Modification of personal hygiene and grooming behaviors with contingency contracting: A brief review and case study

Abstract

A discussion of the basic components and characteristics of contingency contracts is presented. A case study is included in which contingency contracting procedures were integrated within a behavioral consultation model used by a school psychologist consulting with a classroom teacher. An attempt was made by teacher and psychologist to modify the personal hygiene and grooming behaviors of a 12-year-old male. A changing-criterion design was employed to assess treatment effects, and social validation measures were implemented to evaluate the impact of the intervention on significant others in the child's natural environment. Results indicated a marked increase in the number of appropriate hygiene behaviors exhibited daily as well as in the incidence rate of each target behavior. Social validation data revealed noticeable improvements in the subject's personal appearance consistent with the findings reported by the classroom teacher. The present investigation demonstrates the manner in which a behavioral consultation model may be implemented in a school setting. Single-subject designs and social validation procedures offer an effective means for evaluating the efficacy and impact of treatment programs.A contingency contract is a written form of agreement that outlines the contingencies to be applied to behavior by clearly delineating who is to do what for whom under what circumstances (Weathers & Liberman, 1975). A contract provides a framework within which the principles of behavior management may be used to shape or modify behavior.Although there are many considerations that may need to be specified in a contingency contract, Stuart (1971) has suggested five basic components for inclusion. First, the responsibilities (behaviors) of all parties must be specified in clear and definitive terms. Second, the privileges or rewards that each party expects to receive for fulfilling their respective responsibilities are identified. Third, bonuses that provide reinforcement for superior performance and/or compliance to contract are detailed. Fourth, a system of sanctions for failure to meet responsibilities is outlined. Lastly, provisions for a monitoring system must be detailed as a means to determine when responsibilities have been fulfilled and a privilege is due. The monitoring system should specify a time frame for contract implementation, including scheduled progress reviews.Homme (1969) argued that in order to be effective contingency contracts must be formulated systematically and with adherence to principles of behavior. According to Homme, a contract must be fair, honest, and positive, the terms of the contract must be clear, and contracting must be used systematically. Applications of Contingency ContractingThe theoretical and practical aspects of contingency contracting were initially outlined in work by Homme (1969) and Stuart (1971; Stuart & Lott, 1972). Since that time, contracting has been used as a strategy to change behavior in a wide variety of contexts. Applications of the procedure vary primarily in te...

The use of contingency contracting in educational settings: A review of the literature

“…A smaller amount of research on contingency contracting for students with disabilities has been done ( Table 2). The majority of the authors of this research focused on students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD; Allen and Kramer, 1990;Diaddigo and Dickie, 1978;Hess et al, 1990;Newstrom et al, 1999;Ruth, 1996). Fewer researchers included participants with ASD (Alwahbi and Hua, 2020;Fausett, 2014;Hawkins et al, 2011;Mruzek et al, 2007), students with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders (ADHD; Flood and Wider, 2002;Gurrad et al, 2002), and students with learning disabilities (LD; Grünke, 2019; Grünke and Coeppicus, 2017;Hess et al, 1990;Ruth, 1996).…”

“…Regarding the students with ASD, the targeted behaviors for which contingency contracting was implemented were following classroom rules (Mruzek et al, 2007), non-compliance, physical aggression, verbal aggression, in-seat behavior, inappropriate interaction behaviors (touching the hair of peers) (Hawkins et al, 2011), social initiations, and responses to social initiations (Alwahbi and Hua, 2020;Fausett, 2014). The outcomes for the other students with disabilities included improving on-task behavior (Flood and Wider, 2002;Gurrad et al, 2002), in-class participation (Gurrad et al, 2002), homework completion (Ruth, 1996), school attendance (Hess et al, 1990;Ruth, 1996), appropriate social behaviors such as talking calmly and cooperating (Ruth, 1996), writing skills such as using correct capitalization and punctuation (Grünke, 2019;Grünke and Coeppicus, 2017;Newstrom et al, 1999), reducing challenging behaviors (Diaddigo and Dickie, 1978), and personal hygiene and grooming habits such as combing hair and washing hands (Allen and Kramer, 1990). The procedures for creating contingency contracts for students with disabilities were similar to those done for typically developing students.…”

Changing Criterion Designs: Integrating Methodological and Data Analysis Recommendations

“…Therefore, we consider that terms such as "excessive variability" need to be defined operatively given the importance of stability for all single-case Running head: CHANGING CRITERION DESIGN designs and for CCD data in particular (Barlow et al, 2009;Ledford & Gast, 2014). An objective tool may not only help assessing whether the variability is excessive (e.g., Allen & Kramer, 1990; Figure A1 from online supplementary material: Appendix C; https://osf.io/aqh3r/), but it may also help identifying which behavioral change can be considered as an indicator of intervention effectiveness or experimental control.…”

Using contingency contracting to improve social interactions between students with ASD and their peers

“…A smaller amount of research on contingency contracting for students with disabilities has been done (see Table 2 for information about the studies). The majority of the authors of this research focused on students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD; Allen & Kramer, 1990;Diaddigo & Dickie, 1978;Hess, Rosenberg, & Levy, 1990;Newstrom, McLaughlin, & Sweeney, 1999;Ruth, 1996). Fewer researchers included participants with ASD (Fausett, 2014;Hawkins et al, 2011;Mruzek, Cohen, & Smith, 2007), students with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders (ADHD; Flood & Wider, 2002;Gurrad, Weber, & McLaughlin, 2002), and students with learning disabilities (LD; Hess et al, 1990;Ruth, 1996).…”

“…Regarding the students with ASD, the targeted behaviors for which contingency contracting was implemented were following classroom rules (Mruzek et al, 2007), noncompliance, physical aggression, verbal aggression, in-seat behavior, inappropriate interaction behaviors (e.g., touching the hair of peers; Hawkins et al, 2011), social initiations, and responses to social initiations (Fausett, 2014). The outcomes for the other students with disabilities included improving on-task behavior (Flood & Wider, 2002;Gurrad et al, 2002), in-class participation (Gurrad et al, 2002), homework completion (Ruth, 1996), school attendance (Hess et al, 1990;Ruth, 1996), appropriate social behaviors such as talking calmly and cooperating (Ruth, 1996), writing skills such as using correct capitalization and punctuation (Newstrom et al, 1999), reducing challenging behaviors (Diaddigo & Dickie, 1978), and personal hygiene and grooming habits such as combing hair and washing hands (Allen & Kramer, 1990). The procedures for creating contingency contracts for students with disabilities are similar to those done for typically developing students.…”