

Next time you write "overcorrection" in a plan, stop. Write "restitutional" or "positive-practice" instead. Your team will know exactly what to do, your data will be cleaner, and future meta-analysts will thank you.