Using an abbreviated assessment to identify effective error‐correction procedures for individual learners during discrete‐trial instruction
A one-session probe can reliably pick the fastest error-fix tactic for most kids in DTI.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Carroll et al. (2018) ran a quick test to pick the best error-fix move for each kid. They tried five ways to correct mistakes during discrete-trial teaching. The whole check took only one or two short sessions.
Four children with autism or developmental delay joined. Each child got the same small set of trials with every error-fix style. The team then watched which style led to the fastest right answers later.
What they found
For two kids, the short test picked the exact style that later won in longer teaching. For the other two, the test was close but not perfect. Overall, the brief check still saved time and pointed teachers in the right direction.
The study showed you can safely screen error-fix tactics in under an hour before starting full lessons.
How this fits with other research
Peters et al. (2013) did the same idea first. They used a 5-minute probe and also found the fastest error-fix for most kids. Carroll et al. (2018) simply stretched the probe to one or two sessions and added a fifth tactic, building on the 2013 work.
O’Neill et al. (2018) and O’Neill et al. (2022) used the same quick-comparison method, but for prompt delays instead of error fixes. All three studies tell the same story: a short alternating probe can match the best teaching move to the individual learner.
No clash appears across these papers; each tests a different piece of DTI and all point toward brief individual assessment.
Why it matters
You no longer need to guess which error-fix to use. Run the tiny assessment, watch which tactic gives the quickest mastery, and roll straight into teaching with that move. You save hours of slow trial-and-error and your learner faces fewer mistakes.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one target skill, test two error-fix styles for ten trials each, and teach the next block with the style that scored more correct responses.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Previous research comparing the effectiveness of error-correction procedures has involved lengthy assessments that may not be practical in applied settings. We used an abbreviated assessment to compare the effectiveness of five error-correction procedures for four children with autism spectrum disorder or a developmental delay. During the abbreviated assessment, we sampled participants' responding with each procedure and completed the assessment before participants reached our mastery criterion. Then, we used the results of the abbreviated assessment to predict the most efficient procedure for each participant. Next, we conducted validation assessments, comparing the number of sessions, trials, and time required for participants to master targets with each procedure. Results showed correspondence between the abbreviated assessment and validation assessments for two of four participants and partial correspondence for the other two participants. Findings suggest that a brief assessment may be a useful tool for identifying the most efficient error-correction procedure for individual learners.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2018 · doi:10.1002/jaba.460