Analysis of Response Repetition as an Error-Correction Strategy During Sight-Word Reading

Abstract

A great deal is known about the effects of positive reinforcement on response acquisition; by contrast, much less research has been conducted on contingencies applied to errors. We examined the effects of response repetition as an error-correction procedure on the sight-word reading performance of 11 adults with developmental disabilities. Study 1 compared single-response (SR) repetition and multiple-response (MR) repetition, and results showed that all 6 participants acquired more sight words with the MR procedure. Study 2 compared MR error correction following every incorrect response (continuous) and following one third of incorrect responses (intermittent), and results showed that all 6 participants acquired more sight words when error correction was continuous. Study 3 compared MR error correction in which errors required practice of the training word (relevant) versus a different word (irrelevant), and results showed that 3 of 9 participants showed better performance under the relevant condition; however, all participants showed improvement even under the irrelevant condition. Findings are discussed in terms of the behavioral processes by which error correction may enhance performance during acquisition.

Response repetition as an error‐correction procedure for sight‐word reading: A replication and extension

“…During this condition, the trainer continued to provide brief verbal praise for correct responses; however, contingent on an incorrect response the trainer required the participant to repeat the correct response five times (Worsdell et al, 2005). Specifically, the experimenter prompted the participant to 'say, ''correct word'''.…”

“…Although the results of the Worsdell et al (2005) investigation suggest that acquisition of correct responding was attributable to negative reinforcement in the form of avoiding the error-correction procedure, the results are potentially limited for at least two reasons. First, Worsdell et al evaluated the effects of the MR repetition procedures using a multiple baseline across participants design wherein the dependent measure was the cumulative number of words mastered by the respective participant.…”

“…The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the results of the Worsdell et al (2005) study by evaluating the effects of the MR repetition procedure for errorcorrection using a concurrent multiple baseline across sets (of sight-word cards) design with multiple participants. In this way, we evaluated the extent to which responses that were acquired using MR procedures generalized to untrained settings, untrained responses, or both.…”

“…Thus, it is not clear if the same results would be produced for training tasks involving an expressive response within an unrestricted number of alternative operants (e.g., providing the correct verbal response when presented a sight-word). Worsdell, Iwata, Dozier, Johnson, Neidert, and Thomason (2005) speculated that error-correction procedures may increase correct responding by, in part, providing additional opportunities for the correct response to occur in the presence of a respective antecedent. To evaluate this possibility, Worsdell et al conducted a series of studies to evaluate the effects of an error-correction procedure of studies involving response repetition (RR) for incorrect responses during a sight-word reading task for several adults diagnosed with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities.…”

A Tribute to Sidney W. Bijou, Pioneer in Behavior Analysis and Child Development: Key Works That Have Transformed Behavior Analysis in Practice

“…This influential paper not only aided practitioners by making reinforcer deliveries more practical, but also greatly aided the clients they served. Bijou's studies on patterns of reinforcement with children are undoubtedly amongst some of the greatest contributions to the field, as evidenced by current research on practices such as error correction (e.g., Worsdell et al, 2005), punishment of problem behavior (e.g., Lerman, Iwata, Shore, & DeLeon, 1997), extinction of problem behavior (e.g., Lerman, Iwata, Shore, & Kahng, 1996), functional communication training (e.g., Worsdell et al, 2000), and delayed reinforcement (e.g., Freeland & Noell, 1999), to name a few areas of research informed by Bijou's work.…”