Nonindicated intervention. The nonindicated

intervention was implemented for all partici

pants, as opposed to a subset of participants as

was done in Carr et al. (2013) and Ditzian

et al. (2015). The teachers selected task clarififi-

cation and prompting as the nonindicated

intervention, which included (a) posting the

steps of the error-correction DTT procedure

(with the highlighted defifinition of an error) in

the instructional work station, and (b) the

teacher providing a vocal prompt to the para

professionals that the document had been

posted at the start of this condition. One

teacher (and one paraprofessional, Carly)

already had a written protocol describing error

correction steps during DTT posted on the

wall of the work station before the study began

(i.e. it was present during baseline). Therefore,

the teachers decided to modify that protocol

and post in all workstations.

The protocol consisted of a half sheet of col

ored construction paper with a white sheet

pasted on top, with the title “Incorrect

Response Procedures” typed in 16-point font.

The steps written in the protocol were:

(1) End trial immediately (looking away,

removing items from table)

(2) Take data (-)

(3) Give direction again

(4) Prompt (verbal, physical, model)

(5) Praise (not as exciting as an independent

correct response)

(6) Take data (P or I)

(7) Check for independence (give direction)

PDC-HS indicated intervention. The assess

ment outcome identifified an intervention in the

area of “training” and specififically included pro

viding BST on the implementation of the

error-correction procedure. The other indicated

intervention based on the outcome of the

PDC-HS, “improved personnel selection,” was

not applicable. Although no specifific training

criteria were set for the teachers, the experi

menter provided teachers with a brief vocal

rationale of BST and described the steps, rela

tive to the error-correction procedure. Specififi-

cally, the experimenter demonstrated how to

explain, model, and role-play the error correc

tion procedure, with the teacher playing the

role of the paraprofessional during each demon

stration. This took place once, and the experi

menter answered any questions posed by the

teacher. The BST intervention was delivered by

the teacher once on the morning of the fifirst

indicated intervention session, approximately

30 min prior to the paraprofessionals imple

menting a DTT work session. The BST inter

vention took approximately 30 min to

implement and included a written description

of the procedure, explanation, modeling, and

having the paraprofessionals practice (with feed

back) with the teacher or another adult playing

the part of the child. Mastery criterion during

practice was demonstrating at least 90% correct

implementation for fifive consecutive practice

opportunities. All paraprofessionals met mastery

criterion during BST.

Scroll to Top