Effects of Feedback Statements on Staff Procedural Integrity
Three short praise lines beat other feedback styles for lifting staff treatment fidelity.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Johnson et al. (2024) tested four kinds of supervisor feedback. They used short praise, correction, or a mix.
Staff worked with clients while supervisors watched. Then the boss gave one of four feedback styles. The team flipped styles across days to see which one worked best.
What they found
Every feedback type helped staff follow the treatment plan better. Three quick praise lines (PPP) gave the biggest jump in correct steps.
One praise or one correction still helped, just not as much. More positive words beat fewer words.
How this fits with other research
Moss et al. (2009) already said praise plus correction is key. The new study shows three praises in a row is even stronger.
Romani et al. (2023) added feedback to a lecture and saw progress-note scores rise. Johnson repeats that trick with a new task, so the praise effect looks solid.
Yaw et al. (2014) mixed feedback into training and doubled data accuracy. Johnson strips it down further: just words, no extra class, still wins.
Why it matters
You can raise staff accuracy tomorrow. Pick one behavior you want done right. Watch for it, then hit the staff with three quick positives. No slides, no cost, just words. Try it at the next overlap and see the graph climb.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Catch a staff doing the first step right and say three fast positives: 'Nice prompt, great timing, love the voice tone.'
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractSupervisor feedback is a powerful and effective tool that can be used to increase employee performance. However, there is a lack of information regarding the essential components of supervisor feedback. This study investigated the effects of the number and type of feedback statements provided by a supervisor on participant’s procedural integrity. Verbal corrective-corrective (CC), corrective-corrective-corrective (CCC), positive-positive (PP), and positive-positive-positive (PPP), were provided as consequences during the implementation of a receptive identification two-dimensional (2-D) picture card program. Overall, results showed that all conditions increased procedural integrity, with the PPP conditioned producing a slightly greater influence. Research, such as the current study, is needed to identify ways of providing feedback that are most effective in changing behavior that it follows. Feedback is a powerful tool for a supervisor, but like any power, needs to be used correctly and responsibly. Keywords: feedback statements, performance, positive feedback, corrective feedback
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2024 · doi:10.1080/01608061.2023.2249868