Comparing Error Correction to Errorless Learning: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Justin B Leaf, Joseph H Cihon, Julia L Ferguson, Christine M Milne, Ronald Leaf, John McEachin
Author Information
  1. Justin B Leaf: Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90808 USA.
  2. Joseph H Cihon: Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90808 USA.
  3. Julia L Ferguson: Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90808 USA.
  4. Christine M Milne: Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90808 USA.
  5. Ronald Leaf: Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90808 USA.
  6. John McEachin: Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90808 USA.

Abstract

Errorless learning and error correction procedures are commonly used when teaching tact relations to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of both procedures, as well as compared them. The majority of these studies have been completed through the use of single-subject experimental designs. Evaluating both procedures using a group design may contribute to the literature and help disseminate research related to the behavioral science of language to a larger audience. The purpose of the present study was to compare an errorless learning procedure to an error correction procedure to teach tact relations to 28 individuals diagnosed with ASD through a randomized clinical trial. Several variables were assessed, including the number of stimulus sets with which participants reached the mastery criterion, responding during pre- and postprobes, responding during teaching, efficiency, and the presence of aberrant behavior. The results indicated that both procedures were effective, efficient, and unlikely to evoke aberrant behavior, despite participants in the error correction condition engaging in significantly more independent correct responses and independent incorrect responses.

Keywords

References

  1. J Appl Behav Anal. 2019 May;52(2):574-579 [PMID: 30468249]
  2. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Feb;37(2):354-66 [PMID: 16897380]
  3. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1987 Feb;55(1):3-9 [PMID: 3571656]
  4. J Appl Behav Anal. 2016 Jun;49(2):251-64 [PMID: 26790395]
  5. J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Spring;22(1):85-91 [PMID: 2708175]
  6. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 May;7:269-72 [PMID: 14143922]
  7. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2003 Jul;13(3):337-63 [PMID: 21854317]
  8. J Appl Behav Anal. 2018 Jul;51(3):482-501 [PMID: 29675825]
  9. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 May;31(3):405-20 [PMID: 469464]
  10. J Appl Behav Anal. 2011 Winter;44(4):859-76 [PMID: 22219535]
  11. Res Dev Disabil. 1989;10(1):85-104 [PMID: 2648505]
  12. J Appl Behav Anal. 1969 Fall;2(3):143-57 [PMID: 16795215]
  13. Behav Anal. 2012 Spring;35(1):101-13 [PMID: 22942539]
  14. J Appl Behav Anal. 2005 Winter;38(4):511-27 [PMID: 16463531]
  15. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Aug;44(8):555-8 [PMID: 25082389]
  16. J Appl Behav Anal. 2012 Spring;45(1):155-60 [PMID: 22403459]
  17. J Appl Behav Anal. 1979 Summer;12(2):199-210 [PMID: 489478]
  18. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Jan;38(1):86-103 [PMID: 17347879]
  19. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Feb;38(2):261-75 [PMID: 17546491]
  20. J Appl Behav Anal. 2010 Summer;43(2):215-28 [PMID: 21119896]
  21. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002 Winter;35(4):431-64 [PMID: 12555918]
  22. J Appl Behav Anal. 2016 Jun;49(2):411-5 [PMID: 26792114]
  23. Anal Verbal Behav. 1999;16:45-8 [PMID: 22477157]
  24. Behav Anal Pract. 2016 Nov 7;10(3):313-317 [PMID: 29021945]
  25. J Appl Behav Anal. 2015 Summer;48(2):257-73 [PMID: 25913105]
  26. J Appl Behav Anal. 2013 Fall;46(3):626-39 [PMID: 24114225]
  27. Am J Ment Defic. 1987 Jan;91(4):366-72 [PMID: 3812607]
  28. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1962 Jan;32:89-98 [PMID: 13892614]
  29. Am J Ment Retard. 1990 May;94(6):603-15 [PMID: 2187488]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0errorcorrectionprocedureslearningteachingErrorlesstactrelationsindividualsdiagnosedASDerrorlessprocedureparticipantsrespondingaberrantbehaviorindependentresponsescommonlyusedautismspectrumdisorderResearchdemonstratedeffectivenesswellcomparedmajoritystudiescompletedusesingle-subjectexperimentaldesignsEvaluatingusinggroupdesignmaycontributeliteraturehelpdisseminateresearchrelatedbehavioralsciencelanguagelargeraudiencepurposepresentstudycompareteach28randomizedclinicaltrialSeveralvariablesassessedincludingnumberstimulussetsreachedmasterycriterionpre-postprobesefficiencypresenceresultsindicatedeffectiveefficientunlikelyevokedespiteconditionengagingsignificantlycorrectincorrectComparingErrorCorrectionLearning:RandomizedClinicalTrialdiscrete-trialmost-to-leastpromptingtacting

Similar Articles

Cited By (5)