See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publicati.docx

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication
at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13998136
Self-management within a token economy for students with
learning disabilities
Article in Research in Developmental Disabilities · May 1997
DOI: 10.1016/S0891-4222(96)00045-5 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS
17
READS
1,084
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on
these related projects:
Self-regulation View project
Animal Assisted Physical Activity View project
Al Cavalier
University of Delaware
29 PUBLICATIONS 491 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
Ralph P Ferretti
University of Delaware
46 PUBLICATIONS 1,276 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Al Cavalier on
30 June 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13998136_Self-
management_within_a_token_economy_for_students_with_learn
ing_disabilities?enrichId=rgreq-
db53aece611d16c3ef6017901d8bec29-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzEzOTk4MTM2O0FTOj
Y0MzI5NDUxNDEyNjg0OEAxNTMwMzg0NzcyNTky&el=1_x_
2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13998136_Self-
management_within_a_token_economy_for_students_with_learn
ing_disabilities?enrichId=rgreq-
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Self-regulation-
5?enrichId=rgreq-db53aece611d16c3ef6017901d8bec29-
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Animal-Assisted-Physical-

Activity?enrichId=rgreq-db53aece611d16c3ef6017901d8bec29-
https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Al_Cavalier?enrichId=rgre
q-db53aece611d16c3ef6017901d8bec29-
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Delawar
e?enrichId=rgreq-db53aece611d16c3ef6017901d8bec29-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ralph_Ferretti?enrichId=r
greq-db53aece611d16c3ef6017901d8bec29-

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Delawar
e?enrichId=rgreq-db53aece611d16c3ef6017901d8bec29-
Pergamon
Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.
167-178, 1997
Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in the USA. All fights reserved
0891-4222/97 $17.00 + .00
PII S0891-4222(96)00045-5
Self-Management Within a Classroom
Token Economy for Students With
Learning Disabilities

Albert R. Cavalier, Ralph P. Ferretti, and Amelia F. Hodges
The University of Delaware
Students with disabilities who are served in restrictive
educational settings often
display inappropriate behavior that serves to preclude their
integration into the
mainstream. One approach to managing di~cult behavior is a
levels system (Smith
& Farrell, 1993), which O'pically consists of a hierarchy of
levels in which students"
must meet increasingly demanding standards of behavior before
advancing
through the hierarchy. In the present study, two middle-school
students with
learning disabilities participated in a classroom-wide token
economy based on a
levels system. The levels system, which was used in a self-
contained classroom,
targeted the acquisition and maintenance of academic skills and
social behaviors
with the goal of integrating these students into an inclusive
classroom. The m'o
participants showed little or no progress within the levels
system because of a very

high rate of inappropriate verbalizations. Therefore, a self-
management system
that involved training on the accuracy of self-recording these
verbalizations was
added to the levels system for these students. In addition, the
investigator dis-
cussed with these students the consequences ~f inappropriate
behavior and so-
cially appropriate behavioral alternatives. A multiple-baseline-
across-subjects
experimental design revealed that the intervention resulted in a
substantive reduc-
tion in inappropriate verbalizations, as well as greater progress
through the levels
system. Implications of these findings Jor the use of self-
recording within u token
economy, the importance of students' accuraev ~f self-
recording, and methodolog-
ical issues are discussed. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
The order of authorship for the first two authors was determined
randomly.
Amel ia E. Hodges is a teacher at Glasgow High School in
Newark. DE.
Requests for reprints should be sent to either Albert R. Cavalier
or Ralph P. Ferretti at the

Department of Educational Studies, University of Delaware,
Newark, DE 19716.
167
168 A. R. Cavalier, R. P. Ferretti, and A. E. Hodges
Most instructional approaches for children with learning
problems place the
primary emphasis on external agents (teachers, parents,
counselors, and other
professionals) to arrange the instructional conditions, monitor
student perfor-
mance, and implement appropriate classroom contingencies.
Kazdin (1975)
identified many potential drawbacks to the heavy reliance on
external agents,
including: (a) the external agent may not notice many important
student behav-
iors, especially when the agent is simultaneously monitoring
many children in
classroom situations; (b) the external agent is associated with
the contingencies
and, therefore, becomes discriminative for the occurrence of the
desired behav-
iors; and (c) the desired behaviors may not transfer to situations
in which
externally-administered contingencies have not been in effect.
As a consequence
of these limitations, and motivated by the movement to educate
individuals with
disabilities in inclusive settings, there has been increasing
interest in the devel-

