Comparing Error Correction to Errorless Learning: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 0.7 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Analysis of Verbal Behavior Pub Date : 2020-02-19 eCollection Date: 2020-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s40616-019-00124-y
Justin B Leaf, Joseph H Cihon, Julia L Ferguson, Christine M Milne, Ronald Leaf, John McEachin
{"title":"Comparing Error Correction to Errorless Learning: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Justin B Leaf, Joseph H Cihon, Julia L Ferguson, Christine M Milne, Ronald Leaf, John McEachin","doi":"10.1007/s40616-019-00124-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Errorless learning and error correction procedures are commonly used when teaching tact relations to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of both procedures, as well as compared them. The majority of these studies have been completed through the use of single-subject experimental designs. Evaluating both procedures using a group design may contribute to the literature and help disseminate research related to the behavioral science of language to a larger audience. The purpose of the present study was to compare an errorless learning procedure to an error correction procedure to teach tact relations to 28 individuals diagnosed with ASD through a randomized clinical trial. Several variables were assessed, including the number of stimulus sets with which participants reached the mastery criterion, responding during pre- and postprobes, responding during teaching, efficiency, and the presence of aberrant behavior. The results indicated that both procedures were effective, efficient, and unlikely to evoke aberrant behavior, despite participants in the error correction condition engaging in significantly more independent correct responses and independent incorrect responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":51684,"journal":{"name":"Analysis of Verbal Behavior","volume":"36 1","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343685/pdf/40616_2019_Article_124.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analysis of Verbal Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-019-00124-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Errorless learning and error correction procedures are commonly used when teaching tact relations to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of both procedures, as well as compared them. The majority of these studies have been completed through the use of single-subject experimental designs. Evaluating both procedures using a group design may contribute to the literature and help disseminate research related to the behavioral science of language to a larger audience. The purpose of the present study was to compare an errorless learning procedure to an error correction procedure to teach tact relations to 28 individuals diagnosed with ASD through a randomized clinical trial. Several variables were assessed, including the number of stimulus sets with which participants reached the mastery criterion, responding during pre- and postprobes, responding during teaching, efficiency, and the presence of aberrant behavior. The results indicated that both procedures were effective, efficient, and unlikely to evoke aberrant behavior, despite participants in the error correction condition engaging in significantly more independent correct responses and independent incorrect responses.

错误纠正与无错误学习的比较:随机临床试验
在向被诊断患有自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)的患者教授触觉关系时,通常会使用无误学习和纠错程序。研究证明了这两种程序的有效性,并对它们进行了比较。这些研究大多是通过单主体实验设计完成的。使用小组设计对这两种程序进行评估可能会对文献做出贡献,并有助于向更多受众传播与语言行为科学相关的研究。本研究的目的是通过随机临床试验,比较无差错学习程序和纠错程序,向 28 名被诊断为 ASD 的患者教授触觉关系。研究对多个变量进行了评估,包括参与者达到掌握标准的刺激组数、前置和后置刺激时的反应、教学过程中的反应、效率以及是否出现异常行为。结果表明,尽管错误纠正条件下的参与者做出的独立正确反应和独立错误反应明显更多,但两种程序都有效、高效,而且不太可能诱发异常行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Analysis of Verbal Behavior
Analysis of Verbal Behavior PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
20.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (TAVB) is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International.  The Mission of the journal is to support the dissemination of innovative empirical research, theoretical conceptualizations, and real-world applications of the behavioral science of language. The journal embraces diverse perspectives of human language, its conceptual underpinnings, and the utility such diversity affords. TAVB values contributions that represent the scope of field and breadth of populations behavior analysts serve, and Is the premier publication outlet that fosters increased dialogue between scientists and scientist-practitioners.  Articles addressing the following topics are encouraged: language acquisition, verbal operants, relational frames, naming, rule-governed behavior, epistemology, language assessment and training, bilingualism, verbal behavior of nonhumans, research methodology, or any other topic that addresses the analysis of language from a behavior analytic perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信