A Comparative Study of Group Contingencies and Randomized Reinforcers to Reduce Disruptive Classroom Behavior.

Abstract

The present investigation employed an alternating treatments design to (1) examine the efficacy of group contingencies in the reduction of disruptive behavior, and (2) compare the effects of independent, interdependent, and dependent group contingencies in the reduction of disruptive behavior in adolescent males identified with serious emotional disturbance. Disruptive classroom behavior has been associated with both decrement inacademic performance and increased risk for antisocial behavior. Although research findings have suggested that group contingencies are efficacious in reducing disruptive behavior, the data remain inconclusive regarding which group contingency (interdependent, dependent, and independent) is most effective. Results suggest that a clear superiority among the group contingencies was not evidenced. However, all were dramatically effective in the reduction of classroom disruptive behavior.

Interdependent group contingency and mystery motivators to reduce preschool disruptive behavior

“…Although all three group contingencies have been found to be equally effective in the reduction of disruptive behavior (Gresham & Gresham, 1982;Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2004), several advantages are associated with the interdependent group contingency. These include efficiency with respect to teacher time (Skinner et al, 2002), avoidance of jealousy and peer rejection since the entire class either receives a reward or not (Skinner et al, 1996), and increased social interactions and group cooperation as a result of the class working toward a mutual goal (Skinner et al, 1996).…”

A Comparison of Group-Oriented Contingencies for Addition Fluency

“…However, student developmental characteristics may have a role in how the IG, DG, and EG conditions are experienced by the students. Some have speculated that dependent (and interdependent) group-oriented contingencies are more apt to work because of secondary gain through providing for the good of the group (Pigott and Heggie 1985), facilitated cooperation (Gresham and Gresham 1982;Lynch et al 2009), and concern for peer approval or reproach (Theodore et al 2004). These explanations assume a level of experience with responding to social expectations.…”

School‐based prevention and intervention programs for children with emotional disturbance: A review of treatment components and methodology

“…However, one study had incomplete baseline data (i.e., 3 of 5 subjects; Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2004), and 62% of the studies collected data during the course of the program. Follow-up data were collected for seven studies (three prevention programs and four intervention programs).…”

“…The developmental stage of the children at risk for and with ED will dictate program development and evaluation efforts. In this review, three recently published studies examined the effectiveness of school interventions for adolescents (Hansen & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2005;Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005;Theodore et al, 2004). Although these investigations yielded small to large positive effects, research that includes this age group and population is urgently needed.…”