opment of procedures that reduce students' dependence upon
highly structured
learning programs and increase their capacity for self-regulation
(Ferretti, Cav-
alier, Murphy, & Murphy, 1993; Ryan, Weed, & Short, 1986).
The training of self-management skills holds the promise of
reducing students'
dependence on others and ensuring greater control over their
own learning. These
skills include the self-definition of the to-be-accomplished goal,
self-recording of
information about task performance, self-evaluation of task
performance relative to
self-defined or externally-established standards, and self-
reinforcement (Ferretti et
al., 1993). Each of these components has been the focus of
previous interventions,
either in isolation or as part of a multicomponential intervention
designed to affect
behavior change. Self-recording procedures have received
particular attention be-
cause of the well-documented therapeutic concomitant known as
reactivity (Lloyd
& Landrum, 1990; Nelson & Hayes, 1981). Reactivity refers to
changes in a client's
behavior that arise from observing and recording that behavior.
While the theoretical
mechanisms that underlie reactivity effects have been the
subject of considerable
discussion (Ferretti et al., 1993; Nelson & Hayes, 1981), the
effects nevertheless
have been demonstrated across many different behavioral
domains (see Lloyd &
Landrum, 1990).

The effects of self-recording on the attention-to-task of students
with learning
disabilities have been comprehensively studied (Hallahan &
Sapona, 1983;
Kneedler & Hallahan, 1984; Lloyd, Bateman, Landrum, &
Hallahan, 1989;
Snider, 1987). However, the investigation of its use with other
classroom
behaviors, especially disruptive or inappropriate behavior, has
not. been as
extensive. In one experiment, Broden, Hall, and Mitts (1971)
obtained a 48%
increase in study behavior with an intervention package
consisting of self-
recording and praise from a counselor. In a second experiment,
self-recording
alone resulted in an initial decrease in inappropriate
verbalizations, but this
effect gradually dissipated back to pre-treatment levels. In both
experiments,
student recordings of the target behavior differed markedly
from the recordings
of an independent observer. Thus, the effects of self-recording
on the disruptive
behavior of students with learning disabilities were equivocal.
Self-Management and Token Economy 169
While positive results have sometimes been obtained with
inaccurate sell'-
recording (Ferretti et al., 1993; Hallahan & Sapona, 1983),
reactivity to self-
recording may be enhanced when accuracy is high (McLaughlin,
Burgess, &

Sackville-West, 1981). Accuracy may be especially important
when the target
skill is particularly difficult for a student to perform (O'Leary &
Dubey, 1979),
when a student is having trouble discriminating instances of the
target behavior
from non-instances (Snider, 1987), or when the self-recording
activity is not
intrusive enough to engage the student's attention (Loper &
Murphy, 1985).
While behavior may improve in the absence of accurate self-
recording, grossly
inaccurate self-recording raises a fundamental question about
the degree to
which the independent variable (self-recording) is responsible
for behavior
change (Snider, 1987), that is, the inference that self-recording
is responsible for
behavior change is not warranted when self-recording accuracy
is low.
A self-management package might be particularly effective as
an adjunctive
intervention for students with learning disabilities who fail to
keep pace with
their peers in group motivational systems such as classroom
token economies
and assertive discipline programs. Programs such as these place
an especially
heavy emphasis on external control and thereby minimize
students' responsi-
bility for managing their own behavior. For example, Knapczyk
and Livingston
(1973) observed improvements in the reading accuracy of junior
high school
students with mental retardation who were participating in a

classroom token
economy. On a non-academic task, Seymour and Stokes (1976)
obtained in-
creases in work productivity after self-recording was added to
an existing token
economy.
In this study, we sought to evaluate the effects of an
intervention consisting
of self-recording, discussions about the consequences of
inappropriate behavior.
and praise for appropriate behavior on two students with
learning disabilities.
The motivational system in effect in the classroom was a token
economy called
the levels system (Smith & Farrell, 1993) that employed the
acquisition of
points. The purpose of this system was to strengthen appropriate
academic and
social behaviors identified in students' IEPs. The overarching
goal in this
self-contained classroom was to integrate students into
classrooms with non-
disabled peers.
Both students selected for participation in this study failed to
make progress
in the classroom-wide levels system because of excessive
inappropriate verbal-
izations. Therefore, the intervention was developed as an
adjunct to the levels
system that could provide heightened individualization lbr
student needs. The
goal of the intervention was to reduce the occurrence of
students' inappropriate
verbalizations and thereby hasten their progress within the

