Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 75–100 | Cite as

The Effects of Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) on Students’ Prosocial Classroom Behaviors

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Students with challenging, disruptive behavior have difficulty learning in school, and their behavior adversely impacts the learning of other students and the classroom teacher. Class-Wide Function-related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) is an evidence-based approach that teachers can use to prevent and reduce problem behavior and increase prosocial classroom behaviors. Previous studies have demonstrated that CW-FIT produced improvements in student appropriate classroom behaviors which led to increased available instruction time. The purpose of this investigation was to systematically replicate CW-FIT adding to the empirical research base supporting it. A novel aspect compared to prior studies was measurement of the student behaviors related to skills taught during CW-FIT (compliance, hand-raising, out-of-seat, and talking out), showing a direct relationship to students’ improvements. Students in four classes and their teachers participated in this study. An ABAB reversal design was used to demonstrate intervention effectiveness and experimental control. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Classroom management for students with behavioral risks Prosocial skills 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research was funded by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Department of Education (H324X010011). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the funding agency. We gratefully acknowledge the participating teachers, students, and families for their time and ongoing support.

References

  1. Babyak, A. E., Luze, J. L., & Kamps, D. M. (2000). The good student game: Behavior management for diverse classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Cashwell, T. H., Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (2001). Increasing second-grade students’ reports of peers’ prosocial behaviors via direct instruction, group reinforcement, and progress feedback: A replication and extension. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 161–175.Google Scholar
  4. Christ, T. J., & Christ, J. A. (2006). Application of an interdependent group contingency mediated by an automated feedback device: An intervention across three high school classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 78–90.Google Scholar
  5. Coogan, B. A., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2007). Group contingencies, randomization of reinforcers, and criteria for reinforcement, self-monitoring, and peer feedback on reducing inappropriate classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 540–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darch, C. B., & Thorpe, H. W. (1977). The principal game: A group consequence procedure to increase classroom on-task behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 14, 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies, S., & Witte, R. (2000). Self-management and peer-monitoring within a group contingency to decrease uncontrolled verbalizations of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Embry, D. E. (2002). The good behavior game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 273–297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein, M., Atkins, M., Cullinan, D., Kutash, K., & Weaver, R. (2008). Reducing behavior problems in the elementary school classroom: A practice guide (NCEE #2008–012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides.
  10. Ervin, R. A., Radford, P. M., Bertsch, K., Piper, A. L., Ehrhardt, K. E., & Poling, A. (2001). A descriptive analysis and critique of the empirical literature on school-based functional assessment. School Psychology Review, 30, 193–210.Google Scholar
  11. Graziano, C. (2005). School’s out. Edutopia, February/March, 40–44.Google Scholar
  12. Greenwood, C. R., Horner, R. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2008). In C. R. Greenwood, T. R. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. Journal of Special Education, 16, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanley, G., Iwata, B., & McCord, B. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison, J. R., Vannest, K., Davis, J., & Reynolds, C. (2012). Common problem behaviors of children and adolescents in general education classrooms in the United States. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20(1), 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Evaluation of a targeted intervention within a schoolwide system of behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacob, B. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. Excellence in the Classroom, 17(1), 129–153.Google Scholar
  19. Kamps, D., Conklin, C., & Wills, H. (2015a). Use of self-management with the CW-FIT group contingency program. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamps, D., Wendland, M., & Culpepper, M. (2006). Active teacher participation in functional behavior assessment for students with emotional and behavioral disorders risks in general education classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 128–146.Google Scholar
