Self-Management Skills and Applied Behavior Analysis

Abstract

Self-management interventions are evidence-based behavioral strategies in which various components (e.g., goal setting, self-evaluation, self-monitoring, self-reinforcement, self-instruction) are self-administered alone, or in tandem, to occasion behavior change. Research from the past 50 years has demonstrated that self-management strategies can benefit individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities, can be used as antecedent or consequence-based strategies, and can help improve adaptive skills (e.g., social-communication skills; daily-living skills; academic performance; on-task behavior; socially-appropriate play skills). Research has also shown that self-management strategies can help reduce inappropriate vocalizations, self-stimulatory behaviors, aggression, tantrums, and self-injurious behaviors. Social validity data collected during self-management intervention research has suggested that implementation is often intuitive, cost-effective, and results in increased independent living.

Full text

957
Self-Management Skills andApplied
Behavior Analysis
PatricioErhard, TravisWong, MoniqueBarnett, TerryS.Falcomata,
andRussellLang
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis
According to Cooper etal. (2020), self-management is “the personal application of
behavior-change tactics that produces a desired change in behavior” (p. 683).
Through self-management interventions, individuals learn to identify occurrences
of their own target responding; accurately self-record the target response with a pre-
determined recording system; self-evaluate their behavior according to a prear-
ranged standard; and self-deliver reinforcement as a consequence (e.g., Maag, 2004;
McConnell, 1999; Myles & Simpson, 2003; Reid etal., 2005). Research has dem-
onstrated that self-management interventions can improve various adaptive behav-
iors, such as academic and social skills, across a variety of populations, from
preschool to adulthood, and in community and vocational settings (Maag, 2004).
Further, self-management strategies have been demonstrated to reduce problem
behaviors, such as restricted/repetitive behaviors (Southall & Gast, 2011), tantrums
(Lui etal., 2014), and aggression (Miranda & Presentación, 2000).
Although some of the literature base has used the terms self-management and
self-control analogously, recent research has emphasized important distinctions
(e.g., Cooper etal., 2020; Epstein, 1997). This chapter is aligned the Cooper etal.
(2020) conceptualization, wherein self-management is referred to as the application
of behavior change tactics to oneself, and self-control is referred to as the allocation
of responding to larger delayed reinforcement rather than small immediate
reinforcement.
P. Erhard · T. Wong · M. Barnett · T. S. Falcomata (*)
Department of Special Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
e-mail: falcomata@austin.utexas.edu
R. Lang
Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
J. L. Matson, P. Sturmey (eds.), Handbook of Autism and Pervasive
Developmental Disorder, Autism and Child Psychopathology Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88538-0_41

958
Components ofSelf-Management
Self-management interventions generally involve a combination of components
including self-monitoring, goal setting, self-evaluation, self-reinforcement, self-
instruction, and/or strategy instruction (Otero & Haut, 2016). Intervention research
has considered varying sets of components when dening and implementing self-
management strategies. For instance, there are some distinctions between studies
that have omitted the use of self-instruction or strategy instruction (e.g., Dalton
etal., 1999; Maggin etal., 2013), while others have indicated the use and impor-
tance of self-instruction and strategy instruction in self-management (i.e., Asaro-
Saddler, 2016; Rafferty, 2010). The same is true for studies that have emphasized
the use of self-reinforcement (i.e., Bandura, 1976; Busacca etal., 2015) and those
that have not (i.e., Mooney etal., 2005; Rafferty, 2010). This chapter provides a
denition of all the components presented in previous literature.
Self-monitoring. Self-monitoring is a combination of self-observation and self-
recording, wherein the individual observes their own behavior and notes occur-
rences (or lack thereof) of target behavior(s). To implement self-monitoring, several
essential steps must be included. First, a behavior is identied and dened in an
objective and measurable way (i.e., operationally dened). For example, math prob-
lem completion might be targeted and operationally dened as “percentage of math
problems completed correctly during a daily quiz.” Second, caregivers collect base-
line data to examine the individual’s responding prior to the introduction of a self-
monitoring strategy, which are helpful for goal setting (discussed below). Third, an
appropriate method of self-monitoring is determined. Individuals with an advanced
skill repertoire can use complex systems (e.g., checking boxes, tallying marks in a
to-do list, and lling histograms) while individuals with few emerging skills may
need to use less intricate methods, such as token systems (e.g., coins and stickers).
Fourth, the individual is trained to self-monitor with the identied method, which
may be done in a variety of ways. For example, Ganz (2008) noted individuals can
be taught using modeling and role play, whereby examples and non-examples of the
target behavior are presented to the individual, followed by the rehearsal of the
behavior by the individual. When the individual begins self-monitoring indepen-
dently, it may be necessary, at least initially, for the caregiver to also collect data to
ensure ongoing accuracy. If numerous mistakes are observed, role playing or mod-
eling for practice purposes can be resumed. When the individual is procient in
self-monitoring, the caregiver systematically fades the monitoring.
Goal setting. Goal setting involves selecting a specic metric that establishes a
point of reference for tracking performance (Mooney etal., 2005). Teaching how to
set goals can be accomplished in various ways. For example, Delano (2007) taught
three participants with autism to set goals to increase written language using video
modeling and scripting. Specically, the participants created a video, read a script,
counted the number of the words in their essay, recorded the number on a bar chart,
and set a new goal to increase their next word output by 10% in the following essay.
Results showed that each participant increased the number of words they wrote, as
P. Erhard et al.