classroom-wide
token economy. The intervention included training self-
recording to a criterion
level of accuracy.
M E T H O D
Participants
The two students who participated in this study were males aged
13 years, 11
months and 13 years, 5 months (referred to as S1 and $2,
respectively) who
were enrolled in a combined seventh and eighth grade self-
contained class. S 1
performed at a grade equivalent of 4.2 in reading and 5.3 in
mathematics on the
Wide Range Achievement Test; $2 performed at a grade
equivalent of 4.3 in
reading and 5.7 in mathematics on the same instrument. Full
scale IQ scores on
the WISC-R were 83 and 96, respectively. They had no known
physical or
sensory disabilities or medical problems. They also met the
state's classification
criteria for students with learning disabilities and were placed
in a self-contained
special education classroom in a public middle school.
In the classroom-wide levels system, points were assigned by
the teacher in
25-minute intervals throughout the school day, contingent upon

performance of
different levels of behaviors in the following categories: being
present in the
appropriate area, attention-to-task, use of appropriate language,
positive inter-
action with others, and compliance with instructions. Points
were used to
motivate progress through each of six levels and could be
exchanged for a
variety of primary and secondary reinforcers, including activity
reinforcers.
Different students had to earn a criterion number of points each
day for that day
to "count" toward the next level.
The general criteria for achieving successive levels after Level
1 were as
follows: Level 2 = 5 days of criterion performance; Level 3 =
10 days of
criterion performance; Level 4 = 15 days of criterion
performance; Level 5 = 20
days of criterion performance; and Level 6 = 30 days of
criterion performance
of which the last 15 days had to be consecutive. A student
continued at a given
level until s/he met the performance criterion for the next level.
Classroom
management and motivational systems that are structured with a
system of
performance-and-reward levels such as this one are "widely
used, although not
widely researched" in elementary and secondary classrooms
(Scheuermann &
Webber, 1996, p. 12).
The students were chosen for this study because they were not

advancing in
the levels system. At the end of the 6th week of participation in
this system, the
majority of the students in class had progressed to various
points between the
end of Level 2 and the beginning of Level 4. The two students
had achieved only
3 criterion days at Level 1. The teacher described these two
students as
exhibiting the following characteristics: high levels of
distractibility, strong
sensitivity to criticism from others, poor impulse control, and
difficulty in
understanding and applying abstract concepts. The most
prominent and prob-
lematic characteristic was a stable and very high level of
inappropriate verbal-
izations, because it interrupted instructional activities and
thereby prevented the
progress of these students through the levels system. In
addition, these inap-
propriate verbalizations distracted the entire class, instigated
other students to
engage in inappropriate behavior, and necessitated a high
frequency of teacher
prompts and reprimands. School records indicated that both
students had not
responded to previous implementations of point-based
contingency systems.
Procedures

The intervention was evaluated using a multiple-baseline-
across-subjects
experimental design (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). Sessions were
conducted during
the students' normal classroom activities. Sessions were 50
minutes in duration
and were conducted twice daily, once in the morning and once
in the afternoon.
The target behavior was inappropriate verbalization, defined as:
(a) talking
audibly to the teacher or teacher's aide without raising a hand
and being
acknowledged; (b) talking audibly to another student during
designated quiet
times; (c) talking audibly to the teacher or teacher's aide with
threatening words,
curse words, or derogatory comments; (d) talking audibly to
another student
with threatening words, curse words, or derogatory comments,
and (e) talking
audibly to himself. Data on these target behaviors were
collected by the students
and an independent observer using event recording.
Data collection under baseline conditions continued for each
student until
relative stability was established. The intervention condition
was initiated for S 1
on session 20 and for $2 on session 52. Throughout the course
of the interven-
tion, the investigator discussed a number of potential problem
situations and
alternative strategies for dealing with these situations based on
principles of
self-management. Periodically, the student was reminded that

