Feedback is used in a variety of contexts to train staff and to teach individuals new skills. Despite its popularity, there is no consensus on how to deliver it. Different measures have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of feedback, such as accuracy of responses and the sequencing of feedback delivery. The purpose of this study was to compare two feedback procedures and to explore new ways to measure the effectiveness of feedback. Four undergraduate students were exposed to two conditions: feedback before + skip the opportunity to respond and feedback after an incorrect answer. Results showed that the number of correct answers and teaching time were similar in both conditions. However, session duration was lower in the feedback before + skip condition when compared to the feedback after condition. Finally, reported emotions correlated with participants' correct responding. This study demonstrates that it is more beneficial and efficient to teach learners how to engage in a correct performance, rather than to correct responses.

The participant was a 52 year-old woman, diagnosed with a profound intellectual disability, who engaged in high rates of severe self-injurious behaviors (SIB) predominantly in the forms of head banging and head hitting. A series of analyses and interventions was implemented to establish appropriate toileting behavior in the natural environment. Treatment consisted of conjugate reinforcement for optimal toilet positioning with the absence of SIB, episodic positive reinforcement of eliminating in the toilet, and programed generalization across environments and staff. Results showed the maintenance of optimal toilet positioning, decrease in SIB (under 1 instance per min), and appropriate eliminating in 96.3% of all available sessions. Direct support staff were trained to implement the program with 100% fidelity.