Group Contingencies, Randomization of Reinforcers, and Criteria for Reinforcement, SelfMonitoring, and Peer Feedback on Reducing Inappropriate Classroom

Behavior
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Brenda Anne Coogan, Thomas J. Kehle, Melissa A. Bray, and Sandra M. Chafouleas
University of Connecticut

Considerable research has demonstrated the effectiveness of interdependent and unknown dependent group contingencies on reducing inappropriate classroom behavior. Several investigators have focused on the addition of
Brenda A. Coogan, PhD, is a School Psychologist in the Bristol, Connecticut, public school system. Her practice of school psychology involves working with middle school students with varied diagnosed disorders. Her research focuses on improving the classroom functioning and overall well-being of young adolescents. Melissa A. Bray, PhD, is an Associate Professor in School Psychology at the University of Connecticut. Her primary research interests include school-based interventions in the areas of communication, behavior, and health disorders. Dr. Bray received the Lightner Witmer Award in 2003. She also is fellow of the American Psychological Association, American Psychological Society, and an elected member of the Society for the Study of School Psychology. The PhD School Psychology Program at the University of Connecticut is accredited by the American Psychological Association. Thomas J. Kehle, PhD, is Professor and Director of School Psychology at the University of Connecticut. His primary research interests include the design and implementation of interventions to improve childrens academic and social functioning. His writing also includes practical applications of a theoretical model of wellness to improve both the magnitude and endurance of positive behavior change. He is fellow of the American Psychological Association, American Psychological Society, and an elected member of the Society for the Study of School Psychology. The PhD School Psychology Program at the University of Connecticut is accredited by the American Psychological Association. Dr. Sandra M. Chafouleas is an Associate Professor in the School Psychology Program at the University of Connecticut. Her primary research interests include research on daily behavior report cards, and functional assessment and behavioral interventions. She received several awards for her research and student advising at the University of Connecticut. In addition, Dr. Chafouleas was the recipient of the Early Career Scholar Award I, and, in 2003 she was honorably mentioned for American Psychological Association Division 16 Lightner Witmer Award. The PhD School Psychology Program at the University of Connecticut is accredited by the American Psychological Association. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas J. Kehle, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-2064. E-mail: thomas.kehle@uconn.edu 540
School Psychology Quarterly 2007, Vol. 22, No. 4, 540 556 Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 1045-3830/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.540

Reducing Inappropriate Classroom Behavior

541

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

self-monitoring and peer feedback to these interdependent and unknown dependent group contingencies in order to further improve their effectiveness. In addition, another and separate line of research has examined group contingencies with the randomization of the reinforcement procedure as a means of improving the intervention effect. Absent in the present literature is a study that combines all of these various elements into one multicomponent intervention. Therefore, the present study focused on demonstrating the effectiveness of interdependent and unknown dependent group contingencies that also included self-monitoring, peer feedback, and the randomization of both reinforcers and criteria for reinforcement in reducing the frequency of inappropriate classroom behaviors. The results indicated large positive effects for this multicomponent intervention across all students.
Keywords: classroom behavior, group contingencies, self-monitoring, peer feedback

Group contingencies were originally dened by Litow and Pumroy (1975) as independent, interdependent, or dependent. They conceptualized the independent group contingency as each individual student having the opportunity to receive reinforcement if he or she met the criteria set forth for all students in the classroom. The interdependent group contingency is dened by the students in the classroom earning a reward if every student in the group or specied groups of students attain a certain level of performance, thereby making each student in the group interdependent on the others to gain the proposed reinforcer. The dependent group contingency is in effect when the performance of a selected group member or members determines the rewards or consequences for the entire group. All three group contingencies have been shown to be effective in reducing inappropriate classroom behavior (Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2001). Recent research has shown that the use of group contingencies that involve both peer feedback and self-monitoring have also been shown to be effective in addressing problem behavior (Davies & Witte, 2000). The elements of peer feedback and self-monitoring bond the students in a mutual exercise related to their behavior and further promote the class working as a group toward a common goal (Davies & Witte, 2000). An additional element that has recently been added to the group contingency intervention is that of randomization of contingency components, such as target behaviors, reinforcers, criteria, and target students (Kelshaw-Levering, Sterling-Turner, Henry, & Skinner, 2000; Theodore et al., 2001). This element of surprise encourages the students to maintain all behaviors throughout the intervention, because they do not know the target behavior, the reinforcer, or the criteria for reinforcement. The idea of randomization of reinforcers is very similar to the concept of the mystery motivator explained in the work of Rhodes, Jenson, and Reavis (1992) where random reinforcers are presented as being more effective than