959
well as the amount of functioning essay elements. Because behaviors vary in form,
length, and intensity, goals are created using measurement approaches that align
with key characteristics (dimensions) of the target behavior (Alberto & Troutman,
2017). For example, the goal of completing math problems correctly should involve
a measurement system that represents both accuracy and opportunity; in this case
percentage (i.e., the number of correct responses divided by the total number of
problems answered correctly). However, if the number of opportunities is held con-
sistent (e.g., 10 math problems a day), a simple frequency (total count) of correct
problems would be more efcient.
Self-evaluation. Self-evaluation, commonly referred to as self-assessment
involves (a) comparing the performance of the individual to the goals established
and (b) making decisions on whether the individual is progressing towards the cri-
teria or if changes improve responding performance are necessary (Lee etal., 2007).
For example, the individual can examine the data regarding their own math problem
completion (e.g., check his/her grades) and (a) compare it to the goal that was estab-
lished (e.g., determine if he/she attained the percentage of correct problems solved)
and then (b) decide whether their performance met the goal or if changes should be
made to improve performance (e.g., choosing to study more). A study by Glomb
and West (1990) illustrated how an individual can be taught to use self-evaluation
through textual prompts. The researchers embedded prompts specic to writing
completeness, accuracy, and neatness within the self-evaluation procedure. As a
result of the intervention, both participants increased the percentage of words com-
pleted on writing assignments and the percentage of accurate sentence production
as well.
Self-administered consequence. Self-monitoring and self-evaluation are often
used in conjunction with self-administered consequences that are aimed at increas-
ing the target behavior (i.e., self-administered reinforcement). With self- administered
reinforcement, the individual may deliver or remove stimuli (i.e., positive or nega-
tive reinforcement) when self-monitoring reveals that reinforcement contingencies
have been met.
Bandura (1976) identied three conditions for self-reinforcement to be effective.
First, a clear operationally-dened target behavior is identied. For example, an
appropriate standard for improving math problem completion might be “80% of
math problems answered correctly on a daily quiz” (i.e., a specic criterion for
accurate responding identied and provided). Second, the person must control the
reinforcers. The individual should have direct access to reinforcing stimuli or be
empowered to ask another person to administer reinforcement. Self-management
(along with other forms of behavioral intervention) tend to be more effective when
the individual utilizing the self-management intervention is involved in the rein-
forcer selection process (e.g., Apple etal., 2005; Lovitt & Curtiss, 1969). Therefore,
a preference assessment or reinforcer assessment should be incorporated (DeLeon
& Iwata, 1996). Third, the reinforcers are delivered only on a conditional basis (i.e.,
contingent on predetermined measure of target behavior). If the individual fails to
meet the goal, the reinforcer is denied (Bandura, 1976). However, the initial perfor-
mance standard (i.e., reinforcement contingency) is typically set at a level that
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis

960
allows frequent self-administered consequences. The reinforcement contingency
can be gradually made more stringent as the individual’s performance improves. If
the initial criteria are too challenging or effortful, the individual will not contact
reinforcement and the target behavior will not be maintained (Ganz, 2008).
Self-instruction. Self-instruction is characterized as a prompt or mediator that
occurs before engagement in the target behavior (Hughes & Agran, 1993). Self-
instruction has been characterized as a self-guided behavior (Bryant & Budd, 1982;
Fish & Mendola, 1986) and, in cases where self-instruction results in reinforce-
ment, self-instruction may come to function as a discriminative stimulus (Hughes
et al., 1993; Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971). For example, if a math quiz is
approaching, the student may say “the quiz is next week, I should study.” Studying
for the math quiz results in a passing score which reinforces the self-instruction
(i.e., “I should study”). For self-instruction to be effective, the individual must be
able to engage in some level of verbal behavior such that they are able to identify
what to do and how to do it. Thus, after identifying that studying should occur, the
individual must have the ability to identify what studying consists of (e.g., materials
needed, discrete behaviors involved and duration) and have necessary skills in
repertoire.
Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971), identied four components of self-
instruction including (a) dening the task; (b) planning how to complete the task;
(c) providing self-instructions during the task; and (d) self-reinforcing when contin-
gency is met. Following the steps proposed by Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971),
Davis and Hajicek (1985) used self-instruction and strategy training to increase the
responding accuracy and attending (i.e., on-task behavior) of seven individuals with
conduct disorder when completing math worksheets. The self-instruction training
involved (a) establishing the reason for conducting self-instruction, (b) modeling
how to complete the math worksheet using their strategy while also talking out loud
to himself, (c) providing participants with an opportunity to practice the strategy
with prompts, (d) contriving opportunities for the participant to perform the same
task while talking out loud, followed by (e) whispering the task, and nally (f) hav-
ing the participant give self-instructions “silently.” The study resulted in an increase
in responding accuracy with math problems across all participants, and some
increase in attending for ve of the seven participants.
Strategy instruction. Strategy instruction (or cognitive strategy instruction) is a
technique that involves teaching individuals to follow a sequence of steps to solve
problems or achieve outcomes independently (e.g., Mooney etal., 2005; Graham &
Harris, 1989). Based on cognitive and behavioral theories, strategy instruction
includes the use of instruction with cognitive processes (e.g., visualizations) and
metacognitive processes (e.g., self-questioning), such that the individual is taught
how to solve problems prociently (Montague & Dietz, 2009). For example, if an
individual is having difculties improving their math problem solving skill, that
individual could be taught to (a) ensure they understand the problem they are com-
pleting, (b) visualizing the use of the numbers and symbols, (c) identify a sequence
of steps for computing the numbers, (d) predict whether the math problem will be
completed, (e) conduct the computation, and (f) conrm if the math problem was
P. Erhard et al.

961
completed correctly. Training individuals to use strategy instruction can take many
forms, especially considering that strategy instruction involves the comprehensive
use of many complex skills. For example, in a study by Hughes etal. (1993), six
individuals with emotional behavioral disorder (EBD) were taught to engage in
strategy instruction by following a rst-letter mnemonic device to improve their
test-taking skills. The individuals were taught to follow the mnemonic device
PIRATES by (a) preparing to succeed, (b) inspecting the instructions, (c) reading,
remembering, reducing, (d) answering or abandoning, (e) turning back, and (f) esti-
mating, and (g) surveying. Individual were taught to follow this mnemonic device
by establishing the participants’ commitment to learn the strategy, providing a ratio-
nale for using the strategy, modeling, engaging in verbal rehearsal, completing par-
tial practice with the rst four steps in the mnemonic device; all followed by a
complete practice with all the steps in the mnemonic device. After the introduction
of strategy instruction, all six participants showed improvement with their test-
taking skills. A similar study also found this specic strategy useful with partici-
pants with learning disabilities (LD; Hughes & Schumaker, 1991). Strategy
instruction is regularly referenced when individuals are trained with Self-Regulated
Strategy Development (SRSD; Graham & Harris, 2003), which incorporates cogni-
tive and metacognitive processes as well.
Historical Background
The extant literature provides differing theoretical frameworks that inuence the
implementation procedures of self-management techniques. Specically, two theo-
retical models have been posited to account for the positive outcomes of self-
management interventions; an operant model and a cognitive model (Mace
etal., 1987).
Operant Theory. Among other conceptualizations, the operant model asserts
that behaviors are learned and maintained due to contact with environmental contin-
gencies (Maag, 2004; Skinner, 1953). In this context, self-management outcomes
are attributed to the changes in environment with an emphasis on changes in rein-
forcement contingencies. An operant model of self-management was rst posited
by B.F.Skinner in Science and Human Behavior (Skinner, 1953) wherein Skinner
offered techniques for self-management, such as presenting oneself with discrimi-
native stimuli, or with specic consequences, that appear in commonly used com-
ponents of self-management in current research, such as self-monitoring and
self-reinforcement.
Skinner’s ideas of self-reinforcement were later reiterated and expanded upon by
Albert Bandura (1976), who identied the previously mentioned criteria for self-
reinforcement (i.e., control of reinforcers, conditional self-administration of rein-
forcers, and the adoption of performance standards; p.136). Skinner (1953) and
Bandura identied reinforcement as a primary factor in changing behavior via self-
management; however, they also noted that self-reinforcement alone cannot account
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis

962
for all behavior change and other consequences (self-administered or not) likely
play a role in changing the frequency of a target behavior. Since then, researchers
have emphasized that performance-management strategies should be considered
“rule-governed analogs of reinforcement […] contingencies” (Cooper etal., 2020,
pp. 700), especially when there is a delay between the target response and the
consequence.
Cognitive Theory. In contrast, the cognitive model describes self-management
as the process by which established, automatic responses become manipulated
through a specic kind of cognitive functioning, referred to as controlled processing
in early texts (Kanfer & Gaelick-Buys, 1991). According to this model, automatic
responses that involve little attention, such as habitual nail-biting, can be manipu-
lated so that nail-biting increases or decreases based on the controlling cognitive
function (Fisk & Schneider, 1984; Posner & Snyder, 1975; Schneider & Schiffrin,
1977). Early authors have characterized this process through self-monitoring, self-
evaluation, and self-reinforcement, where an individual’s emotional and cognitive
responses increase or decrease target behaviors based on an individual’s attention to
their own behavior, their comparison to a set of standards, and the provision of self-
feedback (Kanfer, 1970). Later cognitive theorists made distinctions between vari-
ous forms of cognition, such as the cognitive, and metacognitive processes. Thus,
cognitive and cognitive-behavioral models appear to align best with strategy instruc-
tion and SRSD.
Evidence-Based Status
Many research councils have reviewed the self-management literature and identi-
ed self-management interventions as evidence-based for people with ASD. For
example, the National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice (NCAEP;
Steinbrenner etal., 2020) reviewed a total of 26 studies between 1990–2017 with
individuals 3–22years of age and found that self-management was effective for
increasing social skills (e.g., communication, play), school readiness, academic
skills, adaptive daily-living skills, and vocational skills. The NCAEP also found that
self-management was effective in managing challenging/interfering behaviors. A
separate review of 14 studies by the National Professional Development Center on
ASD found that self-management strategies are effective for supporting individuals
3–5 and 15–22years of age (Sam & AFIRM Team, 2016). Similarly, The National
Autism Center (NAC) reviewed 31 studies and reported that self-management
helped adolescents and young adults improve academic, interpersonal, and com-
munication skills as well as reduce restrictive and repetitive, behaviors, interests, or
activities (National Autism Center, 2015).
Several reviews have also found strong support for the use of self-management
strategies for academics. For example, Carr et al. (2014) reviewed 23 self-
management studies involving academic goals to evaluate effects with individuals
with ASD and reported that self-management was an effective intervention for
P. Erhard et al.

