Token Economy
Study: Sulivan & O'Leary (1990)

Summary

A token economy is a contingency management system that allows participants to earn tokens for presenting specific, positive behaviors which are later exchanged for predetermined backup reinforcement (Kazdin, 1977). The essential requirement is that the tokens are systematically linked to a menu of meaningful reinforcement options. As such, the primary reinforcers (i.e., tokens) acquire symbolic value akin to ordinary currency within classical monetary systems (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). The standard features of token economies are aligned with the critical features of other behavior modification programs (Hall, 1979). These five elements include: (a) the identification of specific target behaviors; (b) the identification of tokens for primary reinforcement; (c) the development of a menu of backup reinforcement options to award appropriate behavior, (d) the creation of an explicit protocol for exchanging primary reinforcers for backup reinforcers, and (e) the development of procedures for fading the use of the token economy system (Wolery et al.). As a result, the token economy is only one example of a range of behavioral techniques which link the delivery and acquisition of tokens to specified behavioral expectations. The differentiating feature of token economies from other systems of token reinforcement, therefore, is the understanding that tokens are later traded or exchanged for items that hold greater perceived value.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Target Populations:
  • Students with disabilities only
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with intellectual disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Physical Aggression
  • Verbal Threats
  • Property Destruction
  • Noncompliance
  • High Levels of Disengagement
  • Disruptive Behavior
  • Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
Where to Obtain:
Non Commercial Intervention
N/A
N/A
N/A
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

The token economy is non-commercial intervention and, therefore, does not have a formal pricing plan. Moreover, the cost of the program will ultimately depend on the materials used as tokens and reinforcers. The structure of the program requires the delivery of tokens (e.g., tickets, points marked on a sheet, poker chips) for appropriate behavior and the development of a menu of backup reinforceres (e.g., pencils, small toys, gift cards, coupons, homework pass) to deliver to students. As such, the cost of the program can be adjusted to match the available resources of the schools. It is recommended, however, that schools allot a certain portion of the budget for the intervention to ensure that backup reinforcers and tokens are readily available to increase the likelihood that the intervention is implemented as intended.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other:
Training Requirements:
Not available

The non-commercial nature of the program makes training on the procedures of the token economy critical to ensure it is implemented reliably. As such, the school personnel charged with developing the token economy methods should be prepared to ensure all faculty who have a role in implmenation understand (a) the behaviors being targeted, (b) the method and critieria for delivering the tokens, (c) the process for providing the student with feedback on (both positive and negative) for their behavior, and (d) the procedures and "cost" of various backup reinforcers. This training can likely be done in an initial introductory training session with followup troubleshooting on specific implementation issues and questions following the initial use of the program.


The token economy has been operationalized in several scholarly resources and a number of manuals have been developed to assist practitioners develop formal implementation procedures (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007; ).

Access to Technical Support:
Not available
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
  • BI ONLY: A classroom of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
Minimum Number of Weeks:
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
No
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

A token economy is a contingency management system that allows participants to earn tokens for presenting specific, positive behaviors which are later exchanged for predetermined backup reinforcement (Kazdin, 1977). The essential requirement is that the tokens are systematically linked to a menu of meaningful reinforcement options. As such, the primary reinforcers (i.e., tokens) acquire symbolic value akin to ordinary currency within classical monetary systems (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). The standard features of token economies are aligned with the critical features of other behavior modification programs (Hall, 1979). These five elements include: (a) the identification of specific target behaviors; (b) the identification of tokens for primary reinforcement; (c) the development of a menu of backup reinforcement options to award appropriate behavior, (d) the creation of an explicit protocol for exchanging primary reinforcers for backup reinforcers, and (e) the development of procedures for fading the use of the token economy system (Wolery et al.). As a result, the token economy is only one example of a range of behavioral techniques which link the delivery and acquisition of tokens to specified behavioral expectations. The differentiating feature of token economies from other systems of token reinforcement, therefore, is the understanding that tokens are later traded or exchanged for items that hold greater perceived value.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
selected English language learners
not selected Any student at risk for academic failure
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

selected Physical Aggression
selected Verbal Threats
selected Property Destruction
selected Noncompliance
selected High Levels of Disengagement
selected Disruptive Behavior
selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
N/A
Phone Number
N/A
Website
N/A

