Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of Special Education
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gresham, F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gresham, G. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Gresham, F. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gresham, G. N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Interdependent, Dependent, and Independent Group Contingencies for Controlling Disruptive Behavior

Frank M. Gresham, Ph.D.

Louisiana State University

Gwenyth N. Gresham, M.Ed.

Heartland Education Agency, Ames, Iowa

Three group-oriented contingency systems (interdependent, dependent, and independent) were compared in a modified reversal design to evaluate each system's effectiveness in controlling the disruptive behavior of a self-contained classroom of educable mentally retarded children. Interpendent and dependent group-contingency systems were more effective than independent contingencies in controlling disruptive behavior. Sequential ordering of contingency phases did not allow one to completely rule out carry-over effects; however, it was unlikely that the independent contingency phases were rendered ineffective due to their positioning in the treatment sequences. The roles of group cooperation, peer reinforcement, and informational feedback in the success of group-oriented contingency systems are discussed.

The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, 101-110 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/002246698201600110
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav ModifHome page
D. H. Tingstrom, H. E. Sterling-Turner, and S. M. Wilczynski
The Good Behavior Game: 1969-2002
Behav Modif, March 1, 2006; 30(2): 225 - 253.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHHome page
N. A. Madden and R. E. Slavin
Mainstreaming Students with Mild Handicaps: Academic and Social Outcomes
Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1983; 53(4): 519 - 569.
[Abstract] [PDF]