J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114
Contingency Contracting with Students with Autism
Spectrum Disorders in a Public School Setting
Daniel W. Mruzek · Celina Cohen · Tristram Smith
Published online: 27 February 2007
C ?Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract In this study, a contingency contract procedure was implemented to promote
adherence to rules of conduct in an elementary school setting by 2 male participants, one
10-year-old with a diagnosis of Autistic Disorder and one 9-year-old with ADHD and
probable Asperger’s Disorder. Prior to intervention, both participants engaged in frequent
during the study as participants progressed; in the final stages, a self-monitoring requirement
was included. A changing criterion design was used to evaluate the effects of contracts on
participants’ adherence to rules of conduct. Results suggest that contracts were effective for
both participants. Thus, contingency contract procedures may be useful for some individuals
with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Keywords Autism.Asperger’s disorder.Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is an increasingly popular term that refers to a group of
pervasive developmental disorders, including Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, and
Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). These disorders
are collectively called ASD because they share core characteristics including impairments
in social interaction, impairments in communication, as well as restricted and repetitive
patterns of behavior, interests, and activities (American Psychiatric Association [APA],
2000). Many students with ASD are described as having an inflexible, rigid, or concrete
style of thinking as well as poor problem solving, self-monitoring, and organizational skills.
Additional characteristics that may affect school performance include difficulty discerning
relevant from irrelevant information, inattention, impulsivity, poor motivation, and problems
with processing auditory information (Smith Myles & Simpson, 1998). While behavioral
D. W. Mruzek (?) · C. Cohen · T. Smith
Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave., Box 671,
Rochester, NY 14642, USA
e-mail: Daniel Mruzek@URMC.Rochester.edu
104J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114
problems such as tantrums, noncompliance, and aggression are not diagnostic of ASD, they
are an associated feature observed in many individuals with this classification (APA, 2000).
Given the core deficits and associated characteristics of ASD, self-management has been
identified as a critical skill that may enable individuals with ASD to improve their func-
tioning in a variety of areas (Koegel, Koegel, Harrower, & Carter, 1999). Self-management
techniques have been successfully used to help individuals with ASD increase social in-
teractions and behaviors (Shearer, Kohler, Buchan, & McCullough, 1996; Strain, Kohler,
Storey, & Danko, 1994), perform self-help skills without supervision (Pierce & Schreibman,
1994), and staying on task and decreasing problematic behaviors in school settings (Koegel,
Harrower, & Koegel, 1999).
Contingency contracting is another potentially useful procedure for increasing self-
management, but has received little attention in the ASD literature. A contingency con-
tract, also referred to as a “behavior contract”, is “a document that specifies a contingent
relationship between the completion of a specified behavior and access to, or delivery of,
a specified reward” (Heward, 1987, p. 466). The theory and practical applications of con-
tingency contracting were initially described in the 1970s, and, subsequently, contingency
contracts were used to address a variety of clinical and educational problems in a variety of
settings with different populations. In schools, contingency contracts have been used with
general education and special education classrooms. This technique has been shown useful
in decreasing tardiness, reducing disruptive behaviors (DeMartini-Scully, Bray, & Kehle,
2000), improving academic performance (Newstrom, McLaughlin, & Sweeney, 1999), re-
ducing truancy (Trice, 1990), and improving personal hygiene (Allen & Kramer, 1990). In
addition to inappropriate behaviors, contingency contracts have also been utilized to address
isolation and withdrawal, as well as to support students during transitions to less restrictive
environments (Jolivette & Wehby, 1999).
Contingency contracting relies on the establishment of rules stated in clear, concise lan-
of many students with ASD. While not particularly visible or intrusive, the written document
also serves as a visual cue for students who may have difficulty relying solely on audi-
tory input. Contingency contracts permit concrete documentation that can be reviewed and
discussed. When implemented thoughtfully, contingency contracts promote collaboration
between student and teachers and encourage student participation at all stages including
contract development, implementation, and evaluation (Heward, 1987). Furthermore, these
techniques may place fewer demands on school staff than other behavioral interventions
because the contracts gradually shift from adult-driven to student-controlled (Heward, 1987;
Homme et al., 1970). For these reasons, the current study was designed to provide an initial
test of contingency contracting procedures by applying them to two students with behavioral
concerns, one with autism and one with probable Asperger’s Disorder, in a school setting.
