See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https:www .researchgate.ne tpublic ation304167796 [621124]

See discussions, st ats, and author pr ofiles f or this public ation at : https://www .researchgate.ne t/public ation/304167796
The use of beha vior specific praise and a token economy to increase on-task
beha vior for a male high school student: [anonimizat]'s syndrome (AS) and
ADHD: variable outcomes
Article · July 2016
CITATIONS
0READS
883
5 author s, including:
Some o f the author s of this public ation ar e also w orking on these r elat ed pr ojects:
Cop y, Co ver, and Comp are CCC View pr oject
Racetracks View pr oject
Jennif er Ne yman
Gonz aga Univ ersity
35 PUBLICA TIONS    79 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
T. F. McLaughlin
Gonz aga Univ ersity
316 PUBLICA TIONS    2,406 CITATIONS    
SEE PROFILE
All c ontent f ollo wing this p age was uplo aded b y T. F. McLaughlin on 21 June 2016.
The user has r equest ed enhanc ement of the do wnlo aded file.

~ 17 ~
WWJMRD 2016; 2(6): 17-25
www.wwjmrd.com
Impact Factor MJIF: 4.25
e-ISSN: 2454 -6615

Danielle L. Troup
Department of Special
Education Gonzaga University
Spokane, WA

Pauline Chung
Department of Special
Education Gonzaga University
Spokane, WA

Jennifer Neyman
Department of Special
Education Gonzaga University
Spokane, WA

T. F. McLaughlin
Department of Special
Education Gonzaga University
Spokane, WA

Heidi Schuler
Department of Special
Education Spokane Public
Schools Spokane, WA

Correspondence :
T. F. McLaughlin
Department of Special
Education Gonzaga University
Spokane, WA

The use of behavior specific praise and a token
economy to increase on -task behavior for a male high
school student: [anonimizat]’s syndrome (AS) and
ADHD: variable outcomes

Danielle L. Troup , Pauline Chung , Jennifer Neyman , T. F. McLaughlin ,
Heidi Schuler

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to increase on -task behavior using a token economy system paired with
positive teacher reinforcement in a high school student: [anonimizat]’s syndrome. Our
participant was a 15 -year-old ninth grade student: [anonimizat]’s Syndrome. The dependent variable
measured was the percent of on -task behavior across two academic periods of the school day. On -task
behavior was tallied usin g a partial interval recording system. After baseline, a token economy was
implemented. The token system was a leveled system where the more on -task that was noted, the
greater his reward. The overall outcomes indicated large increases in on -task behavi or. The procedures
were easy to implement and evaluate in a high school classroom setting.

Keywords: Token Economy, Behavior Disorders, High School, On Task Behavior

Introduction
Student: [anonimizat]
& Brandler, 1979). When a student: [anonimizat], including
engaging in off -task behaviors, it results in lower academic achievement. Students with low
academic success rates and low academic performance ar e at high risk of abandoning their
schooling and dropping out (Araque, Roldan, & Salguero, 2009). Dropping out of school is
not the only bleak outlook for these children with low academic performance and success,
they are also likely to be incarcerated, ha ve behavior problems, be unemployed, or have
substance abuse issues (Arvans, 2009).
Children who have Asperger’s syndrome (AS) can have general cognitive skills that are
preserved but often have deeply impaired social skills as a core feature of AS (Rao, B eidel,
& Murray, 2008). These impaired social skills permeate all area of academic, emotional and
social development. Likewise children with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD)
also have impaired academic skills because of a lack of the ability t o focus when necessary
(Barkley, 2014; Fowler, 2010). Not only do these disorders affect children singularly, but
when a child is born with multiple disabilities these disorders may exacerbate each other
(Kutscher, Attwood, & Wolff, 2006). Teachers and pa rents often have difficulty figuring out
what the problem is when two different diagnoses are present and this makes treating the
problems difficult for teachers.
Meeting the academic needs of students with ADHD can a lso be time consuming and taxing
for teachers (Barkley, 2014; Colberg, 2010). When trying to adapt classroom management
strategies to students with ADHD and/or AS in a general education classroom some teachers
find that these adaptations may negatively im pact the academic growth of other children in
the classroom. Teachers can often become frustrated with students who carry the ADHD
diagnosis because often that ADHD can be reduced with stimulant medication (Barkley,
2014) while Fowler, (2010) remains skept ic. Each child with ADHD will often respond to a
wide -range classroom treatments in different ways. This is important for educators to keep
in mind when working with such students with ADHD in the classroom. Students who are
diagnosed with Asperger’s syn drome often become overwhelmed with social skills training World Wide Journal of Multidiscip linary Research and Development

~ 18 ~
World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

and self -monitoring procedures (Simonsen, Little, &
Fairbanks, 2010). But this does little to address the
academic needs of students who represent a compounding
diagnosis of Asperger’s and ADHD.
Among research conducted in support of increasing on -task
behavior and decreasing problem behavior are two teacher
centered strategies: the delivery of teacher praise as
positive reinforcement of appropriate behaviors and
increasing the amount of opportuni ties the student in given
to respond (Moore -Partin, Robertson, Maggin, Oliver, &
Wehby, 2010). If large numbers of opportunities to respond
are already available to the student, then using a positive
reinforcement procedure becomes key to increasing on -task
behavior in students with multiple disabilities (Alberto &
Troutman, 2012; Crawford & McLaughlin, 1982; Shapiro,
2014). An additional teacher implemented procedure to
assist children with disabilities has been the use of behavior
specific praise when st udents are behaving appropriately
(Alberto & Troutman, 2012). The use of behavior specific
praise has been often paired with behaviors in an ongoing
token economy (Kazdin, 1977; McLaughlin, 1982;
McLaughlin & Williams, 1988) and has been
recommended for u se by teachers and parents (Evans et al.,
2013).
In addition a wide range of school -based interventions have
been employed to improve the on -task behavior of students
with ADHD or without ADHD (Crawford & McLaughlin,
1982; DuPaul, Eckert, & McGoey, 1997 ). These have
included self -monitoring (Edwards, Salant, Howard,
Brougher, & McLaughlin, 1995; Harding, Howard, &
McLaughlin, 1993; Stewart & McLaughlin, 1992; Willis,
Whalen, Sweeney, & McLaughlin 1995, token reward
systems (Kazdin, 1977; McLaughlin & Wi lliams, 1988;
Pfiffner & O’Leary, 1993; Pfiffner, Rosen, & O’Leary,
1985) and daily report card systems (Volpe & Fabiano,
2013). These interventions have been labeled evidence
based procedures for use in the school and home setting
(Evans, Owens, Reinicke , Brown, & Grove, 2013).
The purpose of this study was to increase on -task behavior
using a token economy system paired with behavior
specific praise for a high school student with ADHD and
Asperger’s syndrome. We wanted to assess the effects of
employing positive teacher praise with a token economy to
increase on -task behavior. A changing criterion was also
implemented as an additional consequence to begin to fade
the token program Finally we wanted to increase his on –
task behavior to increase overall acad emic performance and
decrease the chances of the participant leaving school.