the purpose of the
training was to help him understand how to better deal with
problem situations
at school and advance through the levels system. These
discussions were
motivated by findings that suggest that a student's
understanding of problem
situations and awareness of alternative strategies heighten the
effects of self-
management training (Brigham, Hopper, Hill, de Armas, &
Newsom, 1985).
The definition of inappropriate verbalizations (referred to as
"talking-out"
with the students) was read to a student and he was given the
opportunity to ask
questions and discuss any parts of the definition that he did not
fully understand.
An event recording sheet was shown to the student and he was
instructed to
make one slash mark for each talk-out. The observer then
modeled the self-
recording behavior in a mock session and the student was given
the opportunity
to ask questions and discuss the procedure (Brigham et al.,
1985). Students were
told that the accuracy of their recording was important, that it
would be checked
during a training phase until they could self-record with at least
85% accuracy
for four consecutive sessions, and that on the day that they
reached this criterion
they would be taken to McDonald's after school. Accuracy
checks on a student's
self-recording were then conducted until the student reached the
criterion. The

definition of the target behavior was reviewed with the student
each time
accuracy was calculated during this phase. Percent of agreement
was calculated
by dividing the smaller number of recorded behaviors by the
larger number of
recorded behaviors and multiplying the result by 100.
During this self-recording training phase, which was also Level
1 of the
levels system, accuracy checks were performed during 100% of
the sessions.
During Level 2 and 3, accuracy checks were performed at least
once per day and
without the student's knowledge, that is, they were told
accuracy would be
monitored but they were not told the specific times, and these
were not obvious
to the students. The observer was positioned out of the student's
field of vision
and appeared to be engaged in other classroom activities.
At the end of each session, the student and observer together
totaled the
number of recorded inappropriate verbalizations and, if the
performance crite-
rion was reached, a reinforcer was administered. The criterion
for reinforcement
was a decrease of at least five behaviors from the previous
session' s count. This
defines a schedule of differential reinforcement of diminishing

rates of behavior
(DRD), which is a special case of differential reinforcement of
low rates of
behavior (Deitz & Repp, 1973; Schloss & Smith, 1994). The
reinforcer for the
first 10 sessions was 15 minutes of free time paired with praise.
If a student
advanced to the next level in the levels system, he received the
praise and
increased privileges inherent in progression through the system.
The self-
management intervention continued until a student reached the
terminal objec-
tive of no more than three inappropriate verbalizations per 50-
minute session for
10 consecutive sessions. This level of inappropriate
verbalizations was deemed
acceptable by regular and special education teachers. When S1
reached the
terminal objective, $2 began the self-management intervention
condition. The
performance of S 1 continued to be monitored using a multiple
probe technique.
RESULTS
The primary data are those recorded by the observer rather than
the self-
recordings of the students. As displayed in Figure 1, the number
of inappropriate
verbalizations by S 1 across the 20 sessions of baseline was
relatively stable at
a high level, averaging 65.7 per session. This operationalizes
the teacher's
opinion that these behaviors were occurring at an unacceptable
frequency.

On Session 21, the first day of the self-recording intervention,
the data reveal
an immediate decrement in the frequency of the target behavior.
This was
followed by a steady and continual decline. During each of the
last 29 inter-
vention sessions, the number of inappropriate verbalizations
was below the
terminal objective of three or fewer per session, that is, from
Session 38 until the
end of the study, inappropriate verbalizations by S 1 were
virtually eliminated.
Comparison of the observer's recordings and the student's
recordings of
inappropriate verbalizations in Figure 1 reveals that the student
consistently
under reported his behavior until Session 32. After this point,
the student's
recordings map onto those of the observer almost perfectly. As
displayed in
o
~ $ I
£
~_ 0
o
m c