There were 2 participants in this study. Marty was a 10 year-old male with a classification
by his school district as “emotionally disabled.” He had clinical diagnoses of Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and probable Asperger’s Disorder, due to social
skills deficits (e.g., difficulty making friends, responding to common social cues and coping
with busy social settings), ritualistic behavior, frustration related to changes in schedule,
J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114 105
obsessive interests (i.e., action toys and drawing), and literal interpretation of comments
made by others. Throughout duration of this study, he was taking Adderall and Risperdal
to treat symptoms of ADHD and aggressive physical outbursts. Standardized assessment
data collected through chart review indicates that he was functioning in the Low Average
to Average range of cognitive functioning (WISC-III Full Scale score = 87, Performance
score = 94, Verbal score = 84; Wechsler, 1991) and Moderately Low range of adaptive
behavior (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale [VABS] standard scores = Adaptive Behavior
Composite = 72; Communication = 99; Daily Living Skills = 75; Socialization = 73;
Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984).
Marty engaged in frequent challenging behaviors, including physical aggression directed
at other students and staff (e.g., hitting teacher, biting another student), destruction of mate-
rials and furniture (e.g., throwing chair into wall), and socially unacceptable verbalizations
behaviors often occurred in a three-step chain (i.e., he would initiate unacceptable verbal-
izations in an increasingly loud, driven manner, then swipe objects off of an adjacent table,
then engagein physical aggression). Intense involvement with a preferred activity (e.g., a toy
construction activity) was a common antecedent activity. Functional assessment, conducted
(Durand & Crimmins, 1992), antecedent-behavior-consequence (A-B-C) forms and direct
observation suggested that these behaviors typically occurred when Marty was thwarted
from initiating or accessing a desired activity and/or object (i.e., tangible reinforcement),
activity or perform a specific task (i.e., concurrent tangible reinforcement and avoidance of
with a classmate (e.g., argument about access to items or undesired behaviors of others; tan-
gible reinforcement and escape from social circumstances). Unexpected changes in Marty’s
schedule and missed psychotropic medication doses (a rare occurrence) were especially
strong setting events.
Chad was a 9 year-old male with a diagnosis of Autistic Disorder. Standardized assess-
cognitive functioning with a significant strength in visual processing and relative weakness
in verbal processing (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition Verbal Reasoning
standard score = 81; Abstract/Visual Reasoning standard score = 126; Quantitative Rea-
soning standard score = 92; Short-Term Memory standard score = 92; Thorndike, Hagen,
& Sattler, 1986). He was functioning in the Low Normal range of adaptive behavior (VABS
standard scores = Adaptive Behavior Composite = 80; Communication = 79; Daily
Living Skills = 79; Socialization = 90). Chad did not take any psychotropic medication
throughout the duration of this study.
ments and tantrums (i.e., prolonged screaming and crying). Many of the vocalizations had an
ing “I don’t want to do this!” during group instruction). Functional assessment, conducted
through analyses of data collected through administration of the Motivation Assessment
Scale, antecedent-behavior-consequence (A-B-C) forms and direct observation, suggested
that these behaviors typically occurred when staff directed him to engage in an academic
assignment (i.e., avoidance of undesired activity). As in Marty’s case, Chad’s participation
in a preferred activity (e.g., free-time with art supplies) at the time that staff gave the di-
rective was a common antecedent variable. Also similar to Marty, he engaged in bouts of
loud screaming and argument directed at classmates, related to access to items or undesired
106 J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114
behaviors of others. It was hypothesized that these behaviors were maintained by resultant
tangible reinforcement and escape from demanding social circumstances.
