Token economy systems have been widely used as an evidence-based classroom management strategy to reinforce and improve prosocial responses. While token economies have been widely applied to educational settings, there have been mixed results regarding the effectiveness depending on the classroom type. To better understand the components contributing to the effectiveness, the researchers analyzed 24 token economy studies conducted in general and special education classrooms from kindergarten to fifth grade between 2000 and 2019. Eight token economy components and effect sizes were identified for each study and compared across different classroom types. The results showed that the token economy intervention yielded large effect sizes for both general and special education classroom types. There were differences in the usage of token components including backup reinforcer types, token production rate, and exchange production rate based on classroom types. Implications for future research and practice for educators and clinicians are discussed.
*AlterP. (2012). Helping students with emotional and behavioral disorders solve mathematics word problems. Preventing School Failure Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2011.565283
AyllonT.AzrinN. H. (1968). Reinforcer sampling: A technique for increasing the behavior of mental patients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-13
5.
*BattagliaA. A.RadleyK. C.NessE. J. (2015). Evaluating the effects of on-task in a box as a class-wide intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 52(8), 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21858
6.
BippesR.McLaughlinT. F.WilliamsR. L. (1986). A classroom token system in a detention center: Effects for academic and social behavior. Techniques, 2(2), 126–132.
7.
BonieckiK. A.MooreS. (2003). Breaking the silence: Using a token economy to reinforce classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology, 30(3), 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3003_05
8.
CarlsonC. G.HersenM.EislerR. M. (1972). Token economy programs in the treatment of hospitalized adult psychiatric patients: Current status and recent trends. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 155(3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197209000-00006
9.
CarlsonC. L.MannM.AlexanderD. K. (2000). Effects of reward and response cost on the performance and motivation of children with ADHD. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005455009154
10.
*CarnettA.RaulstonT.LangR.TostanoskiA.LeeA.SigafoosJ.MachalicekW. (2014). Effects of a perseverative interest-based token economy on challenging and on-task behavior in a child with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(3), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9195-7
11.
*ChristensenL.YoungK.MarchantM. (2004). The effects of a peer-mediated positive behavior support program on socially appropriate classroom behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(3), 199–234.
12.
*ChristensenL.YoungK. R.MarchantM. (2007). Behavioral intervention planning: Increasing appropriate behavior of a socially withdrawn student. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2007.0022
DickersonF. B.TenhulaW. N.Green-PadenL. D. (2005). The token economy for schizophrenia: Review of the literature and recommendations for future research. Schizophrenia Research, 75(2–3), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2004.08.026
16.
DixonM. R.FalcomataT. S. (2004). Preference for progressive delays and concurrent physical therapy exercise in an adult with acquired brain injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(1), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-101
17.
DollC.McLaughlinT. F.BarrettoA. (2013). The token economy: A recent review and evaluation. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2(1), 131–149.
18.
*DonaldsonJ. M.DeLeonI. G.FisherA. B.KahngS. (2014). Effects of and preference for conditions of token earn versus token loss. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(3), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.135
19.
DuPaulG. J.EckertT. L. (1997). The effects of school-based interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 26(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1997.12085845
20.
FisherW. W.ThompsonR. H.HagopianL. P.BowmanL. G.KrugA. (2000). Facilitating tolerance of delayed reinforcement during functional communication training. Behavior Modification, 24(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445500241001
21.
Frank-CrawfordM. A.BorreroJ. C.NewcombE. T.ChenT.SchmidtJ. D. (2019). Preference for and efficacy of accumulated and distributed response–reinforcer arrangements during skill acquisition. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28(2), 227–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-09312-7
22.
*GannC. J.GainesS. E.AntiaS. D.UmbreitJ.LiaupsinC. J. (2015). Evaluating the effects of function-based interventions with deaf or hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20(3), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env011
23.
GreshamF. M. (2004). Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral interventions. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 326–343.
24.
*GrovesE. A.AustinJ. L. (2017). An evaluation of interdependent and independent group contingencies during the good behavior game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(3), 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.393
25.
GutierrezJ.ReeveS. A.VladescuJ. C.DeBarR. M.GiannakakosA. R. (2020). Evaluation of manualized instruction to train staff to implement a token economy. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(1), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00386-x
26.
HackenbergT. D. (2009). Token reinforcement: A review and analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91(2), 257–286. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2009.91-257
27.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1400.
28.
IvyJ. W.MeindlJ. N.OverleyE.RobsonK. M. (2017). Token economy: A systematic review of procedural descriptions. Behavior Modification, 41(5), 708–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445517699559
29.
KazdinA. E. (1977). The token economy: A review and evaluation. Plenum Press.
KazdinA. E.BootzinR. R. (1972). The token economy: An evaluative review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5(3), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1972.5-343
32.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510743.pdf
33.