542

Coogan, Kehle, Bray, and Chafouleas

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

nonrandomized reinforcers. The recent research in this area has clearly shown that randomization of select aspects of a group contingency makes the overall intervention more effective (Kelshaw-Levering et al., 2000; Theodore et al., 2001). Of interest, and in support of this research, the most effective interventions for decreasing disruptive classroom behaviors are group contingencies, self-monitoring, peer feedback, and interventions that combine two or more of these strategies into one unied behavior system (Stage & Quiroz, 1997). However, there is limited research in the combination of any two of these procedures (Davies & Witte, 2000), and none on all three. Based on this, it would seem reasonable to combine these effective strategies into a single multicomponent approach. Therefore, the purpose of the present research was to examine the effects of a multicomponent intervention that included interdependent and unknown dependent group contingencies, peer feedback, selfmonitoring, and randomization of both reinforcers and criteria for reinforcement on the reduction of inappropriate classroom behavior.

METHOD Participants and Setting A single classroom was identied based on its high number of teacher referrals for inappropriate student behaviors. With this classroom, a group of ve students who exhibited the most frequent inappropriate behaviors were specically targeted for the intervention. Student 1, a 12-year-old male, was diagnosed as having attentiondecit/hyperactivity-disorder and received Special Education Services under the category of Other Health Impaired. Attention and focus were difcult tasks in the classroom for this student, and he often called out, got out of his seat, complained aloud, and distracted other students during class time. Results from a psychological evaluation revealed scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenThird Edition (WISCIII; Wechsler, 1991) that were in the average-to-low average ranges as follows: Full-Scale IQ 95, Performance IQ 106, and Verbal IQ 87. Academic scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational BatteryRevised (WJR; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) administered yielded a Broad Reading score of 91 (average range), a Broad Math score of 85 (low average range), and a Broad Written Language Score of 72 (low/borderline range), demonstrating a weakness in written language. Student 2, a 12-year-old male, was identied as an Other Health Impaired Student due to attention-decit/hyperactivity disorder and a mild

Reducing Inappropriate Classroom Behavior

543

neurological impairment. There were also some concerns related to bipolar disorder, although a diagnosis had not been made at the time of this study. The student was taking Adderall and Prozac daily to treat his condition; however, he had been on both medications for a signicant amount of time before the collection of any baseline data. Focus, attention, receptive language, and compliance with classroom rules were difcult for Student 2. In addition, he often was verbally inappropriate with his peers and teachers. Self-mutilation within the school setting was a problem in the past; however, this behavior had subsided before the start of the study. A psychological evaluation yielded WISCIII Full-Scale IQ of 92 (average range), Verbal IQ of 89 (low average range), and Performance IQ of 96 (average range). His academic achievement scores on the WJR revealed a Broad Reading Score of 82, a Broad Math Score of 75, and a Broad Written Language Score of 83, placing all of his academic abilities in the low average and low/borderline ranges. Student 3, a 12-year-old male, was a general education student; however, he accumulated over 16 discipline referrals during sixth and seventh grades and his classroom behavior was a consistent problem. Student 3 was extremely impulsive and he talked aloud constantly within the classroom setting. He distracted other students by talking to them or tapping them to get their attention, and he did not respond to teacher redirection when these behaviors occurred. No individually administered intelligence or academic achievement scores were on le; however, group administered tests suggested that his academic abilities were at or above the average range. Student 4, a 12-year-old male, was a general education student. He received English as a Second Language Services (ESL) for two periods each day. He understood most English, although his abilities to speak and write in English were weak. Student 4s behavior was deant and erratic and, consequently, he accumulated approximately 16 disciplinary referrals and was suspended at least twice during sixth and seventh grades. Placement in an alternative education program was recommended for the subsequent academic year because of his deance and insubordinance within the mainstream setting. No cognitive or achievement scores were on le. Student 5, a 12-year-old male, was a general education student who exhibited signicant acting out behaviors within the classroom. Student 5 talked to other students constantly and he laughed at others misbehaviors to encourage them to continue. There were no individually administered cognitive or achievement scores on le for this student, but standardized group test scores suggest that he was below average in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

544

Coogan, Kehle, Bray, and Chafouleas

Design An ABAB reversal design, where A denoted baseline and B treatment, was used to examine the effects of the multicomponent treatment. This design does not depend on averaging across subjects to control the effects of random factors and, therefore, can be used with few or even one subject. The employment of ve subjects allowed the evaluation of the generality of ndings across subjects.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Dependent Variable The denition of inappropriate behavior for this study was that of Kehle, Clark, Jenson, and Wampold (1986) and included any occurrences of touching, vocalizing, aggression, playing, disorienting, making noise, or being out of seat during classroom instruction time. Again, in accord with Kehle and colleagues, these seven behaviors were collapsed under the term inappropriate behavior, and the occurrence of any one of these behaviors was recorded as an inappropriate classroom behavior.

Outcome Measures Direct observations were conducted using a partial-interval time sampling method consisting of 15-second intervals over a 30-minute period (total 120 observed intervals per session). A school psychologist and a guidance counselor served as observers and coded in common approximately 25% of the sessions across the four phases of the study. Both individuals reviewed the denition of the behaviors that comprised the dependent variable before the commencement of the observations.

Interobserver Agreement Practice sessions were conducted before the collection of actual data in order to prepare for the observation techniques with the second observer by training to 80% agreement. The interobserver agreement during each phase of the study was calculated using point-by-point agreement (Kazdin, 1982). The percentage of agreement between observers was calculated for at least 25% of the sessions in all four phases of the study, and the minimum criterion for interrater reliability was set at 80%. The interob-

Reducing Inappropriate Classroom Behavior

545

server agreement for this study ranged from 0.86 to 1.0, with an average of 0.88.

Treatment Integrity In order to ensure that the intervention was administered properly, at least 25% of the sessions during each intervention phase were examined using a protocol containing all of the components of the intervention. The protocol for the multicomponent intervention utilizing self-monitoring, peer feedback, and randomization of both reinforcers and criteria for reinforcement included: (a) instructing the students to get their monitoring boards and assigning a student to distribute the self-monitoring sheets; (b) allowing a few minutes for group discussion related to the previous days performance; (c) announcing the start of class time and the beginning of the program for the day; (d) instructing any student who performed a disruptive behavior to move a marker on the monitoring board and to mark his own monitoring sheet, and moving the marker for the student if he refused to follow through; (e) spinning the wheel to select a student to pull from the reinforcement jars and announcing the selected tokens from each of the jars used; (f) either ensuring that the daily reward was distributed immediately after determining if the groups or the individual met the criteria for the day, or announcing that the criteria for the day had not been met if this was the case; and (g) selecting a student to collect the monitoring boards and sheets.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Consumer Satisfaction At the end of the study, each of the students in the classroom completed a Likert-type scale developed by Bray and Kehle (1996) to determine the degree of student satisfaction regarding the study. The scale assessed the students opinions regarding being observed in class, using the monitoring boards and sheets to keep track of their behavior, earning prizes and rewards for good behavior, not knowing the criterion for reward until the end of class, not knowing the reward until the end of class, and coming up to select the tokens from the jars at the end of class.

Teacher Acceptability The classroom teacher completed the Intervention Rating Prole (Witt & Martens, 1983) as an assessment of her satisfaction with the classroom

546

Coogan, Kehle, Bray, and Chafouleas

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

program. This was also a Likert-type scale, and the instrument assessed the degree to which the observations were not bothersome, the classroom rules were appropriate for middle school students, the reinforcers were motivating for the students, the intervention was relatively simple to learn and implement, the intervention was likely to be used again, the intervention did not inict any negative consequence or side effects for the students, the students were motivated to improve their performance due to the randomized reinforcers and criteria for reinforcement, and the students had a vested interest in the performance of their classmates. The teacher completed the acceptability scale the day after data collection was terminated.

