Units of analysis in acquisition‐performance criteria for “mastery”: A systematic replication

Abstract

This study compared 2 units of analysis for assessing acquisition mastery during sight word instruction for 3 participants. The unit of analysis refers to the specific performances that criteria are applied to, either sets of stimuli or individual operants. In the Set Analysis condition, we applied the acquisition-performance criterion to the aggregated accuracy of a set of 4 target operants. In the Operant Analysis (OA) condition, we assessed the criterion for individual operants and replaced targets as they met the acquisition criterion. All participants acquired novel textual responses to sight words faster under the OA condition and response maintenance was similar between conditions. This study extended previous research by showing enhanced response maintenance in the OA condition by increasing the performance criterion from 1 observation of 100% accuracy to 2. This study also suggests a unique contribution of OA to quickening learning.

Comparison of mastery criteria applied to individual targets and stimulus sets on acquisition of tacts, intraverbals, and listener responses

“…In Experiment 1, we observed patterns of responding similar to previous studies in that three participants acquired tacts or intraverbals in fewer sessions in the target condition in comparison to the set condition. Mastery in the set condition was often delayed due to one target remaining in training after the other targets in the set were mastered, as in previous studies (Wong et al, 2021;Wong & Fienup, 2022).…”

“…

Mastery criteria can be applied to individual targets or stimuli organized into sets. Wong et al (2021) and Wong and Fienup (2022) found that participants who received special education services learned sight words more rapidly when an individual target mastery criterion was applied. The current study replicated and extended these findings across novel skills.

…”

“…In addition, the authors discontinued use of the SA mastery criterion once all sight words were taught in the OA condition, thereby preventing an analysis of differences in the efficiency of instruction of targets exposed to varying mastery criteria. Wong and Fienup (2022) addressed these limitations by conducting a replication that maintained the same instructional procedures across SA and OA conditions. The authors also modified the mastery criterion from 100% correct responses for one session to two consecutive sessions to address potential confounds in evaluating maintenance.…”

“…The purpose of the current investigation was to systematically replicate and extend Wong et al (2021) and Wong and Fienup (2022) by investigating the application of mastery criteria to sets and targets across different skills frequently taught in skill-acquisition programs; tact and intraverbal training occurred in Experiment 1, and AVCD training occurred in Experiment 2. In addition, we analyzed data for potential false positives of acquisition during AVCD training.…”

“…Research suggests that more stringent mastery criteria (e.g., 90%‐100%) result in acquisition of skills that maintain for longer durations, in comparison to less stringent mastery criteria (e.g., 80%; Fuller & Feinup, 2018; Richling et al, 2019). Further, the application of mastery criteria to sets of stimuli versus individual targets can influence the efficiency of instruction (Wong et al, 2021; Wong & Fienup, 2022). For example, teaching stimuli in sets may result in extended exposure to instruction if acquisition of one or more targets in the set is delayed while the learner consistently responds correctly to all other targets in the set (e.g., Kodak et al, 2020).…”