Article 1. Overcorrection Ernest l. Pancsofar University of Connecticut

Abstract

Overcorrection refers to a punishment procedure and includes the systematic application of prescribed strategies to decrease the future occurrence of targeted behaviors. An overcorrection package may include verbal reprimands, time- out from positive reinforcement, short verbal instructions, and graduated guidance. The two major procedures of overcorrection are restitution and positive practice. Restitution means restoring the environment or oneself to a state that is vastly improved relative to the prior condition.

Keywords overcorrection, behavior, misbehavior.

Positive practice involves the repeated practice of certain forms of behaviors relevant to the content in which the behavior occurred (Hobbs, 1985). Foxx (1982) describes three characteristics of overcorrection acts, including the existence of a direct relationship to the student’s misbehavior; implementation immediately following the misbehavior; and rapid administration of overcorrection acts. While administering overcorrection acts, the teacher employs a full or partial graduated guidance form of assistance followed by a shadowing procedure as the program develops. In a full graduated guidance technique, the teacher maintains full contact with the student’s hands. In partial graduated guidance, the teacher uses a thumb and forefinger to gently guide the movements of the student.

Eventually, the teacher shadows the student by placing a hand in close proximity to the student’s hand and initiating contact only when the student fails to complete the movements of the overcorrection act. A sample behavior that could result in an overcorrection consequence is excessive spillage of food during meals. A simple, correction procedure would require the student to clean only the immediate area of the spillage. Overcorrection would extend this requirement to cleaning additional areas in the cafeteria as well. Additionally, the teacher may require the student to overly clean designated areas even though these areas may not need attention. In a review of behaviors that have been targeted for overcorrection acts, Ferretti and Cavalier (1983) summarized the reported effectiveness with eating skills, toileting skills, aggressive- disruptive behaviors, stereotype behaviors, and self-injurious behaviors. In these research reports, the individual components of each overcorrection package of strategies were not evaluated.

However, general observations of the effectiveness of overcorrection procedures were favorable. Overcorrection acts have been successfully implemented with individuals with mental retardation, autism, emotional and / or behavioral disorders (Tyson & Spooner, 1991). Caution must be exercised during the formulation and implementation of the components of an overcorrection package. A minimum intensity level of intrusiveness should be maintained that affects the desired behavioral reduction of the targeted behavior. From a practical standpoint, overcorrection requires the investment of close teacher to student contact throughout the implementation of the procedures. Additionally, the physical strength of a strong student must be considered relative to a teacher’s ability to guide the movements of the overcorrection acts. A different reductive procedure may be necessary if the teacher is unable to complete the required full graduated guidance. The appeal of overcorrection is the educative component of teaching the student a correct way of behaving to replace the targeted negative behavior. The implementation of aversive consequences that resemble overcorrection acts, but fail to include this educative component, are mislabeled as overcorrection. Careful monitoring of all aspects of this reductive procedure needs to be included to provide adequate safeguards against potentially abusive situations. As a punishment alternative, overcorrection requires additional investigations to substantiate previous claims of rapid reduction of undesirable behaviors.

References

Axelrod, S., Brantner, J.P., & Meddock, T.D. (1978). Overcorrection: A review and critical analysis // Journal of Special Education, 12, 367–391.

Ferretti, R.P., & Cavalier, A.R. (1983). A critical assessment of overcorrection procedures with mentally retarded persons // J.L.

Matson & F.Andrasik (Eds.), Treatment issues and innovations in mental retardation (pp. 241–301). New York: Plenum.

Foxx, R.M. (1982). Decreasing behaviors of severely retarded and autistic persons (pp. 91–111). Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Hobbs, S.A. (1985). Overcorrection. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Dictionary of behavior therapy techniques (pp. 158–160). New York: Pergamon.

Kazdin, A.E. (1984). Behavior modifi cation in applied settings (3^rd ed.) (pp. 136–139).

Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Ollendick, T.H., & Matson, J.L. (1978). Overcorrection: An overview. Behavior Therapy. 9, 830–842.

Tyson, M.E., & Spooner, F. (1991). A retrospective evaluation of behavioral programming in an institutional setting // Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26(2), 179–189.

Ernest L. Pancsofar (University of Connecticut)

Source: Encyclopedia of Special Education, THIRD EDITION Cecil R. Reynolds and Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Editors, 2007.

1. Read the article.

2. Make some general remarks concerning the content of the paper using words and expressions from Useful Vocabulary Section.

3. Discuss the structure of the paper.

4. Give some positive comments.

5. Express your criticism or objections.

6. Analyze the data, results and their presentations.

7. Make a conclusion.