Effect of Group Contingency Type on Walking: Comparisons of Effectiveness and Cost Efficiency

Abstract

Group contingency (GC) is an effective and cost-efficient strategy that can be successfully applied to technology-based interventions. This study examined the relative effectiveness and cost efficiency of three types of technology-based group contingencies on walking among adults. Seventy two students were divided into teams of three. Each team was randomly assigned to one of three GC conditions (independent, interdependent, or dependent) and underwent 66 days of technology-based group contingency intervention. Sixty five participants completed the intervention and 61 completed the follow-up assessment 2 months later. Step counts and self-reported walking activity increased after the intervention under all three conditions. The proportion of participants that met the target step counts was significantly higher under the dependent group contingency condition. However, 2 months later, intervention effects were not maintained under any condition. For cost efficiency, the increase in step count per point was significantly higher under the interdependent group contingency condition. Group cohesion and social validity (point satisfaction and point utility) were significantly higher under the dependent group contingency condition. Finally, the clinical implications and limitations of this study are discussed.

Comparing an interdependent and dependent group contingency to increase physical activity in students during recess

“…Researchers have shown that the IGC (Foote et al., 2017; Galbraith & Normand, 2017; Kuhl et al., 2015; Normand & Burji, 2020) and the DGC (Vidoni et al., 2012, 2014) increase physical activity; however, what remains unknown is which group contingency is most effective and efficient to increase classwide levels of physical activity. Outside of the behavior‐analytic literature, researchers have compared the relative effectiveness of group contingencies to increase physical activity in adults (Kim et al., 2021; Patel et al., 2016). For example, Kim et al.…”

“…For example, Kim et al. (2021) compared all three group contingencies on walking among adults and found that the DGC produced statistically greater improvements than the other two group contingencies. The IGC produced the second largest increase in walking, though the difference between the IGC and the independent group contingency outcomes were not statistically significant.…”