Procedural Variations in Group Contingencies: Effects on Children's Academic and Social Behaviors

Abstract

There has been little research on the effects of the many procedural variables in applied group contingencies. In the present study, an individualized contingency and three group contingencies with different "responder" criteria (e.g., reward based on the group average, reward based on the work of a designated, low-achieving student, or reward based on the work of a randomly selected student) were applied to the academic work of primary grade children in a learning disabilities classroom. Group social interaction during each contingency was measured systematically. Although there were large individual differences in students' academic and social responses to the different contingencies, some consistent effects were observed. Two of the four low-achieving target students did their best academic work during the group contingency which focused on their performance as a designated responder. This type of contingency also produced high levels of positive social interaction in three of four groups of children observed.

An Evaluation of Group Contingency Interventions

“…The results of this study support previous findings in that the various GCs are approximately equivalent in increasing classwide appropriate behavior as well as in reducing disruptive behavior Shapiro & Goldberg, 1986;Speltz et al, 1982). All four GC procedures evaluated were effective in producing these desired outcomes.…”

A Comparison of Group-Oriented Contingencies for Addition Fluency

“…As for the IG group, the independent group-oriented contingencies appeared to have large effects like the dependent group-oriented contingencies, which have been observed previously (Lynch et al 2009;Shapiro and Goldberg 1986). Nonetheless, the IG group had greater growth in addition fluency, which is consistent with research for reading fluency (Alric et al 2007), but not arithmetic accuracy (Speltz et al 1982). It may be that ET combined with independent grouporiented contingencies had a generative effect on the addition fluency for these students above the conditions for the EG group.…”

“…Likewise, all three group-oriented contingencies were found to have large effects sizes for reading fluency with largest effect belonging to the independent group (Alric et al 2007). The comparisons for math skills found that all group-oriented contingencies improve arithmetic accuracy equally for elementary school students (Speltz et al 1982), but that the effect of each type of group contingency varied across students (e.g., Interdependent ES range = 0.82 to 1.72, Dependent ES range= 0.70 to 1.46, and Independent ES range=0.27 to 1.50; Lynch et al 2009). Independent grouporiented contingencies may be effective for academic skills and in particular math.…”

On Systems Analysis in Autism Intervention Programs

“…Group contingencies exist when the behavior of one or more group members determines the consequences for at least one other group member (Speltz, Shimamura, & McReynolds, 1982 Training expertise. For more than a decade, our data have repeatedly documented that didactic procedures alone do not enable instructors and therapists to exhibit intervention skills at or near criterion levels.…”