Behavior and achievement relationships with emotionally disturbed children: An applied study

Abstract

Reciprocal relationships between on-task behavior and certain academic performance targets have been demonstrated in a number of short-term applied behavior analysis studies. These studies have not had emotionally disturbed or behavior disordered (ED/BD) children as subjects, and are generally not carried out over sufficient intervals to measure effects on standardized tests of achievement. Studies of ongoing programs over longer periods of time have shown inconsistent results when comparing levels of on-task behavior with standardized achievement gains. The present study questions the hypothesized relationship between on-task behaviors and standardized achievement with ED/BD children. Further, it seeks to determine significant relationships between certain specific on-task behaviors (e.g., completing assignments) and standardized achievement. Forty ED/BD children participated in a token economy over the course of an entire academic year. Minimal pre-post achievement gains @< .01) and a high level of on-task behavior (84%) were noted, but there were no significant relationships between on-task behaviors and measured achievement. The results are discussed in the context of similar findings from other ongoing programs with ED/BD students. Suggestions are offered for investigating other classes of behavior (e.g., academic engaged time) with these children, in order to discover more consistent behavior-achievement relationships.

Token economy plus self-monitoring to reduce disruptive classroom behaviors.

“…Many different interventions have been implemented to decrease the occurrence of these behaviors to acceptable and appropriate levels. For example, behavioral interventions that are typically implemented to manage inappropriate and disruptive behaviors are variations of differential reinforcement of incompatible or appropriate alternative behaviors where the frequency of appropriate behaviors increase and a natural consequence of the increase is a decrease in disruptive inappropriate behaviors (Gaughan & Axelrod, 1989). Additionally, Fontenell and Holloman (1983) investigated the effects of differentially reinforcing hand-raising in a classroom on the rate of disruptive behavior of calling-out for teacher attention.…”

“…Subsequent studies have investigated token economy procedures to reinforce on-task behavior, reduce disruptive classroom behavior, and improve social skills of youth with weak reinforcement histories and emotional problems. (Ferritor, Buckholdt, Hamblin, & Smith, 1972; Ayllon & Roberts,1974, & Gaughan & Axelrod, 1989).…”

Addressing Task Avoidance in Middle School Students

“…In addition, behavior report cards utilize a token economy, as students typically earn points that are tied to rewards. An extensive literature indicates clearly that token economies can be used to change a wide variety of behaviors, including on-task behavior, disruptive classroom behavior, and aggression, in many different populations of subjects (Ayllon & Roberts, 1974; Ferritor, Buckholdt, Hamblin, & Smith, 1972; Gaughan & Axelrod, 1989; Kazdin & Bootzin, 1972). Finally, when used as part of a CICO system, behavior report cards allow students to access positive attention from an adult at the start and end of each school day.…”

Independent Contingency and Token Economy at Recess to Reduce Aggression

“…The tokens can be distributed based on the occurrence of a target behavior on a ratio or interval schedule, as well as being paired with an explanation for why the student is being reinforced (e.g., verbal praise). Token economies have shown positive effects from decades of research both in and out of the classroom for increased rule following (McGoey and DuPaul 2000 ), cooperative play (Wolfe et al 1983 ), and reduction of problem behaviors (Gaughan and Axelrod 1989 ). A variety of variables associated with the exchange can influence the effectiveness of a token economy including the schedule of exchange, magnitude of reinforcers, and degree of preference (e.g., Fiske et al 2015 ; Bonfonte et al 2020 ).…”