~ $2 ~
Z
Baseline Intervention Observer Data 1
. . . . Subject Data
'/ / 2J,
Sessions
FIGURE 1. The number of inappropriate verbalizations by both
students as a function of
experimental conditions. Arrows indicate sessions in which
students achieved new levels within
the levels system.
Figure 2, for every session after Session 35 the observer's
recordings and the
student's recordings achieve 100% agreement.
During the first 16 sessions of the baseline condition for $2, his
frequency of
inappropriate verbalizations per 50-minute session ranged from
a low of 32 to
a high of 98, with an average of 66.3 per session. At the end of
Session 15, the
classroom teacher mistakenly delivered a stern reprimand to $2.
Because of this,
one of the investigators reviewed with the teacher the nature
and purpose of the
experimental protocol. While these circumstances did not occur
again during the
course of the study, the immediate effect was a complete
suppression of the
target behavior during the next session and a low frequency
during the following
two sessions. Over the next four sessions, the number of S2's

inappropriate
verbalizations steadily increased. From Session 22 through
Session 51 (i.e., the
remainder of the baseline condition for $2), inappropriate
verbalizations oc-
curred at a relatively stable frequency, averaging 60.1 per
session.
On Session 52, the first day of the self-recording intervention
for $2, the data
reveal an immediate decrement in the frequency of the target
behavior. There-
after, inappropriate verbalizations showed a relatively steady
decline. The
number of inappropriate verbalizations during each of the last
10 intervention
sessions was below the terminal objective of three or fewer per
session.
Comparison of the observer's recordings and S2's self-
recordings of inap-
propriate verbalizations reveals that, like the first student, $2
consistently
underreported his behavior during the initial sessions of the
self-recording
intervention (see Figure 1). Again, like the first student, S2's
inappropriate
verbalizations continued to decrease during this period of
inaccurate self-
Intervention

Ioo
go
so
70
S1 so
~ 'o
~ o
m $2
~ 2 1 ~ 2 S ~ d ~ H ~ 7 ~ a 0 ~O*1 ~ 2 ~ 3 5 ~ 7 ~ 4 1 4 2 1
Z ~ ~ * r ~ n o s l S2 ~a ~ ~ n z s i s g ~ e l ~ ~ e s H e z ~ ~
n n n Z4 ~ ~ r r = ~
Sess ions
FIGURE 2. The percentage agreement between the recordings of
the observer and the
self-recordings of both students during the self-management
intervention.
recordings. As displayed in Figure 2, from Session 68 until the
end of the study,
the student's recordings consistently matched the observer's,
with only two
exceptions (Sessions 63 and 67).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition
of a

self-management package to an existing token economy
embedded in a levels
system would reduce the occurrence of inappropriate
verbalizations in two
students with learning disabilities. We sought to reduce the
occurrence of these
verbalizations because they precluded the students' progress
within the levels
system and they were an obstacle to their eventual re-
integration into a class-
room with nonhandicapped peers. Prior to the self-management
intervention,
both students exhibited a stable and very high level of
inappropriate verbaliza-
tions. According to anecdotal reports of the teachers, these
behaviors not only
interfered with the students' learning of appropriate academic
and social skills,
but were disruptive to the learning of other students who were
making good
progress within the levels system without self-management
procedures.
The addition of the multicomponential self-management
package to the
levels system reduced the inappropriate verbalizations of the
students to a
near-zero level within 19 experimental sessions. At a practical
level, this
represents a drop from over 65, and sometimes even 100,
occurrences within a

50-minute session to three or fewer per session. These
decrements occurred
when, and only when, the intervention was applied to each
student. These results
provide strong support for the contention that the self-
management package was
effective, that is, that there was a functional relationship
between the introduc-
tion of the self-management package and a substantive decrease
in the number
of inappropriate verbalizations.
If it is assumed that the observer's data are more veridical than
the students'
(an assumption we will address shortly), then the early
intervention sessions
were associated with decrements in the target behavior even
though the sell'-
recording of both students was inaccurate. The finding of
reactivity despite
inaccurate self-recording is quite common in the published
literature (Lloyd,
Landrum, & Hallahan, 1991; Nelson & Hayes, 1981). Previous
research dem-
onstrates that persons with learning disabilities often
underreport the occurrence
of inappropriate behavior (and overreport the occurrence of
appropriate behav-
ior) when self-recording (Lloyd & Landrum, 1990; Lloyd et al.,
1991). In this
context, it may be useful to distinguish between students'
opportunity to observe
their behavior and their accuracy of recording that behavior
(Nelson & Hayes,
1981). One cannot necessarily infer that students did not
observe instances of

