Group contingencies are recognized as a potent intervention for addressing challenging student behavior in the classroom, with research reviews supporting the use of this intervention platform going back more than four decades. Over this time period, the field of education has increasingly emphasized the role of research evidence for informing practice, as reflected in the increased use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In the current article, we continue this trend by applying recently developed between-case effect size measures and transparent visual analysis procedures to synthesize an up-to-date set of group contingency studies that used single-case designs. Results corroborated recent systematic reviews by indicating that group contingencies are generally effective—particularly for addressing challenging behavior in general education classrooms. However, our review highlights the need for more research on students with disabilities and the need to collect and report information about participants’ functional level.
*AscareD.AxelrodS. (1973). Use of a behavior modification procedure in four “open” classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 243–248.
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.
BrieschA. M.BrieschJ. M.ChafouleasS. M. (2015). Investigating the usability of classroom management strategies among elementary schoolteachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17(1), 5–14.
4.
BuskP. L.SerlinR. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
ChowJ. C.GilmourA. F. (2016). Designing and implementing group contingencies in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48, 137–146.
6.
*ChristT. J.ChristJ. A. (2006). Application of an interdependent group contingency mediated by an automated feedback device: An intervention across three high school classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 78–90.
7.
*CihakD. F.KirkE. R.BoonR. T. (2009). Effects of a classwide positive peer “tootling” to reduce the disruptive classroom behaviors of elementary students with and without disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 278–286.
8.
*ColemanR. (1970). A conditioning technique applicable to elementary school classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 293–297.
9.
*ConklinC. G. (2010). The effects of class-wide function-related intervention teams (CW-FIT) on student’s prosocial classroom behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3409240)
10.
*CooganB.KehleT. J.BrayM. A.ChafouleasS. M. (2007). Group contingencies, randomization of reinforcers, and criteria for reinforcement, self-monitoring, and peer feedback on reducing inappropriate classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 540–556.
11.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
12.
*CrouchP. L.GreshamF. M.WrightW. R. (1985). Interdependent and independent group contingencies with immediate and delayed reinforcement for controlling classroom behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 177–187.
13.
*DartE. H.RadleyK. C.BattagliaA. A.DadakhodjaevaK.BatesK. E.WrightS. J. (2016). The classroom password: A class-wide intervention to increase academic engagement. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 416–431.
14.
*DaviesS.WitteR. (2000). Self-management and peer-monitoring within a group contingency to decrease uncontrolled verbalizations of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 135–147.
15.
*DonaldsonJ. M.VollmerT. R.KrousT.DownsS.BerardK. P. (2011). An evaluation of the good behavior game in kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 605–609.
16.
DrevonD.FursaS. R.MalcolmA. L. (2017). Intercoder reliability and validity of WebPlotDigitizer in extracting graphed data. Behavior Modification, 41, 323–339.
17.
EmmerE. T.SabornieE. J. (2015). Introduction to the section edition. In EmmerE. T.SabornieE. J. (Eds.), Handbook on classroom management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
FlowerA.McKennaJ. W.UpretiG. (2016). Validity and reliability of GraphClick and DataThief III for data extraction. Behavior Modification, 40, 396–413.
19.
*FordW. B. (2015). Reducing disruptive behavior in high school: The good behavior game (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, USA.
20.
GastD. L.SpriggsA. D. (2014). General factors in measurement and evaluation. In GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 176–210). New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
*GrandyG. S.MadsenC. H.MerssemanL. M. (1973). The effects of individual and interdependent group contingencies on inappropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 10, 388–493.
22.
*GreenwoodC. R.HopsH.DelquardiJ.GuildJ. (1974). Group contingencies for group consequences in classroom management: A further analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 413–425.
23.
*HallR. V.FoxR.WillardD.GoldsmithL.EmersonM.OwenM.. . . PorciaE. (1971). The teacher as observer and experimenter in the modification of disrupting and talking-out behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 141–149.
