↓ Skip to main content

Errorless learning improves memory performance in children with acquired brain injury: A controlled comparison of standard and self-generation techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Errorless learning improves memory performance in children with acquired brain injury: A controlled comparison of standard and self-generation techniques
Published in
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, June 2012
DOI 10.1080/09602011.2012.686820
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Haslam, Claire Bazen-Peters, Ingram Wright

Abstract

The principle of errorless learning has proven efficacy in helping adults and older adults with acquired memory impairment learn novel information. However, surprisingly few studies have investigated its efficacy in children. The present study addresses this omission in the literature, investigating the effectiveness of two forms of errorless learning - the established method, in which the examiner provides responses during learning, and a self-generation method, in which learners produce their own responses - each relative to the standard baseline of trial-and-error learning, in young people with acquired brain injury (ABI, n = 15) and non-injured controls (n = 15). Participants learned different word lists in each condition and their memory was tested after distraction and, subsequently, after a 20-minute delay. Not surprisingly, controls performed better than the ABI group. However, while there was no effect of learning condition for controls, in the ABI group memory performance was significantly better under errorless conditions. In contrast to findings in the adult literature, there was no difference in the efficacy of the two errorless methods, suggesting that self-generation was no better than standard examiner-generation. This study extends upon previous research to provide the first demonstration of the effectiveness of errorless methods in a group of young people with ABI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
#615
of 735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,525
of 180,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.