Both participants were enrolled in the same self-contained special education classroom
designated specifically for children with ASD, located in a public elementary school in rural
January of the same school year for Marty and Chad, respectively. The classroom had a total
of 6 students and was staffed with a master’s level special education teacher and 4 classroom
aides. The participants attended general education classes with one-on-one aides for special
activities (i.e., music, art, physical education) and academics (i.e., science, social studies,
and reading), with the exception of mathematics. For both students, approximately 60%
of the day was spent in the general education environment and 40% in the self-contained
environment. The self-contained classroom was used primarily for pre-teaching, tutoring,
special activities (e.g., field trips) and implementation of the coping skills instruction,
contract review sessions, and delivery of back-up reinforcers, as described below. The
contingency contract program was used in all school settings across the entire school day
(8:30 a.m.–2:30 p.m.) for both participants.
Prior to and concurrent with the contingency contract programs, the participants’ special
education teacher implemented other classroom-wide behavior supports, including individ-
ualized schedule boards with break activities contingent upon completion of work activities,
token systems (i.e., penny boards) used during academic assignments, and careful environ-
mental arrangements (e.g., separating student desks when proximity was found to increase
frustrations for oneor both).Specialeducationclassroomstaff participated inweekly30min
trainings conducted by a consultant with expertise in applied behavior analysis throughout
the school year, including during the duration of the contingency contract programs.
A changing criterion design (Barlow & Hersen, 1984) with 2 subjects was used in this study.
Through successive phases, criteria for reinforcement were raised to promote participants’
increased success in adhering to contracted rules. In addition, in order to promote greater
self-management skills, self-monitoring requirements for both participants and an additional
rule for 1 participant were added.
Development of contracts
presents a sample contract. As shown in Table 1, the first steps were to perform a functional
in the present study). The next step was to conduct an initial preference assessment in order
to develop a reinforcement menu (examples discussed below). Next, the consultant wrote
the contract with input from the teaching staff, parents and participating students. Spaces for
writing the student’s name and the date were located at the top of the contract document.
J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114107
Development of a contingency contract program – task list
1. Complete functional assessment of challenging behaviors
2. Identify functionally related coping strategies
3. Conduct preference assessment and identify potential reinforcers
4. Develop contract document that includes the following elements:
a. Space for participant’s name and date
b. Rules that clearly specify required behavior
c. Bulleted list of coping skills
d. Reference to contingent relationship between rule adherence and reinforcement with spaces for
e. Lined spaces for signatures of student and teacher
f. Space for recording examples of student’s success
5. Organize binder to hold current, completed, blank contracts and data summary
6. Complete staff training that includes:
a. Rationale for the program
b. Review of procedures and criteria for adherence and violation of rules
c. Emphasis on positive reinforcement for rule adherence
7. Using unsigned contract documents, complete baseline of target behaviors
8. Complete participant’s training that includes:
a. Rationale for the program
b. Review of rules, rule violations, coping skills, contract document
c. Discussion of contingencies of reinforcement
rules. The rules for Marty are shown in Appendix. Rules 1 and 4 also appeared in Chad’s
contract, as well as “I will listen to my teachers and sit nicely during class time.”
staff, such as “Request a break” (i.e., voluntarily go to a pre-designated spot for 5 min)
(see Appendix). The rationale for these specific strategies was three-fold: First, they are
related to self-management instruction previously introduced through classroom-wide social
skills instruction (see McGinnis & Goldstein, 1997). Third, they balanced provision of
concrete, specific options with opportunity for flexible, situation-specific responding. For
example, the participant’s choice to “calmly talk to the teacher” often included participant
and teacher using a brief step-by-step problem-solving procedure to address a participant’s
specific grievance (e.g., when the participant was angered because he had to end a partially
completed toy construction project, it was decided that he could carefully set the project
aside to be completed later). Though the option of requesting a break was always available,
teaching staff did not always grant permission, if, for example, the participant had recently
taken a break or if the break would result in being late for a scheduled activity. Instead, he
was directed to “make another choice.”
to the rules (Appendix). Token reinforcement was presented in the form of stars or “smiley
faces” handwritten directly onto the appropriate space on the contract form at 60 min
intervals; infractions were recorded with an “X” in the space. Determined through analyses
of baseline data (see below), initially, up to 2 rule infractions per hour were permitted. (The
only exception was that, in Marty’s contract, any act of physical aggression directed at others
forfeited reinforcement specified on the contract for that half of the day.)