24.
HanleyG. P.TigerJ. H. (2011). Differential reinforcement procedures. In FisherW. W.PiazzaC. C.RoaneH. S. (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 229–249). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
25.
*HansenS. D.Lignugaris-KraftB. (2005). Effects of a dependent group contingency on the verbal interactions of middle school students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 170–184.
26.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3, 224–239.
27.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2013). A standardized mean difference effect size for multiple baseline designs across individuals. Research Synthesis Methods, 4, 324–341.
28.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65.
29.
*HerreraF. M. (2016). The impact of a teacher-preferred group contingency with data-based decision making on class-wide behavior. Tampa: University of Southern Florida.
30.
HeeringP. W.WilderD. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingencies to increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 459–468.
31.
HigginsJ.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558.
32.
HoglundW. L.KlingleK. E.HosanN. E. (2015). Classroom risks and resources: Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children’s adjustment in high needs elementary schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 337–357.
33.
HornerR. H.SwaminathanH.SugaiG.SmolkowskiK. (2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 269–290.
34.
JohnsonA. H. (2016). Functions for Gast and Spriggs’ (2010) quantitative adjuncts to visual analysis [R code]. Retrieved from https://osf.io/4cmfz/
35.
*JonesM.BoonR. T.ForeC.BenderW. N. (2008). Our mystery hero! A group contingency intervention for reducing verbally disrespectful behaviors. Learning Disabilities, 15, 61–69.
36.
*Kelshaw-LeveringK.Sterling-TurnerH. E.HenryJ. R.SkinnerC. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 523–533.
37.
*KiarieM. (2003). The differential effects of peer tutoring and peer tutoring with a group contingency on the spelling performance and disruptive behavior of fourth grade students in general education (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3093664)
38.
KilgusS. P.Riley-TillmanT. C.KratochwillT. R. (2016). Establishing interventions via a theory-driven single case design research cycle. School Psychology Review, 45, 477–498.
39.
KorpershoekH.HarmsT.de BoerH.van KuijkM.DoolaardS. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86, 643–680.
40.
KratochwillT. R.AltschaeflM. R.Bice-UrbachB. J.KawaJ. M. (2015). Single-case experimental designs: Contributions to classroom management research. In EmmerE. T.SabornieE. J. (Eds.), Handbook on classroom management (2nd ed., pp. 538–559). New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38.
42.
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R.HornerR. H.SwobodaC. M. (2014). Visual analysis of single-case intervention research: Conceptual and methodological issues. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 91–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
*LambertA. M.TingstromD. H.SterlingH. E.DufreneB. A.LynneS. (2015). Effects of tootling on classwide disruptive and appropriate behavior of upper-elementary students. Behavior Modification, 39, 413–430.
44.
*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, 103–116.
45.
LitowL.PumroyD. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.
46.
LittleS. G.Akin-LittleA.O’NeillK. (2015). Group contingency interventions with children—1980-2010: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39, 322–341.
47.
*LumJ. D. K. (2015). The effects of tootling on disruptive and academic behaviors in high school (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, USA.
48.
MagginD. M. (2015). Considering generality in the systematic review and meta-analysis of single-case research: A response to Hitchcock et al. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 470–482.
49.
MagginD. M.JohnsonA. H.ChafouleasS. M.RubertoL. M.BerggrenM. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 625–654.
50.
MagginD. M.PustejovskyJ. E.JohnsonA. H. (2017). A meta-analysis of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior: An update. Retrieved from https://osf.io/hvuw5/
51.
MagginD. M.ZurheideJ.PickettK. C.BaillieS. J. (2015). A systematic evidence review of the check-in/check-out program for reducing student challenging behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17, 197–208.
52.
*McHughM. B.TingstromD. H.RadleyK. C.BarryC. T.WalkerK. M. (2016). Effects of tootling on classwide and individual disruptive and academically engaged behavior of lower-elementary students. Behavioral Interventions, 31, 332–354.
