Little Steven G, Akin-Little Angeleque, O'Neill Keryn
Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Akin-Little and Little Behavioral Psychology Consultants, PLLC, Malone, NY, USA.
Behav Modif. 2015 Mar;39(2):322-41. doi: 10.1177/0145445514554393. Epub 2014 Oct 16.
The present study sought to evaluate the efficacy of group contingency procedures via meta-analysis. A total of 182 studies published between 1980 and 2010 were identified via PsychInfo that included group contingency as a keyword. Studies that met inclusion criteria (e.g., single-subject design, school-aged children; N = 50), were coded and effect sizes were calculated. Results strongly support the efficacy of group contingencies with an overall effect size of 3.41. Types of group contingencies were also evaluated for dependent group contingencies (ES = 3.75, n = 11), independent group contingencies (ES = 3.27, n = 8), and interdependent group contingencies (ES = 2.88, n = 35). These results clearly establish all varieties of group contingencies as efficacious for a wide range of target behaviors with school-aged children. Results are discussed with regard to practical implications.
本研究旨在通过元分析评估团体应急程序的效果。通过PsychInfo数据库检索出1980年至2010年间发表的总共182项研究，这些研究将团体应急作为关键词。符合纳入标准的研究（例如，单被试设计、学龄儿童；N = 50）进行编码并计算效应量。结果有力地支持了团体应急的效果，总体效应量为3.41。还对团体应急的类型进行了评估，包括依赖型团体应急（效应量 = 3.75，n = 11）、独立型团体应急（效应量 = 3.27，n = 8）和相互依赖型团体应急（效应量 = 2.88，n = 35）。这些结果清楚地表明，各种团体应急措施对学龄儿童的广泛目标行为都是有效的。文中还讨论了研究结果的实际意义。
