Randomization of Group Contingencies and Reinforcers to Reduce Classroom Disruptive Behavior

The Effects of Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) on Students’ Prosocial Classroom Behaviors

“…Individual talking out behavior across the 13 target students during the CW-FIT intervention decreased to a mean level of 4.9%, an 82.78% mean decrease, again making an additional contribution to the management of the classroom environment. These findings in decreasing disruptive behaviors are similar to past research reports using interdependent group-oriented contingencies (e.g., Davies & Witte, 2000;Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004;Theodore et al, 2001). …”

“…These findings, decreases in talking inappropriately, have also been demonstrated by previous researchers using interdependent group contingencies (e.g., Davies & Witte, 2000;Lohrmann & Talerico, 2004;Theodore, Bray, Kehle, & Jenson, 2001).…”

“…Of these, 17 (68%) interventions were implemented to diminish disruptive behavior (e.g., Kelshaw-Levering, SterlingTurner, Henry, Theodore, Bray, Kehle, & Jenson, 2001);five (20%) to increase academic behavior (e.g., Lannie & McCurdy, 2007;Popkin & Skinner, 2003); and three (20%) addressed prosocial classroom behavior (e.g., Babyak et al, 2000;Cashwell, Skinner, & Smith, 2001; for the comparative details of the 25 studies reviewed, see Appendix A; Conklin, Unpublished review, 2010). What follows is a review of the effects of these contingencies on behavior classes of interest to this investigation.…”

Improving homework accuracy: Interdependent group contingencies and randomized components

“…Group contingencies have been successfully employed for numerous dependent variables including academic performance (Popkin & Skinner, 2003;Shapiro & Goldberg, 1990); prosocial behaviors (Gamble & Strain, 1979); disruptive behaviors (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969;Theodore, Bray, Kehle, & Jenson, 2001); classroom noise levels (Schmidt & Ulrich, 1969); stealing (Switzer, Deal, & Bailey, 1977); and homework completion and accuracy (Olympia et al, 1994). A study conducted by Olympia and colleagues compared a student-administered group contingency program (interdependent) with either self-or teacher-related goals in improving math homework completion and accuracy in a sixth-grade classroom.…”

Interdependent Group Contingency Management for Cocaine‐dependent Methadone Maintenance Patients

“…This is because the programmed consequences do not correspond directly to each individual's behavior, and individuals who have recently used drugs may receive reinforcement. Somewhat paradoxically, research in areas other than drug abuse has repeatedly demonstrated that dependent and interdependent group CM interventions are better than no contingencies and are at least equal and often superior to individual CM in producing positive change in the target behavior (Brown & Redmon, 1990;Kelshaw-Levering, Sterling-Turner, Henry, & Skinner, 2000;Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986;Lloyd, Eberhardt, & Drake, 1996;Mawhinney & Fellows-Kubert, 1999;Pedalino & Gamboa, 1974;Popkin & Skinner, 2003;Shapiro & Goldberg, 1990;Speltz, Shimamura, & McReynolds, 1982;Theodore, Bray, Kehle, & Jenson, 2001;Turco & Elliott, 1990). One possible reason may be the emergence of corollary or nontargeted cooperative and supportive behaviors, which have been noted in group CM studies conducted with children and adults in a variety of settings (Gresham & Gresham, 1982;Hayes, 1976;Williamson, Williamson, Watkins, & Hughes, 1992).…”