their behavior simply because they recorded it inaccurately. The
act of observing
one's behavior may be sufficient in and of itself to heighten the
cue value of the
entire sell-management procedure and ensure reactivity.
It should be noted that further reductions in the occurrence of
inappropriate
verbalizations continued as the students improved the accuracy
of their self-
recording over time. At a more molecular level, it is difficult,
however, to
determine what parts of the multicomponential intervention may
have contrib-
uted to this relationship, or more generally, to the reductions in
inappropriate
verbalizations. In this study, students were praised for reducing
the occurrence
of inappropriate verbalizations, rewarded for accurate self-
recording, and en-
gaged in periodic discussions with one of the investigators
about the conse-
quences of their inappropriate behavior and appropriate
behavioral alternatives
(Brigham et al., 1985). Packaging self-management skills and
external conse-
quences probably increases the likelihood of a successful
outcome, but it makes
it difficult to assess the independent contribution of self-
management training to
the therapeutic process (Ferretti et al., 1993).
Earlier, we mentioned that there was a discrepancy between the
observer's
recordings of the target behavior and those of both students, and
we took as

more veridical the observations of the observer. We should
note, however, that
we did not check the reliability of the observer's recordings
with another
observer's recordings, independent of the students' self-
recordings. The failure
to check on the reliability of the observer's recordings raises a
question about
the relative accuracy of the recordings of both the students and
the observer.
Expressed differently, the absence of independent evidence
about reliability of
the self-recording and observer's data, especially at the
beginning of the
intervention, raises a question about the accuracy of the
observer's recordings.
176 A. R. Cavalier, R. P. Ferreni, and A. E. Hodges
It seems to us that three factors militate against the conclusion
that the observ-
er's recordings were inaccurate. First, our anecdotal
observations and those of
the teachers are consistent with the conclusion that the students
under recorded
the occurrence of inappropriate verbalizations at the beginning
of the interven-
tion. Second, the students eventually met our criterion of at
least 85% agreement
with the independent observer after continued training. Third,
the baseline data
(and our anecdotal observations) demonstrate that the behavior
was quite stable
prior to the introduction of the self-management intervention.

The dramatic reductions in inappropriate verbalizations by S1
and $2 were
associated with progress in the levels system. By the end of the
study, S 1 was
at Day 5 of Level 3 and $2 was at Day 6 of Level 2. Other
students in class were
progressing through the standard system towards the highest
level of function-
ing. The students' rapid improvement in the levels system with
the adjunct of
the self-management intervention adds credence to the teacher's
contention that
their inappropriate verbalizations were the major barrier to their
advancement
through the system. Of course, it is also possible that some
incidental effects
(e.g., increased saliency of classroom contingencies, heightened
self-esteem in
achieving objectives, etc.) of the self-management intervention
generalized to
the point-earning behaviors in the levels system. The social and
academic
significance of reducing excessive inappropriate verbalizations
in the classroom
is multi-faceted. With the decreased frequency of these
behaviors comes fewer
threats and distractions, fewer teacher reprimands, increased
teaching time, and
a more relaxed atmosphere in the classroom, all of which result
in a more
productive environment for all students in the room.
Scheuermann and Webber (1996) recently discussed a number
of problems
associated with the use of the levels systems in special

education. In brief, they
argue that the uniform application of a predetermined system of
hierarchical
curriculum goals for all students may in effect violate the legal
requirement of
an appropriate, individualized educational program for students
with disabili-
ties. This concern is especially heightened when access to
nondisabled peers is
a to-be-earned privilege in the system, the curriculum is
standardized for all
students, and the system is used to punish the occurrence of
inappropriate
behavior by the loss of a level within a system. Scheuermann
and Webber (1996)
believe that the key to avoiding these problems is embedding
individualized
objectives within the levels system. Further, they recommend
the inclusion of
self-management training in the levels system to increase the
generality of
students' skills and facilitate their success in less restrictive
environments. The
results of our study support these recommendations. We believe
that the students
in our study would have made little progress through the levels
system without
the addition of self-management training.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates a means by which a
classroom-wide
token economy system that was rendered ineffective for two
students by their
inappropriate verbalizations can be made effective in
strengthening and main-
taining a wide range of behaviors. This goal was accomplished

