A translational approach to investigating the effects of consequence‐based procedural fidelity errors postmastery
Reinforcing wrong answers after mastery can cut accuracy in half, so guard your consequences like a hawk.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Jones et al. (2026) asked what happens after a learner has mastered a task. They poked small holes in perfect teaching. They gave neurotypical adults tiny consequence-based fidelity errors. These were things like praising a wrong answer or giving a token anyway.
The team watched accuracy drop in real time. They used a single-case design so each person served as their own control.
What they found
About half the learners fell apart. Their correct answers dipped as soon as errors were reinforced. Reinforcing the wrong response was the most damaging slip.
The other half held steady. The mixed result tells us the risk is real, but not universal.
How this fits with other research
Bamise et al. (2026) extends the story. They showed that computer lessons can train high fidelity across the ocean. Together the papers say: small errors hurt, but good training prevents them.
Koegel et al. (2014) echo the danger. They found staff compliance crashed without clear targets and quick feedback. Both studies flag the same weak spot: consequences drive whether skills stick.
Matson et al. (2004) and Holehan et al. (2020) add a twist. They show that who runs the FA and how contingencies are arranged also sway outcomes. The new paper joins this line: tiny procedural shifts can reroute behavior even after mastery.
Why it matters
Check your consequence delivery today. If a child just mastered sight words, keep your praise laser-accurate. Do not let a wrong word earn a high-five or a Skittle. One slip can pull accuracy back down for half of your learners. Stay sharp for the first week after mastery, when the skill is still fragile.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Record yourself for ten minutes and tally every consequence—make sure only correct responses get praise or tokens.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Procedural fidelity is the extent to which prescribed protocols are accurately and correctly implemented. Prior researchers found that consequence-based procedural fidelity errors can delay or impede learning, but not much is known about how they influence performance for tasks that have previously been mastered. The purpose of this study was to systematically replicate Falakfarsa et al. (2023) to further investigate how consequence-based errors affect performance postmastery. Twenty-four undergraduates mastered a computerized match-to-sample task under conditions of perfect fidelity (100%). Following mastery, consequence-based errors were introduced across varying levels of fidelity. For 13 participants, we observed decreased percentage of correct responses on the task in the presence of errors, with considerable intersubject variability. No effect of the independent variable was observed for 11 participants. The results suggest that error reinforcement was the more detrimental error type. We discuss the implications of the results and make several suggestions for future research.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2026 · doi:10.1002/jaba.70042