Behavioral Interventions, Vol.

13, 1119 (1998)

THE EFFECTS OF BONUS CONTINGENCIES IN A

CLASSWIDE TOKEN PROGRAM ON MATH
ACCURACY WITH MIDDLE-SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS
James C. Swain and T. F. McLaughlin
Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA, USA

The eects of bonus points contingent on 80% accuracy in math with four middle-school special
education students with behavior disorders were examined. A multiple-baseline design across
students was used to evaluate the eects of bonus points. The overall results indicated that higher
accuracy was found for math assignments during the bonus points condition than during baseline.
This overall outcome was replicated for each subject in the study. The benets of implementing a
bonus contingency within an ongoing classroom token economy with middle-school students with
behavior disorders are discussed. # 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)

Application of behavioral techniques in various school settings continues to

expand (Kazdin, 1977; McLaughlin & Williams, 1988; O'Leary & O'Leary,
1976). Token-reinforcement programs have been successfully employed at
various grade levels and with diering school populations (see e.g. Long &
Williams, 1973; McKensie, Clark, Wolf, Kothera, & Benson, 1968; McLaughlin
& Malaby, 1972; Strandy, McLaughlin, & Hunsaker, 1979; Stewart &
McLaughlin, 1986; Williams, Williams, & McLaughlin, 1991). It has been
noted that token programs, while one of the most eective and empirically
validated classroom management procedures, have received less empirical
validation in the professional literature (Williams et al., 1991; Naughton &
McLaughlin, 1995).
For token programs to have a place in school systems they should be shown to
be eective, easy to implement, enjoyed by pupils, and compatible with school
policy (Naughton & McLaughlin, 1995). Most token programs employ either
management schemes or back-up reinforcers that many in school settings would
nd dicult to implement in their respective classrooms such as extra personnel,
complex data collection systems, or expensive back-up consequences.
* Correspondence to: T. F. McLaughlin, Chairperson, Department of Special Education, School of
Education, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA, USA.
CCC 10720847/98/01001109$17.50
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

12

J. C. Swain and T. F. McLaughlin

In the present report, available back-up activities were employed and school
district policy was not violated in their selection of such back-up items. Also, an
entire class of special education students was placed under the token program
with available sta used to implement and manage the token system.
However, many token-reinforcement programs have required (i) outside
personnel for their management (Ringer, 1973), (ii) special outside observers for
data collection (O'Leary & Becker, 1967; O'Leary, Becker, Evans, & Saudargas,
1969; Walker, Hops, & Feigenbaum, 1976), (iii) back-up reinforcers such as
candy or trinkets which may not be readily available or compatible with school
district policy (Bolstad & Johnson, 1972; McKensie et al., 1969; O'Leary et al.,
1969) or (iv) the use of social behaviors as measures of eectiveness (Long &
Williams, 1973; O'Leary et al., 1969; Shook, LaBrie, Vallies, McLaughlin, &
Williams, 1990).
Most of the research dealing with token reinforcement procedures has taken
place in elementary school settings (Kazdin, 1977; McLaughlin, 1975;
McLaughlin & Williams, 1988; Naughton & McLaughlin, 1995; Williams,
et al., 1991). There have been some exceptions reported in the literature.
Broden, Hall, Dunlap, & Clark (1970) implemented a token program with a
class of junior high-school special education students. However, snacks were
used as a back-up reinforcer to increase attention to task, no direct measures of
academic responding were made and individual data were not presented in
detail. It may be that the withdrawal of snacks or the failure of the students'
next teacher to employ such a system would reduce the probability of maintenance of behavior change. In addition, the merits of using attending as a
measure of eectiveness has been questioned because it may not be related to
academic productivity or having students actively engaged in the curriculum
(Winett & Winkler, 1972).
Long & Williams (1973) and Stewart & McLaughlin (1986) investigated the
eect of a free-time contingency with inner-city junior high-school students. Free
time was shown to be an eective consequence to control disruptive and
attending behaviors. Individual data across sessions were not presented and,
again, no measures of academic responding were made. Strandy, McLaughlin, &
Hunsaker (1979) reported that free-time was an eective consequence to increase
assignment completion with six high school special education students. However, the results were mixed with two students and data collection was short in
duration (22 sessions). Inkster & McLaughlin (1993) successfully implemented a
token program employing access to computers as a consequence with an
adolescent male to increase his attendance at school.
Since very few applications of token programs have involved middle-school
students and few studies have evaluated the eect of bonus points on
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)

Bonus contingencies

13

academic performance, the present report provided such an analysis. In

addition, the present research also examined the eects of increasing the magnitude of point contingencies within an ongoing token program in daily assignment in math.

METHOD
Participants and setting
The participants were four middle-school special education students enrolled
in the rst author's self-contained classroom. The ages of the students ranged
from 13 years 11 months to 14 years 11 months at the beginning of the experiments Scores on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (Dunn & Markwardt,
1970) ranged from 3.5 to 6.5 grade equivalents for mathematics, reading
comprehension and spelling, when it was given one month subsequent to the
start of the investigation. For each of the participants, improving accuracy of
math performance was an objective listed on their Individualized Education
Programs (IEPs).
The classroom was managed by a token (point) economy (McLaughlin,
Swain, Brown, & Fielding, 1986). Briey, Students earned points for accuracy of
academic performance in math, spelling, English, social studies and reading.
Points also could be earned for assignment completion, on-task responding and
appropriate behavior in the hall. Points were lost (response cost) for behaviors
such as wasting time, playing with objects, incomplete assignments, not following directions, talk-outs, swearing, cheating etc. Points were exchanged in blocks
of 100 on an intermittent schedule, averaging ve days, for any of or a combination of four back-up reinforcers. Back up reinforcers consisted of (i) leaving
school 30 minutes early, (ii) playing table games, (iii) going to the resource
center, and (iv) free time. The classroom was staed by a certied teacher and a
half-time teaching assistant.
The dependent variable employed in the study was academic accuracy in math
class. Accuracy was calculated from individual workbook pages in the Spectrum
Mathematics Series (France & Clark, 1990). A correct math response was dened
as matching the answer key for the math workbook. The percent correct was
calculated by dividing the correct responses by the total number of possible
responses for the daily assignment. The teacher attempted to make the assignments of equal diculty and length, but some assignments were longer and more
dicult due to the curriculum employed in the school district.
A multiple-baseline design across students was used (Kazdin, 1982).
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)

14

J. C. Swain and T. F. McLaughlin

Baseline
During the baseline condition, pupils received their math assignments were
allowed 55 min class time to complete two pages. Under the ongoing token
economy, a maximum of 20 points could be earned per assignment. The scale for
earning points was 100 to 95% 10 points, 94 to 86% 9 points, 85 to 75%
8 points, 74 to 66% 7 points, 65 to 55% 6 points and 54 to 0% 0 points.
Ten extra points also could be earned if the assignment was completed during the
55 min class period. This procedure was in eect for 1129 assignments.

Bonus contingency
In this condition, pupils could earn 50 bonus points contingent upon a score
of 80 percent or higher. Twenty additional bonus points could also be earned;
10 for assignment completion and 10 for neatness, totaling 70 points. This
condition was in eect for eight to 46 assignments.

Reliability of measurement
Reliability was assessed daily by having the teacher's aide, who was unaware
of the experimental conditions, check the pupil's daily math assignments prior to
being rechecked by the rst author. An agreement was dened as both graders
scoring a problem as either correct or in error. A disagreement was dened as the
graders failing to score the problem in the same manner. Two hundred
assignments were corrected with 100% agreement between graders.

RESULTS
The overall results indicated that accuracy in math increased under the bonus
contingency procedure compared with the baseline conditions. This eect was
replicated for each student. The overall percent correct for all four students
during baseline was 54% (range 2274%). With the commencement of the
bonus point contingency, the overall mean percent correct for all four students
increased (M 29%; range 2274%).
As shown in Figure 1, the rst student (S-1), who was transferred from the rst
author's classroom shortly after the bonus points were implemented, increased
his mean percent correct from 22% in baseline to 86% in the bonus contingency
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)

Bonus contingencies

15

Figure 1. The percent correct in math for each student as a function of the experimental
conditions: Baselinetoken program with no bonus contingencies; Bonus Contingency
additional points awarded for 80% or greater accuracy in the ongoing token program.
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)

16

J. C. Swain and T. F. McLaughlin

condition. Compared to baseline, this was an mean overall improvement of

391%.
The second student (S-2) increased his mean accuracy from 74% in baseline to
83% during bonus points. The third student (S-3) also improved his overall
mean accuracy from 61% in baseline to 82% in the bonus points condition. The
last student (S-4) had an overall mean performance of 61% during baseline
increased to 81% in the bonus contingency conditions (an increase of 20%).
During baseline there was a great deal of variability for students 1, 3, and 4
and there were several data points of zero or near zero. For students 2 through 4
there were downward trends in performance. When bonus points were added,
data for students 1, 3 and 4 showed an abrupt change in level and became more
stable (i.e. the range was narrower). These all indicated better control of math
accuracy with more consistent performance from assignment to assignment.

DISCUSSION
The present report replicated the positive eect of token reinforcement on
academic responding of middle-school students with behavior disorders. The use
of bonus points further enhanced the positive outcomes of the token program.
In addition, these gains in academic responding were replicated across all four
students. In the present research, data were collected for an extended period of
time (60 d). Eective measures involved academic responding (accuracy of
performance in math) with adolescent special education students. No data were
presented on assignment completion since it was high (100%) over the duration
of the experiment.
The use of individual data presentation revealed that some students improved
their performance in math more than others. The smaller gains by S-2 were made
more evident. Teachers interested in working with adolescent students with
behavior disorders may nd single-subject design an applicable evaluation procedure (Morgan & Jenson, 1988).
All of the pupils met the 80 percent criterion required to earn extra points.
Therefore, manipulation of the density of reinforcement may be an additional
procedure to employ to increase academic responding. The selection of academic
responding with an adolescent population was worthy of note. Most previous
studies have examined the eectiveness of token programs on disruptive or
attending behaviors (Broden et al., 1970; Long & Williams, 1973). Also, most
teachers provide some type of consequence for academic performance, and
increasing such a behavior should be of benet to students when mainstreaming
is considered. Most regular education teachers tend to respond positively to
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)

Bonus contingencies

17

students who have enough academic skills to complete their work with accuracy
with minimal teacher assistance (Lewis, Wilson, & McLaughlin, 1993). Changes
in academic responding are more likely to maintain or generalize after the
termination of specialized intervention procedures (McLaughlin, 1979;
McLaughlin & Connis, 1991; Stokes & Osnes, 1988). The use of accuracy in
math as a dependent measure was employed to `trap' the behavior so it would be
maintained in other math classes (Morgan & Jenson, 1988). Such data would be
of interest as generalization of behavior continues to be an issue in behavioral
research (Rutherford & Nelson, 1988).
Student reactions gathered by the teacher through interviews and their anecdotal comments to the bonus points contingency were favorable. The students
enjoyed this procedure. The classroom teacher felt that such a procedure made
the management of the self-contained classroom easier.
Although the present research indicated that academic gains can be attained
using token reinforcement procedures with middle-school youth with behavior
disorders, countless academic dependent variables remain to examined. For
example, what are the eects of employing bonus points on performance in
social studies or in computer classes? This will have to be left to future research
and would no doubt be benecial to such students in the educational
community.
There was a great deal of variability in student performance. Several things
may have accounted for such a nding (e.g. loss of reinforcer eectiveness,
changes in math content and changes in diculty of the subject-matter materials
in math). It was our view that the major variable that aected the variability of
performance during the bonus point conditions was changes in the diculty of
the materials. We examined the math assignments in baseline as well as those
used in the bonus points phase and found that the work during baseline was
easier in terms of content. As the school year progressed, the material became
more dicult. However, the use of bonus points helped overcome some of these
changes in diculty.
Bonus points were only available in math. However, it was the view of the
classroom teacher that the use of bonus points was highly eective for math, but
did not adversely change student performance in social studies, reading, spelling
or science.
The number of published studies dealing with token economies has declined in
recent times (McLaughlin & Williams, 1988; Williams et al., 1991). The present
report provides additional support for the continued use and evaluation of token
reinforcement programs. The token economy can be an eective procedure to
assist students with behavior disorders in their academic skills. The addition of
bonus points can further enhance the eectiveness of token programs.
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)

18

J. C. Swain and T. F. McLaughlin

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of this manuscript was in partial fulllment of the requirements for a
Masters of Education in Special Education in the Department of Education, School of
Education, Gonzaga University. A special note to thanks of Lamar Fielding, Principal,
for allowing this research in his school.

REFERENCES
Bolstad, O. D., & Johnson, S. M. (1972). Self-regulation in the modication of disruptive
behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 433454.
Broden, M., Hall, R. V., Dunlap, A., & Clark, R. (1970). Eects of teaching attention and a token
reinforcement system in a junior high school special education class. Exceptional Children, 36,
341249.
Dunn, L., & Markwardt, F. (1970). Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
France, N., & Clark, B. (1990). Spectrum Mathematics. Palo Alto, CA: Laidlaw.
Inkster, A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1993). Token reinforcement: eects for reducing tardiness with
a socially disadvantage adolescent student. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 17, 176182.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). The token economy: a review and evaluation. New York: Plenum.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single case research designs: methods for clinical and applied settings.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, A., Wilson, S. M., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1993). A comparison of regular and special
education teachers practices for providing instruction. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 17,
221237.
Long, J. D., & Williams, R. L. (1973). The comparative eectiveness of group and individually
contingent free time with inner-city junior high school students. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 6, 465474.
McKensie, H. S., Clark, M., Wolf, M. M., Kothera, R., & Benson, C. (1969). Behavior modication of children with learning disabilities using grades as tokens and allowances as back-up
reinforcers. Exceptional Children, 34, 745752.
McLaughlin, T. F. (1975). The applicability of token reinforcement systems in public school
systems. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 8489.
McLaughlin, T. F. (1979). Generalization of treatment eects: an analysis of procedures and
outcomes. Corrective and Social Psychiatry, 25(2), 3338.
McLaughlin, T. F., & Connis, R. T. (1991). Generalization and analysis of behavior: an analysis.
Corrective and Social Psychiatry, 37(4), 5863.
McLaughlin, T. F., & Malaby, J. E. (1972). Intrinsic reinforcers in classroom token economy.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 263270.
McLaughlin, T. F., Swain, J. C., Brown, M., & Fielding, L. (1986). The eects of academic
consequences on inappropriate social behavior of special education middle school students.
Techniques: A Journal of Remedial Education and Counseling, 2, 310316.
McLaughlin, T. F., & Williams, R. L. (1988). The token economy in the classroom. In J. C. Witt,
S. N. Elliott, & F. M. Gresham (Eds), Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp. 469487).
New York: Plenum.
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)

Bonus contingencies

19

Morgan, D., & Jenson, W. R. (1988). Teaching behaviorally disordered students: preferred
practices. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Naughton, C., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1995). The use of a token economy system for students with
behavior disorders. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 19(2), 1938.
O'Leary, K. D., Becker, W. C. (1967). Behavior modication of an adjustment class: a token
reinforcement program. Exceptional Children, 33 637642.
O'Leary, K. D., & Becker, W. C., Evans, R., & Saudargas, R. A. (1969). A token reinforcement
program in a public school: a replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 2, 313.
O'Leary, S. G., & O'Leary, K. D. (1976). Behavior modication in the school. In H. Leitenberg
(Ed.), Handbook of behavior modication and behavior therapy (pp. 475515). Englewood Clis,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ringer, V. M. J. (1973). The use of a `token helper' in the management of classroom behavior
problems and in teacher training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 671677.
Rutherford, R. B., & Nelson, C. M. (1988). Generalization and maintenance of treatment eects.
In J. C. Witt, S. N. Elliott, & F. M. Gresham (Eds), Handbook of behavior therapy in education
(pp. 277324). New York: Plenum.
Shook, S., LaBrie, M., Vallies, J., McLaughlin, T. F., & Williams, R. L. (1990). The eects of a
token program on rst grade student's inappropriate social behavior. Reading Improvement, 27,
96101.
Stewart, J. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1986). Eects of group and individual contingencies on
reading performance with Native American junior high school students. Techniques: A Journal
for Remedial Education and Counseling, 2, 133144
Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1988) The developing applied technology of generalization and
maintenance. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. Koegel (Eds), Generalization and maintenance
(pp. 519). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Strandy, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Hunsaker, D. (1979). Free time as a reinforcer for assignment
completion with high school special education students. Education and Treatment of Children, 2,
271277.
Walker, H. M., Hops, H., & Feigenbaum, E. (1976). Deviant classroom behavior as a function of
combinations of social and token reinforcement and cost contingency. Behavior Therapy, 7,
7688.
Williams, B. F., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1991). Classroom procedures for
remediating behavior disorders. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 3, 349384.
Winett, R., & Winkler, R. C. (1972). Current behavior modication in the classroom: be still, be
quiet, be docile. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 499504.

# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent., Vol. 13, 1119 (1998)