A parametric analysis of procedural fidelity errors following mastery of a task: A translational study.

Procedural fidelity is defined as the extent to which the independent variable is implemented as prescribed. Research using computerized tasks has shown that fidelity errors involving consequences for behavior can hinder skill acquisition. However, studies examining the effects of these errors once skills have been mastered are lacking. Thus, this translational study investigated the effects of varying levels of fidelity following mastery of a computerized arbitrary matching-to-sample task. A group design (consisting of five groups) was used in which college students initially completed 250 trials during which no programmed errors (i.e., perfect fidelity) were arranged, followed by an additional 250 trials with consequences delivered across various levels of fidelity (i.e., 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of trials administered without errors). The results showed that participants assigned to higher fidelity conditions performed better (on average). These results extended the findings of previous studies by demonstrating how errors involving consequences affect behavior across various stages of learning.

[1]  J. E. Carr,et al.  The use of performance criteria for determining “mastery” in discrete‐trial instruction: A call for research , 2021, Behavioral Interventions.

[2]  Florence D. DiGennaro Reed,et al.  Experimental Research Methodologies in Organizational Behavior Management , 2021, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management.

[3]  Tiffany Kodak,et al.  When do errors in reinforcer delivery affect learning? A parametric analysis of treatment integrity. , 2021, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  Timothy E. Heron,et al.  Análisis aplicado de conducta, tercera edición , 2020 .

[5]  J. Borrero,et al.  Behavioral Interventions for Pediatric Food Refusal Maintain Effectiveness Despite Integrity Degradation: A Preliminary Demonstration , 2020, Behavior modification.

[6]  Claire C. St. Peter,et al.  Treatment Integrity Failures during Timeout from Play , 2020, Behavior modification.

[7]  J. Gillis,et al.  The use of mixed modeling to evaluate the impact of treatment integrity on learning , 2020 .

[8]  Jason C. Vladescu,et al.  The effects of procedural integrity errors during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training: A preliminary investigation , 2020 .

[9]  Florence D. DiGennaro Reed,et al.  Examining the Effects of Feedback Accuracy and Timing on Skill Acquisition , 2020 .

[10]  J. E. Carr,et al.  The effects of different mastery criteria on the skill maintenance of children with developmental disabilities. , 2019, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[11]  Florence D. DiGennaro Reed,et al.  A Review of Published Studies Involving Parametric Manipulations of Treatment Integrity , 2019, Journal of Behavioral Education.

[12]  Denys Brand,et al.  Using sequential analysis to assess component integrity of discrete-trial teaching programs , 2018 .

[13]  Regina A. Carroll,et al.  Selection and Implementation of Skill Acquisition Programs by Special Education Teachers and Staff for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder , 2018, Behavior modification.

[14]  Amanda M. Karsten,et al.  Effects of programmed teaching errors on acquisition and durability of self-care skills. , 2017, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[15]  D. Elliffe,et al.  Assessing the Within-Trial Treatment Integrity of Discrete-Trial Teaching Programs Using Sequential Analysis , 2017 .

[16]  Florence D. DiGennaro Reed,et al.  An Examination of the Effects of Feedback Accuracy on Academic Task Acquisition in Analogue Settings , 2015 .

[17]  Shrinidhi Subramaniam,et al.  Global Measures of Treatment Integrity May Mask Important Errors in Discrete-Trial Training , 2015, Behavior analysis in practice.

[18]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Errors of Omission and Commission during Alternative Reinforcement of Compliance: The Effects of Varying Levels of Treatment Integrity , 2014 .

[19]  Florence D. DiGennaro Reed,et al.  Effects of Varying Feedback Accuracy on Task Acquisition: A Computerized Translational Study , 2013 .

[20]  B. Iwata,et al.  Translational research in behavior analysis: historical traditions and imperative for the future. , 2010, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[21]  T. Vollmer,et al.  Effects of treatment integrity failures during differential reinforcement of alternative behavior: a translational model. , 2010, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[22]  Gina Green,et al.  Behavior Analytic Instruction for Learners with Autism , 2001 .

[23]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[24]  D M Baer,et al.  Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. , 1987, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[25]  S A Wonderlich,et al.  The integrity of independent variables in behavior analysis. , 1982, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[26]  D. Mccarthy,et al.  Reinforcement for errors in a signal-detection procedure. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[27]  S. Hayes,et al.  Alternating treatments design: one strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. , 1979, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[28]  John A. Nevin,et al.  RESPONSE STRENGTH IN MULTIPLE SCHEDULES1 , 1974 .

[29]  D M Baer,et al.  Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. , 1968, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[30]  M. Weiss,et al.  Practical Issues in Effective Behavioral Intervention Development , 2010 .

[31]  C. B. Ferster,et al.  Schedules of reinforcement , 1957 .