The Effects of Discrete-Trial Training Commission Errors on Learner Outcomes: An Extension

Jenkins, Sarah R.; Hirst, Jason M.; Reed, Florence D. DiGennaro

doi:10.1007/s10864-014-9215-7

Cited by 17 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One, differentiation between the data paths did not emerge in the replication comparison until after Zander mastered AVCDs trained under high‐integrity conditions. Though similar overlap has been observed in previous research (Bergman et al, ; Jenkins et al, ), it is possible that Zander's responding adjusted to the detrimental effects of the procedural integrity errors following the initial comparison (meaning responding would continue on an intermittent schedule rather than a continuous schedule) or experienced carry‐over effects between conditions. Future researchers should extend this investigation by further enhancing discriminability between conditions and controlling for carry‐over or eventual adjustment to reduced reinforcement.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…These results add to the body of literature examining integrity manipulations during AVCD training. In parametric analyses of errors of commission while teaching arbitrary shapes, researchers have found that responses to shapes associated with perfect integrity are often mastered, whereas those associated with 50% or 100% of consequence errors are less likely (DiGennaro Reed et al, ; Jenkins et al, ). The current investigation produced results most in keeping with those of Bergman et al (); both participants mastered all responses, but even at 80% integrity, targets required twice as many sessions as those taught with high integrity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers have studied procedural integrity errors during discrete trial teaching (Carroll, Kodak, & Fisher, ; Carroll, Kodak, & Adolf, ; DiGennaro Reed et al, ; Jenkins, Hirst, & DiGennaro Reed, ), conditional discrimination training (Bergmann, Kodak, & LeBlanc, ; Sy & Vollmer, ), prompting hierarchies (Grow et al, ), and self‐care behavior chains (Donnelly & Karsten, ) among other teaching procedures. Across studies, omission and commission errors have been evaluated, both in isolation and in combination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to evaluate the effects of procedural integrity errors on AVCD training because of its prevalence across early intervention curricula and the documented difficulty associated with establishing this repertoire in clinical populations; as such, researchers should examine the potential relation between clinician errors and consumer responding (Green, ). Although some studies have examined the effects of procedural integrity errors on the acquisition of AVCDs (Bergman, Kodak, & LeBlanc, ; Jenkins et al, ), these projects were translational in nature, recruited participants from nonclinical populations, examined researcher‐selected errors, and targeted educationally irrelevant skills. Thus, their generality to clinical populations and clinical practice may be limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training: A preliminary investigation

Breeman

Vladescu

DeBar

et al. 2020

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Procedural integrity errors have widespread implications for the success or failure of behavior analytic interventions. However, previous research has not examined the effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory-visual conditional discrimination with clinical populations. The purpose of this preliminary investigation was to replicate and extend the work of Carroll, Kodak, and Fisher by evaluating the effects of procedural integrity errors compared with perfect integrity during auditory-visual conditional discrimination training with a child with autism spectrum disorder. A descriptive assessment, which identified omission of reinforcement and omission of error correction as the most common clinician errors, informed error selection. The participant required twice as many sessions to master targets taught under low-integrity conditions compared with those taught under high-integrity conditions. These results suggest that procedural integrity errors hinder skill acquisition and affect teaching efficiency. Future researchers should evaluate the effects of errors during auditory-visual conditional discrimination training across task arrangements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training: A preliminary investigation

Breeman

Vladescu

DeBar

et al. 2020

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…with the delivery of reinforcers may consist of a therapist withholding reinforcement following correct responses, or therapists delivering reinforcement following incorrect responses. Previous research has evaluated the influence of programmed reinforcement errors on the acquisition of new skills during DTI (e.g., DiGennaro Reed et al, 2011;Jenkins et al, 2015;Carroll et al, 2016). For example, Jenkins et al evaluated the influence of delivering a reinforcer following an incorrect response when four young children with ASD were taught to identify Japanese characters.…”

Section: Treatment Integrity Errors With Delivery Of Reinforcers a Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of the Effects of Treatment Integrity Errors on Skill Acquisition During Discrete-Trial Instruction

Owsiany¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated that delivering controlling prompts and reinforcers with low-levels of treatment integrity may interfere with the acquisition of skills during discretetrial instruction. However, implementing certain components of discrete-trial instruction with varying levels of low integrity may influence skill acquisition differently. In Experiment 1, we evaluated the effects of delivering a prompt following participants' incorrect responses with 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% integrity on skill acquisition with two children with autism spectrum disorder. In Experiment 2, we evaluated the effects of delivering a reinforcer following participants' correct responses with 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% integrity on skill acquisition with the same two children from Experiment 1. Participants acquired the target skills taught in the high-integrity condition and in the low-integrity conditions in both experiments. The results of the current study suggest that implementing components of discrete-trial instruction with low levels of integrity may not interfere with skill acquisition for these two participants. These results are partially inconsistent with previous research. Future research should continue to investigate the effects of implementing various components of discrete-trial instruction with low treatment integrity with children with autism spectrum disorder. EVALUATION OF INTEGRITY ERRORS iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor and mentor, Dr. Regina Carroll for her guidance and support while I was completing this project. It would not have been possible without her assistance. I would also like to thank Dr. Carroll for the vast amount of knowledge that she imparted on me during my time at West Virginia University, as both an undergraduate and graduate student. I would also like to thank Dr. Mike Perone and Dr. Amy Herschell for serving on the committee for this project and for providing me with helpful feedback. Finally, I would like to thank my fellow lab mate, Natalie Jones, and former undergraduate research assistant, Ashley Felde, for assisting with data collection for this project.

show abstract

The use of mixed modeling to evaluate the impact of treatment integrity on learning

Bottini

Morton

Gillis

et al. 2020

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment integrity, or the degree to which an intervention is implemented as intended, is a critical feature of skill acquisition tasks. Single‐case design consistently demonstrates that low treatment integrity slows or inhibits learning, but the relative impact of different types of instructional errors, or the presence of multiple errors, is less clear. The present study utilized a multilevel modeling approach to evaluate the impact of type of error (omission versus omission and commission) and error component (reinforcer delivery versus feedback) on learning. Findings revealed that learning outcomes worsened based on the type of error and as the complexity of errors increased; more specifically, participants performed better when only a single type of error occurred and when only a single error component was manipulated. Additionally, individual characteristics contributed to learning outcomes, highlighting the use of multilevel modeling as a helpful tool to supplement single‐case design. The differential impact of integrity errors on learning may be due to timing of errors (i.e., commission errors more likely to occur early in learning) or how errors affect reinforcement schedule versus discriminative control.

show abstract

The Effects of Discrete-Trial Training Commission Errors on Learner Outcomes: An Extension

Cited by 17 publications

References 16 publications

The effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training: A preliminary investigation

The effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training: A preliminary investigation

An Evaluation of the Effects of Treatment Integrity Errors on Skill Acquisition During Discrete-Trial Instruction

The use of mixed modeling to evaluate the impact of treatment integrity on learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About