Enhancing Academic Performance in a Classroom Serving Students With Serious Emotional Disturbance: Interdependent Group Contingencies With Randomly Selected Components

References

• Baer, G. G., & Richards, H. C. (1980). An interdependent group-oriented contingency for improving academic performance. School Psychology Review, 9, 190–193.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bos, C. B., Coleman, M., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Reading and students with E/BD: What do we know and recommend? In K. L. Lane, F. M. Gresham, & T. E. O'Shaughnessy (Eds.), Interventions for children with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 87–103). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Bushnell, D., Wrobel, P. A., & Michaelis, M. L. (1968). Applying “group” contingencies to the classroom study behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 55–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashwell, C. S., Skinner, C. H., Dunn, M., & Lewis, J. (1998). Group reward programs: A humanistic approach. Humanistic Education and Development, 37, 47–53.
   Google Scholar
• Englemann, S. (1991). Is the three term contingency trial a predictor of effective instruction? Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 337–354.
   Google Scholar
• Freeland J. T., & Noell, G. H. (1999). Maintaining accurate math response in elementary students: The effects of delayed and intermittent reinforcement and programming common stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 211–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeland J. T., & Noell, G. H. (2002). Programming for maintenance: An investigation of delayed and intermittent reinforcement and common stimuli to create indiscriminable contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Carta, J. J. (1997). Together we can! Classwide peer tutoring to improve basic academic skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
   Google Scholar
• Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behaviors. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 101–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, R. V. (1991). Behavior analysis and education: An unfilled dream. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 305–316.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, L. A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavior control: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 638–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenson, W. R. (1978). Behavior modification in secondary schools: A review. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 11, 53–63.
   Google Scholar
• Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 523–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mace, F. C., McCurdy, B., & Quigley, E. A. (1990). The collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 197–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, L. A., Waguespack, A. M., Wickstrom, K. F., Witt, J. C., & Gaydos, G. R. (1994). Mystery motivator: An effective and time efficient intervention. School Psychology Review, 23, 106–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (1984). Practical implications of the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 367–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pigott, H. E., & Heggie, D. L. (1985). Interpreting the conflicting results of individual versus group contingencies in classrooms: Target behavior as a mediating variable. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 7, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1992). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, E. S., & Goldberg, R. (1990). In vivo rating of treatment acceptability by children: Group side effects in group contingencies to improve spelling performance. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 233–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Cashwell, C. S., & Dunn, M. (1996). Independent and interdependent group contingencies: Smoothing the rough waters. Special Services in the Schools, 12, 61–78.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, C. H., Skinner, C. F., Skinner, A. L., & Cashwell, T. H. (1999). Using interdependent contingencies with groups of students: Why the principal kissed a pig. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 804–818.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (4th ed., pp. 817–830). Washington, DC: The National Association of School Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom management meet. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 29–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 105–115.
   Google Scholar
• Speltz, M. L., Shimamura, J. W., & McReynolds, W. T. (1982). Procedural variations in group contingencies: Effects on children's academic and social behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 533–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26, 333–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, J. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1986). Effects of group and individual contingencies on reading performance with Native American junior high school students. Techniques: A Journal for Remedial Education and Counseling, 2, 133–144.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 349–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sulzar-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1986). Achieving educational excellence: Using behavioral strategies. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Sulzbacher, S. I., & Houser, J. E. (1968). A tactic to eliminate disruptive behaviors in the classroom: Group contingent consequences. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 88–90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tennessee Division of Special Education. (1993). Special education manual: Tennessee Department of Special Education. Nashville, TN: The Division.
   Google Scholar
• Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W. R. (2001). Randomization of group contingencies and reinforcers to reduce classroom disruptive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 3, 279–284.
   Google Scholar
• Turco, T. L., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Acceptability and effectiveness of group contingencies for improving spelling achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 27–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar