The Effects of Performance Improvement on Feedback Accuracy and Omission

Matey et al. (2025) watched adults give feedback to a confederate who pretended to learn a task. Some confederates stayed bad. Others slowly got better after each feedback round.

The team tracked how often observers still recorded data correctly and how much feedback they kept giving even when the learner snapped back or sighed.

Observers who saw the confederate improve kept their data sheets almost perfect and kept talking. Control observers whose confederate never improved slacked on recording and gave less feedback.

Even when the improving learner groaned or rolled eyes, the observers stayed accurate and kept coaching.

Sleiman et al. (2020) pooled 96 workplace feedback studies and found big gains everywhere. The new study shows one reason why: visible progress keeps the coach engaged.

Loeber (1971) found that a simple promise of a prize kept staff accurate. Matey et al. replace the prize with real learner improvement and get the same staying power.

Falligant et al. (2021) taught staff to run trial-based FAs with specific feedback. Both papers agree: clear, behavior-level feedback plus some sign of success keeps adults measuring and talking.

When you train staff, build in quick wins. Have the learner show a small improvement right after the first feedback. That tiny gain acts like fuel: your RBT keeps data honest and keeps delivering comments instead of backing off. A five-minute role-play where the 'client' gets better can save hours of retraining later.