A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior

• Published in: Journal of school psychology Vol. 50; no. 5; pp. 625 - 654
• Main Authors: Maggin, Daniel M., Johnson, Austin H., Chafouleas, Sandra M., Ruberto, Laura M., Berggren, Melissa
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Ltd 01.10.2012; Elsevier
• Subjects: Behavior Problems; Child; Child Behavior Disorders - psychology; Child Behavior Disorders - therapy; Classroom behaviour; Classroom management; Classroom Techniques; Coding; Contingencies; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Evaluation Methods; Evidence; Evidence based research; Evidence-based practice; Group contingency; Humans; Intervention; Interventions; Least-Squares Analysis; Literature Reviews; Outcomes of Treatment; Psychology, Educational - methods; Quantitative synthesis; Replication (Evaluation); Research Reports; School based; Schools - organization & administration; Single-subject; Statistical Analysis; Student Behavior; Students - psychology; Synthesis; Systematic review; Classroom management; Systematic review; Quantitative synthesis; Group contingency; Single-subject; Evidence-based practice
• ISSN: 0022-4405; 1873-3506; 1873-3506
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.06.001

The purpose of this review was to synthesize the research underlying group contingency interventions to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support their use for managing the classroom behavior of students with behavioral difficulties. An application of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) procedures for evaluating single-subject research revealed that the research investigating group contingencies demonstrated sufficient rigor, evidence, and replication to label the intervention as evidence-based. These findings were further supported across five quantitative indices of treatment effect. The results associated with the application of the WWC procedures and quantitative evaluations were supplemented with additional systematic coding of methodological features and study characteristics to evaluate the populations and conditions under which the effects of the group contingency best generalize. Findings associated with this coding revealed that the lack of detailed reporting across studies limited our ability to determine for whom and under what conditions group contingencies are best suited.