You are to write a minimum of a 3-5 page double spaced, 12 point font (minimum) summary of the following article Gresham & Gresham (1982)
Article summary-Gresham & Gresham (1982)
In an aim to compare the effectiveness of utilizing different group contingencies systems, two researchers Frank M. Gresham and Gwenyth N. Gresham carried out a dynamic research to modify classroom behaviors. The children under investigation were educable mentally retarded (EMR), and they were in a self-contained classroom setting. In this study, Gresham and Gresham utilized the ABCABCD reversal technique to change the children’s undesired behavior. The article reveals that group contingencies have been used in other studies, and they have proven to be effective in reducing bad behavior-Gresham & Gresham (1982).
The inventors of this technique, Litow and Pumroy categorized group contingency into interdependent, dependent, and independent (Gresham & Gresham, 1982, p. 102). Interdependent contingencies are where a similar response is required for the entire team, and the reinforcement is made contingent for the whole group. The dependent contingency is a situation where reinforcement is given based on the performance of a selected few in a group. The independent group contingency is a system where the reinforcement is contingent on each member’s performance, and the reinforcement is dependent on individual performance Gresham & Gresham (1982).
Types of Subjects/Settings
The research took place in a suburban elementary school. The children were 12 in total and were educable mentally retarded (EMR). Their ages ranged from 6 to 10 years. It was recorded that they had an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 45 to 68. 10 among the 12 children had been in the class for almost a year prior to the study. In the class, there were three staff, who included; A master graduate teacher, assistant teacher, and the student teacher (Gresham, & Gresham, 1982, p.103). A token economy had been implemented for a duration of 18 months, but was withdrawn to pave way for the study.
Behavioral Definitions/Observational Methods-Gresham & Gresham (1982)
Disruptive behavior is an occurrence of undesired conduct that can be characterized by verbal or physical aggression. For this study, Gresham and Gresham noted that the children conversed without permission. In addition, they engaged in pulling of hair, throwing objects, laughing inappropriately and being out of the seat. The study began by using the coding sheets. On the worksheet, the mentioned behaviors were typed horizontally while the children’s names were typed vertically.
This technique would help in estimating the frequency and dormancy of each behavior. The teachers would be the observers, and they were trained for five days to help them comprehend the behavioral definitions and the observation codes. The observation was collected during the non-instructional class period for 30 minutes in the morning and afternoon. This summed the observational time to 1 hour daily (Gresham, & Gresham, 1982, p. 103). The reliability checks were done on each phase of the study and it resulted in 16 reliability checks for the entire study.
Interobserver agreement was calculated by arranging each observation frequency and dividing the small recorded observation frequency and the larger frequency, and multiplying by 100 in Gresham & Gresham (1982). This method is accurate in determining interobserver agreement for events data or frequency. The calculation ranged from 85 to 95 respectively.
Experimental conditions
The researchers noted that the ABCABCD reversal design faced a drawback. As stated in the journal, “although functional analysis is possible with this design, a drawback is that sequential ordering effects of treatment cannot be ruled out completely” (Gresham, & Gresham, 1982, p.104). However, they pushed through with this design to evaluate the efficiency of each contingency and also make it simple for the teachers to implement.
During this procedure, the impact of the contingencies was assessed in 8 experimental conditions. The conditions consisted of varied baselines depending on the contingency, such as interdependent 1&2, dependent 1&2, and independent 1&2. The conditions involved a of 5-day block of for each condition for a total experimental time frame of 40 days.
During the baseline 1, there were no contingencies utilized within the 5 days of study. During this period, 2 reliability checks were employed. The operation lasted for 5 days. The teacher grouped the students into teams and mentioned that the team with less accumulative disruptive behaviors would be awarded.
The other team, with more marks in disruptive behavior, would be engaging in work while the others were reinforced. If all the teams had more than five marks, both of them would not earn a reinforcer. If the team’s ties, they would all be given a reinforcement. During contingency 1, the most disruptive behaved captains were chosen in the teams (Gresham & Gresham, 1982, p.104).
This phase was a phase that depended on the captain’s behavior. If the captains behaved well, the team earned a reinforcement. During independent 1, students competed against each other for reinforcement. Students who earned less than four marks in disruptive behavior earned a reinforcement. In interdependent, dependent, and independent 2 similar strategy was implemented for 5 consecutive days.
Results
The results of the research showed that aggressive verbal and physical behavior reduced during the interdependent and dependent group-contingency phases. As elaborated in table 1, different teams earned a reinforcement of 8 out of 10 days during the interdependent phase. When the dependent phase was implemented one group received reinforcement for 7 days out of 10 days.
Interdependent and dependent phases resulted in a 75% reinforcement in 20 days (Gresham & Gresham, 1982, p.105). In the interdependent phase, individual students received reinforcement for 6 days out of 10 days. However, only three of the students received reinforcement in the 10 days period. Averagely, only one student maintained their disruptive behavior for 3 days out of the 6 days.
Reference
Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior.