An evaluation of estimation data collection to trial‐by trial data collection during discrete trial teaching
A quick post-session guess works just as well as full trial-by-trial data for deciding when an expressive label is mastered.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ferguson et al. (2020) asked a simple question. Do we have to mark every trial to know when a child has mastered a label?
They taught three kids new expressive labels in DTT. After each session the adult guessed how many correct responses happened. They compared that guess to the real trial-by-trial count.
What they found
The guesses matched the real counts. Kids reached mastery at the same speed with both methods.
No extra learning happened when staff wrote every single plus and minus.
How this fits with other research
Platt et al. (2023) looked at different data sheets too. They found fancy sheets helped adults spot error patterns faster. Ferguson shows the sheet style does not change mastery speed. Together the papers say: use simple estimation for mastery, use enhanced sheets for troubleshooting.
Tullis et al. (2022) and Leaf et al. (2017) added instructive feedback in DTT. They got free bonus skills. Ferguson reminds us we can still track those gains with a quick estimate instead of heavy data.
Weinsztok et al. (2023) reviewed reinforcer choices in DTT. They found edible reinforcers speed up learning. Ferguson adds that once the reinforcer is working, you can drop the minute-by-minute charting.
Why it matters
You can save minutes every session. Replace trial-by-trial sheets with a five-second estimate once the program is running well. Use the saved time to teach more trials or run extra programs. Check the estimate against cold probe data once a week to stay accurate.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After the last trial of each expressive label session, ask yourself "About how many did the kid get right?" If your guess hits 80 % or better for two sessions, move to the next target.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
There are many data collection procedures used during discrete trial teaching including first‐trial data collection, probe data, trial‐by‐trial data collection, and estimation data. Continuous, or trial‐by‐trial data collection, consists of the interventionist collecting data on learner behavior on each trial. Estimation data consists of the interventionist estimating learner performance after a teaching session using a rating scale. The purpose of the present study was to compare trial‐by‐trial data collection to estimation data collection during discrete trial teaching to teach children expressive labels. The data collection procedures were examined in terms of accuracy of data collection, efficiency of teaching (i.e., number of trials delivered per session), and rate of child acquisition of targets. Results of the adapted alternating treatment design replicated across three participants and multiple targets found estimation data collection to be as accurate as trial‐by‐trial data collection in determining mastery of targets. Estimation data collected by the interventionist was also found to be accurate when compared to the actual trial‐by‐trial data collected after the study concluded.
Behavioral Interventions, 2020 · doi:10.1002/bin.1705