Systematic review of acquisition mastery criteria and statistical analysis of associations with response maintenance and generalization

Wong and the team looked at every skill-building study they could find. They asked one question: do higher mastery bars lead to better long-term use of the skill?

They pulled apart each paper’s pass rule—80 % correct, 90 %, 100 %, two days in a row, etc. Then they checked if the kids still had the skill weeks later.

Across the pile of studies, tougher rules won. A goal like “100 % right for two sessions” gave stronger maintenance and generalization than the common 80 % rule.

In plain words: the higher you set the bar, the longer the skill sticks.

Richling et al. (2019) is inside this review. Their own data had already warned that 80 % across three days often fails; Wong’s bigger count now backs that warning with numbers.

The review also nods to older token-economy work—Burgess et al. (1971) and Deshmukh et al. (2026)—because those studies had to pick mastery points before fading points. The new paper tells us those old choices matter for how long gains last.

So the 2022 review does not clash with past work; it gathers the scattered single cases and shows the same pattern: easy bars give fragile skills.

Next time you write a program, try a 100 % over-two-day rule first. Probe a week later. If the skill drops, don’t blame the learner—raise the bar and teach a little longer. One quick change, stronger outcomes.