Comparison of Most-to-Least to Error Correction to Teach Tacting | BCBA CEU | Learning | 0.5 Hours

Dr. Justin B. Leaf reviews a 2014 study titled Comparison of most-to-least prompting to error correction to teach tacting to two children diagnosed with autism. The speaker situates the study within ongoing field-wide debate about whether corrective feedback (e.g., saying “no, that’s not it”) should be used during instruction. The focus is limited to verbal corrective feedback, not punitive procedures.

The study compared error correction and most-to-least prompting within discrete trial teaching to teach expressive labels (tacts) to two children with autism, Bailey (age 3) and Huck (age 5). Each participant was taught three sets of expressive labeling targets under both conditions. Sessions included probe trials (unprompted, neutral feedback), teaching trials (18 per block), and mastery was defined as 80% correct across three consecutive probe sessions.

Results showed that both procedures could produce skill acquisition. For Bailey, error correction resulted in mastery for all three sets, whereas most-to-least did so for two of three. For Huck, both procedures resulted in mastery across sets. Error correction was more efficient for both participants, requiring fewer sessions, fewer trials, and less teaching time. The speaker concludes that error correction can be both effective and efficient, and clinicians should not categorically reject its use but instead consider the conditions under which procedures are implemented.