53.
*McKissickC.HawkinsR. O.LentzF. E.HailleyJ.McGuireS. (2010). Randomizing multiple contingency components to decrease disruptive behaviors and increase student engagement in an urban second-grade classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 944–959.
54.
*MitchellR. R.TingstromD. H.DufreneB. A.FordW. B.SterlingH. E. (2015). The effects of the good behavior game with general-education high school students. School Psychology Review, 44, 191–207.
55.
MoeyaertM.MagginD.VerkuilenJ. (2016). Reliability, validity, and usability of data extraction programs for single-case research designs. Behavior Modification, 40, 874–900.
56.
MoherD.JonesA.CookD. J.JadadA. R.MoherM.TugwellP.KlassenT. P. (1998). Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?The Lancet, 352, 609–613.
57.
PasE. T.CashA. H.O’BrennanL.DebnamK. J.BradshawC. P. (2015). Profiles of classroom behavior in high schools: Associations with teacher behavior management strategies and classroom composition. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 137–148.
58.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2013). Operationally comparable effect sizes for meta-analysis of single-case research. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 3563832)
59.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2016). scdhlm: Estimating hierarchical linear models for single-case designs [R package version 0.3.1]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=scdhlm
60.
RadleyK. C.DartE. H.O’HandleyR. D. (2016). The quiet classroom game: A class-wide intervention to increase academic engagement and reduce disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 45(1), 93–108.
61.
*RodriguezB. J.AndersonC. M. (2014). Integrating a social behavior intervention during small group academic instruction using a total group criterion intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 234–245.
*SaighP. A.UmarA. M. (1983). The effects of a good behavior game on the disruptive behavior of Sudanese elementary school students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 339–344.
64.
*SalendS. J.GordonB. D. (1987). A group-oriented timeout ribbon procedure. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 131–137.
65.
*SalendS. J.LambE. A. (1986). Effectiveness of a group-managed interdependent contingency system. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 268–273.
66.
*SalendS. J.ReynoldsC. J.CoyleE. M. (1989). Individualizing the good behavior game across type and frequency of behavior with emotionally disturbed adolescence. Behavior Modification, 13, 108–126.
67.
*SchmidtA. (2007). The effects of a group contingency and individual behavior in an urban first-grade classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (1443719)
68.
ShadishW. R. (2014). Analysis and meta-analysis of single-case designs: An introduction. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 109–122.
69.
SimonsenB.FairbanksS.BrieschA.MyersD.SugaiG. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351–380.
70.
StageS. A.QuirozD. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26, 333–368.
71.
*SwitzerE. B.DealT. E.BaileyJ. S. (1977). The reduction of stealing in second graders using a group contingency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 267–272.
72.
*TheodoreL.BrayM. A.KehleT. J. (2001). Randomization of group contingencies and reinforcers to reduce classroom disruptive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 267–277.
73.
TheodoreL. A.BrayM. A.KehleT. J.DioguardiR. J. (2004). Contemporary review of group-oriented contingencies for disruptive behavior. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(1), 79–101.
74.
*ThorneS. (2005). The effects of a group contingency intervention on academic engagement and problem behavior reduction in elementary school classrooms with at-risk students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3191335)
75.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 604–634.
76.
Trevino-MaackS. I.KampsD.WillsH. (2015). A group contingency plus self-management intervention targeting at-risk secondary students’ class-work and active engagement. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 347–360.
77.
VannestK. J.NinciJ. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 403–411.
78.
*WilliamsonB. D.Campbell-WhatleyG. D.LoY. (2009). Using a random dependent group contingency to increase on-task behaviors of high school students with high incidence disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1074–1083.
79.
*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, 173–180.
80.
*WrightS. J. (2016). The effects of tootling combined with public posting in high school classrooms (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, USA.
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.