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

The token economy is non-commercial intervention and, therefore, does not have a formal pricing plan. Moreover, the cost of the program will ultimately depend on the materials used as tokens and reinforcers. The structure of the program requires the delivery of tokens (e.g., tickets, points marked on a sheet, poker chips) for appropriate behavior and the development of a menu of backup reinforceres (e.g., pencils, small toys, gift cards, coupons, homework pass) to deliver to students. As such, the cost of the program can be adjusted to match the available resources of the schools. It is recommended, however, that schools allot a certain portion of the budget for the intervention to ensure that backup reinforcers and tokens are readily available to increase the likelihood that the intervention is implemented as intended.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
selected Small group of students
selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

   (Size of the group will depend on the procedures established by school personnel)

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
Minimum number of sessions per week
Minimum number of weeks
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
No

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?
No

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?
1

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
Free

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Not available

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
The non-commercial nature of the program makes training on the procedures of the token economy critical to ensure it is implemented reliably. As such, the school personnel charged with developing the token economy methods should be prepared to ensure all faculty who have a role in implmenation understand (a) the behaviors being targeted, (b) the method and critieria for delivering the tokens, (c) the process for providing the student with feedback on (both positive and negative) for their behavior, and (d) the procedures and "cost" of various backup reinforcers. This training can likely be done in an initial introductory training session with followup troubleshooting on specific implementation issues and questions following the initial use of the program.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
The token economy has been operationalized in several scholarly resources and a number of manuals have been developed to assist practitioners develop formal implementation procedures (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007; ).

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
No

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Alvarez, A. (1973). A token economy: The use of positive reinforcement and extinction in reducing aggressive behavior in the classroom of the socially maladjusted child. (Master’s thesis). Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT EP12315).

Ayllon, T. & Roberts, M. D. (1974). Eliminating discipline problems by strengthening academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 71-76.

Boegli, R. G. & Wasik, B. H. (1978). Use of a token economy system to intervene on a school-wide level. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 72-78.

Breyer, N. L. & Allen, G. J. (1975). Effects of implementing a token economy on teacher attending behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 373-380.

Broden, M., Hall, R. V., Dunlap, A., & Clark, R. (1970). Effects of teacher attention and a token reinforcement system in a junior high school special education class. Exceptional Children, 36, 341-349.

Christensen, L., Young, K. R., & Marchant, M. (2004). The effects of a peer-mediated positive behavior support program on socially appropriate classroom behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 199-234.

Drege, P. & Beare, P. L. (1991). The effect of a token reinforcement system with a time-out backup consequence on the classroom behavior of E/BD students. Journal of Special Education, 15, 39-46.

Hewett, F. M., Taylor, F. D., & Artuso, A. A. (1969). The Santa Monica project: Evaluation of an engineered classroom design with emotionally disturbed children. Exceptional Children, 35, 523-529.

Higgins, J. W., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2001). The effects of a token economy employing instructional consequences for a third-grade student with learning disabilities: A data-based case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 99-106.

Kirk, J. A. (2009). A comparison of traditional and function-based token systems. (Doctoral dissertation) Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3340241).

Klimas, A. & Mclaughlin, T. F. (2007). The effects of a token economy system to improve social and academic behavior with a rural primary aged child with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 22, 72-77.

Kuypers, D. S., Becker, W. C., & O'Leary, K. D. (1968). How to make a token system fail. Exceptional Children, 11, 101-108.

Maglio, C. & McLaughlin, T. F. (1981). Effects of a token reinforcement system and teacher attention in reducing inappropriate verbalizations with a junior high school student. Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 27, 140-145.

Nevin, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of group and individual contingencies on academic performance and social relations of special needs students. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 41-59.

O'Leary, K. D. & Becker, W. C. (1967). Behavior modification of an adjustment class: A token reinforcement program. Exceptional Children, 9, 637-642.

O'Leary, K. D., Becker, W. C., Evans, M. B., & Saudargas, R. A. (1969). A token reinforcement program in a public school: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 3-13.

