Evaluating the use of programmed reinforcement in a correction procedure with children diagnosed with autism

Abstract

Background: Procedures that reduce errors while learning a repertoire play an important role in Applied Behavior Analysis for people with autism due to the detrimental effects that excessive exposure to error may have on learning. Previous studies have investigated the effects of correction procedures that require active student response after a trial with error. Some intervention manuals recommend against reinforcing responses after correction to prevent the establishment of prompt dependence. This study directly investigated the effect of reinforcement after an active-response correction procedure during tact training in four children with autism. An echoic-to-tact training procedure was used to train tacts. A "no reinforcement after correction" (NRC) condition was compared to a "reinforcement after correction" (RC) condition, using an adapted alternated treatments design. Results: All participants needed less correction trials in RC than in NRC, and considering all 26 sessions in which both training procedures were implemented, participants' performance was higher with RC than without in 17 sessions and was the same in 3 sessions. Conclusions: We discuss the effectiveness of reinforcing correct responding after an active-response correction procedure, the absence of prompt dependence, and the implications of better correction procedures for applied settings.

Teaching generalized question‐discrimination skills to children with autism: Conceptual and applied considerations

“…Leaf & McEachin, 1999; Lovaas, 2003; Sundberg & Partington, 1998; Taylor & McDonough, 1996) and applied research. The skill can be taught using a number of prompting procedures with the aim to establish successive or simultaneous simple discriminations (Bloh, 2008; Carneiro et al., 2019; Frampton et al., 2017; J. B.…”

An evaluation of prompting procedures in error correction for children with autism

“…However, similar to Cariveau et al's (2019) review, these two studies also yielded inconsistent results in their comparisons. For example, while Yuan et al (2019) maintained that their results did not demonstrate a meaningful difference between the two arrangements, Carneiro et al (2019) reported a reinforcement component in error correction might, in fact, result in faster acquisition.…”

“…Other than the varying response requirements, some studies have also investigated the effects of a reinforcement component in error correction. Yuan et al (2019) and Carneiro, Flores, da Silva Barros, and de Souza (2019) compared the inclusion and exclusion of reinforcement in multiple response repetition and active student response. Despite an argument made against the use of a reinforcer during error correction to avoid prompt dependency (e.g., Greer & Ross, 2008; Yuan et al, 2019), both studies found including a reinforcement component did not reduce the effects of error correction.…”

“…Other than the varying response requirements, some studies have also investigated the effects of a reinforcement component in error correction. Yuan et al (2019) and Carneiro, Flores, da Silva Barros, and de Souza (2019) compared the inclusion and exclusion of reinforcement in multiple response repetition and active student response.…”