Self-Monitoring and Tactile Prompts for Aggressive Behavior

Participants and Setting

Subjects

Two students, identified as aggressive by their educators and selected through purposive sampling, made up the participants of this study. Both are currently enrolled in a behavioral support classroom setting. Neither had knowingly taken part in any prior research, nor had either been involved with self-monitoring or tactile prompt interventions. Both were enrolled in the same class, required behavioral support, and presented with various disabilities.

Setting

The setting was a self-contained classroom to which both students had been referred for serious behavioral issues. Both participated in a behavioral support unit-developed token-economy points system. For system maintenance, a fresh point sheet was used every day. Individual sheets illustrated frequency measure tables recording how many times each child displayed aggressive conduct. Sessions of ten-minute duration for each subject were conducted during routine scholastic instruction on regular school days, occurring at most three times daily. Data were collected either manually (on paper) or digitally (on a laptop). Data collectors observed subjects as discreetly as possible. To reduce reactivity, observers attended lessons for several weeks before gathering data for the research.

All subject response opportunities were recorded on the data acquisition form, along with whether the participant's response was correct. Correct responses were those in which the opportunity for dependent variable performance was followed by the relevant behavior on the part of the staff (Petscher & Bailey, 2006). An incorrect response, by contrast, involved opportunities not being followed by appropriate staff conduct, staff conduct that was improper, or target responses performed without any opportunity arising. The percentage of correct behaviors was computed as: (number of correct responses / (correct responses + incorrect responses)) × 100%, calculated at the end of each session. The sole exception involved bonus-point-related data, which were recorded as frequency data. During intervention phases, the occurrence of the independent variable — along with whether its presence or absence was judged correct or incorrect by the observer — was also recorded.

Baseline

Data were gathered in regular classroom settings. Subjects were aware that researchers were observing them but were unfamiliar with the study's variables of interest. Subjects were observed as unobtrusively as possible, with a datasheet and clipboard used for recording opportunities to engage in target behaviors.

Dependent Variables and Operational Definitions

Dependent variables for the research were determined based on classroom observations and specific educator requests. Pilot observations indicated that every instructional assistant did, at times, display the behaviors of interest; however, their consistency and regularity needed to be addressed. All staff behaviors were associated with the adoption of the token-economy points system.

Disruptive Behavior Management

An opportunity to address disruptive conduct by a student was identified whenever a student physically or verbally disturbed others in the classroom. An appropriate response to the opportunity involved the staff member instructing the disruptive student to remove the relevant point from his or her record. Points were accorded in areas such as following directions, using polite gestures and language, and abiding by classroom rules. Data were gathered and charted as a percentage of appropriate respondent conduct.

Encouraging Appropriate Conduct

Opportunities for prompting students to engage in appropriate conduct were identified whenever a student failed to perform the required task for a minimum of five seconds. Teaching assistants were required to use this opportunity to redirect the child toward appropriate behavior. A correct response involved the participant taking a moment to instruct the child precisely on what conduct was required. This information was recorded as a percentage of correct participant conduct.

Independent Variables and Intervention Implementation

Training

When visual analysis of baseline data indicated low response rates, a training session was organized to discuss participant expectations. The study's first author introduced study objectives, procedures, expected outcomes, and dependent variables in a meeting held at a small office adjacent to the study setting. Tasks were clarified and situations explained through modeling. Post-tests were then administered in which participants were required to identify correct responses and antecedents in writing. The thirty-minute sessions were concluded once each participant correctly answered every post-test question. Following training, data were gathered using a procedure similar to the baseline technique. This step was repeated until responses were found to be reasonably consistent for each dependent variable and participant.

Self-Monitoring, Encouragement, and Accurate Behavioral Feedback

Immediately after the final training session, the study's first author met briefly with participants to explain the use of the self-monitoring form and pager. Participants were provided with a pager to be placed in their pocket or clipped to their pants, which was then activated via remote control.

Sessions began with participants being reminded of which responses had been noted by observers and which had been prompted. The vibrating pager's remote control was held by the second observer and experimenter. When an opportunity to respond arose — covering disruptive behavior management, bonus point delivery, or prompting appropriate student conduct — observers allowed participants 3–5 seconds to identify the opportunity and react correctly. In the case of disruptive behavior management, opportunities arose when students disturbed others in the class. For bonus point delivery, the opportunity arose when 60 seconds elapsed without any bonus points being awarded, allowing participants one minute to identify a child displaying positive academic or social behavior before the session ended. For prompting appropriate student conduct, an opportunity arose when a child was clearly off-task but not disturbing others — for instance, closing their eyes or resting their head on the desk. A participant who failed to respond when given an opportunity was alerted via the remote control.

Implementation of the Independent Variable

Following the introduction of the intervention for managing disruptions and reaching a 100% level across three consecutive sessions, the bonus point delivery intervention was introduced. Participants' self-monitoring forms, completed upon session conclusion, were updated to include bonus point delivery. After meeting the target of one bonus-point delivery per session across three sessions, the "prompting appropriate conduct" intervention was initiated, with the tactile prompt now contingent on opportunities to prompt student conduct. The final self-monitoring form thus encompassed all three target behaviors.

Immediately upon session completion, participants were provided with a form to be returned within five minutes, though a maximum of 30 minutes was permitted. Delays occasionally occurred when participants needed to escort students or assist other staff members. In such instances, the form was to be completed and feedback delivered as soon as the participant returned to the classroom (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2020).

On the form, participants checked the boxes corresponding to the percentage of opportunities in which they gave a correct response. For behavioral prompts, participants recalled their personal responses to each prompt. For behaviors no longer being prompted, participants recorded the percentage of times they recognized the need to respond and gave the appropriate response. Self-monitoring accuracy was gauged by comparing correct and incorrect responses against experimenter observations and then by comparing the percentages recorded on the form. The form was then returned to participants for their review. Discrepancies were explained discreetly by the experimenter when reviewing participants' percentages — for example, noting the actual correct percentage for disruptive behavior management and pointing out a missed opportunity when a student slammed a book on the desk.