963
promoting academic and social skills across individuals with ASD across a wide
range of skill levels. However, they also noted that the magnitude of treatment
effects differed such that individuals with advanced skills experienced better out-
comes than individuals with emerging skills. Specically, Carr et al. conducted a
quality assessment on all 23 studies using What Works Clearinghouse’s (WWC)
guidelines. Of the 23 studies (involving 70 participants), Carr etal. reported 12
peer-reviewed studies that met WWC’s research quality standards. Because those
studies were conducted across eight different research groups and included 34 par-
ticipants, Carr etal. concluded that adequate empirical evidence exists supporting
self-management as an effective intervention for people with ASD.Similarly, Lee
etal. (2007) reviewed 11 studies to examine the effects of self-management strate-
gies among individuals with ASD.Each examined study sought to increase desir-
able behaviors among participants (e.g., social and play skills) and concluded that
self-management strategies were effective. Taken together, these systematic litera-
ture reviews provided substantial evidence that self-management strategies are
effective at increasing a variety of target behaviors among individuals with ASD.
Treatment Populations
In addition to individuals with ASD, self-management has also been used to address
behavior change goals for people with other developmental and intellectual disabili-
ties as well as for typically-developing individuals.
Typically-Developing Individuals. Self-management interventions have been
shown to be effective for addressing various issues in typically developing individu-
als across age groups. For example, Hughes and Hendrickson (1987) used self-
monitoring strategies to increase on-task behaviors in typically developing
elementary school individuals. Compernolle etal. (2019) demonstrated that self-
monitoring interventions can reduced sedentary time among typically developing
adults. In another study (i.e., Tomasone et al., 2018), the implementation of self-
management intervention led to a signicant increase in leisure time physical activ-
ity adults with spinal cord injuries demonstrated.
Individuals with Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities. In addition to
ASD, research has demonstrated that self-management interventions can be effec-
tive with individuals diagnosed with other developmental disabilities; for example,
increasing on-task behavior among individuals with cognitive impairment (O’Reilly
etal., 2002), attention decit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Harris etal., 2005),
EBD (Rafferty, 2012), and LD (Dalton etal., 1999). Research has also shown that
self-management can help individuals with ADHD and LD improve their reading
and writing (Shimabukuro etal., 1999) and completion of math problems (Uberti
etal., 2004). Further, self-management interventions have been implemented with
children diagnosed with various intellectual and developmental disabilities in gen-
eral education classrooms (Busacca etal., 2015).
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis

964
Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The literature on self-management
provides abundant evidence supporting effectiveness with individuals with ASD.For
example, self-management has been successful with preschoolers (e.g., Koegel
etal., 2014; Reinecke etal., 1999; Shogren etal., 2011) through young adults (e.g.,
Dipipi etal., 2001; Palmen etal., 2008). The implementation of self-management
among individuals with ASD has improved (a) social communication skills (e.g.,
Loftin et al., 2008; Strain et al., 1994), (b) daily living skills (e.g., Pierce &
Schreibman, 1994), (c) academic performance (e.g., Holield et al., 2010;
Shimabukuro etal., 1999), (d) on-task behavior (e.g., Coyle & Cole, 2004; Cihak
etal., 2010), and (e) appropriate play skills (e.g., Stahmer & Schreibman, 1992).
Finally, self-management interventions have been shown to lead to decreases in
(a) inappropriate vocalizations (e.g., Kern etal., 1997; Mancina etal., 2000), (b)
self-stimulatory behaviors (e.g., Stasolla etal., 2014), (c) aggression and tantrum
behaviors (e.g., Lui etal., 2014), and (d) self-injurious behaviors (e.g., Koegel etal.,
1992) among individuals with ASD.
Areas ofIntervention
The benets of self-management interventions can be considered to fall into two
main categories: (1) maintaining positive behaviors and (2) decreasing problem
behaviors.
Maintaining positive behaviors. Self-management can be used to maintain tar-
get behaviors (i.e., continuing to perform the target behavior after acquisition) and
improve behavior uency (i.e., performing the target behavior at an increased rate;
e.g., Agran, 2003). Newman and Eyck (2005) taught social initiation skills to three
children with ASD via positive reinforcement. After the participants demonstrated
mastery of the targeted social skills, the researchers transitioned to the self-
management phase where the participants monitored their own social initiation and
self-reinforced through token economy. Results illustrated that the levels of social
initiation were maintained after switching to self-management. In fact, two of the
three children with ASD increased social initiation during the self-management
condition (Newman & Eyck, 2005). Holield etal. (2010) examined the effective-
ness of self-monitoring on academic accuracy and on-task behavior exhibited by
two individuals with ASD.Their ndings suggested self-monitoring was effective
as both participants demonstrated immediate increases in academic accuracy and
on-task behavior during the self-monitoring phase. Similarly, Shogren etal. (2011)
combined a token economy with self-management and successfully increased
appropriate classroom behavior and academic engagement (i.e., following teacher
instructions) in two elementary individuals with Asperger syndrome. Pierce and
Schreibman (1994) combined self-management with picture prompts to teach daily-
living skills (e.g., getting dressed, making lunch, doing laundry) to three children
P. Erhard et al.

