Beth

Montick
SPED 730: Characteristics, Methods, and Assessment: Introduction to Struggling
Learners & Students with High-Incidence Disabilities
Evidence-Based Practice Assignment


Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent
group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. The Journal of Special
Education, 16(1), 101-110.

In the article, Interdependent, Dependent, and Independent Group

Contingencies for Controlling Disruptive Behavior, Gresham and Gresham (1982)

compare three types of group-oriented contingency systems. This article is one of

the core research articles that support the use of group contingencies as an

evidence-based practice in the field of behavior analysis. The three group

contingency systems that they compared are: interdependent, dependent, and

independent systems. For interdependent group contingencies, the same

contingency is in effect for all members of the group and all members of the group

must meet the contingency before members of the group receive reinforcement.

The dependent group contingency is when reinforcement for the group is

dependent on an individual student or small group of students. For independent

group contingencies, the same contingency is in effect for all group members but

reinforcement for each individual is not dependent on any other group members

behavior.

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the three types of

group contingencies for management of disruptive behaviors in a self-contained

special education classroom. The participants in this study were 12 students with

cognitive disabilities in a self-contained special education classroom. They ranged

in age from 6 to 10 years of age, with IQs ranging between 45 and 68. The
Beth Montick
SPED 730: Characteristics, Methods, and Assessment: Introduction to Struggling
Learners & Students with High-Incidence Disabilities
Evidence-Based Practice Assignment

disruptive behaviors that were being targeted during the intervention were defined

as: talking out out of seat, aggression (verbal and physical), and throwing objects. A

teachers assistant and a student teacher were the observers who collected data on

disruptive behavior throughout the course of the study. These individuals received

training on the specific behavioral definitions for the disruptive behaviors and how

to take data on them. Data were collected during two 30-minute observation

periods per day.

The experimental design that Gresham and Gresham used was an ABCDABCD

reversal design that included a baseline condition and three experimental

conditions, one for each type of group contingency. The experiment was in effect for

8 school weeks, with each phase lasting for 5 days. For the baseline phase, no

contingencies were in effect for the group and data were collected on the classs

disruptive behavior in the absence of the group contingency. For the

interdependent contingency condition, the class was divided into two teams. The

team with the fewer number of disruptive behaviors would earn the reinforcement

for that day. Criteria was set that neither team could earn reinforcement if they

engaged in more than 5 disruptive behaviors and both teams could earn

reinforcement in the event of a tie. For the dependent contingency condition, the

two children who exhibited the most frequent disruptive behavior during the

baseline phase were made team captains. Group reinforcement for the teams was

contingent upon the disruptive behavior of each team captain. Though only the

team captains behavior was dependent for reinforcement, data on the frequency of
Beth Montick
SPED 730: Characteristics, Methods, and Assessment: Introduction to Struggling
Learners & Students with High-Incidence Disabilities
Evidence-Based Practice Assignment

disruptive behavior for the whole class continued to be collected. For the

independent contingency, the student with the lowest number of disruptive

behaviors received the reinforcement. If a tie occurred, all children at that number

received the reinforcement.

The results indicated that the interdependent and dependent group

contingency systems had the lowest rates of disruptive behavior, both with all data

points below baseline levels. In the reversal design, when baseline conditions were

reintroduced, frequency of disruptive behavior returned to similar levels as the

initial baseline phase. The researchers hypothesized that the structure of the

independent group contingency may have led to higher levels of disruptive behavior

since only one member of the class received reinforcement. For example, if the

students with the lowest had 0 disruptive behaviors, a student who had only 1

disruptive behavior would not receive reinforcement.

Group contingencies are often used in classroom management for both

general education and special education students. This study was completed in

1982 and while there are still the three main types of group contingencies, many

variations of these contingencies have evolved. Group contingencies can serve as

valuable positive behavior procedures to address classroom management of

behavior. If a group member continues to engage in challenging behavior or

consistently does not meet the criterion to receive reinforcement, then it may be

necessary to implement a more intensive intervention for this student. Also, it is

Beth Montick
SPED 730: Characteristics, Methods, and Assessment: Introduction to Struggling
Learners & Students with High-Incidence Disabilities
Evidence-Based Practice Assignment

imperative to continue to take data on the behaviors to ensure that the intervention

is effective for the group.