O'Leary, K. D., Drabman, R. S., & Kass, R. E. (1973). Maintenance of appropriate behavior in a token program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1, 127-138.

Salend, S. J. & Gordon, B. D. (1987). A group oriented timeout ribbon procedure. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 131-137.

Shook, S. C., Labrie, M., Vallies, J., Mclaughlin, T. F. & Williams, L. (1990). The effects of a token economy on first grade students inappropriate social behavior. Reading Improvement, 27, 96-101.

Smith, D. J., Young, K. R., West, R. P., Morgan, D. P., & Rhode, G. (1988). Reducing the disruptive behvior of junior high school students: A classroom self-management procedure. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 126-135.

Sullivan, M. A. & O'Leary, S. G. (1990). Maintenance following reward cost token programs. Behavior Therapy, 21, 139-149.

Terry, B. J. et al. (1981). Effects of environmental manipulation, curriculum changes, and implementation of a token system on on-task behavior of second and third graders in a learning disabilities classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Council for Exceptional Children Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Walker, H. M., Hops, H., & Fiegenbaum, E. (1976). Deviant classroom behavior as a function of combinations of social and token reinforcement and cost contingency. Behavior Therapy, 7, 76-88.

Ward-Maguire, P. R. (2008). Increasing on-task behavior and assignment completion of high school students with emotional and behavioral disorders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Dakota, Vermillion.

Study Information

Study Citations

Sullivan, M. A. & O'Leary, S. G. (1990). Maintenance following reward and cost token programs. Behavior Therapy, 21() 139-149.

Participants Empty Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
The students were selected based on their enrollment in a summer school program designed to serve students with academic and behaviora problems.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students were identified based on teacher referral. In addition, the authors reported Connor Rating Scale information for each student which provided normed based evidence that students stuggled with aggression, inattention, axiety, and / or hyperactivity depending on the particular student. It is woth noting that all students had scores that deviated from the mean on at least one subscale.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Provide a description of the demographic and other relevant characteristics of the case used in your study (e.g., student(s), classroom(s)).

Case (Name or number) Age/Grade Gender Race / Ethnicity Socioeconomic Status Disability Status ELL status Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics
test test test test test test test test

Design Full Bobble

Please describe the study design:
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of token economy on student behavior. In addition, the authors were interested in determining whether a particular fading procedure could be used to sustain the effects of the token economy for students. As such, there is a baseline phase followed by the token economy phase and then fading, followed by the treatment and subsequent fading procedures again. Because the study authors reported data for all students (Figure 1), those that maintained their behavior well regardless of the token program in place (Figure 2), and those that demonstrated differential maintenance effects, it was decided to report only on the aggregate (Figure 1) which provides the most accurate depiction of student responsiveness.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:
The intervention consisted of both a reward program and a cost program which were instituted at different times in the study. The reward program consisted of providing tokens to students for appropriate behavior which could then be used to purchase recess time or stickers. The cost program consisted of giving tokens to students and then removing them if the inappropriate behavior was emitted. The students could then spend the remaining tokens on either stickers or recess time.

Clarify what procedures occurred during the control/baseline condition (third, competing conditions are not considered; if you have a third, competing condition [e.g., multi-element single subject design with a third comparison condition], in addition to your control condition, identify what the competing condition is [data from this competing condition will not be used]):
The baseline was highly controlled with the teacher instructed to provide one praise and one reprimand to each student contingent on on- and off-task behvior, respecively. There were no other details provided regarding the baseline.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)
Experimental control between baseline and the token intervention could not be established given the particular design. However, experimental control of the number of teacher "scans" could be investigated. That is, the teacher was prompted to scan and deliver tokens contingent on student on- and off-task behavior based on the particular reward condition in place at different rates from intervention to fading. Specifically, the teacher scanned four times during intervention and then faded the number of scans from 3- 0 during the fade phase. Experimental control between four scans and the fade could be investigated because these were arranged in an ABAB format and could further be investigated for reward and cost operationalizations of the program.

Please indicate whether (and how) the design contains at least three demonstrations of experimental control (e.g., ABAB design, multiple baseline across three or more participants).
Experimental control using the three demonstrations criteria could be established by comparing (1) token phase with initial fade, (2) initial fade with second token phase, and (3) second token phase with second fade. Moreover, there is additional information provided through the baseline data to provide some basis for visually estimating initial group performance.