*LastrapesR. E.FritzJ. N.Casper-TeagueL. (2018). Effects of the teacher versus students game on teacher praise and student behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27, 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9306-y
34.
*LingS.HawkinsR. O.WeberD. (2011). Effects of a classwide interdependent group contingency designed to improve the behavior of an at-risk student. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9125-x
35.
LittleS. G.Akin-LittleA.O’NeillK. (2015). Group contingency interventions with children—1980–2010: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39(2), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514554393
36.
*LynneS.RadleyK. C.DartE. H.TingstromD. H.BarryC. T.LumJ. D. K. (2017). Use of a technology-enhanced version of the good behavior game in an elementary school setting. Psychology in the Schools, 54(9), 1049–1063. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22043
37.
MagginD. M.ChafouleasS. M.GoddardK. M.JohnsonA. H. (2011). A systematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 529–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.05.001
38.
MaglioC. L.McLaughlinT. F. (1981). Effects of a token reinforcement system and teacher attention in reducing inappropriate verbalizations with a junior high school student. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 27(3), 140–145.
39.
MatsonJ. L.BoisjoliJ. A. (2009). The token economy for children with intellectual disability and/or autism: A review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(2), 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2008.04.001
40.
*McDonaldM. E.ReeveS. A.SparacioE. J. (2014). Using a tactile prompt to increase instructor delivery of behavior-specific praise and token reinforcement and their collateral effects on stereotypic behavior in students with autism spectrum disorders. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19(1), 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100573
MilbyJ. B. (1975). A review of token economy treatment programs for psychiatric inpatients. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 26(10), 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.26.10.651
43.
*MottramA. M.BrayM. A.KehleT. J.BroudyM.JensonW. R. (2002). A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/j008v19n01_05
44.
MurrayL.SefchikG. (1992). Regulating behavior management practices in residential treatment facilities. Children and Youth Services Review, 14(6), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/0190-7409(92)90004-f
45.
*MusserE. H.BrayM. A.KehleT. J.JensonW. R. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086117
46.
No Child Left Behind. (2002). Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, Stat. 1425.
47.
O’LearyK. D.DrabmanR. (1971). Token reinforcement programs in the classroom: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 75(6), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031311
48.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.BrownL. (2009). The improvement rate difference for single-case research. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500201
49.
*PenningtonB.McComasJ. J. (2017). Effects of the good behavior game across classroom contexts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(1), 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.357
50.
*PetursdottirA.RagnarsdottirG. B. (2019). Decreasing student behavior problems and fostering academic engagement through function-based support and fading of token reinforcement. Behavioral Interventions, 34(3), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1670
51.
PiazzaC. C.FisherW. W.HagopianL. P.BowmanL. G.TooleL. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1
52.
RakapS. (2015). Effect sizes as result interpretation aids in single-subject experimental research: Description and application of four nonoverlap methods. British Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12091
53.
ReedD. D.NiilekselaC. R.KaplanB. A. (2013). Behavioral economics: A tutorial for behavior analysts in practice. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 6(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391790
54.
*RobichauxN. M.GreshamF. M. (2014). Differential effects of the mystery motivator intervention using student-selected and mystery rewards. School Psychology Review, 43(3), 286–298.
55.
RueschU.McLaughlinT. F. (1981). Effects of a token system using a free-time contingency to increase assignment completion with individuals in the regular classroom. Journal for Special Educators, 5(4), 347–355.
56.
*ShepleyC.LaneJ. D.GastD. L. (2016). Using SMART board technology to teach young students with disabilities and limited group learning experience to read environmental text. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51(4), 404–420.
57.
SidmanM. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. Basic Books.
58.
SimonsenB.FairbanksS.BrieschA.MyersD.SugaiG. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0007
59.
SoaresD. A.HarrisonJ. R.VannestK. J.McClellandS. S. (2016). Effect size for token economy use in contemporary classroom settings: A meta-analysis of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 45(4), 379–399.
60.
SzumskiG.SmogorzewskaJ.KarwowskiM. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 21, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004
61.
*TanolG.JohnsonL.McComasJ.CoteE. (2010). Responding to rule violations or rule following: A comparison of two versions of the good behavior game with kindergarten students. Journal of School Psychology, 48(5), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001
62.
*ThompsonM. J.McLaughlinT. F.DerbyK. M. (2011). The use of differential reinforcement to decrease the inappropriate verbalizations of a nine-year-old girl with autism. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(1), 183–196. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ926483
63.
*WadsworthJ. P.HansenB. D.WillsS. B. (2015). Increasing compliance in students with intellectual disabilities using functional behavioral assessment and self-monitoring. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514554102
64.
Ward-HornerJ. C.CengherM.RossR. K.FienupD. M. (2017). Arranging response requirements and the distribution of reinforcers: A brief review of preference and performance outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(1), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.350
65.
*WrightR. A.McCurdyB. L. (2012). Class-wide positive behavior support and group contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the good behavior game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(3), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711421008
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
