The Role of Reinforcement in Multiple Response Repetition Error Correction and Treatment Preference of Chinese Children with Autism
Error correction is a ubiquitous instructional component for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In the context of alternating treatment with repeated acquisition design, we taught four young Chinese children with ASD three sets of a match-to-sample task using multiple response repetition error correction with and without reinforcement. We assessed the participants’ preferences of the procedures. Results showed that the acquisition rates were similar under both conditions. However, participant’s preferences varied, with three participants preferring error correction with reinforcement and one preferring the without-reinforcement procedure. The discussion addresses the results from our comparison in light of prior studies and learner preferences of error-correction procedures, as well as the research and practical implications of our findings.
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorder Error correction Reinforcement Preference Early behavioral intervention
CY conceived the study. CY and YH designed and CY implemented the study. Data collection was performed by CY and JZ. CY and YH conducted data analysis and interpretation. CY drafted the manuscript. YH and JZ critically reviewed and provided feedback on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants (children’s parents) included in the study.
- Brunsdon, V. E. A., Colvert, E., Ames, C., Garnett, T., Gillan, N., Hallett, V., et al. (2015). Exploring the cognitive features in children with autism spectrum disorder, their co-twins, and typically developing children within a population-based sample. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(8), 893–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Daly, E. J., III, Wells, N. J., Swanger-Gagné, M. S., Carr, J. E., Kunz, G. M., & Taylor, A. M. (2009). Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-563.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Eldevik, S., Hastings, R. P., Hughes, J. C., Jahr, E., Eikeseth, S., & Cross, S. (2009). Meta-analysis of early intensive behavioral intervention for children with autism. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(3), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410902851739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., & Maglieri, K. A. (2005). On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.6-04.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Johns, B. H., Crowley, E. P., & Guetzloe, E. (2008). Engaged time in the classroom. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(4), 1–6.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case design for educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Killu, K., Clare, C. M., & Im, A. (1999). Choice vs. preference: The effects of choice and no choice of preferred and non preferred spelling tasks on the academic behavior of students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022143716509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kodak, T., Campbell, V., Bergmann, S., LeBlanc, B., Kurtz-Nelson, E., Cariveau, T., et al. (2016). Examination of efficacious, efficient, and socially valid error-correction procedures to teach sight words and prepositions to children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(3), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Leaf, J. B., Leaf, R., Taubman, M., McEachin, J., & Delmolino, L. (2014). Comparison of flexible prompt fading to error correction for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26(2), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-013-9354-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leaf, J. B., Alcalay, A., Leaf, J. A., Tsuji, K., Kassardjian, A., Dale, S., et al. (2016). Comparison of most-to-least to error correction teaching receptive labelling for two children diagnosed with autism. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(4), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marvin, K. L., Rapp, J. T., Stenske, M. T., Rojas, N. R., Swanson, G. J., & Bartlett, S. M. (2010). Response repetition as an error-correction procedure for sight-word reading: A replication and extension. Behavioral Interventions, 25(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Simonoff, E., Pickles, A., Charman, T., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., & Baird, G. (2008). Psychiatric disorders in children with autism spectrum disorders: Prevalence, comorbidity, and associated factors in a population-derived sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(8), 921–929. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318179964f.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. A., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., et al. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(7), 1951–1966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2351-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Worsdell, A. S., Iwata, B. A., Dozier, C. L., Johnson, A. D., Neidert, P. L., & Thomason, J. L. (2005). Analysis of response repetition as an error-correction strategy during sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(4), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.115-04.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar