The present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of an interdependent group-oriented timeout ribbon procedure to decrease the inappropriate verbalizations of two groups attending a resource room. Results suggest that the grouporiented timeout ribbon is a viable and effective method of decreasing inappropriate behavior. Reasons for the effectiveness of this treatment procedure are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AxelrodS. (1973). Comparison of individual and group contingencies in two special classes.Behavior Therapy, 4, 83–90.
2.
BarrishH. H., SaundersM., & WolfM. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.
3.
DietzS. M., & ReppA. C. (1973). Decreasing classroom misbehaviors through the use of DRL schedules of reinforcement.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 457–463.
4.
FlemingA., & NolleyD. (1981). A comparison of techniques for the elimination of self-injurious behavior in a mildly retarded woman.Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12, 81–85.
5.
FoxxR. M., & ShapiroS. T. (1978). The timeout ribbon: A nonexclusionary timeout procedure.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 125–136.
6.
GambleA., & StrainP. S. (1979). The effects of dependent and interdependent group contingencies on social appropriate responses in classes for emotionally handicapped children.Psychology in the Schools, 16, 253–260.
7.
GreenwoodC. R., HopsH., DelquadriJ., & GuildJ. (1974). Group contingencies for group consequences in classroom management: A further analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 413–425.
8.
GreshamF. M., & GreshamG. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior.Journal of Special Education, 16, 101–110.
9.
HayesL. A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review.Psychological Bulletin, 83, 628–648.
10.
HugueninN. H., & MulickJ. A. (1981). Nonexclusionary timeout: Maintenance of appropriate behavior across settings.Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 55–67.
11.
LitowL., & PumroyD. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.
12.
NelsonC. M. (1981). Classroom Management. In KauffmanJ. M., & HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 663–687). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
PackardR. G. (1970). The control of “classroom attention”: A group contingency for complex behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 1–8.
14.
RaschkeD. (1981). Designing reinforcement surveys—let the student choose the reward.Teaching Exceptional Children, 14, 92–96.
15.
SalendS. J., & AllenE. M. (in press). Comparative effects of externally managed and self-managed response-cost systems on inappropriate classroom behavior.Journal of School Psychology.
16.
SalendS. J., & EhrlichE. (1983). Involving students in behavior modification programs.Mental Retardation, 21, 95–100.
17.
SalendS. J., & KovalichB. (1981). A group response-cost system mediated by free tokens: An alternative to token reinforcement.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 184–187.
18.
SalendS. J., & MaraguliaD. M. (1983). The timeout ribbon: A procedure for the least restrictive environment.Journal for Special Educators, 20, 9–15.
19.
SchmidtG. W., & UlrichR. E. (1969). Effects of group contingent events upon classroom noise.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 171–179.
20.
SpeltzM. L., ShimamuraJ. W., & McReynoldsW. T. (1982). Procedural variations in group contingencies: Effects on children's academic and social behaviors.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 533–544.
21.
SulzbacherS. I., & HouserJ. E. (1968). A tactic to eliminate disruptive behaviors in the classroom: Group contingent consequences.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 88–90.
22.
SwitzerB., DealT. E., & BaileyJ. S. (1977). The reduction of stealing in second graders using a group contingency.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 267–272.
23.
TawneyJ. W., & GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
24.
WilsonS. H., & WilliamsR. L. (1973). The effects of group contingencies on first graders' academic and social behaviors.Journal of School Psychology, 11, 110–117.
