Week 9 Article Review

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.

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.

170 A. R. Cavalier, R. P. Ferretti, and A. E. Hodges

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

Self-Management and Token Economy 171

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

172 A. R. Cavalier, R. P. Ferretti, and A. E. Hodges

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

Self-Management and Token Economy 173

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-

174 A. R. Cavalier, R. P. Ferretti, and A. E. Hodges

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

Self-Management and Token Economy 175

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

Self-Management and Token Economy 177

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.

178 A. R. Cavalier, R. P. Ferretti, and A. E. Hodges

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