Fluent Essays

I need a literature review or a capstone project. i will provide articles and outline with purpose and hypothesis to work with. Feel free to add anymore that you think will fit with this literature reviewValeria Castano Literature Review Outline Introduction · Extension to Carnett et al. (2014) study · Study the effects of preservative interest based token economies on task behavior · Research is warranted to find the most effective method for on task behavior. · Carnett Amarie, Raulston Tracy, Lang Russell, Tostanoski Amy, Lee Allyson, Sigafoos Jeff, & Machalicek Wendy. (2014). Effects of a Perseverative Interest-Based Token Economy on Challenging and On-Task Behavior in a Child with Autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(3), 368–377. Body Token Economies · Doll, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Barretto, A. (2013). The token economy: A recent review and evaluation. International Journal of basic and applied science, 2(1), 131-149. · Hine, J. F., Ardoin, S. P., & Call, N. A. (2018). Token economies: Using basic experimental research to guide practical applications. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 48(3), 145-154. · Williamson, R. L., & McFadzen, C. (2020). Evaluating the Impact of Token Economy Methods on Student On-task Behaviour within an Inclusive Canadian Classroom. International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), 9(1), 1531-1541. · Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the Silence: Using a Token Economy to Reinforce Classroom Participation. Teaching of Psychology, 30(3), 224. Interests · Carnett Amarie, Raulston Tracy, Lang Russell, Tostanoski Amy, Lee Allyson, Sigafoos Jeff, & Machalicek Wendy. (2014). Effects of a Perseverative Interest-Based Token Economy on Challenging and On-Task Behavior in a Child with Autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(3), 368–377. · Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Haymes, L. K. (1998). Using objects of obsession as token reinforcers for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(3), 189-198. · Hirst, E. S. J., Dozier, C. L., & Payne, S. W. (2016). Efficacy of and preference for reinforcement and response cost in token economies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(2), 329. · Soares, D. A., Harrison, J. R., Vannest, K. J., & McClelland, S. S. (2016). Effect Size for Token Economy Use in Contemporary Classroom Settings: A Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research. School Psychology Review, 45(4), 379–399. Conclusion · Main findings: Studies have shown that including objects of interest in a clients token board will increase engagement. · This study replicates past research conducted by Carnett et al. (2014) but also extends it by using multiple participants. · The purpose of this study he purpose of this capstone is to extend the work of Carnett et al. (2014) and Charlop-Christy and Haymes (1998) and compare the effects of a token economy that does not include a child’s perseverative interest versus a token economy that includes the child’s perseverative interest on on-task behavior · I hypothesize that the token economy with the clients perseverative interest incorporated in the token economy will increase on task behavior. Breaking the Silence: Using a Token Economy to Reinforce Classroom Participation Kurt A. Boniecki Stacy Moore University of Central Arkansas We propose a procedure for increasing student participation, par- ticularly in large classes. The procedure establishes a token econ- omy in which students earn tokens for participation and then exchange those tokens for extra credit. We evaluated the effective- ness of the procedure by recording the degree of participation in an introductory psychology class before, during, and after implemen- tation of the token economy. Results revealed that the amount of di- rected and nondirected participation increased during the token economy and returned to baseline after removal of the token econ- omy. Furthermore, students responded faster to questions from the instructor during the token economy than during baseline, and this decrease in response latency continued even after removal of the to- ken economy. A considerable literature attests to the importance of ac- tive learning in which students engage and process course material rather than passively receive it (e.g., Benjamin, 1991; Bligh, 2000; Bonwell & Eison, 1991). One way instruc- tors can facilitate active learning is to challenge the class pe- riodically with relevant questions and encourage students to offer questions and comments. However, instructors may avoid this form of classroom interaction because of a phe- nomenon we call “the silence,” the uncomfortable time fol- lowing the instructor’s question when no one responds. The silence is a particular problem in large classes in which stu- dents feel relatively anonymous and are reluctant to partici- pate (McKeachie, 2002). Instructors can use a variety of techniques to combat the silence, such as waiting out the si- lence (Kendall, 1994), calling on students by name (Gurung, 2002), or initiating small group discussions (McKeachie, 2002). In this article, we present another method for break- ing the silence that is effective and easy to use, particularly in large classes. Our method relies on extra credit to reinforce participation. Other faculty have used extra credit as an incentive to improve exam performance (Junn, 1995; Nation & Bourgeois, 1978), read journal articles (Carkenord, 1994), seek writing assis- tance (Oley, 1992), demonstrate critical thinking (Junn, 1994), improve behavior modification projects (Barton, 1982), and avoid procrastination (Lloyd & Zylla, 1981; Powers, Edwards, & Hoehle, 1973). Our method creates a to- ken economy in which students earn tokens for participation. Immediately following participation, the instructor presents a token to the student. At the end of class, students exchange their tokens for