by introducing
a multicomponential self-management intervention into an
existing levels sys-
tem, effectively increasing the individualization afforded by the
system for
students with behavior difficulties.
REFERENCES
Barlow. D. H.~ & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental
designs: Strategies.1~r stucJving behavior
change (2rid Ed.). New York: Pergamon.
Brigham, T., Hopper, C., Hill, B., de Armas, A., & Newsom, E
(1985). A self-management program
fk~r disruptive adolescents in the school: A clinical replication
analysis. Behavior Therapy. 16,
99-115.
Broden, M. R., Hall, R. V., & Mitts, B. (1971). The effect of
self-recording on the classroom
behavior of two eighth-grade students. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 4, 191-199.
Deitz, S.M., & Repp, A.C. (1973). Decreasing classroom
misbehavior through the use of DRL
schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 6, 457-463.
Ferretti, R. P., Cavalier, A. R., Murphy, M. J., & Murphy, R.
(1993). The self-management of skills

by persons with mental retardation. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 14, 189-205.
Hal lahan, D. P., & Sapona, R. (1983). Self-monitoring of
attention with learning disabled children:
Past research and current issues. Journal ~fLearning
Disabilities, 15. 616~20.
Kazdin, A. E. (1975). Behavior modification in applied settings.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Knapczyk, D. R., & Livingston, G. (1973). Self-recording and
student teacher supervision: Variables
within a token economy structure. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 6, 481-486.
Kneedler, R. D., & Hallahan, D. E (1984). Self-monitoring as an
attentionat strategy for academic
tasks with learning disabled children. In B. Gholson & T.
Rosenthal (Eds.), Applications ~l'
cognitive-developmental theory (pp. 243-260). New York:
Academic Press.
Loper, A. B., & Murphy, D. M. (1985!. Cognitive serf-
regulatory training for underachieving
children. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G.
Waller (Eds./, Metacognition,
cognition, and human perJ~rmance (Vol. 2, pp. 223-265). New
York: Academic Press.
Lloyd, J. W., & Landrum, T. J. (1990). Self-recording of
attending to task: Treatment components
and generalization of effects. In T.E. Scruggs & B.Y. Wong
IEd~.), Intervention research in
learning disabilities (pp. 235-262). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lloyd, J. W., Landrum, T. J., & Hallahan, D. E (1991). Self-
monitoring applications for classroom
interventions. In G. Stoner, M.R. Shinn, & H.M. Walker (Eds.).
h~terventionsj~w achievement
and behavior problems (pp. 201-214). Harrisonburg, VA:
National Association of School
Psychologists.
Lloyd, J. W., Bateman, D. E, Landrum, T. J., & Hallahan, D. P.
(1989). Serf-recording of attention
versus productivity. Journal ~/" Applied Behavior Analysis, 22,
315-323.
McLaughlin, T. E, Burgess, N., & Sackville-West, L. (1981).
Effects of self-recording and self-
recording plus matching on academic performance. Child
Behavior Therapy, 3, 17-28.
Nelson, R.O., & Hayes, S.C. (1981). Theoretical explanations
for reactivity in self-monitoring.
Behavior Modification, 5, 3-14.
O'Leary, S. G., & Dubey, D. R. (1979). Application of self-
control procedures by children: A review.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 449-464.
Ryan, E. B., Weed, K. A., & Short, E. J. (1986). Cognitive
behavior modification: Promoting active,
self-regulatory learning styles. In J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. L.
Wong (Eds.), Psychological and
educatiomd perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 367-390).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Scheuermann, B., & Webber, J. (1996). Levels systems:
Problems and solutions. Beyond Behavior.
7, 12-17.

Schloss, EJ., & Smith, M.A. (1994). Applied behavior analysis
in the classroom. Needham Heights.
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Seymour, E W., & Stokes, T. E (1976). Self-recording in
training girls to increase work and evoke
staff praise in an institution for offenders. Journal otApplied
Behavior Analysis, 9, 41-54.
Smith, S. W., & Farrell, D.T. (1993). Level system use in
special education. Classroom intervention
with prima facie appeal. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 251-264.
Snider, V. (1987). Use of self-monitoring of attention with LD
students: Research and application.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 139-151.
View publication statsView publication stats
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13998136

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publicati.docx

More Related Content

Similar to See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publicati.docx

More from WilheminaRossi174

Recently uploaded

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publicati.docx