An Evaluation of Group Contingency Interventions

Abstract

Group contingencies (GCs) vary in a variety of dimensions that may influence their efficacy and acceptability. This study evaluated the relative impact of four different GC types (independent, interdependent, dependent, and randomized) on classwide appropriate and disruptive student behaviors as well as how implementation of a teacher's preferred contingency may enhance student behavioral outcomes. Three general education teachers and their students participated in the study. All four GCs resulted in reduced disruption and increased appropriate behavior across all three classrooms with no patterns of differentiation between contingency types. Teachers selected independent or dependent contingencies as their preferred reward system. Implementation of the preferred contingency resulted in further improvements in both classwide behaviors for all classes. Some evidence of generalization and maintenance was noted in all three classrooms. Keywordselementary and middle school, challenging behavior(s), classroom, intervention(s), positive behavior support(s) at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016 pbi.sagepub.com Downloaded from

An evaluation of interdependent and independent group contingencies during the good behavior game

“…Further, our results revealed no difference in efficacy between versions of the GBG in which the different GCs were used. These findings are similar to some previous studies that have compared interdependent and independent GCs (Axelrod, ; Ellery et al, ; Ennis et al, ; Grandy et al, ; Herman & Tramontana, ; McLaughlin et al, ). Our study extends these findings to the application of different GCs within the GBG and suggests that the interdependent GC is not an essential component of effective application of the game.…”

“…Some researchers have found interdependent GCs to be more effective (Brown & Reschly, ; Brown, Reschly, & Sabers, ; Gresham & Gresham, ; Long & Williams, ; McReynolds, Gange, & Speltz, ; Page & Edwards, ; Shores, Apolloni, & Norman, ), whereas some have found independent GCs to be superior (Edwards, ; Hall et al, ). Other researchers have found no difference between the two (Axelrod, ; Ellery, Blampied & Black, ; Ennis, Blair, & George, ; Grandy, Madsen, & DeMersseman, 1973; Herman & Tramontana, ; McLaughlin, Brown, Malaby, & Dolliver, ).…”

Examining the Generalization of a Combined Independent and Interdependent Group Contingency for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

“…The researchers thought that this proposed procedure would be easier for the teacher to manage and hopefully lead to higher adherence levels. However, the teachers felt strongly that students should be able to earn reinforcers based on their own behavior, consistent with the idea that teachers perceive independent group contingencies as fairer (Collins et al, 2019; Ennis et al, 2016; Trevino-Maack et al, 2015) and that instances of inappropriate behavior should have consequences. Based on the adherence data, the multiple components of the intervention, especially the subtraction of negative scans from positive scans in Class 1, may have been too cumbersome, contributing to the teacher deciding the criteria and making judgments on her own regarding whether or not students earned reinforcement.…”

“…Research comparing the effectiveness of the various types of group contingencies has failed to consistently identify one type of contingency as superior (Groves & Austin, 2017; Theodore et al, 2004). Given that each type of contingency can be effective, decisions about which type of group contingency to implement should be made based on the context of the setting, with input from individuals responsible for implementation to promote adherence (Collins et al, 2019; Ennis et al, 2016; Trevino-Maack et al, 2015). Each type of group contingency has strengths and limitations associated with it, and these should be carefully considered during intervention planning (Collins et al, 2019; Little et al, 2015).…”

Assessing the Differential Effects of Known and Mystery Rewards in a Preschool-Based Group Contingency

“…Reinforcing peer-directed SI through the use of a group contingency might be a relatively low effort strategy, which increases the likelihood of applied use. Furthermore, having the flexibility to choose the reward type they prefer might make group contingencies even more feasible for teachers to implement, and also has the potential to improve child outcomes (Ennis, Cho Blair, & George, 2016). Consequently, when planning future studies or classroom use of group contingencies, researchers and practitioners can use their preferred reward type—assuming rewards are based on child preference and regularly alternated with other rewards of equal quality—and can anticipate positive social outcomes.…”