The bottom of the contract contained spaces for signatures by both the participant and
staff that were responsible for facilitating the contract that day (Appendix). It also included
108 J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114
space for staff to record salient examples of progress in adhering to the contracted rules (i.e.,
successful responding to difficult circumstances). Space for recording challenging behaviors
was purposely not provided because these data were captured on A-B-C data sheets and
across the day. Contract documents were contained in plain black binders (Appendix).
In the next step (Table 1), the consultant and special education teacher trained teaching
staff to administer the contract program through an all-staff training, followed by weekly
30 min meetings. The consultant was available on-site for one school day per week in order
to maintain consistency across time, settings, and teaching staff, as well as to troubleshoot
specific questions and problems. These meetings and consultations were important because,
despite presence of specifically assigned one-on-one aides, several different teachers and
classroom aides supervised the participants (and assumed responsibility for the contract
programs) across a typical week.
ing punitive strategies such as threats or negative comments in response to infractions. When
a participant had a successful hour, staff were encouraged to provide a positive, encourag-
ing statement and describe appropriate behaviors in addition to giving token reinforcement
(e.g., “I really like how you got your materials ready for Reading right away!”). Staff were
instructed to record infractions and offer either a brief neutral comment (e.g., “Remember
your rules, Marty”), or a supportive comment (e.g., “You can try again next hour, Chad”).
Finally, participants met with the consultant and special education teacher to review the
rationale for the program, as well as the rules and “terms” of the contract (i.e., criteria for
tokens and subsequent reinforcement). Specific potential reinforcers were identified through
discussion and compromise between teaching staff and participants and included 15-min
access to favored computer games, toy cars, roller skates, a pogo stick, music CDs, and art
supplies. Both participants agreed to the contract and proposed start dates.
Implementation of contracts
portion of the day, problem-solve areas of recent difficulty and/or frustration for the student
(e.g., amount of assigned writing), and highlight recent episodes of successful adherence to
contracted rules and use of coping skills. In the morning meeting, the contract for that day
was also signed by the teacher or aide and the participant. These meetings, which typically
lasted about 10 min, included brief role-playing, practice in discrimination of acceptable and
unacceptable behaviors, and practice of coping strategies (e.g., self-monitoring of behavior,
brief relaxation strategies, socially appropriate requests for breaks). The teacher or aide
typically provided encouraging words of support (e.g., “I know you can do it!”) and gauged
(i.e., assessed the possible presence of relevant establishing operations, such as lack of sleep
or unsettled frustrations from home or the previous school day). This information was used
to prepare in advance specific supports and/or accommodations (e.g., extra time to complete
assignments, availability of an especially enjoyable activity on the participant’s schedule).
binders, including carrying them from site to site and keeping them at their desk. They were
also instructed to ask the responsible staff person to “check his contract” at the end of each
hour to determine whether he had earned a star; staff prompted the participant as necessary
to make this request. The responsible teacher or aide recorded rule violations until the last
J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114 109
phase of the study, when participants were expected to record their rule violations and self-
administer token reinforcement (if earned), under the supervision of the teacher or aide.
During this phase, teachers or aides checked the accuracy of the participants’ recordings and
resolved discrepancies through discussion of the event(s) in question.
Criteria for token and back-up reinforcement
Data from the contract documents, as described in “Data Collection” below, were organized
and visually plotted for each week. These data were reviewed with the team, parents, and
each participant to monitor participants’ progress. These data, along with reports from staff
and feedback from both participants, guided decisions to increase criteria for token and
Criteria for Marty changed 3 times during the duration of the study. In Criterion 1, mid-
day and end-of-day reinforcement were contingent upon earning a star for at least 1 of the
three 60-min intervals during that half of the day. In Criteria 2, and 3 this requirement was
increased to 2 intervals and then 3 intervals during each half of the day. Rule 4 (regarding
starting work without undue prompting by teachers) and the self-monitoring requirement
were initiated during Criterion 3.
Criteria for Chad changed 4 times. Criteria 1 and 2 were identical to Criteria 1 and 2
for Marty. In Criterion 3 for Chad, mid-day reinforcement was contingent upon earning a
star for all three 60-min intervals in the morning. However, end-of-day reinforcement was
contingent upon earning a star during only 2 of three 60 min intervals in the afternoon
because data indicated that the afternoon was particularly challenging for Chad. In Criterion
4, mid-day and end-of-day reinforcement were contingent upon earning a star for all three
60-min intervals during that half of the day. The self-monitoring requirement was initiated
during this phase as well.
Prior to the participants’ training, classroom staff recorded rule violations and “successful”
hours by filling out the data portions of blank (i.e., unsigned) contingency contract forms.
This method allowed for the establishment of baseline data that were directly comparable to
hours was 33% for both weeks one and two of baseline, indicating that he engaged in at
least 3 episodes of behavior that violate subsequently contracted rules during the majority
of school hours. For Chad, mean daily percentage of successful hours was 32 and 44% for
weeks one and two of baseline, respectively, indicating that he also engaged in at least 3
episodes of behavior that violate subsequently contracted rules during the majority of school
Visual analysis of Marty’s data indicates a substantial and immediate increase in successful
hours during treatment, relative to baseline (see Fig. 1a), and an overall positive slope
with mild variability across the 26 weeks of the program. During the 2-week baseline, he
adhered to contracted rules with less than 3 violations at a mean daily rate of 33% of total
110J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114
Mean Daily % of Successful Hours
0510 15 2025 30
Mean Daily % of Successful Hours
BL C1 (a)
C2 C3 C3 + 4thRuleSM
BL C1 C2 C3 SM C4
Criteria 2 (C2), Criteria 3 (C3), addition of the fourth rule, and self-monitoring requirement (SM). (b) Chad’s
mean daily percentage of successful hours by week, for baseline (BL), Criteria 1 (C1), Criteria 2 (C2),
Criteria 3 (C3), self-monitoring requirement (SM) and Criteria 4 (C4)
(a) Marty’s mean daily percentage of successful hours by week, for baseline (BL), Criteria 1 (C1),
60-min intervals. When Criterion 1 was introduced at the start of treatment, he adhered
to contracted rules with less than 3 rule violations at a mean daily rate of 67% of total
60-min intervals. This percentage reflects adherence to contracted rules at a rate higher
than the level set by Criterion 1 and provided a strong rationale for increasing program
Criterion 2 was initiated during the second week of treatment. The mean daily percentage
of successful hours, ranging from 75 to 88%, during each of 3 weeks of Criterion 2 reflect
successful adherence to rules at criterion level. In fact, once again, on many days, Marty
surpassed the criterion level of rule adherence, and a team decision was made to increase the
criterion for reinforcement. Criterion 3 was initiated during Week 5 of treatment (following
J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114 111
decrease shortly after Rule 4 was initiated during Week 8. The self-monitoring requirement,
begun at Week 23, did not appear to negatively impact performance, as evidenced by the
consistently high percentages of successful 60-min intervals during the final 4 weeks of the
Similar to Marty’s data, visual analysis of Chad’s data indicates a substantial and immediate
increase in successful hours during treatment, relative to baseline (see Fig. 1b). There was
an overall positive slope with very mild variability across the 21 weeks of the program.
During Week 1 and Week 2 of the 2-week baseline, he engaged in a mean daily rate of
less than 3 rule violations during 32 and 44% of total 60-min intervals, respectively. When
Criterion 1 used with Marty), he engaged in less than 3 rule violations during 70–77% of
total 60-min intervals across 4 weeks. When Criterion 2 was introduced (2 stars in AM and
2 stars in PM, identical to Criterion 2 used with Marty), a mild, one week decrease in the
mean daily percentage of successful hours (67%) was followed by 3 weeks ranging from
79–83% of total 60-min intervals.
Rule adherence remained high-rate and stable during Criterion 3, even with the intro-
duction of the self-monitoring requirement. A drop in rule adherence was evidenced at the
rose to above 90% of total 60-min intervals.
Self-management instruction is often considered a critical aspect of intervention for many
school-age children with Autism Spectrum Disorders, especially for those children who
engage in challenging behaviors that compromise opportunities to participate in general
education settings. Using a changing criterion design, this study yielded data on the effec-
tiveness of contingency contracts to promote self-management skills in 2 male students, 1
with a diagnosis of Autistic Disorder and 1 with probable Asperger’s Disorder and ADHD.
The data suggest that the contingency contract procedure was effective in promoting adher-
ence to rules of conduct for both participants in the school setting. This is reflected in the
striking difference between baseline and treatment for both participants, as well as the pos-
itive trends in rule adherence as criteria and self-monitoring expectations were heightened
and, in one participant’s case, an additional rule was added.
Several therapeutic advantages were noted during administration of the contingency con-
tract programs. First, though the behavior of participants was the focus of the current study,
specific behaviors of participating teaching staff, including their delivery of reinforcement,
prompting use of coping skills, and recording of rule violations, appeared to have increased
as well. Also, the program requirement that teacher and participant review and sign the
contract document each morning provided regularly scheduled opportunities to conjointly
assess the participant’s behavior, problem-solve barriers to success, and discuss preferences
and feasibility of potential reinforcers. Development, implementation and maintenance of
the contract programs were simple and clear-cut, and the completed daily contract document
served as a record of daily rule adherence that could be used as behavioral data, as well as a
reference for subsequent meetings between staff and participant.
112J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114
particularly intrusive for the participants or obvious to others in general education settings.
upon rules, when a participant did violate a rule in a general education setting, the staff was
able to respond quickly with clear, concise language, minimizing unnecessary discussion
or class disruption. Given the difficulty that persons with Autism Spectrum Disorders often
demonstrate with processing language (Norbury & Bishop, 2002; Tager-Flusberg, 1981),
contingency contracting may be an especially effective behavior support.
Though the end of the school year precluded more extensive fading procedures in this
present study, a variety of “next step” fading procedures might be appropriate, such as
reducing the number of rule violations allowed per hour, shifting to day-long or even weekly
management requirements (e.g., decreasing direct teacher support in daily administration of
the program). Physical qualities of the contract document could be faded as well, such as
reducing the size of the document so that it resembles a “rule card” kept in the student’s
pocket. In this current study, it was found that the contingency contract programs were easily
modifiable allowing for quick implementation of new criteria, additional coping strategies
and, if necessary, new or modified rules.
1963). First, the small sample size of 2 participants selected from the first author’s clinical
made to maintain consistency in data collection and treatment implementation across time,
settings, and raters, there are no measures of inter-rater reliability or fidelity of treatment,
drawing into question the trustworthiness of the data. Third, though the key school-wide
supports were in place before and during this study, it is unknown to what extent these
and other variables, such as staff training, may have accounted for the improvement in rule
adherence by the 2 participants. It may be, for example, that the participants’ increasing
success with the academic demands or improved use of differential reinforcement and
extinction by staff contributed to the increase in the rate of rule adherence. The immediate
however, suggest that treatment was effective in increasing rule adherence. Furthermore, on
an anecdotal level, both participants discussed with accuracy the contracted contingencies of
reinforcement (e.g., “I know I’ve earned a star because I followed all of the rules the whole
time!”), suggesting that their behavior was subject to the contingencies of the contract (i.e.,
they emitted rule-governed behavior; Heward, 1987).
Given these indications of treatment effectiveness, future studies with more rigorous
experimental control are warranted (e.g., multiple baseline across subjects, settings or be-
haviors; reversal designs). Studies that include investigation of extensive treatment fading
procedures (e.g., inclusion of a “verbal contract” phase) would provide important informa-
tion about potential long-term outcome of contingency contract programs. Also, component
analyses studies, in which the therapeutic value of individual elements of contract-based
interventions are systematically analyzed (e.g., positive and negative reinforcement contin-
gencies, coping skills instruction, regularly scheduled meetings between staff and student,
etc.), would be useful in identifying the critical aspects of the intervention, as well as poten-
tially unnecessary steps. Contingency contracts may prove to be an efficient technology for
the provision of comprehensive intervention packages that promote the success of children
with ASD in the school setting, and future research is warranted.
J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114 113
Appendix: Marty’s contingency contract
Today, I agree to follow these rules:
1. I will use polite and respectful language with my teachers and classmates.
2. I will touch others without hurting them.
3. I will touch objects and furniture without breaking or damaging them.
4. When my teachers tell me that it is time to start work, I will quickly get organized and get started.
I will follow all of these rules, even when I am angry.
When I feel angry, I know that I can:
-Request a break;
-Calmly talk to my teacher about my problem
-Practice my relaxation
I will get stars for each hour of the day that I follow the rules.
If I earn _________ stars in the morning, I will earn __________________________________ before
If I earn _________ stars in the afternoon, I will earn __________________________________ at the end
of the school day.
IMPORTANT: If I hit or kick another person, or if I throw something, I will not get stars for that part of
Marty Member of Teaching Staff
STARS EARNED IN THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON
This morning, I need to earn _______ stars. This Afternoon, I need to earn _______ stars.
(Three Xs and I will not get a star!)
(Three and I will not get a star!)
8:30-9:30- ___ ___ ___ ______ 11:30-12:30- ___ ___ ___ ______
9:30-10:30- ___ ___ ___
10:30-11:30- ___ ___ ___
______ 12:30-1:30- ___ ___ ___ ______
______ 1:30-2:30- ___ ___ ___ ______
Please include any comments about Marty,s progress at the bottom or back of this page.
contracting: A brief review and case study. Psycholology in the Schools, 27, 224–251.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text
revision). Washington, DC: Author.
114J Dev Phys Disabil (2007) 19:103–114
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for discussing behavior
change (2nd ed.), New York: Pergamon.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
DeMartini-Scully, D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive
behaviors in general education students. Psycholology in the Schools, 37, 149–156.
Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1992). Motivation assessment scale (MAS) administration guide. Topeka,
KS: Monaco & Associates.
Heward, W. L. (1987). Contingency contracting. In J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, & W. L. Heward (Eds.), Applied
behavior analysis (pp. 467–485). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.
Homme, L. E., Csanyi, A. P., Gonzalez, M. A., & Rechs, J. R. (1970). How to use contingency contracting in
the classroom. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Jolivette, K., & Wehby, J. H. (1999). My teacher said I did good work today! Using collaborative behavioral
contracting. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31, 12–18.
Koegel, L. K., Harrower, J. K., & Koegel, R. L. (1999). Support for children with developmental disabilities
in full inclusion classrooms through self-management. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1,
of approach. Journal of Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 174–185.
McGinnis, E., & Goldstein, A. P. (1997). Skillstreaming the elementary school child (2nd ed.). Champaign,
IL: Research Press.
Newstrom, J., McLaughlin, T. F., & Sweeney, W. J. (1999). The effects of contingency contracting to improve
the mechanics of written language in a middle school student with behavior disorder. Children & Family
Behavior Therapy, 21, 39–48.
Norbury C. F., & Bishop, D. (2002). Inferential processing and story recall in children with communication
problems: A comparison of specific language impairment, pragmatic language impairment and high-
functioning autism. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37, 227–251.
through pictorial self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 471–481.
between preschoolers with autism and their nondisabled peers: An analysis of self-monitoring. Early
Education and Development, 7, 205–220.
Smith Myles, B., & Simpson, R. L. (1998). Asperger syndrome: A guide for educators and parents. Austin,
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland adaptive behavior scales. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Strain, P. S., Kohler, F. W., Storey, K., & Danko, C. D. (1994). Teaching preschoolers with autism to self-
monitor their social interactions: An analysis of results in home and school settings. Journal of Emotional
Behavioral Disorders, 2, 78–89.
Tager-Flusberg, H. (1981). Sentence comprehension in autistic children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 5–22.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Guide for administering and scoring the stanford-binet
intelligence scale (4th ed.). Chicago: Riverside Publishing.
interventions. Psychological Reports, 67, 233–264.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological