Applying Group Contingencies in Natural Settings

1. Applying Group Contingencies in Natural Settings 2013 NASP symposium Contributors Rachael Heisterkamp, Ed. S., NCSP Rebecca Parrish, M.S., CAGS Discussant Robert Volpe, Ph.D., NCSP Presenters David Hulac, Ph.D., NCSP Amy Briesch, Ph. D., NCSP Holly Pedersen, MTS Danielle Dornbusch, B. A.

2. /1/ What is a contingency?

3. Contingency parts.

4. Contingency parts. • During math, if George completes his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

5. Contingency parts. • During math, if Georgecompletes his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

6. Contingency parts. • During math, if George completes his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

7. Contingency parts. • During math, if George completes his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

8. Contingency parts. • During math, if George completes his assignment, Georgewill get a Frisbee.

9. Contingency parts. • During math, if George completes his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

10. What can we manipulate? • During math, if George completes his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

11. /2/ Making contingencies more interesting

12. The target task. • During math, if George completes some part of his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

13. The target time. • During some subject, if George completes his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

14. The reward. • During math, if George completes his assignment, George will get something.

15. The target individual • During math, if someone in class completes his assignment, George will get a Frisbee.

16. Contingency parts. • During math, if George completes his assignment, someone in the class will get a Frisbee.

17. Group contingency definition • “…a class of interventions in which reinforcers are implemented to individuals or groups based on the performance of individual members or of all members of the group.”

18. Group contingencies … …have the advantage of being easier for teachers to implement (Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2004) and can be utilized across multiple settings. … meet the WWC standards of evidenced based intervention (Maggin, Johnson, Chafouleas, Ruberto, & Berggren, 2012).

19. In group contingencies, we place the focus on a group of people (either the criterion or the result).

20. Three types • Independent • Dependent • Interdependent Litow & Pumroy, 1975

21. Types of Group contingencies Hulac & Benson, 2010

22. Types of Group contingencies Hulac & Benson, 2010

23. Types of Group contingencies Hulac & Benson, 2010

24. Caution • Group contingencies manipulate powerful forces in a classroom . . . • May subject a student to aggression. • Avoid as a means of punishment. • Avoid making other students aware of who is preventing them from access to rewards.

25. This symposium . . . • Seeks to share three applications of group contingencies in natural – non-laboratory settings. • Variable control is much more difficult – calendars, fire alarms, absences, and no graduate students to terrify into following the procedure exactly!

26. /1/ • Using group contingencies in a Special Education Classroom of high school students. • Presenter: Holly Pedersen, MTS • Contributor: Rachael Heisterkamp, Ed.S., NCSP

27. /2/ • Applying group contingencies as part of a behavior plan to support the behavior of a first grade student. • Presenter: Danielle Dornbusch, B. A.

28. /3/ • Applying group contingencies to a school lunchroom. • Presenter: Amy Briesch, Ph.D., NCSP • Contributor: Rebecca Parrish, M.S., CAGS

29. References Gresham, F.M., & Gresham, G.N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. Journal of Special Education, 16, 101–110. Hulac, D. M., & Benson, N. (2010). The use of group contingencies for preventing and managing disruptive behavior. Intervention in the School and Clinic 45(4), 257-262. Kehle, T.J., Bray, M.A., & Theodore, L.A. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37(5), 475-481. Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 523–533.

30. Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(3), 341–347. Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50(5), 625-654. Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2004). A comparative study of group contingencies and randomized reinforcers to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 19(3), 253-271.

31. The Mystery Motivator & Disruptive Behavior Conducted by Rachael Heisterkamp Presented by Holly Pedersen

32. Mystery Motivator • Uses unknown rewards and interdependent group contingency to shape behavior • Anticipation and interest maintained with variable ratio reinforcement and the variety of possible reinforcers (Moor, Waguespack, Wickstron, & Witt, 1994)

33. Background • Shown to be effective in reducing disruptive behaviors in classroom settings (Kehle, Bray, & Theodore, 2010) • Mostly with preschool and elementary age students (Murphy et al., 2007) • Schanding & Sterling-Turner (2010) examined its use with in secondary general education and found it to be effective on both an individual and classroom level

34. Purpose To determine if the Mystery Motivator alongside a group contingency could effectively reduce disruptive behaviors for students in a 9th grade math resource classroom.

35. Participants • 5 students in 9th grade • Junior/Senior High School in Upper Midwest • Special education resource math classroom • Referred by classroom teacher for off-task and disruptive behavior • 4 males, 1 female • All Caucasian • 3 identified with SLD • 2 identified with ADHD

36. ABAB Design • Chosen because it provides stronger evidence for causality than simple AB designs (Riley-Tillman & Burns, 2009) • Each phase of the intervention lasted one class week

37. Operationally defined by three behaviors: off-task behaviors, out-of-seat behaviors, and inappropriate language Dependent Variable:Disruptive Classroom Behavior

38. Operational Definitions • Off-task behavior: being oriented in a direction other than the teacher or the assignment for more than 10 seconds • Out-of-seat behavior: being out of seat without permission • Inappropriate Language: using profanity, making sexual references, or talking about drugs and alcohol

39. Baseline (A1) • Both school psychologist and teacher observed the frequency of DVs • 50 minute class broken into three 15-minute sessions • Class assigned a “+” or “–” for each session • “+” given if class was on-task, in their seats, and demonstrating appropriate language for more than 7 ½ minutes of the session

40. Criteria for a “+” Earning a “+” requires students to refrain from displaying off-task behaviors, out-of-seat behaviors, or inappropriate language for at least 7 ½ minutes in a given 15 minute session

41. Baseline (A1) • During baseline: • Compared ratings after each class period • Agreed on ratings before recording • Students not aware of the data collection or rewards • After baseline – school psychologist was not present everyday – only for inter-rater reliability checks

42. Intervention (B1) • Students given a preference assessment • Teacher explained: • Students would have a chance to earn prizes for demonstrating expected classroom behavior • Must all demonstrate expected behavior • What expected behavior looked like • Three 15- minute sessions and “+” “-” system • Teacher told class how many “+’s” they earned

43. Intervention (B1) • Class had to get 3 “+’s” in order to draw • One student draws from two envelops • Reward envelope – listed the reward the students could have • Chance envelope – contained papers with “X’s” and “M’s” • M = reward drawn from envelope • X = verbal praise for getting 3 “+’s”

44. Withdrawal (A2) • Student informed that they would not play Mystery Motivator game or earn prizes • Students not aware their teacher would continue to collect data

45. Intervention Reinstated (B2) • Teacher informed class that they would have an opportunity to play the mystery motivator game to earn prizes again • Continued to collect data

46. Results

47. Results PNDs for A1 and B1 is 0% for points below the baseline and 60% for points above the baseline

48. Discussion • Overall – results indicate that the intervention reduced students’ problematic behaviors when implemented at the high school level • Increase in average behavior rating seen for both B1 and B2 • Decrease in average behavior rating when intervention was withdrawn

49. Limitations • Subjective nature of data collection (No strict observational criteria) • Withdrawal period average higher than baseline average – suggesting carryover effects • Limited sample size • Ceiling effects

50. Resources • Kehle, T.J., Bray, M.A., & Theodore, L.A. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37(5), 475-481. Retrieved from EBSCO MegaFile database. • Moore, L., Waguespack, A., Wickstrom, K., & Witt, J. (1994). Mystery motivator: An effective and efficient intervention. School Psychology Review, 23, 106-118. • Murphy, K. A., Theodore, L. A., Aloiso, D., Alric-Edwards, J. M., & Hughes, T. L. (2007). Interdependent Group Contingency and Mystery Motivators to Reduce Preschool Disruptive Behavior. Psychology In The Schools, 44(1), 53-63. • Schanding, G. R., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2010). Use of the Mystery Motivator for a High School Class. Journal Of Applied School Psychology, 26(1), 38-53.