Procedure Baseline I Before the collection of baseline data, the students desks were moved together into four small units with three desks per group and one unit with two desks, and one of the ve target students was included in each grouping of three. The desks were not touching, but rather were placed in close proximity to each other in order to avoid unnecessary contact between the students. The teacher was instructed to continue with her usual classroom management procedures during this baseline data collection. During baseline, the students were observed between 4 to 10 occasions.

Intervention I The teacher was instructed as to how to implement the intervention, and she was given an opportunity to ask questions related to the program. The researcher worked jointly with the teacher to select rewards such as free time at the end of class, time to talk with a friend, a prize from the prize box (pencils, stickers, gel pens, etc.), a candy from the food box, 10 extra points on a test, a free homework pass, and game time. In order to teach the students about the intervention and their role in monitoring the system, a one-day training session was held by the teacher before the start of the intervention. Practice and role-play were used during this training period so that students could try out the system. An oral quiz was given to the students to ensure that they understood the target behavior and the intervention procedure. All of the students demonstrated at least 90% accuracy on the quiz, thereby indicating that they clearly understood the procedures involved in the classroom program. The target be-

Reducing Inappropriate Classroom Behavior

547

havior was operationally dened to students as any behavior that involved touching, vocalizing, aggression, playing, disorienting, making noise, or being out of seat without permission during classroom instruction time. This denition was placed on the board where it remained for the rest of the study. Each group was allowed to select a team name to identify their group, and each of the students in the group provided input related to the chosen name. Each group was given a monitoring board divided into two colored sections, half green and half blue, with ve push pins attached to the green far-left section of the board. The students were instructed that they should move a pin to the blue section of the laminated board if they exhibited an inappropriate behavior that was corrected by the teacher, thereby resulting in the loss of a team point. It was explained that if they refused to move the pin to the blue section of the board that the teacher would move the pin for them. The students were also instructed to complete blue self-monitoring data sheets during the intervention sessions. The sheets were cut to a small size to avoid cluttering the students desks with unnecessary paper, and the students were instructed to place a check on the sheet if they behaved in an inappropriate manner that resulted in the loss of a team point. The students were told that these sheets would be collected at the end of each session along with the laminated boards that were used to keep track of the number of inappropriate behaviors per group, and that this information would be used to determine class reinforcement. It was explained to the students that the reinforcement would be based randomly upon either the performance of all groups or the performance of one selected individual, and that this criterion would be selected in a specied and random manner at the end of each period. If the selected criterion was the performance of all groups, then each group must have at least one team point remaining in the green section of their board to gain the reward, thereby indicating that they lost a maximum of four points. If the criterion was the performance of a selected individual, then the chosen student must not have lost more than two points for the team in order for the class to earn the reward, and this information would be calculated based upon the students self-monitoring sheet (no more than two checks). The intervention was implemented for 28 school days over a period of six weeks, and the researcher observed 12 sessions during this intervention period. There were three jars on a cabinet near the teachers desk, each containing a different part of the reinforcement procedure. The rst jar contained the criteria for reinforcement (i.e., performance of all groups or performance of one particular student), the second jar contained the names of each individual student in the classroom, and the third jar contained the potential rewards. At the end of each session, the teacher spun a wheel inscribed with the names of each student in the class, thereby randomly

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

548

Coogan, Kehle, Bray, and Chafouleas

selecting a student to pull a token from each of the jars. The selected student pulled a token from jar 1 rst to determine the criterion for reinforcement. If the selected token said performance of all groups, then the class received the mystery reinforcer selected from jar 3 if each group had at least one pin left in the green section of their boards at the end of the period (that is they lost a maximum of four points during the period). If the selected token from jar 1 said performance of one student, then the student at the teachers desk pulled a token with the name of a student from jar 2, and the whole class received the mystery reinforcer pulled from jar 3 if the student selected from jar two had no more than two checks on his individual monitoring sheet, reecting that he demonstrated no more than two inappropriate behaviors during the period. In this manner, the type of reinforcer and the criterion for reinforcement were both randomized, and any earned reinforcers were given to the students immediately. A chosen individual collected the self-monitoring sheets and the laminated boards at the end of each period and any reinforcement was announced immediately. The teacher monitored the students use of the system to ensure that they were recording all inappropriate behaviors, and this information was used to determine class reinforcement. It was explained to the students that if the criterion for reinforcement was the performance of all groups, then each group must have at least one pin remaining in the green section of the board in order for the class to get the selected reinforcer. Also, if the criterion for reinforcement was the performance of one individual student, then that person must have no more than two checks on her self-monitoring sheet in order for the class to get the selected reinforcer. The start of each class session began with a group meeting that facilitated time for peer feedback. The students were asked to discuss the previous day within their group and as a class, giving feedback related to their groups success or failure and volunteering ideas for how they could improve their performance. The students were also instructed in how to treat others fairly and ganging up on other students was discouraged. The groups were asked to encourage individual students in order to improve the groups overall performance and constructive peer feedback was allowed during the group meeting and during the actual intervention. Any student who engaged in inappropriate peer feedback and refused to terminate this behavior as directed by the teacher lost a point for inappropriate vocalization. The researcher also observed four random sessions during the intervention phase to ensure the quality of the intervention was sound using a checklist of the intervention components.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Reducing Inappropriate Classroom Behavior

549

Baseline II After 28 days, the intervention phase was discontinued and baseline data were collected for nine additional school days, with each student being observed between six and nine times. It was explained to the students that they would be taking a break from the classroom program, and the teacher resumed her usual classroom management procedures during this second baseline phase.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Intervention II The intervention was reimplemented for 26 days and the teacher reviewed the classroom procedure with the group prior to resuming the intervention. Data were again gathered for 12 of the intervention sessions. Each student was observed on anywhere from 5 to 12 occasions depending upon absences, conicting classes, and so forth. The group boards and self-monitoring sheets were used to determine reinforcement, and peer feedback was given at the start of each session.

RESULTS Visual inspection of the data revealed that Student 1 evidenced disruptive behavior during an average of 25% of observed intervals during the initial baseline period, with scores ranging from 10% to 43% (see Figure 1). The average occurrences of disruptive behavior decreased dramatically upon introduction of the behavior program during the rst intervention phase to 3.07%, but it then increased dramatically when the intervention was withdrawn during the second baseline phase to 21.06% disruptive intervals. When the intervention was reintroduced, the average percentage of disruptive intervals decreased to 5.71%. During baseline, Student 2 exhibited an average of 30.44% disruptive intervals (range 5% 48%). When the behavior program was implemented during the rst intervention phase, this disruptive behavior decreased to 5.96%, but it then rebounded to 20.33% upon withdrawal. Reinstatement of the treatment resulted in an average of 8.17% total disruptive intervals. A similar trend was evidenced for Student 3. During the initial baseline phase, he demonstrated an average of 30.35% disruptive intervals, with a range of 7.5% to 50%. The disruptive behavior diminished during the rst intervention phase to an average of 6.37%, and then increased to an average

550
Student 1
50 Percentage of Disruptive Intervals 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20

Coogan, Kehle, Bray, and Chafouleas

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

25

30

35

40

O b s e r v a tio n
Percentage of Disruptive Intervals

S e s s io n s

Student 2
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

O b s e r v a tio n

S e s s io n s

Student 3
60 Percentage of Disruptive Intervals 50

40

30

20

10

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

O b s e r v a tio n

S e s s io n s

Figure 1. Percentage of disruptive intervals observed for all students.

of 25.33% for the second baseline phase when the behavior program was withdrawn. Student 3 responded well to the reintroduction of the behavior

Reducing Inappropriate Classroom Behavior

Student 4
Percentage of Disruptive Interval
6 0

551

5 0

4 0

3 0

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2 0

1 0

0
0 5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

O b s e r v a tio n

S e s s io n s

Student 5
50 45

Percentage of Disruptive Interval s

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

O b s e r v a tio n

S e s s io n s

Figure 1. continued.

program during the second intervention phase, and the average percentage of disruptive intervals during this last phase averaged 8.95%. Student 4 was removed from class frequently during the study to attend ESL classes, and he was also absent from school often during the observation time frame. Because of these factors, the number of observation days during each phase was minimized for Student 4; however, enough data were obtained to get a clear description of his behavior. During the initial baseline phase, his disruptive intervals averaged 38.25% (range 22% 48%). The disruptive behavior decreased to a mean of 5.81% upon introduction of the intervention, increased to an average of 32.33% with withdrawal, and at reinstatement improved to 12.6%.

552

Coogan, Kehle, Bray, and Chafouleas

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Student 5s average percentage of disruptive intervals at baseline was 34%, with a range of 18% to 45%. Implementation of the behavior program yielded positive results with a diminished percentage of disruptive intervals averaging 3.96%. During the second baseline phase, the mean of disruptive intervals for Student 5 inated to 19.89% and then improved to 4.96% during reinstatement of the intervention. The overall mean percentage of disruptive intervals increased slightly between the rst intervention phase and the second intervention phase for each of the target students. Although this type of increase does not have a precedent in the previous literature, it has been evidenced in some individual students within similar studies (Davies & Witte, 2000; Theodore et al., 2001). The increase in the mean percentage of disruptive intervals between the rst intervention phase and the second intervention phase appeared because of the students dissatisfaction with the removal of the intervention during the second baseline phase. The students expressed their reluctance to stop the intervention during the second baseline phase, and they made a slow readjustment to the intervention upon reinstatement. It is hypothesized that this increase in disruptive behaviors would not occur if the intervention were constant over time. Although the trends in behavior for this study are clearly illustrated and interpreted through a visual inspection of the data, the additional calculation of effect sizes for each student was calculated using Busk and Serlins (1992) Approach One: No Assumptions model (see Tables 1 and 2). For the purposes of this study, the effect size was computed by subtracting an average of the two intervention means from an average of the two baseline means and dividing this difference by the standard deviation of the initial baseline. The effect sizes were large for Students 1, 2, and 3 and were 1.88, 1.36, 1.30, respectively. The greatest effect sizes were noted for Students 4 and 5 (2.24 and 2.26, respectively). These large effects offer strong support for this intervention. The effect sizes from the current study were also compared to the effect sizes reported by similar previous research studies to further aid in the interpretation of the ndings. The meta-analysis conducted by Stage and Quiroz (1997) reported the overall effect sizes of group contingencies,
Table 1. Effect Sizes Across Individuals Participant Student Student Student Student Student 1 2 3 4 5 Effect sizes 1.88 1.36 1.30 2.24 2.26

Reducing Inappropriate Classroom Behavior Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations Across Individuals and Study Phases Baseline I Individual Student Student Student Student Student 1 2 3 4 5 M 25.00 30.44 30.35 38.25 34.00 SD 9.89 13.47 15.47 11.62 10.02 Intervention I M 3.07 5.96 6.38 5.81 3.69 SD 1.33 2.95 2.79 1.54 2.54 Baseline II M 21.06 20.33 25.33 32.33 19.89 SD 13.41 11.00 12.46 12.77 9.55

553

Intervention II M 5.71 8.17 8.95 12.60 4.96 SD 3.72 6.76 5.22 5.37 4.41

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

peer feedback procedures, self-management programs, and multimodal treatments involving a number of different intervention combinations were 1.02, 0.79, 0.97, and 0.82, respectively. When comparing the effect sizes from the present study with these, it is evident that the multicomponent intervention used in the current study was relatively more effective in reducing inappropriate classroom behaviors. The study by Davies and Witte (2000) was most similar to the current investigation in that it examined the effects of peer feedback and selfmanagement within an interdependent group contingency on reducing inappropriate classroom behavior, without the randomization of any part of the group contingency. The effect sizes reported by Davies and Witte for the four target students were 3.01, 2.28, 1.23, and 2.15, and they suggest an average effect size of 2.17 for this type of packaged intervention.

Consumer Satisfaction Each of the students completed a survey upon conclusion of the study to ascertain their level of satisfaction with the intervention. The Likert-type scale (1 hated and 5 liked a lot) yielded an average score of 3.37, indicating that the students were neutral regarding their attitudes toward the intervention. Most of the students were most averse to being observed in class, and they most enjoyed earning prizes and rewards for good behavior. When the means were separated out to look at the acceptability rating of the target students versus the other classroom students, it was determined that the target students reported an overall lower average acceptability rating score of 2.8 versus the 3.62 average acceptability rating reported by the other students. Target Student 3 gave the overall intervention a rating of 1 because of the fact that he believed that the class received the intervention because they were bad students. This student expressed his feelings in the debrieng session upon the completion of the intervention, and he stated that he had assumed that the intervention was used with his class because they were dumb and bad. This explains his

554

Coogan, Kehle, Bray, and Chafouleas

overall low rating of the intervention and helps to explain the lower average acceptability rating of the target students versus the remainder of the class. When this target student was removed from the acceptability calculation, the overall intervention rating from the target students increased to 3.25.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Teacher Acceptability A few days after the completion of the study, the classroom teacher completed a survey related to her satisfaction with the intervention and the overall study. The mean ranking across eight Likert-type items was a 4, indicating that the teacher was satised with the behavior program. Positive verbal feedback regarding the teachers intentions to use this intervention with future classes was also provided, and she specically liked the teamwork atmosphere provided by the intervention that was additionally nurtured by the peer feedback portion of the program.

Treatment Integrity It was determined that each of the nine items included in the protocol were followed with 100% accuracy with the exception of two. The teacher neglected to allow time for group discussion at the start of the class period on two occasions, once during the rst intervention phase and once during the second intervention phase. Although the teacher did not begin the class with a group discussion on these two occasions, she remembered to implement this portion of the intervention later in the class. In this manner, the peer feedback portion of the intervention was carried out on the two occasions being discussed; however, it occurred at a time other than the start of class, thereby deviating from the actual protocol. The other protocol item that was not carried out with 100% accuracy was the delivery of the reward immediately when earned. On one occasion during the rst intervention phase, the class earned free time at the end of class, and the period expired before the reward could be delivered in its entirety. The remainder of the free time was delivered the next day, and the teacher was very careful during the rest of the intervention phase to allow enough time at the end of class for the reward delivery. Beyond the three occasions mentioned above, the protocol was followed with 100% accuracy during both intervention phases, and when the treatment integrity was calculated considering the three occasions, it was revealed that the protocol was followed with 94% accuracy.

Reducing Inappropriate Classroom Behavior

555

DISCUSSION The purpose of the present study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention involving self-management, peer feedback, and the randomization of both reinforcers and the criteria for reinforcement within an interdependent and unknown dependent group contingency in reducing inappropriate classroom behavior. Although group contingencies, peer feedback procedures, and self-management programs have proven to be useful in the past, with average effect sizes reported to be 1.02, 0.79, and 0.97, this is the rst intervention to combine these three approaches into one program with randomization of various parts of the group contingency. The combination of these three elements into one multicomponent intervention thereby offers yet another empirically based option to teachers attempting to select an effective classroom intervention. The multicomponent intervention can be used with selected children or entire classrooms. In addition to the interventions effectiveness, the teacher generally enjoyed the process. She commented at the very onset of the rst intervention phase that she saw an immediate and drastic improvement in the behavior of her class. The program was easily implemented and, for the most part, the students were willing and eager participants, although they rated the intervention as only slightly favorable. This, however, appeared because of the result of the ABAB design, where A denoted baseline and B treatment, necessitating withdraw of the intervention. Replication of these results is recommended to demonstrate external validity of these ndings.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

REFERENCES
Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (1996). Self-modeling as an intervention for stuttering. School Psychology Review, 25, 359 370. Busk, J. C., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In Kratochwill & Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Davies, S., & Witte, R. (2000). Self-management and peer-monitoring within a group contingency to decrease uncontrolled verbalizations of children with attention decit-hyperactivity-disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 135147. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied setting. New York: Oxford University Press. Kehle, T. J., Clark, E., Jenson, W. R., & Wampold, B. E. (1986). Effectiveness of selfobservation with behavior disordered elementary school children. School Psychology Review, 15, 289 295. Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, Jennifer, R., & Skinner, C. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 523533.

556

Coogan, Kehle, Bray, and Chafouleas

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341347. Rhodes, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1992). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26, 333368. Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2001). Randomization of group contingencies and reinforcers to reduce classroom disruptive behavior. The Journal of School Psychology, 39, 267277. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Witt, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in the classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510 517. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). The Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational BatteryRevised. Itasca, IL: Riverside.