Fluency, or the rate at which a student reads, is developed in the early stages of literacy and has been shown to correlate with comprehension. A myriad of interventions have been developed to increase fluency. Group contingencies are one of these that in particular have shown some positive effects on reading fluency. Advantages to using them are that they are practical, efficient, and economical for teachers to use when monitoring a target behavior. This investigation employs an alternating treatments design to compare the effectiveness of independent, interdependent, and dependent group contingencies with randomized reinforcers on reading fluency. The results reveal moderate effects of all three contingencies on measures of reading fluency. Group contingencies are an important and increasingly popular intervention; however, the choice of which contingency to use is based on the unique aspects of the classroom.
Barlow, D.H., & Hayes, S.C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199-210.
2.
Barlow, D.H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon.
3.
Bednar, R.L., Zelhart, P.F., Greathouse, L., & Weinberg, S. (1970). Operant conditioning principles in the treatment of learning and behavior problems with delinquent boys. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 492-497.
4.
Bray, M.A., & Kehle, T.J. (1996). Self-modeling as an intervention for stuttering . School Psychology Review, 25, 358-369.
5.
Busk, P.L., & Serlin, R.C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: Applications in psychology and education (pp. 187-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Daly, E.J., Martens, B.K., Hamler, K.R., Dool, E.J., & Eckert, T.L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83-94.
8.
Davis, P.K., & Blankenship, C.J. (1996). Group-oriented contingencies: Applications for community rehabilitation programs. Vocational Evaluation and Work AdjustmentBulletin, 29, 114-118.
9.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
10.
Elliott, S.N., Turco, T.L., & Gresham, F.M. (1987). Consumers' and clients' pretreatment acceptability ratings of classroom group contingencies. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 145-153.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1982). Developing goals and objectives for educational programs [Teaching Guide]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
12.
Gast, D.L., Thomas, C.C., & Tawney, J.W. (1984). Comparative intervention designs. In J. W. Tawney & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single subject research in special education (pp. 300-340). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
13.
Haring, N.G., & Hauck, M.A. (1969). Improved learning conditions in the establishment of reading skills with disabled readers. Exceptional Children , 35, 341-352.
14.
Kehle, T.J., Bray, M.A., Theodore, L.A., Jenson, W.R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 475-481.
15.
Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H.E., Henry, J.R., & Skinner, C.H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools , 37, 523-533.
16.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Litow, L., & Pumroy, D.K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347.
19.
Martens, B.K., Witt, J.C., Elliott, S.N., & Darveaux, D. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191-198.
20.
Popkin, J., & Skinner, C.H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 282-295.
Ruedebusch, J.D. (1979). Increase of oral reading rate through the use of group and individually contingent free time. DirectiveTeacher, 1, 6-7.
23.
Shapiro, E.S. (1996). Academic skills problems workbook. New York: Guilford.
24.
Shapiro, E.S., & Goldberg, R. (1986). A comparison of group contingencies for increasing spelling performance among sixth grade students. School Psychology Review, 15, 546-557.
25.
Skinner, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York : Knopf.
26.
Skinner, C.H., Cashwell, C.S., & Dunn, M.S. (1996). Independent and interdependent group contingencies: Smoothing the rough waters. Special Services in the Schools , 12, 61-78.
27.
Speltz, M.L., Shimamura, J.W., & McReynolds, W.T. (1982). Procedural variations in group contingencies: Effects on children's academic and social behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 533-544.
28.
Stewart, J.P., & McLaughlin, T.F. (1986). Effects of group and individual contingencies on reading performance with Native American junior high school students. Techniques: A Journal for Remedial Education and Counseling, 2, 133-144.
29.
Theodore, L.A., Bray, M.A., & Kehle, T.J. (2004). A comparative study of group contingencies and randomized reinforcers to reduce disruptive classroom behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 253-271.
