Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 196–209 | Cite as

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

  • Sarah R. Jenkins
  • Jason M. Hirst
  • Florence D. DiGennaro Reed
Original Paper

Abstract

We conducted a parametric analysis of treatment integrity errors during discrete-trial training and investigated the effects of three integrity conditions (0, 50, or 100 % errors of commission) on performance in the presence and absence of programmed errors. The presence of commission errors impaired acquisition for three of four participants. Following removal of commission errors from instruction, we observed a carry-over effect for only two participants suggesting that adverse effects are reversible with relatively small amounts of high-quality instruction.

Keywords

Treatment integrity Errors of commission Discrete-trial training 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This investigation was supported by the University of Kansas General Research Fund allocation #2301523. The authors wish to thank Tanya Baynham for her assistance with this project.

References

  1. Carroll, R. A., Kodak, T., & Fisher, W. W. (2013). An evaluation of programmed treatment-integrity errors during discrete-trial instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 379–394. doi: 10.1002/jaba.49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Catania, C. N., Almeida, D., Liu-Constant, B., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2009). Video modeling to train staff to implement discrete-trial instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 387–392. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-387.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Codding, R. S., Feinberg, A. B., Dunn, E. K., & Pace, G. M. (2005). Effects of immediate performance feedback on implementation of behavior support plans. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 205–219. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.98-04.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dib, N., & Sturmey, P. (2007). Reducing student stereotypy by improving teachers’ implementation of discrete-trial teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 339–343. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.52-06.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Reed, D. D., Baez, C. N., & Maguire, H. (2011). A parametric analysis of errors of commission during discrete-trial training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 611–615. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-611.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gresham, F. M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18, 37–50.Google Scholar
  7. Groskreutz, M. P., Groskreutz, N. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2011). Response competition and stimulus preference in the treatment of automatically reinforced behavior: A comparison. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 211–215. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-211.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Grow, L., Carr, J. E., Gunby, K. V., Charania, S. M., Gonsalves, L., Ktaech, I. A., et al. (2009). Deviations from prescribed prompting procedures: Implications for treatment integrity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 142–156. doi: 10.1007/s10864-009-9085-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirst, J. M., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2014). An examination of the effects of feedback accuracy on academic task acquisition in analogue settings. The Psychological Record,. doi: 10.1007/s40732-014-0087-y.Google Scholar
  10. Hirst, J. M., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Reed, D. D. (2013). Effects of varying feedback accuracy on task acquisition: A computerized translational study. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10864-012-9162-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman assessment battery for children (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  12. Leon, Y., Wilder, D. A., Majdalany, L., Myers, K., & Saini, V. (2014). Errors of omission and commission during differential reinforcement of compliance: The effects of varying levels of treatment integrity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 19–33. doi: 10.1007/s10864-013-9181-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P., & Risi, S. (1999). Autism diagnostic observation schedule: Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  14. Martin, G. L., England, G., Kaprowy, E., Kilgour, K., & Pilek, V. (1968). Operant conditioning of kindergarten-class behavior in autistic children. Behavior Research and Therapy, 6(3), 281–294. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(68)90062-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matson, J. L., & Boisjoli, J. A. (2009). The token economy for children with intellectual disability and/or autism: A review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 240–248. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2008.04.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. In C. Lord, & J. P. McGee (Eds.), Committee on educational interventions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. National Standards Report. (2009). Evidence-based practice and autism in the schools: A guide to providing appropriate interventions to students with autism spectrum disorders. Randolph, MA: National Autism Center.Google Scholar
  18. Northup, J., Fisher, W., Kahng, S. W., Harrell, R., & Kurtz, P. (1997). An assessment of the necessary strength of behavioral treatments for severe problem behavior problems. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 9, 1–16. doi: 10.1023/A:1024984526008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reed, D. D., & Azulay, R. L. (2011). A Microsoft Excel® 2010 based tool for calculating interobserver agreement (IOA). Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4, 45–52.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. St. Peter Pipkin, C., Vollmer, T. R., & Sloman, K. N. (2010). Effects of treatment integrity failures during differential reinforcement of alternative behavior: A translational model. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 47–70. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tarbox, R. S., Ghezzi, P. M., & Wilson, G. (2006). The effects of token reinforcement on attending in a young child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 21, 155–164. doi: 10.1002/bin.213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah R. Jenkins
    • 1
  • Jason M. Hirst
    • 1
  • Florence D. DiGennaro Reed
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Behavioral Science, 4056 Dole Human Development CenterUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations