Effects of a Classwide Interdependent Group Contingency Designed to Improve the Behavior of an At-Risk Student

Journal of Behavioral Education

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 103-116

  Ling, Stacy ^a   Hawkins, Renee O ^a   Weber, Denise ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^b Hamilton County Educational Service Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Engagement; Individualized; Interdependent group contingency; Off task behavior

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958008663     PISSN: 10530819     EISSN: 15733513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10864-011-9125-x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., & Squires, J. K. (2007). Assessment and implementation of positive behavior supports in preschools. TECSE, 27(3), 174-192.
2. Christ, T. J., & Christ, J. A. (2006). Application of an interdependent group contingency mediated by and automated feedback device: An intervention across three high school classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 78-90.
3. Ehrhardt, K. E., Barnett, D. W., Lentz, F. E., Stollar, S. A., & Reifin, L. H. (1996). Innovative methodology in ecological consultation: Use of scripts to promote treatment acceptability and integrity. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 149-168.
4. Hansen, S. D., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2005). Effects of a dependent group contingency on the verbal interactions of middle school students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 170-184.
5. Hawkins, R. O. (2010). An introduction to the special issue: Classwide interventions to promote positive outcomes for all students. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 869-870.
6. Higgins, J. W., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2001). The effects of a token economy employing instructional consequences for a third grade student with learning disabilities: A data based case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(1), 99-106.
7. Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools, 37(6), 523-533.
8. Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology, 16, 191-198.
9. Murphy, K. A., Theodore, L. A., Aloiso, D., Alric-Edwards, J. M., & Hughes, T. L. (2007). Interdependent group contingency and mystery motivators to reduce preschool disruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 53-63. doi: 10. 1002/pits. 20205.
10. Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W. R. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 294-304.
11. Schanding, G. T., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2010). Use of mystery motivator for a high school class. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 38-53. doi: 10. 1080/15377900903379448.
12. Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems workbook (Revised). New York: Guilford Press.
13. Sharp, S. A., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Using interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected criteria and paired reading to enhance class-wide reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 29-45. doi: 10. 1300/J008v20n02_03.
14. Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2002). Best practices in contingency management: application of individual and group contingencies in educational settings. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 817-830). Arlington, VA: National Association of School Psychologists.
15. Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & DioGuardi, R. J. (2003). Contemporary review of group-oriented contingencies for disruptive behavior. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(1), 79-101. doi: 10. 1300/J008v20n01_06.