Table 2.
Training efficacy measures
| Measure | Number of errors in training | Tact accuracy on posttests and maintenance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Successive | Simultaneous | Successive | Simultaneous | |
| Gio | ||||
| Comparison 1 | 15 | 11 | 89% Posttest | 89% Posttest |
| 67% Maintenance | 100% Maintenance | |||
| Comparison 2 | 7 | 8 | 100% Posttest | 100% Posttest |
| 67% Maintenance | 100% Maintenance | |||
| Martin | ||||
| Comparison 1 | 15 | 35* | 100% Posttest | Remedial (100%) |
| 67% Maintenance | Remedial (100%) | |||
| Comparison 2 | 53 | 53 | 100% Posttest | 100% Posttest |
| 78% Maintenance | 89% Maintenance | |||
The number of errors in Martin’s comparison 1 in the simultaneous condition were constrained because he met criteria for remedial training. The accurate tact responding on posttests may reflect the stringent mastery criteria (i.e., participants need to score at 89% or higher)