Group Contingency
Study: Kowalewicz & Coffee (2014)

Summary

Video self-modeling is an intervention procedure that is based on the behavioral concepts of observational learning and imitation training. That is, individuals often learn through observing the others complete a task and then imitating those behaviors or skills. Those imitations are subsequently maintained thorough increased access to positive outcomes (or reinforcement) or through avoiding or delaying the occurrence of negative outcomes (or punishment). For some students, such as those with disabilities, it can be useful to make the process of observational learning, imitation, and reinforcement more explicit. As such, video self-modeling provides an opportunity for the individual to serve as their own model by performing the behavior or skill that is targeted and subsequently accessing reinforcement either naturally or through planned means (e.g., giving the student a reward). The effectiveness of video modeling lies in the ability of the individual to perform and imitate the target behavior as well as come in contact with reinforcement to increase the likelihood that the behavior will be repeated.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Target Populations:
  • Students with disabilities only
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Noncompliance
  • High Levels of Disengagement
  • Disruptive Behavior
Where to Obtain:
N/A
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

Because the intervention is non-branded there is little to no cost for the program beyond the materials.

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:
Training not required


Despite the non-branded nature of the group contingency, there are program manuals available for purchase. Probably the most well know of these is the PAX Good Behavior Game manual which has undergone field testing. For the current purposes, the PAX specific research will not be reviewed given the emphasis here on non-branded research for the intervention framework. However, research on the non-branded Good Behavior Game intervention will be presented given that it is among the most commonly researched intervention programs irrespective of the PAX branding.

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:
15
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
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:

Video self-modeling is an intervention procedure that is based on the behavioral concepts of observational learning and imitation training. That is, individuals often learn through observing the others complete a task and then imitating those behaviors or skills. Those imitations are subsequently maintained thorough increased access to positive outcomes (or reinforcement) or through avoiding or delaying the occurrence of negative outcomes (or punishment). For some students, such as those with disabilities, it can be useful to make the process of observational learning, imitation, and reinforcement more explicit. As such, video self-modeling provides an opportunity for the individual to serve as their own model by performing the behavior or skill that is targeted and subsequently accessing reinforcement either naturally or through planned means (e.g., giving the student a reward). The effectiveness of video modeling lies in the ability of the individual to perform and imitate the target behavior as well as come in contact with reinforcement to increase the likelihood that the behavior will be repeated.

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
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not 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

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
selected Noncompliance
selected High Levels of Disengagement
selected Disruptive Behavior
not 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
Phone Number
Website

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)

Because the intervention is non-branded there is little to no cost for the program beyond the materials.

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?

   2-25

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
15
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
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?
No
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
Free

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Training is not required.

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:

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:
Despite the non-branded nature of the group contingency, there are program manuals available for purchase. Probably the most well know of these is the PAX Good Behavior Game manual which has undergone field testing. For the current purposes, the PAX specific research will not be reviewed given the emphasis here on non-branded research for the intervention framework. However, research on the non-branded Good Behavior Game intervention will be presented given that it is among the most commonly researched intervention programs irrespective of the PAX branding.

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.

Donaldson, J. M., Vollmer, T. R., Krous, T., Downs, S., & Berard, K. P. (2011). An evaluation of the good behavior game in kindergarten classrooms. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 44(3), 605-609.

 

Kleinman, K. E., & Saigh, P. A. (2011). The effects of the Good Behavior Game on the conduct of regular education New York City high school students. Behavior Modification, 35(1), 95-105

 

Kowalewicz, E. A., & Coffee, G. (2014). Mystery Motivator: A Tier 1 classroom behavioral intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 138.

 

Lambert, A. M., Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling, H. E., Dufrene, B. A., & Lynne, S. (2015). Effects of Tootling on Classwide Disruptive and Appropriate Behavior of Upper-Elementary Students. Behavior modification, 39(3), 413-430.

 

Ling, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Weber, D. (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.

 

Maggin, D. M., Fallon, L. M., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Ruberto, L. M. (2012). Training paraeducators to implement a group contingency protocol: Direct and collateral effects. Behavioral Disorders, 18-37.

 

Rodriguez, B. J., & Anderson, C. M. (2013). Integrating a social behavior intervention during small group academic instruction using a total group criterion intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1098300713492858.

 

Wright, R. A., & McCurdy, B. L. (2011). Classwide Positive Behavior Support and group contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1098300711421008.

Study Information

Study Citations

Kowalewicz, E. A. & Coffee, G. (2014). Mystery motivator: A Tier 1 Classroom Behavioral Intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, (29) 138-

Participants Empty Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
The students were selected based on their enrollment in a classroom with high rates of disruptive behavior. Baseline data confirmed that these were issues.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):
Half of the classrooms contained students with a behavior support plan. There is no indication of whether these students had a formal designation of EBD.

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 research design was an ABAB withdrawal design with the “A” phases providing a baseline and compared with “B” phases in which the intervention was implemented. Moreover, the authors used embedded changing criterions. This design was implemented in all classrooms.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:
The group contingency consisted of explicitly teaching the behavioral goals to the class through a formal lesson; researcher introducing the intervention to the class and describing the process of earning rewards; and implementing the mystery motivator portion of the intervention. The mystery motivator was the process of randomly selecting a threshold number of rule violations for the class to stay under to earn the reward. Specifically, the teacher would select a threshold number and put it into an envelope which would be revealed after the class period.

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]):
It appears as though the instructional tasks did not vary from baseline to intervention and that the implementation of the group contingency procedures were the only difference.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)
The intervention effect was replicated through the ABAB design. The replication occurred from the initial baseline to the initial implementation of the group contingency and again in the next AB pairing.

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).
There were a total of three opportunities for the intervention effect to be demonstrated.

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

Fidelity of Implementation Full Bobble

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

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
24
Minimum group size
17
Maximum group size
31

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
45.00
Condition B
Weeks
2.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
45.00
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?
The intervention was implemented by the teachers though no additional information on their experience or training is provided.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Fidelity data was collected by observing teachers implement the intervention according to a procedural checklist.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
All teachers implemented the intervention in full.

Was the fidelity measure also used in baseline or comparison conditions?
No

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 Full 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 inspection was used to determine the overall effectiveness of the intervention for both on-task behaviors.

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.
The data across each of the classrooms is similar in the respect that there were initial elevated rates of disruptive behavior during baseline which were then reduced in level during baseline though there was only variable response to the change in criterion. The second baseline phases tended to be short (i.e., only two data points) but demonstrated a small increase in level. These levels dropped following the reimplementation of the intervention in the second baseline with generally small increases in the third baseline.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

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.