extra credit toward their course grades. Hodge and Nelson (1991) also used reinforcement to shape classroom participation. In their study, the instructor wrote students’ initials on the board and placed plus marks next to the initials of students who exhibited the desireEffect Size for Token Economy Use in Contemporary Classroom Settings: A Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research Denise A. Soares University of Mississippi Judith R. Harrison Rutgers University Kimberly J. Vannest Texas A&M University Susan S. McClelland University of Mississippi Abstract. Recent meta-analyses of the effectiveness of token economies (TEs) report insufficient quality in the research or mixed effects in the results. This study examines the contemporary (post-Public Law 94-142) peer-reviewed published single-case research evaluating the effectiveness of TEs. The results are stratified across quality of demonstrated functional relationship using a nonparametric effect size (ES) that controls for undesirable baseline trends in the analysis. In addition, moderators (i.e., classroom setting, age of participant, outcomes, use of response cost, and use of verbal cueing) were analyzed. Eighty-eight AB phase contrasts were calculated from 28 studies (1980 –2014) representing 90 partici- pants and produced a weighted mean ES of 0.82 (SE � 0.03, 95\% CI [0.77, 0.88]). Strong quality produced a combined weighted mean ES of 0.85 (SE � 0.642, 95\% CI [0.74, 0.97]). Moderator analyses revealed that a TE was slightly more effective for youth between the ages of 6 and 15 years than for children between the ages of 3 and 5 years or when used with behavioral goals in comparison to academic goals. However, no difference was found when implemented in general or special education settings or with the inclusion of response cost or verbal cueing. A token economy (TE) is one of a hand- ful of interventions found in classroom set- tings. Based on the well-established principles of reinforcement described by Skinner (1931), a TE is a secondary reinforcement system (Alberto & Troutman, 2003), whereby inher- Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Denise A. Soares, University of Mississippi, P.O. Box 1848, 49 Guyton Drive University, MS 38677; e-mail: [email protected] Copyright 2016 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015, eISSN 2372-966x School Psychology Review, 2016, Volume 45, No. 4, pp. 379 –399 379 ently neutral items (i.e., tokens) are awarded for the demonstration of targeted behaviors. Tokens are accumulated and exchanged for backup reinforcers valued by the student (Ka- zdin, 1971; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). A TE has historically been considered a best-practices behavior management strategy for use in schools (Fil- check, McNeil, Greco, & Bernard, 2004; Mat- son & Boisjoli, 2009) and is one intervention frequently implemented within the positive behavioral interventions and supports frame- work. However, the emphasis on meta-ana- lytic thinking (see Maggin, Chafouleas, God- dard, & Johnson, 2011) that evolved after the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) and No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has provoked questions regarding itEvaluating the Impact of Token Economy Methods on Student On-task Behaviour within an Inclusive Canadian Classroom Robert L. Williamson, Chelsea McFadzen Simon Fraser University, Canada Abstract A token economy is a common classroom positive behaviour support method whereby ‘tokens’ are delivered to students contingent on exhibiting specific behaviours. Students later exchange earned tokens for items of interest. This project developed a prototype, iPad-based tool that enabled teachers to deliver and track tokens virtually. The virtual token economy system was then compared to implementation using a typical, physically delivered token economy method. Both methods were evaluated concerning their impact with regard to grade four-five student’s on-task behavior within one inclusive Canadian classroom using a multielement design. Individual impacts and group effects were analyzed using an analysis of variance with planned contrasts as well as visually utilizing single case methods to assess efficacy regarding each implementation method. Results indicated that only one significant difference for one individual subject was found between baseline (no token economy) and both token economy systems. No other significant differences were found between individual or group on-task behaviours nor between the baseline, physical and virtual methodologies overall. Implications regarding evidence that TEs represent evidence-based practice and suggestions for future research are discussed. 1. Introduction A token economy (TE) is a secondary reinforcement system of positive behaviour support whereby tokens (i.e., conditioned reinforcers) are delivered to students for exhibiting specific behaviours [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. These tokens represent a medium of exchange to be used by recipients to purchase desired goods or privileges from a menu of items [6, 2]. TE systems have been used in a variety of settings and over many decades within an academic environment [1, 2, 7]. Over a decade ago, TEs were identified by Simonsen and colleagues (2008) as meeting criteria for evidence-based practice and by the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures (1993) as a well-established psychological procedure. With a long history of use within academic and other settings, the TE has enjoyed a reputation as an evidence-based classroom behaviour management tool and has widely been considered effective in decreasing non-desired behaviours and increasing pro- academic behaviours in students [8, 9, 4, 7]. Studies have also shown that token economy systems have been used to increase on task behaviours and decrease non-desired behaviours [10, 11]. Some however, have questioned the assertion that the TE should be