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

Abstract

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.

When do errors in reinforcer delivery affect learning? A parametric analysis of treatment integrity

“…Several descriptive studies reported that treatment‐integrity errors occur during instruction with consumers of applied behavior analysis (e.g., children with ASD; Brand et al, 2017; Breeman et al, 2020; Carroll et al, 2013; Kodak et al, 2018), but we cannot say whether the type and degree of errors evaluated in this translational study are likely to affect the acquisition of consumers like children with ASD in a similar way. Once additional studies have replicated our findings, future researchers should consider employing a parametric analysis of treatment integrity errors with individuals who are receiving behavior‐analytic skill‐acquisition intervention.…”

“…Studies reviewed by Brand and colleagues contributed to the understanding of a functional relationship between reduced treatment integrity and ineffective or inefficient interventions (Fryling et al, 2012). Treatment‐integrity errors in the implementation of one or more components of behavior‐reduction and skill‐acquisition interventions result in poorer treatment outcomes (e.g., Bergmann et al, 2017; Breeman et al, 2020; Carroll et al, 2013; Jenkins et al, 2015; St. Peter Pipkin et al, 2010).…”

“…Descriptive research has suggested that treatment integrity errors occur in applied contexts (Breeman et al, 2020; Carroll et al, 2013; Kodak et al, 2018), and some studies on the effects of reduced treatment integrity took place in similar applied settings (e.g., Breeman et al, 2020; Carroll et al, 2013; Holcombe et al, 1994; Noell et al, 2002). However, another option is to conduct studies within a human operant laboratory (e.g., Bergmann et al, 2017; St. Peter Pipkin et al, 2010) and adopt a translational approach (Mace & Critchfield, 2010) to evaluate the effects of integrity errors on learning.…”

Strengthening the procedural fidelity research‐to‐practice loop in animal behavior

“…The effects of isolated errors differed across participants, but the lowest levels of correct responses occurred in the condition with omissions of prompts. A similar analysis conducted by Breeman et al (2020) implemented errors in providing praise, delivering tangible items, and using an error‐correction procedure for 75% fidelity in DTI with two children with ASD, and the results replicated Carroll et al Participants acquired the skills more quickly with high‐fidelity instruction than reduced‐fidelity instruction.…”

“…Manipulating procedural fidelity as an IV has both practical and conceptual value (Vollmer et al, 1999). Practically, descriptive assessments show procedural‐fidelity errors can and do occur in the application of interventions based on the principles of behavior analysis (e.g., Brand et al, 2018; Breeman et al, 2020; Carroll et al, 2013; Donnelly & Karsten, 2017; Foreman et al, 2021; Kodak et al, 2018). Therefore, it is important that researchers understand the implications of procedural‐fidelity errors on behavior‐analytic interventions to analyze intervention efficacy and understand potential replication failures.…”