Overcorrection: Reviewed, Revisited and Revised

Abstract

Overcorrection is a widely used behavior management procedure, the success of which has been well documented. However, overcorrection is not a simple, single procedure. Rather, it is a complex combination of procedures that often make it a complicated strategy to understand conceptually and to implement correctly. The complex nature of overcorrection combined with the use of multiple labels has created much confusion and debate among both researchers and practitioners. A number of issues relating to overcorrection are examined and evaluated. A proposal is made for revising the present overcorrection terminology. Finally, directions for future research are suggested.

Some indirect effects of positive practice overcorrection

“…For all three participants, PP OC reduced motor stereotypy with both HP and LP activities. This finding is consistent with the wealth of research that supports the efficacy of PP OC in the reduction of stereotypy (for reviews, see LaGrow & Repp, 1984;MacKenzie-Keating & McDonald, 1990;Miltenberger & Fuqua, 1981). The results of the functional analyses showed that the lowest levels of stereotypy occurred during the attention condition for all three participants.…”

“…This finding is consistent with the wealth of research that supports the efficacy of PP OC in the reduction of stereotypy (for reviews, see LaGrow & Repp, 1984;MacKenzie-Keating & McDonald, 1990;Miltenberger & Fuqua, 1981). This finding is consistent with the wealth of research that supports the efficacy of PP OC in the reduction of stereotypy (for reviews, see LaGrow & Repp, 1984;MacKenzie-Keating & McDonald, 1990;Miltenberger & Fuqua, 1981).…”

An evaluation of differential reinforcement of other behavior, differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior, and restitution for the management of aggressive behaviors

“…Intervent., 13, 157±168 (1998) techniques that may be classi®ed according to two general types: reinforcement and punishment (Ball, 1993;Scherzinger et al, 1993). Punishments frequently employed are a loss of earned reinforcers (see, e.g., Ayllon & Azrin, 1965) or restitution (an overcorrection procedure, for reviews see MacKenzie-Keating & McDonald, 1990;Ollendick & Matson, 1978), in which an individual is required to restore the environment disrupted by an aggressive outburst (see, e.g., Foxx & Azrin, 1972). Procedures employing reinforcement have included dierential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO; S. Dietz, 1985), whereby a reinforcement is delivered contingent upon the absence of the aggressive behavior (see, e.g., Vukelich & Hake, 1971), and dierential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI; D. Dietz, 1985), a procedure involving reinforcement of a behavior that is topographically incompatible with an unwanted behavior (see, e.g., Tarpley & Schroeder, 1979).…”

“…Despite the suggestion of Foxx and Azrin (1972) that the restitution be extended in duration, relatively brief administrations of the procedure have been shown to produce impressive changes (Axelrod, Brantner, & Meddock, 1978;Jenner, 1984). However, evidence regarding the educative eects of restitution remains equivocal (Axelrod et al, 1978;MacKenzie-Keating & McDonald, 1990).…”

The effects of error correction with and without reinforcement on skill acquisition and preferences of children with autism spectrum disorder

“…First, the arrangement of the without-reinforcement procedure in this study was similar to that of overcorrection, a punishment procedure (Cooper et al, 2007;MacKenzie-Keating & McDonald, 1990;Miltenberger & Fuqua, 1981). A learner must make multiple responses following an undesired response (e.g., problem behavior or an error).…”