The effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training: A preliminary investigation
Missing reinforcement or error correction during auditory-visual matching can double the time a child with autism needs to master targets.
01Research in Context
What this study did
One child with autism learned to match spoken words to pictures.
The trainer sometimes skipped praise and skipped error correction.
They counted how many sessions the child needed to master new sets.
What they found
When the trainer forgot reinforcement or error correction, the child needed twice as many sessions.
Small slips in the plan made learning take much longer.
How this fits with other research
Carr (2003) showed that mixing reinforced and non-reinforced trials helps kids with autism master auditory-visual tasks.
Breeman et al. (2020) now warns that skipping reinforcement or correction can undo that benefit.
Langsdorff et al. (2017) found that some children with autism need extra help after two failed exclusion trials.
Together, the papers say: use the right mix of trials, deliver every consequence, and check early for signs the learner is stuck.
Why it matters
You run matching programs every day. This study is your reminder to deliver praise after every correct response and to fix errors right away. A one-second skip can cost you weeks of extra sessions.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place a small red dot on your data sheet after each trial to remind yourself to deliver praise or correction before recording the next response.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractProcedural integrity errors have widespread implications for the success or failure of behavior analytic interventions. However, previous research has not examined the effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination with clinical populations. The purpose of this preliminary investigation was to replicate and extend the work of Carroll, Kodak, and Fisher by evaluating the effects of procedural integrity errors compared with perfect integrity during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training with a child with autism spectrum disorder. A descriptive assessment, which identified omission of reinforcement and omission of error correction as the most common clinician errors, informed error selection. The participant required twice as many sessions to master targets taught under low‐integrity conditions compared with those taught under high‐integrity conditions. These results suggest that procedural integrity errors hinder skill acquisition and affect teaching efficiency. Future researchers should evaluate the effects of errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training across task arrangements.
Behavioral Interventions, 2020 · doi:10.1002/bin.1710