considered an evidence-based practice. Maggin, Chafouleas, Goddard and Johnson [12] conducted a systematic Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy (2018) 48:145–154 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-017-9376-5 O R I G I N A L PA P E R Token Economies: Using Basic Experimental Research to Guide Practical Applications Jeffrey F. Hine1 · Scott P. Ardoin2 · Nathan A. Call3 Published online: 12 December 2017 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017 Abstract This paper highlights the applicability of patterns seen within basic experimental research in relation to contemporary appli- cation of token economies. Token economies are one of the most widely used interventions to promote behavior change, and this procedure has evolved to be effective across many settings, behaviors, and individuals. Due to this widespread use, casual implementation of the token economy might result in inconsistencies in responding and therefore an overall skepti- cism in the procedure itself. We present multiple barriers that encumber practical application of token economies, including insufficient conditioning and pairing of tokens, determining quality of backup reinforcers, unforeseen effects of motivating operations, teaching the token exchange, effects of higher-order reinforcement schedules, ratio strain, and use of response cost procedures. To assist practitioners in implementing more effective treatments, for each barrier we revisit the often overlooked basic research involving features of conditioned reinforcement and reinforcement schedules. It is important to translate the often complex implications of basic research so that practitioners can use this information to improve their own practice as well as their confidence in disseminating use of this evidence-based treatment. To further guide practitioners in using this knowledge in everyday settings, we also provide recommendations specific to each barrier as well as relevant applied research and practical examples. Keywords Token economy · Conditioned reinforcement · Applied behavior analysis Introduction Since first proposed by Ayllon and Azrin (1968) and subse- quently refined by Kazdin (1977), the use of token econo- mies has become one of the most venerable and widespread applied interventions for producing behavior change (Kazdin 1982; Matson and Boisjoli 2009). Given this widespread use and effectiveness across settings, many practitioners (i.e., psychologists, teachers, and applied behavior analysts) may have a general understanding of the procedures behind establishing a token economy. Although there may be some differences in the specifics of establishing a token economy (e.g., Drabman and Tucker 1974; Miltenberger 2008), there seems to be general consensus that establishing an effec- tive token economy should at least include: (1) identifying and operationally defining appropriate target behaviors; (2) selecting appropriate tokens (e.g., durable, engaging, indi- vidualized); (3) identifying backup reinforcers (e.g., primary reinforceO R I G I N A L P A P E R Effects of a Perseverative Interest-Based Token Economy on Challenging and On-Task Behavior in a Child with Autism Amarie Carnett • Tracy Raulston • Russell Lang • Amy Tostanoski • Allyson Lee • Jeff Sigafoos • Wendy Machalicek Published online: 19 March 2014 � Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Abstract We compared the effects of a token economy intervention that either did or did not include the perseverative interests of a 7-year-old boy with autism. An alternating treatment design revealed that the perseverative interest-based tokens were more effective at decreasing challenging behavior and increasing on-task behavior than tokens absent the perseverative interest during an early literacy activity. The beneficial effects were then replicated in the child’s classroom. The results suggest that perseverative interest-based tokens might enhance the effec- tiveness of interventions based on token economies. Keywords Autism � Perseverative interest � Token economy � Challenging behavior � Alternating treatment design A. Carnett (&) � J. Sigafoos Victoria University of Wellington, Karori Campus, PO Box 17-310, Wellington, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] T. Raulston � W. Machalicek University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA R. Lang � A. Lee Clinic for Autism Research Evaluation and Support, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA R. Lang Meadows Center for the Prevention of Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA A. Tostanoski Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA 123 J Behav Educ (2014) 23:368–377 DOI 10.1007/s10864-014-9195-7 Introduction Token economy interventions involve delivering small tangibles (e.g., tokens) contingent on the presence or absence of target behaviors and then providing an opportunity to exchange a preset number of these tokens for backup reinforcers. Previous research has demonstrated that behaviors can be established, decreased, and/or maintained using token economy systems (Hackenberg 2009; Matson and Boisjoli 2009). Research has also investigated several variations of this intervention including the use of a response cost (i.e., losing tokens for inappropriate behavior), pairing tokens with praise, and delivering tokens on a variety of intermittent reinforcement schedules. These variables have been shown to influence the effectiveness of token economy interventions in some cases (Maggin et al. 2011; Matson and Boisjoli 2009; Mottram and Berger-Gross 2004). One aspect of the token economy that has received relatively little attention is the token itself. Traditionally, tokens are considered to be neutral stimuli (e.g., tickets) that gain reinforcing power by being paired with the backup reinforcers. Charlop- Christy and Haymes (1998) investigated the effectiveness of incorporating the idiosyncratic perseverative interests of children with autism within tokens in an effort to increase the reinforcing power131 The Token Economy: A Recent Review and Evaluation Christopher Doll 1 ; T. F. McLaughlin 2 ; Anjali Barretto 3 1 Gonzaga University, East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025, USA [email protected] 2 Gonzaga University, East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025, USA [email protected] 3 Gonzaga University, East 502 Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258-0025, USA bar[email protected] Abstract – This article presents a recent and inclusive review of the use of token economies in various environments (schools, home, etc.). Digital and manual searches were carried using the following databases: Google Scholar, Psych Info (EBSCO), and The Web of Knowledge. The search terms included: token economy, token systems, token reinforcement, behavior modification, classroom management, operant conditioning, animal behavior, token literature reviews, and token economy concerns. The criteria for inclusion were studies that implemented token economies in settings where academics were assessed. Token economies have been extensively implemented and evaluated in the past. Few articles in the peer- reviewed literature were found being published recently. While token economy reviews have occurred historically (Kazdin, 1972, 1977, 1982), there has been no recent overview of the research. During the previous several years, token economies in relation to certain disorders have been analyzed and reviewed; however, a recent review of token economies as a field of study has not been carried out. The purpose of this literature review was to produce a recent review and evaluation on the research of token economies across settings. Key Words – Digital Search; Future Research; Literature Review; Research; Token Programs 1 Introduction This article presents a recent and inclusive review of the use of token economies in various settings. Digital and manual searches were carried using the following databases: Google Scholar, Psych Info (EBSCO), and The Web of Knowledge. The search terms included: token economy, token systems, token reinforcement, behavior modification, classroom management, operant conditioning, animal behavior, token literature reviews, and token economy concerns. The criteria for inclusion were studies that implemented token economies in settings where academics were assessed. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 02, No. 01, July 2013, pp. 131-149 Doll, et. al. 132 Insan Akademika Publications 2 History of Token Systems Token systems, in one form or another, have been used for centuries and have evolved notably to systems used today. Clay coins, which people could earn and exchange for goods and services, in the early agricultural societies were part of the transition from simple barter systems to more complex economies (Schmandt-Besserat, 1992). Before that, however, incentives- based structuEFFICACY OF AND PREFERENCE FOR REINFORCEMENT AND RESPONSE COST IN TOKEN ECONOMIES ERICA S. JOWETT HIRST SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CLAUDIA L. DOZIER UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS AND STEVEN W. PAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Researchers have shown that both differential reinforcement and response cost within token economies are similarly effective for changing the behavior of individuals in a group context (e.g., Donaldson, DeLeon, Fisher, & Kahng, 2014; Iwata & Bailey, 1974). In addition, these researchers have empirically evaluated preference for these procedures. However, few previous studies have evaluated the individual effects of these procedures both in group contexts and in the absence of peers. Therefore, we replicated and extended previous research by determining the individual effects and preferences of differential reinforcement and response cost under both group and individualized conditions. Results demonstrated that the procedures were equally effective for increasing on-task behavior during group and individual instruction for most chil- dren, and preference varied across participants. In addition, results were consistent across partici- pants who experienced the procedures in group and individualized settings. Key words: differential reinforcement, independent group contingency, preference, response cost, token economy The token economy is a common behavioral intervention that has been demonstrated to be effective for increasing appropriate behavior and decreasing inappropriate behavior for many populations across different settings (Doll, McLaughlin, & Barretto, 2013; Hackenberg, 2009; Kazdin, 1977). Token economies involve delivery, removal, or both delivery and removal of conditioned reinforcers (e.g., tokens and points) that can be exchanged for back-up rein- forcers (e.g., prizes, treats, and leisure activ- ities). When tokens are delivered contingent on appropriate behavior or for the absence of inap- propriate behavior, these procedures are termed differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) or differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), respectively. When tokens are removed contingent on inappropriate behavior or for the absence of appropriate behavior, this procedure is termed response cost (RC). An advantage of token economies is that they can be implemented with a group of indi- viduals as a general behavior-management strat- egy during small-group instruction or as a classwide intervention. Classwide behavior- management strategies such as token economies should be considered to address minor disrup- tive behavior, to increase motivation for learn- ing, or as a complement to an individualized intervention. However, general behavior- management strategies may not be effective in isolation for some individuals who engage in severe problem behavior or have more intense Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Claudia L. Dozier, Department of Applied Behavioral Science, Unive