A comparison of the effects of various performance feedback presentations on typing accuracy and speed

Guadalupe et al. (2021) asked a simple question. Does it matter what kind of feedback you give staff about typing?

They compared three kinds of computer pop-ups. One showed only accuracy. One showed only speed. One showed both. A fourth group got no feedback.

Adults with no known disabilities took part. The study used a single-case design. Each person tried all four feedback styles in random order.

Any feedback beat no feedback. Accuracy, speed, or both gave small but clear gains.

The size of the gain was modest. Still, even a tiny bump matters when the task is done all day, every day.

Yaw et al. (2014) found big jumps in data-entry accuracy when they added feedback to in-service training. Their staff served adults with intellectual disabilities. The gains were large. Guadalupe’s gains were small. The difference is the starting point. Jared’s staff began with many errors. Guadalupe’s staff already typed fairly well.

Romani et al. (2023) repeated the pattern in a psychiatric hospital. Didactic training plus feedback turned poor progress notes into accurate ones. Again, the task was new to the staff, so room for growth was wide.

Lipschultz et al. (2021) warn us to keep the feedback true. They showed that inflating or shrinking feedback numbers hurts later performance. Guadalupe’s team kept the numbers honest and still saw steady, if modest, gains.

If your staff already perform a skill well, don’t expect huge leaps. Do expect reliable, small boosts simply by showing them their numbers. Add a quick pop-up or end-of-shift printout. It costs almost nothing and keeps accuracy from slipping. Save the heavy training hours for brand-new tasks where the payoff is larger.