Evaluating the Temporal Location of Feedback: Providing Feedback Following Performance vs. Prior to Performance

Aljadeff-Abergel et al. (2017) asked a simple timing question. Should you give staff feedback right after they teach, or right before they teach again?

They used an alternating-treatments design with neurotypical college students who taught short lessons. Each tutor got feedback either after the last lesson or before the next one.

Feedback given before the next teaching slot boosted lesson quality more than feedback given after the last slot.

The tutors also liked the 'before' timing better.

Guinness et al. (2024) ran the same timing test with staff learning to run functional analyses. They got the same answer: feedback right before the next session wins.

Lerman et al. (1995) looks like a contradiction. Delayed feedback worked well for staff teaching gestures to learners with severe disabilities. The key difference is the learners. When staff serve people with intellectual disability, after-session feedback still helps. When staff are neurotypical college students or new RBTs, before-session feedback works better.

Hart et al. (1980) is an older cousin. They gave factory workers feedback after each shift and saw safety hazards drop. The 2017 study sharpens that work by showing timing can matter more than we thought.

If you train staff, slide your feedback to the moment just before they work again. You will save time and see sharper performance. This is easy to do: hand out the data sheet, give a quick model, and start the session. The old habit of 'debrief after' can still help when you train staff for very new or complex learners, but for most day-to-day ABA cases, before is better.