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent or non-concurrent?
N/A

Fidelity of Implementation Empty Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
10
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Condition A
Weeks
1.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
40.00
Condition B
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
Condition C
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Minimal teacher information was provided aside from her having experience with behavioral techniques. There was no information on training though the teacher was prompted with bug-in-ear technology.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Fidelity was not reported.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Not reported

Was the fidelity measure also used in baseline or comparison conditions?
Not reported

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Dash

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills, that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates, which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Evidence Relevance
Targeted Measure 1 Yes A1 A2
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Evidence Relevance
Broader Measure 1 Yes A1 A2
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance
Admin Measure 1 Yes A2
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

Results Half Bobble

Describe the method of analyses you used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g., visual inspection, computation of change score, mean difference):
Visual insepction.

Please present results in terms of within and between phase patterns. Data on the following data characteristics must be included: level, trend, variability, immediacy of the effect, overlap, and consistency of data patterns across similar conditions. Submitting only means and standard deviations for phases is not sufficient. Data must be included for each outcome measure (targeted, broader, and administrative if applicable) that was described above.
Visual analysis indicates that student behavior increased following the implementation of the token intervention phase. Moreover, it appears that the number of scans had a moderate effect for the reward program as indicated by the dowanrd trend observed in both fading periods. This effect did not seem to replicate for the cost program though the it does appear that more frequent scans were assoicated with some improvement in on-task behavior. These resutls for the cost program should be considered carefully however. Overall, the results seem to provide some support for the token program albeit marginal.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
WWC
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

WWC only reviewed the report "The effects of a peer-mediated positive behavior support program on socially appropriate classroom behavior.” The findings from this review do not reflect the full body of research evidence on Token Economy.

WWC Rating: Meets WWC standards without reservations.

Full Report

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
13
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Alvarez, A. (1973). A Token Economy: The Use of Positive Reinforcement and Extinction in Reducing Aggressive Behavior in the Classroom of the Socially Maladjusted Child. (Master’s Thesis). Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT EP12315).

Ayllon, T. & Roberts, M. D. (1974). Eliminating Discipline Problems by Strengthening Academic Performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 71-76.

Breyer, N. L. & Allen, G. J. (1975). Effects of Implementing a Token Economy on Teacher Attending Behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 373-380.

Drege, P. & Beare, P. L. (1991). The Effect of a Token Reinforcement System with a Time-Out Backup Consequence on the Classroom Behavior of E/BD Students. Journal of Special Education, 15, 39-46.

Hewett, F. M., Taylor, F. D., & Artuso, A. A. (1969). The Santa Monica Project: Evaluation of an Engineered Classroom Design with Emotionally Disturbed Children. Exceptional Children, 35, 523-529.

Higgins, J. W., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2001). The Effects of a Token Economy Employing Instructional Consequences for a Third-Grade Student with Learning Disabilities: A Data-Based Case Study. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 99-106.

Kirk, J. A. (2009). A Comparison of Traditional and Function-Based Token Systems. (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3340241).

Klimas, A. & Mclaughlin, T. F. (2007). The Effects of a Token Economy System to Improve Social and Academic Behavior with a Rural Primary Aged Child with Disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 22, 72-77.

Maglio, C. & McLaughlin, T. F. (1981). Effects of a Token Reinforcement System and Teacher Attention in Reducing Inappropriate Verbalizations with a Junior High School Student. Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 27, 140-145.

Nevin, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of Group and Individual Contingencies on Academic Performance and Social Relations of Special Needs Students. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 41-59.

O'Leary, K. D. & Becker, W. C. (1967). Behavior Modification of an Adjustment Class: A Token Reinforcement Program. Exceptional Children, 9, 637-642.

O'Leary, K. D., Drabman, R. S., & Kass, R. E. (1973). Maintenance of Appropriate Behavior in a Token Program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1, 127-138.

Ward-Maguire, P. R. (2008). Increasing On-Task Behavior and Assignment Completion of High School Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of South Dakota, Vermillion.

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.