Method
Participant and Setting
Our participant was a 15 -year-old ninth grade male. He was
born with Albinism; this condition limited the participant’s
vision to the point that he has been diagnosed as legally
blind. His vision abnormalities required him to wear
glasses, although refusal s to wear the glasses occurred
frequently. Our participant qualified for special education
under the category of multiple disabilities on his
Individualized Education Plan (IEP). He had been officially
diagnosed as having ADHD and AS. Also included in his
IEP was that the participant had been identified as attention
maintained when a functional behavioral assessment had
been carried out. His mother insisted that his IEP also
include her unofficial diagnosis that the participant was bipolar. Our participant was taking no medications for his
ADHD or any other medical issue. His IEP assessment
also indicated that our participant was two grade levels or
more behind in all critical academic areas: science, math,
reading, writing, and history.
The participant als o had little to no friends and he often ate
lunch at the outside corner of the school alone. Our
participant would be off -task a majority of the school day,
which led to his teachers’ suggestion that the first two
authors implement an intervention with thi s particular
student. The participant constantly probed other students
and faculty with questions that had nothing to do with the
task at hand. He often disrupted others while they were
working to ask these questions. Our participant was fixated
on movie making, movie ideas, and movies in general;
most of his questions stemmed from this fixation. The
participant would also play with his glasses, jewelry,
clothing, water bottles, or look off into space for extended
periods of time. According to his teachers and the
instructional assistants, the amount of time spent off -task
put his academic progress in jeopardy.
The setting for this study took place at a public high school
in the Pacific Northwest. About 41% of the students
qualified for free and reduced l unch. Data were taken by
the first two authors in two separate self -contained classes
for the students with behavior disorders, that our participant
attended each day. These were two consecutive 90 -minute
class periods that will be referred to as period A and period
B. This classroom has been employed in several research
projects involving the special education teacher education
candidates from the Department of Special Education and
the local school district (Carter, McLaughlin, Derby,
Everman, & Schuler, 2011; Doll, McLaughlin, Neyman, &
Schuler, 2013; LeBrun, Jones, Neyman, & Schuler, 2014;
Troup, McLaughlin, Neyman, & Schuler, 2014).
In period A, social and life skills were the content taught.
The classroom could be described as a quiet and relaxed
environment and was located directly across the hallway
from the office and next to the main doors that led outside.
Eight to ten students, on average, were present during this
period along with the one teacher and the two first two
authors. The room was set up in traditional classroom
fashion, with four rows of three desks and computers lining
the walls. The teacher’s office area was directly adjacent to
the door and this is where the first two authors sat to take
data. Our participant was often on the far s ide of the room
away from the first two authors, but was still in the line of
sight of the first two authors. The teacher maintained a
structured classroom with designated times for writing,
discussions, and independent work. The teacher and
classroom main tained throughout the research.
In period B, science was the content being taught. This
classroom could also be described as a relaxed environment
where independent work was encouraged. This classroom
was located in a room that could only be accessed by
walking though the library. Six to ten students, on average,
were present during this period along with the one teacher,
one instructional aide, and the two first two authors. The
room was set up in semi -traditional classroom fashion, with
two rows of three desks, a small table where two students
could sit and work, and computers lining the walls. The
teacher’s office area was to the right the door and this is
where the first two authors sat to take data. The participant
was often on the far side of the room away from the first

~ 19 ~
World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

two authors, but was still able to be observed by the first
two authors. The science teacher maintained a structured
classroom with an emphasis on independent work, but also
provided one -on-one assistance to students when needed.
The te acher and classroom maintained throughout the
research.

Materials The materials used in this study were
straightforward. A 6 second -interval recording system was
used. This was developed by the first two authors and used
for recording their own intervals on a playback device
which could be used with headphones while in the
classroom setting. A six -second data recording sheet
accompanied the recording; the data sheet can be located in
Figure 1. The first two authors used a daily point sheets for the partic ipant; see Figure 2. A total of five point sheets
were used throughout this study. The rewards our
participant received were mainly attention from the first
two authors; this was free. A $20 gift card was promised to
our participant if he was able to gain the maximum amount
of check marks per period. Our participant was also very
interested in movies, so a movie was brought in by the first
author for him to watch when he received the qualifying
amount of check marks. A piece of paper stating these
rewards w as printed out for our participant to sign and keep
with him as a reminder of the rewards to be earned (See
Figure 3). Reward sheets were altered once a fading
procedure was introduced, so a total of five reward sheets
were used.

Fig 1: Our data collection sheet.

Dependent Variable and Measurement
The dependent variable measured was the percent of on –
task behavior for our participant. On-task behaviors were
defined as engaging in one or more of the following
behaviors: sitting in his seat, looking at the teacher,
materials or the computer; working on an assignment, out
of his seat but following teacher directions, or raising his
hand wi thout talking. The behaviors identified that would
prevent our participant from being marked as on -task
would be: asking off topic questions, tapping his pen,
pencil, finger, glasses or magnifier, playing with his
glasses, clothing or accessories, being ou t of seat without
permission, interrupting other students while working,
staring off into space, or raising his hand while talking. Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement
A six -second interval recording system was used over a
total of two five -minute time periods, equaling one session,
to record the amount of on -task and off -task behaviors. The
two five -minute time periods’ results were then averaged
together to determine the total on -task percentage for the
entire session.
A whole and partial interva l system was used to record the
amount of on -task and off -task during each of the five –
minute time periods. The amount of on -task was recorded
using whole interval recording. This meant that in order for
our participant to be considered on -task he would ha ve had
to been on -task for the entire 6 -second interval on the data
recording sheet. The amount of off -task was recorded using
6 Second Whole & Partial Interval Recording
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
1ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
2ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
3ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
4ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
Total Off-Task Percentage:________ (# off-task/50)
Subjects Name: _____________ Session Number: _______________ Date: _______________
Session Name: ______________ Primary Data Collector: __________ Reliability Data Collector: ____________
On Task = Engaging in the following behaviors: sitting in his seat, looking at the teacher, materials the teacher is using, the computer current
assignment and when he is out of his seat but following direct teacher requests.
Off-Task =Asking off topic questions, tapping his pen, pencil, or finger(s), playing with his glasses, playing with his clothing or
accessories, being out of seat without permission, interrupting other students while they are working or not working on assignment.
Recording = Needs to be engaged in on-task behavior for the whole interval time of 6 seconds in order for it to be marked as "ON". If he exhibits
partial off-task behaviors at all during the 6 second interval then it needs to be marked as "off".
6 Second Whole Interval Recording
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
1ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
2ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
3ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
4ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off ON off
Total Off-Task Percentage:________ (# off-task/50)
Subjects Name: _____________ Session Number: _______________ Date: _______________
Session Name: ______________ Primary Data Collector: __________ Reliability Data Collector: ____________
Total Off-Task Percentage for this session: _________________ ((Off-Task % from first 5 minutes)+(Off-Task % from second 5 minutes))/2
Minutes Minutes

~ 20 ~
World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

partial interval recording. This meant that if the participant
displayed any of the defined off -task behaviors during any
part of each 6 -second interval then the participant was
considered off -task for that interval. It was not possible for
our participant to be considered both on -task and off -task
for any given 6 -second interval.
Interobserver agreement data were collected for 52% of
sessions. Each observer sat next to each other, sharing one
piece of the headphone connected to the audio recording
device which contained the recording of the six second
intervals while simultaneously observing our participant’s
on and off -task behavio rs. The first two authors
independently marked the on and off -task behaviors
accordingly on the data sheet as ON or OFF for every 6 –
second interval in each 5 -minute time period. During the
observation periods no discussion between the first two
authors occ urred. Interobserver agreement was calculated
using the following formula: (Agreements / Agreements +
Disagreements) x 100 = % agreement. The first two authors
used a total interval per session ratio. The mean agreement
score was 92 % with a range of 78% – 98%.

Experimental Design and Conditions
The experimental design used was a combination ABCAC
single -subject multiple setting design with an increasing
criterion to earn consequences (Kazdin, 2011; McLaughlin,
1983). An intervention of a token economy sys tem was
implemented for eight sessions. A return to baseline
condition occurred for two sessions, before re –
implementing the intervention of a token economy for two
sessions. As intervention continued throughout this study,
the amount of on -task behavior r equired by the participant
increased but the amount of work the participant was
required to complete stayed consistent. During a normal
classroom day the teachers of Period A and Period B would
give the participant an assignment with a request to
complete the assignment. If our participant was inattentive
to the assignment given, the classroom teachers would
verbally prompt him to work on the assignment.

Baseline. During baseline the typical classroom procedures
were in place. Data taken for baseline occurred in two
separate classrooms our participant attended. If, in Period
A, our participant was emitting off -task behaviors, the
teacher would redirect his attention by asking him a
question to help him focus on being on -task. Appropriate
responses or behaviors from the participant were generally
paired with a verbal praise such as “Thank you for paying
attention.” or “Great job listening!” Verbal prompts were
directe d at our participant for being off task and
inappropriate behaviors, these included “Our participant
pay attention” or the behavior was ignored. If tangible
items on his desk or around his desk area were distracting
then his teacher would remove these item s. Nothing was
defined as an error that needed correcting in this study.
If, in Period B, Our participant was engaging in off -task
behaviors, his teacher would redirect his attention by
asking him a question to help him focus on being on -task or
would app roach our participant and verbally direct him to
focus on staying on -task. Appropriate responses or
behaviors from our participant were usually paired with a
verbal praise such as “Good Job ______!” or “Nice job
staying on task.” Verbal prompts were given if the
participant was off task or if he displayed any inappropriate behaviors. These verbal phrases included ones such as
“________ look at the projector screen.” If tangible items
on his desk or around his desk area were distracting then
the teacher woul d remove these items. If our participant
continuously exhibited off -task behaviors and refused to
work then his teacher would send our participant outside to
the library. Nothing was defined as an error that needed
correcting in this study.

Token economy . A token economy system (McLaughlin
& Williams, 1988) was employed. During the token
program, when an assignment was given to our participant
by his teacher and he was then asked to complete this
assignment. While our participant completed this
assignmen t, the first two authors awarded the participant
with check marks if he was able to stay on -task for a
specified amount of time. This amount of time was
determined through a variable interval schedule that ranged
from 12s to 36s of on -task. Our participant was informed
that he was informed of the reward system as well as the
criteria for earning such rewards. (See Figure 2).

If (our participant) gets 14 check marks in (Period A) class
then…
-Between (Period A) and (Period B) Mrs. Danielle will
walk (our participant) to class and give him 2 “awesome”
movie ideas.

If (our participant) gets 14 check marks in (Period B)
then…
-Ms. Pauline will walk (Our participant) to the lunchroom
to get his lunch.

If (our participant) gets 20 check marks in any class then…
-(our participant) can have lunch with Ms. Pauline and Mrs.
Danielle and can talk about any appropriate topic.

If (our participant) gets 28 check marks in any class then…
-(our participant) gets to watch 20 -25 minutes of Mr s.
Danielle’s favorite movie during lunch.

If (our participant) gets 28 check marks in both classes
then…
-(our participant) will get a $20 gift card to the movie
theatre of his choosing on the following day.

Our participant required to obtain a certain amount of
check marks throughout one entire class and that these
check marks were able to be exchanged for a reward. The
first two authors gave him the token economy reward list
and explained these procedures to him. In order to prevent
the participant fro m anticipating when the check marks
would be received it was also explained to the student that
he was going to be getting check marks “at random”. If the
participant engaged in on -task behaviors throughout the
specified intervals then a researcher would g o over to him,
give him a check mark paired with a verbal phrase. These
phrases included, “Good job staying on task ________”,
“Thanks for doing so well” or “You’re doing awesome
____.”

Fig 2: Reward System and Criteria.

~ 21 ~
World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

Date = ____________________ Session = ____________________

Period (A): Social & Life Skills Class

Goal = (#) Check Marks
__________________________________________________________________
Period (B): Science Class

Figure 3 . The check mark system recording sheet used in social and life skills and science.

Goal = (#) Check Marks

Results
Baseline 1 and 2. The results for Period A for baseline can
be seen in Figure 4. During baseline our participant’s on –
task performance in Period A indicated low. His on -task
ranged from 41% to 66% overall with mean of 51% of
intervals as being scored on -task. When a retur n to baseline
occurred Our participant’s on -task behaviors were found to
be at an increasing trend (range 15 to 39%; M = 27%.).
The results for Period B can be found in Figure 5. In
baseline our participant’s on -task performance in Period B
indicated a s table low level of performance. Baseline for monitoring on -task behavior began with only one session.
Next, our participant asked for assistance of a one -to-one
aide in which his on -task behavior was at 70%. The next
three sessions took place to assess h is on -task behaviors.
On task ranged from 30 to 40%. Our participant exhibited
on-task behaviors in both settings that averaged only 45%
(range 30 -71%). When a return to baseline was employed.
The participant’s on -task behaviors indicated a stable
consi stent trend of 3%.

~ 22 ~
World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

Fig 4: The percentage of on -task behaviors during Period A, during a 90 -minute time frame. The horizontal dashed lines were
the minimum percent of on task required to earn his reward.

Token Economy + Criterion Changes
The results of the token economy procedure are also seen in
Figures 4 and 5. In Period A for the first criterion, our
participant was required to be on -task for 50% of the time,
his performance ranged from just 84% to 88% on task. For
the second criterion, 63% of on -task behaviors were
required for our participant and his behavior increased with
a range of 78% to 96% on -task. For the third criterion, our
participant was required to be on -task f or 65% of the time,
his on -task data were variable (range 35 to 85%). After the
second baseline, the token program was again put in effect.
His on -task behavior increased to a mean of 74% with a
range from 50 to 98%. In Period B for the first criterion where our participant was
required to exhibit on -task behaviors 50% of the time, his
data were began at a high of 78% on -task with a slight
decrease to 69% on -task. In the second criterion where 63%
of on -task was requir ed, our participant’s on -task increased
and ranged between 86 to 87% on -task. When our
participant was expected to stay on -task for 65% of the
sessions his on -task was variable and ranged from low of
50% on -task to a high of 80%. When the token economy
was again in effect after the second baseline, his on -task
behavior increased to a mean of 63% with a range of 49 to
77%.

Fig 5: The percentage of on -task behavior in Period B, a 90 -minute time frame. The asterisks indicate when one -to-one-
assistance was given to the student by either the teacher or the instructional aid.

~ 23 ~
World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

Discussion
The results of this study indicated that a token economy
procedure could be implemented to increase the on -task
behavior of a single high school student with Asperger’s
syndrome (AS) and ADHD. Initially the percentage of on –
task behaviors increased in both Period A and B with the
implementation of the token -economy procedure for t he
first and second criterions. However in the third criterion
phases, the participant consciously made the decision to be
noncompliant and defy any requests put forth by the
teachers in the classroom. This change accounts for the
variable data with percen tage of on -task behaviors. When
data were taken on the last session, our participant decided
to comply with the requirements of the intervention and
increased his on -task performance. The token economy
procedure that the first two authors implemented indic ated
that extensive research still needs to be completed on our
participant’s variable behaviors in order to figure out an
alternative intervention approach. Experimental control was
not achieved as the data indicates with the variability in the
researcher ’s data. Finally, the use of the token program
with praise was effective and these outcomes replicate the
large body of literature on token systems (Kazdin, 1977;
McLaughlin & Williams, 1988).
The changing criterion design was implemented because
the fir st two authors wanted to reduce the intervention in
order to eventually transfer the reinforcement procedure to
the teachers. The first criterion was established by taking an
average of on -task behaviors of both classes in baseline.
This indicated that ou r participant could stay on -task for
approximately 55% of the time. The first two authors
decided to set the first criterion of on -task behaviors
slightly lower at 50% because our participant was
competent enough to meet the expectations and
successfully a ccess the reinforcers as a result. As the data
shows, the participant easily exceeded his 50%
requirement. Consequently, our intervention procedures
increased his percentage of on -task behaviors to 63%.
Similarly, our participant easily accomplished the ne w
requirement as well. As a result, the first two authors
increased his new goal to 65% on -task behaviors which the
participant never fully met so the last criterion never
changed in the first two authors’ limited time available for
the study.
The first tw o authors completed informal interviews with
both of our participant’s teachers and the participant
himself prior to the start of intervention. It was determined
and agreed upon by the teachers and the participant that he
would work for the rewards indicat ed on the reward sheet.
Although a preference assessment could have made the
study stronger, our participant was competent enough to
tell the first two authors if the rewards were interesting
enough for him to work for it. The reward for the point
sheet sy stem was specifically chosen because his teachers
indicated that our participant was highly attention
maintained and has a strong interest in movies.
The first two authors conducted interobserver agreement at
a higher frequency because the target behavior was
subjective in measuring our participant’s on -task and off –
task behaviors according to the first two authors’ definition.
On the third session of Period A the interobserver
agreement was so lo w that the first two authors decided that
interobserver agreements should be conducted more
frequently at a closer rate. The ability for a student to consistently exemplify on -task
behaviors has significant implications in a school setting.
Without the abi lity to stay on -task for an extended duration
of time our participant’s academic performance will suffer
and as his assignments continue to go unfinished he will
lag behind his peers. Showcasing off -task behaviors will
distract other classmates’ ability to complete their
assignments or listen to the teacher as well. Learning how
to consistently stay -on task would allow him to complete
his assignments in a timely manner and receive satisfactory
grades in return to pass his classes.
Future research could focu s on increasing the length of
time the study was conducted. In addition, more sessions
could have been completed within the extended period of
time. With an extended amount of time, more data could
have been shown to prove our participant’s variable and
unpredictable behaviors. Also, if more time was available
more data could have been conducted to see if the trend
from the last session when our participant exceeded his
criterion requirement would continue. Finally, we were
never able to remove the token e conomy by the end of data
collection.
The first two authors relied on information given from the
participant’s teacher to explain and account for his
behaviors. For future research, instead of relying on
informal interviews in order to validate the funct ion of the
participant’s behavior a structural analysis should have
been implemented. Structural analyses are conducted in
order to manipulate various antecedent events to assess
what is really maintaining the function of the participant’s
behavior.
In add ition to a structural analysis, a preference assessment
should be conducted in future research. A preference
assessment provides a thorough explanation of rewards that
would be reinforcing to our participant and what he would
be willing to work for in orde r to increase his on -task
behaviors (Alberto & Troutman, 2012).
The ultimate goal for high school special educators is for
their students to successfully graduate from high school and
integrate themselves to be productive members in society.
A successful student maintains a high on -task performance
percentage in order to complete assignments and attend to
lectures to pass his/her classes necessary to graduate.
Exhibiting on -task behaviors is an integral part of every
successful student who hopes to graduat e from high school.

Acknowledgements
This paper was written in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of for an Endorsement in the special
education from Gonzaga University and the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, The State of
Washingt on. Mrs. Danielle Troup is a high school special
education behavior intervention teacher in a Freeman
School District in Eastern Washington. Ms. Chung is an
early childhood special education teacher in Bellevue
Public Schools in the State of Washington. M s. Schuler is
now teaches students with behavior disorders in a middle
school setting for Spokane Public Schools.
Requests for reprints should be directed to Jennifer
Neyman, Department of Special Education, The J. M. and
Jessie Rosauer Center for Educat ion, School of Education,
Gonzaga University, AD Box 25, 502 E. Boone, Spokane,
WA 99258 -0025 or via email at neman@gonzaga.edu

~ 24 ~
World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

References
1. Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2012). Applied
behavior analysis for teachers (9th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
2. Araque, F., Roldan, C., & Salguero, A. (2009). Factors
influencing university drop out rates. Computers &
Education , 53, 563 -574.
3. Arvans, R. (2010). Improving reading fluency and
comprehension in elementary students using Read
Natur ally. Dissertation Abstracts International,
71(01B), 74 -649.
4. Barkley, R. A. (2014). Attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and management
(4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
5. Carter, M., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M. Schuler,
H., & Everman, J. (2011). Differential effects of
cover, copy, and compare in spelling with four high
school students with severe behavior
disorders. Academic Research International, 1 , 44-52,
Retrieved from:
http://174.36.46.112/~savaporg/journals/issue. html
6. Colberg, L. (2010). Classroom management and the
ADHD student. Online Submission , Retrieved from
EBSCO host.
7. Crawford, D. & McLaughlin, T. F. (1982). Token
reinforcement of on -task behavior in a secondary
special education setting. Behavioral Enginee ring, 7 ,
109-117.
8. Doll, C., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Schuler, H.
(2013). The use of cover, copy, compare procedure to
teach spelling words with a high school student
enrolled in a behavior intervention special education
classroom: A brief report a nd partial replication.
Educational Research International, 1 , 51 -57.
Retrieved from:
http://www.erint.savap.org.pk/nextissue.html
9. DuPaul, G. J., Eckert, T. L., & McGoey, K. E. (1997).
Interventions for students with attention –
deficit/hyperactivity diso rder: One size does not fit all.
The School Psychology Review , 26, 369 -381.
10. Evans, S. W., Owens, J. S., Reinicke, C., Brown, R., &
Grove, A. (2013). What parents and teachers should
know: Effective treatments for youth with ADHD. In
C. Franklin, M.B. Ha rris, & P. Allen -Meares (Eds.).
The school services sourcebook: A guide for school –
based professionals . New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
11. Edwards, L., Salant, V., Howard, V. F., Brougher, J.,
& McLaughlin, T. F. (1995). Effectiveness of self –
managem ent on attentional behavior and reading
comprehension for children with attention deficit
disorder. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 17 , 1-17.
12. Fowler, M. (2010). Increasing on -task performance for
students with ADHD. Education Digest , 76, 44-50.
13. Harding, L. R. H., Howard, V. F., & McLaughlin, T. F.
(1993). Using self -recording of on -task behavior by a
preschool child with disabilities. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 77 , 786.
14. Kazdin, A. E. (1977). The token economy: A review
and evaluation. New York, NY: Plenum.
15. Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single case research designs:
Methods for clinical and applied settings . New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
16. Kutscher, M., Attwood, T., & Wolff, R. (2006). Kids in the syndrome mix of ADHD, LD, Asperger' s,
Tourette's, bipolar, and more!: the one Stop guide for
parents, teachers, and other professionals .
Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Printers.
17. LeBrun, C., Jones, S., Neyman, J., McLaughlin, T. F.,
& Schuler, H. (2014). The effects of a modified direct
instruction flashcard system on a 14 year -old-student
with learning behavioral issues enrolled in a behavior
intervention classroom. International Journal of
Undergraduate Education and Creative Activities , 6,
Article 5, 1 -9. Retrieved from:
http://common s.pacificu.edu/ijurca/
18. McLaughlin, T. F. (1982). The effects of teacher
praise on accuracy of math performance for an entire
special education class. Behavioral Engineering, 7 ,
81-86.
19. McLaughlin, T. F. (1983). An examination and
evaluation of single sub ject designs used in behavior
analysis research in school settings. Educational
Research Quarterly, 7 , 35-42.
20. McLaughlin, T. F., & Williams, R. L. (1988). The
token economy in the classroom. In J. C. Witt, S. N.
Elliott, & F. M. Gresham (Eds.). Handboo k of
behavior therapy in education (pp. 469 -487). New
York, NY: Plenum.
21. Moore -Partin, T. C., Robertson, R. E., Maggin, D. M.,
Oliver, R. M., & Wehby, J. H. (2010). Using teacher
praise and opportunities to respond to promote
appropriate student behavior . Preventing School
Failure , 54, 172 -178.
22. Pfiffner, L. J., & O’Leary, S. G. (1993). School -based
psychological treatments. In J. L. Matson (Ed.)
Handbook of hyperactivity in childre n (pp. 234 -255).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23. Pfiffner, L. J., Rosen, L. A., & O ’Leary, S. G. (1985).
The efficacy of an all -positive approach to classroom
management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis,
18, 257-261.
24. Rao P. A., Beidel, D. C., & Murray, M. J. (2008).
Social skills interventions for children with Asperger's
syndrome or high -functioning autism: A review and
recommendations. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders , 38, 353 -361.
25. Rusnock, M., & Brandler, N. (1979). Time off -task:
Implications for learning. Proceedings of the Annual
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (pp. 1 -14). Pittsburgh, PA:
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED171407.pdf. ED171407
26. Shapiro, E. S. (2014). Academic skills problems:
Direct assessment and intervention (5th. edition). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
27. Simonsen, B., Litt le, C. A., & Fairbanks, S. (2010).
Effects of task difficulty and teacher attention on the
off-task behavior of high -ability students with behavior
issues. Journal for the Education of the Gifted , 34,
245-263.
28. Stewart, K. S., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1992). S elf-
recording: Effects for reducing off -task behavior with
a high school student with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Child & Family Behavior
Therapy, 14 (3), 53 -59.
29. Troup, D., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Schuler,
H. (2014). The use of on line typing programs in
combination with public posting with and without

~ 25 ~
World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

consequences to increase the typing fluency and
accuracy for seven high school students with severe
behavior disorders . Journal of Education and Human
Development, 3 , 181 -201.
30. Volpe, R.J. & Fabiano, G.A. (2013). Daily behavior
report card: An evidence based system for assessment
and intervention . New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31. Willis, R., Whalen, K. P., Sweeney, W .J., &
McLaughlin, T. F. (1995). Effects of self -recording
and contingent computer time on the off task behavior
of an adolescent with emotional disturbances. Child &
Family Behavior Therapy, 17 , 35-45.
View publication statsView publication stats