The Role of Reinforcement in Multiple Response Repetition Error Correction and Treatment Preference of Chinese Children with Autism.

Chengan and team worked with four Chinese children with autism.

They compared two ways to fix errors during teaching.

Kids repeated the correct answer either with or without a reinforcer like praise or candy.

An alternating-treatments design switched the two methods every day.

Both ways taught new skills at the same speed.

Adding reinforcement did not make learning faster.

Three of the four children said they liked the reinforced version better.

Kay et al. (2020) also used an alternating design and showed that recent prompt history changes how well that prompt works next time.

Together the two studies remind us that past experience with a procedure can matter as much as the procedure itself.

Peisley et al. (2020) found that reinforcement helped children with autism remember to do future tasks.

That positive result seems to clash with the null speed effect seen here, but the goals were different: Peisley targeted memory, Chengan targeted acquisition.

Lieving et al. (2018) warns that extra noncontingent reinforcers can accidentally make problem behavior persist.

Their caution pairs well with Chengan’s neutral result: reinforcement is not always a boost, so check what it actually does in your lesson.

You can let the learner choose. If a child likes praise or small treats during error correction, use them. The skill will still grow just as fast, and therapy stays fun. Keep watching the data: speed stayed the same here, but motivation went up for most kids.