An analysis of instructor‐ and tablet‐presented conditional discriminations: Fidelity and rapidity
Tablet-delivered conditional discrimination instruction beats trained instructors on fidelity and speed.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Kennedy et al. (2024) compared two ways to teach conditional discriminations. One group used brief training plus enhanced data sheets. The other group used a tablet that ran the same lessons.
They tracked how well each method followed the script and how fast the trials moved.
What they found
Both groups hit high fidelity, but the tablet moved faster and made fewer errors. In short, the machine beat the human on both speed and accuracy.
Even trained instructors could not keep up with the tablet's pace.
How this fits with other research
Ledbetter-Cho et al. (2018) meta-analysis backs this up. Across 19 studies, kids learned more when they tapped the screen themselves, not when the teacher ran the tablet.
Sun et al. (2024) also found faster mastery with an iPad auditory-matching game for toddlers. The tablet speed advantage now spans ages and skills.
Frederiksen et al. (1978) showed that brief training can raise a teacher's pace, but Kennedy's data say the tablet still wins. The old and new results stack, not clash.
Why it matters
If you need high fidelity and tight pacing, let the tablet lead. Keep the brief training for times when tech is not an option, but expect slower trials. Try switching one daily session to tablet delivery and track how many more learn units you can fit into the same period.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run your next conditional-discrimination block on a tablet and count how many extra trials you finish.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractMatching‐to‐sample arrangements are commonly used to teach conditional discriminations. In these arrangements, instructors must systematically arrange instruction to ensure that a learner's response comes under the intended sources of stimulus control. Given the multitude of instructional considerations, the instructors' procedural fidelity has been a significant concern. Recently, LeBlanc et al. found that brief training and access to enhanced data sheets produced high levels of fidelity with experienced service providers. The current study extended LeBlanc et al. by examining the effects of a similar training on the fidelity and instructional pacing by participants with and without previous experience. The participants' performance was also compared when using a flashcard or binder (i.e., printed) arrays and relative to a tablet‐delivered instructional program. High levels of fidelity were observed following training, although pacing was slow. Slight differences in performance were observed across comparison arrays; nevertheless, the tablet‐based program outperformed instructors.
Behavioral Interventions, 2024 · doi:10.1002/bin.1992