  21. Kamps, D., Wills, H., Bannister, H., Heitzman-Powell, L., Kottwitz, E., Hansen, B., & Fleming, K. (2015b). Class-wide function-related intervention teams “CW-FIT” efficacy trial outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. doi: 10.1177/1098300714565244.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamps, D., Wills, H., Heitzman-Powell, L., Laylin, J., Szoke, C., Hobohm, T., & Culey, A. (2010). Class-wide function-based intervention teams: Effects of group contingency programs in urban classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Components of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis, T. J., Powers, L. J., Kelk, M. J., & Newcomb, L. L. (2002). Reducing problem behavior on the playground: An investigation of the application of schoolwide positive supports. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Litrow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). Brief technical report: A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd, J. W., Eberhardt, M. J., & Drake, G. P. (1996). Group versus individual reinforcement contingencies within the context of group study conditions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 189–200.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lohrmann, S., & Talerico, J. (2004). Anchor the boat. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maggin, D., Johnson, A., Chafouleas, S., Ruberto, L., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 625–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McComas, J. J., Goddard, C., & Hoch, H. (2002). The effects of preferred activities during academic work breaks on-task engagement and negatively reinforced destructive behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 103–112.Google Scholar
  32. Mitchem, K. J., Young, K. R., West, R. P., & Benyo, J. (2001). CWPASM: A classwide peer-assisted self-management program for general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 111–140.Google Scholar
  33. Patrick, C. A., Ward, P., & Crouch, W. D. (1998). Effects of holding students accountable for social behaviors during volleyball games in elementary physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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, 271–284.Google Scholar
  35. Repp, A., Deitz, D., Boles, S., Deitz, S., & Repp, C. (1996). Differences among common methods for calculating interobserver agreement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rhode, G., Jensen, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1992). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  37. Robertshaw, C. S., & Hiebert, H. D. (1973). The astronaut game: A group contingency applied to a first grade classroom. School Applications of Learning Theory, 6, 28–33.Google Scholar
  38. Salend, S. J., & Lamb, E. A. (1989). Effectiveness of a group-managed interdependent contingency system. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schanding, G. T., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2010). Use of the mystery motivator for a high school class. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharp, S. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Using interdependent group contingencies with randomized selected criteria and paired reading to enhance class-wide reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 30, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skinner, C. H., Cashwell, T. H., & Skinner, A. L. (2000). Increasing tootling: The effects of a peer-monitored group contingency program on students’ reports of peers’ prosocial behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. The School Psychology Review, 26, 333–368.Google Scholar
  44. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245–259.Google Scholar
  45. Sulzer-Azeroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  46. Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of behavior-specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Swain, J. J., Allard, G. B., & Holborn, S. W. (1982). The good toothbrushing game: A school-based dental hygiene program for increasing the toothbrushing effectiveness of children. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 15, 171–176.Google Scholar
  48. Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. B., Kehle, T. J., & Jenson, W. R. (2001). Randomization of group contingencies and reinforcers to reduce classroom disruptive behaviors. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas, J. R., Lee, A. R., McGee, L., & Silverman, S. (1987). Effects of individual and group contingencies on disruptive playground behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 66–76.Google Scholar
  50. Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The good behavior game: 1969 to 2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Trevino-Maack, S., Kamps, D., & Wills, H. P. (2014). A group contingency plus self-management intervention targeting at-risk secondary students’ class-work and active responding. Remedial and Special Education. doi: 10.1177/0741932514561865.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker, H., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  53. Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1991). Systematic screening for behavior disorders: SSBD. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  54. Weeden, M., Wills, H., Kamps, D., & Kottwitz, E. (in press). The effects of the class-wide function-related intervention team (CW-FIT) program on the on-task behavior of children with emotional behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders.Google Scholar
  55. Williamson, B. D., Campbell- Whatley, G. D., & Lo, Y. (2009). Using a random dependent group contingency to increase on-task behaviors of high school students with high incidence disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 1074–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wills, H. P., Kamps, D., Hansen, B. D., Conklin, C., Bellinger, S., Neaderhiser, J., & Nsubuga, B. (2010). The class-wide function-based intervention team (CW-FIT) program. Preventing School Failure, 54, 154–171.Google Scholar
  57. Wills, H., Shumate, E., Iwaszuk, W., & Kamps, D. (2014). CW-FIT: Group contingency effects across the day. Education and Treatment of Children, 37, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolf, M. (1978). Social validity: the case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Behavioral Education Services and TrainingLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.Juniper Gardens Children’s ProjectUniversity of KansasKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations