When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 1

Douglas A. Johnson and Alyce M. Dickinson

Slide 2

Slide 3

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZCorrespondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 4

Slide 5Slide 6

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 7

Slide 8Slide 9When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 10Slide 11

Slide 12When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan UniversityMay 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based RacingDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 31

 No self-pacing differences Time excluding 5 second delays Postfeedback delay: 7 hours, 14 minutes
 Incentives/disincentives: 7 hours, 7 minutes
 Control: 7 hours, 5 minutes

 p = 0.956

Slide 32

 Adjusted means for percentage correct on

the posttest
 Postfeedback delay: 49.2%
 Incentives/disincentives: 32.6%
 Control: 34.5%

 p = 0.005
 Source of differences: Postfeedback delay andother two conditions

Slide 33



Satisfaction impacted as well

1 = Not at all satisfied
9 = Extremely satisfied
 Postfeedback delay: 5.4
 Incentives/disincentives: 5.1
 Control: 8.3
 p = 0.000
 Source of differences: Control and other two conditions

When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 34

Satisfaction impacted as well

1 = Not at all satisfied
9 = Extremely satisfied
 Postfeedback delay: 5.4 ($5.29)
 Incentives/disincentives: 5.1 ($1.88)
 Control: 8.3 ($6.33)
 p = 0.000
 Source of differences: Control and other two conditions



Slide 35

Slide 36When Self-Pacing Goes Wrong: A Comparison of Two Methods for Reducing Computer-Based Racing
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON and Alyce M. Dickinson
Western Michigan University
May 26th, 2009
Association for Behavior Analysis International 35th Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 37

 Comparisons of differing

postfeedback delay durations
 Conditions under whichmonetary incentives wouldwork
 Combinations of postfeedback
delays and monetary incentives
 Mastery learning Branching

Slide 38