965
with ASD and reported that all individuals successfully used the picture prompts to
self-manage their behavior in the absence of supervision. Moreover, the individuals
generalized their skills across settings, tasks, and maintained high levels of comple-
tion at follow-up.
Decreasing problem behaviors. Research has also demonstrated that self-
management interventions can reduce problem behaviors such as inappropriate
vocalizations and tantrum behaviors (e.g., Carr, 2016). Previous research has sug-
gested self-management can address the skill decit(s) that underlie problem behav-
iors by increasing appropriate behaviors that compete with problem behaviors to
occasion their reduction (Carr, 2016). Additionally, self-management interventions
have been shown to be more effective when practitioners assess the functions of the
targeted problem behavior and then adapt reinforcement contingencies and other
environmental changes to align with the function(s) (Hansen et al., 2014). For
example, Ingram et al. (2005) compared two approaches to the use of self-
management. One self-management intervention aligned with the function of the
participants’ problem behavior, whereas the other self-management intervention did
not include function-aligned components. Results indicated that the function-based
self-management intervention was more successful, as evidenced by lower problem
behaviors, when compared to the non-function-based intervention. Furthermore, the
results underscored the importance of conducting a functional behavioral assess-
ment (FBA) when developing a self-management intervention (Ingram etal., 2005).
Specically, when the purpose for engagement in a problem behavior is identied,
a self-management strategy can be implemented that addresses the specic function
of the behavior. Further, a self-management strategy that includes function-based
components will likely be more effective than one that does not.
Besides identifying the function of problem behaviors, it may also be important
that self-management interventions are used for dual purposes (e.g., to increase an
appropriate replacement skill while decreasing a problem behavior). For example,
Brooks etal. (2003) identied attention as the function of a participant’s problem
behavior and subsequently taught the participant socially appropriate ways to
obtain peer and teacher attention. After the participant learned how to discriminate
appropriate behavior and problem behavior, the researchers implemented self-
management wherein the participant self-monitored and evaluated her behavior.
Appropriate behaviors increased and problem behaviors decreased. More to the
point, the positive alternative behavior identied via FBA was necessary to decrease
the problem behaviors (Brooks etal., 2003). Similarly, Lui etal. (2014) incorpo-
rated instructional stories to teach appropriate replacement behaviors and self-man-
agement in which the participants self-monitored and evaluated their behaviors.
Results indicated that the combination of instructional stories and self-management
was effective at increasing compliance and decreasing problem behaviors
(Lui etal., 2014).
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis

966
Supplemental Teaching Strategies
Various strategies have been incorporated with self-management interventions to
further enhance effectiveness (e.g., token economies; visual schedules). Methods
that have been successfully integrated with self-management strategies may be cat-
egorized as (a) antecedent-based strategies (i.e., the use of behavioral strategies
prior to the occurrence of behaviors) and (b) consequence-based strategies (i.e., the
use of behavioral strategies after the occurrence of a behavior).
Antecedent-based strategies. According to Harchik etal. (1992), antecedent-
based strategies are incorporated with self-management to cue or guide the indi-
vidual’s behavior by using stimuli, such as picture or audio cues, that precede
occurrences of the target behavior. Research has suggested that antecedent prompts
can increase an individual’s ability to respond independently without waiting for
caregiver’s guidance (e.g., Riffel et al., 2005), which can also be effective when
presented via computers (Lancioni et al., 1999). Consequently, antecedent self-
management prompts may further increase uency of the target behavior and pro-
mote maintenance of the self-management skills (Mechling, 2007).
Picture prompting is one of the most common antecedent-based strategies within
the self-management literature (Lancioni et al., 2001). Pierce and Schreibman
(1994) incorporated picture cues to prompt participants through task analyzed
daily-living tasks. For example, each task was broken down into smaller steps and
depicted in pictures that represented the sequence of steps required to complete the
entire task. Participants then observed each picture prior to or during each step.
Pierce and Schreibman’s reported that all participants were able to follow the pic-
ture prompts and complete the daily-living tasks in the absence of supervision.
Further, these improvements generalized across different settings and tasks.
Picture prompts may also be integrated with self-management procedures using
picture activity schedules. Picture activity schedules display activities or tasks in
sequence to the individual to improve the likelihood of independent transitions
across steps and engagement (Lancioni & O’Reilly, 2001). Irvine etal. (1992) com-
bined a picture activity schedule with self-management to promote independence
among participants with intellectual disabilities. To individualize a picture activity
schedule for each participant, the researchers consulted with caregivers and teachers
and gathered information on tasks participants were not consistently performing
without prompts. Participants were taught that each picture represented a step in the
activity schedule and to follow the schedule. They were then taught to self-monitor
behaviors by placing their initials next to the picture after completing the corre-
sponding activity. Findings suggested that the combination of a visual schedule and
self-management was effective in improving independent initiations and comple-
tions of tasks among all participants. In addition, the participants’ parents reported
that their children performed more autonomously without being nagged which led
to improved parent-child interactions (Irvine etal., 1992).
Another common antecedent-based strategy used with self-management is
auditory prompting. Briggs et al. (1990) combined auditory prompts and
P. Erhard et al.

967
self-management techniques to teach daily living tasks to individuals with intellec-
tual disabilities. Specically, the researchers recorded a vocal script of 22 steps for
operating a washing machine so the individual could listen to the instructions step-
by- step. Self-evaluation questions that required individuals to pause and self-
monitor to determine if all previous steps had been performed correctly (e.g., “Are
all the supplies in the basket?”) were included in the scripts. The auditory prompts
paired with self-monitoring was effective. All participants performed the targeted
task accurately, maintained performance at follow-up, and the prompt system gen-
eralized successfully to another setting.
Consequence-based strategies. As described above, self-administered conse-
quences are often used in tandem with other self-management interventions. One of
the most common is a token economy system. Specically, when an individual
learns to self-evaluate, he or she then self-delivers a token as reinforcement. Tokens
can then be exchanged for reinforcing items or activities. Newman and Eyck (2005)
combined token economy and self-management to increase social initiations exhib-
ited by individuals with ASD.The individuals were trained to self-monitor and self-
evaluate their social initiation behavior. For example, when the individual
independently initiated an appropriate request to play with a toy (e.g., “Can I play?”)
or asked a question (e.g., “What’s that?”), a token was self-administered. The tokens
earned were exchanged for time playing on the computer or with a toy train set.
Shogren etal. (2011) also combined token economy and self-management to
successfully increase appropriate classroom behaviors exhibited by participants
with Asperger syndrome. The participants were initially trained to discriminate
between examples and non-examples of appropriate classroom behaviors. After the
participants demonstrated mastery with the classroom rules, a teacher-implemented
token economy was introduced in which the participants could exchange tokens for
a preferred reinforcer (i.e., they could trade three earned smiley faces on their
behavior sheets for preferred objects/activities). After participants were familiarized
with the token economy system, they were told that they would be responsible for
making their own smiley face marks on their behavior sheets. If inaccurate, the
participant did not earn access to the preferred item. Results showed appropriate
classroom behavior and academic engagement increased with the introduction of a
token economy and improvements maintained at high levels when self-management
components were included. As evidence of social and ecological validity, the class-
room teacher maintained the self-management system following the study and gen-
eralized the self-management system across all the individuals in class (Shogren
etal., 2011).
Conclusion
With an increase in the number of individuals diagnosed with ASD and an increase
in online (often self-guided) instruction in school systems, it is critical that parents,
teachers, and clinicians implement evidence-based practices to promote growth
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis

968
among individuals with ASD.Self-management is a set of procedures with a sup-
portive scientic evidence base that can promote adaptive skills development (e.g.,
improved social skills and increased task engagement) and reduce problem behav-
iors. Research has demonstrated that self-management is a pivotal skill that can
generalize across behaviors and improve autonomy across various skills and con-
texts for individuals with ASD (e.g., Koegel etal., 1992). In addition to the direct
benets of the procedures, social validity has also been well-documented consis-
tently in the self-management literature. Many participants have reported that self-
management interventions are easy to design and implement and are practical for
teachers and parents (Cooper etal., 2020). Given the strong peer-reviewed efcacy
and feasibility, self-management interventions should be promoted among individu-
als with ASD.
References
Agran, M. (2003). Student-directed learning. Brookes.
Alberto, P., & Troutman, A.C. (2017). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Pearson.
Apple, A., Billingsley, F., Schwartz, I., & Carr, E. (2005). Effects of video modeling alone and
with self-management on compliment-giving behaviors of children with high- functioning
ASD. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.117
7/10983007050070010401
Asaro-Saddler, K. (2016). Writing instruction and self-regulation for students with autism spec-
trum disorders: A systematic review of the literature. Topics in Language Disorders, 36,
266–283. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000093
Bandura, A. (1976). Self-reinforcement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Behavior,
4, 135–155.
Briggs, A., Alberto, P., Sharpton, W., Berlin, K., McKinley, C., & Ritts, C. (1990). Generalized
use of a self-operated audio prompt system. Education and Training in Mental Retardation,
25, 39–50.
Brooks, A., Todd, A., Tofemoyer, S., & Horner, R. (2003). Use of functional assessment and a
self-management system to increase academic engagement and work completion. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007030050030301
Bryant, L. E., & Budd, K. S. (1982). Self-instructional training to increase independent work
performance in preschoolers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 259–271. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1982.15- 259
Busacca, M. L., Anderson, A., & Moore, D.W. (2015). Self-management for primary school
students demonstrating problem behavior in regular classrooms: Evidence review of single-
case design research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 373–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10864- 015- 9230- 3
Carr, M. (2016). Self-management of challenging behaviours associated with autism spectrum
disorder: A meta-analysis. Australian Psychologist, 511, 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ap.12227
Carr, M., Moore, D., & Anderson, A. (2014). Self-management interventions on students with
autism: A meta-analysis of single-subject research. Exceptional Children, 81, 28–44. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0014402914532235
Cihak, D., Wright, R., & Ayres, K. (2010). Use of self-modeling static-picture prompts via a hand-
held computer to facilitate self-monitoring in the general education classroom. Education and
Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 136–149.
P. Erhard et al.

969
Compernolle, S., Desmet, A., Poppe, L., Crombez, G., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Cardon, G., Van
Der Ploeg, H., & Van Dyck, D. (2019). Effectiveness of interventions using self-monitoring
to reduce sedentary behavior in adults: Aa systematic review and meta-analysis. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16, 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12966- 019- 0824- 3
Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Merrill.
Coyle, C., & Cole, P. (2004). A videotaped self-modelling and self-monitoring treatment pro-
gram to decrease off-task behaviour in children with autism. Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disability, 29, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927020410001662642
Dalton, T., Martella, R.C., & Marchand-Martella, N.E. (1999). The effects of a self-management
program in reducing off-task behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 157–176. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1022183430622
Davis, R., & Hajicek, J. (1985). Effects of self-instructional training and strategy training on a
mathematics task with severely behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders., 10,
275–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874298501000403
Delano, M. (2007). Improving written language performance of adolescents with asperger
syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.2007.50- 06
DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for
assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533. https://
doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29- 519
Dipipi, C. M., Jitendra, A. K., & Miller, J. A. (2001). Reducing repetitive speech:
Effects of strategy instruction. Preventing School Failure, 45, 177–181. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10459880109603334
Epstein, R. (1997). Skinner as a self-manager. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 545–568.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30- 545
Fish, M.C., & Mendola, L.R. (1986). The effect of self-instruction training on homework comple-
tion in an elementary special education class. School Psychology Review, 15, 268–276.
Fisk, A.D., & Schneider, W. (1984). Memory as a function of attention, level of processing and
authorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10,
181–197. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278- 7393.10.2.181
Ganz, J. (2008). Self-monitoring across age and ability levels: Teaching students to implement
their own positive behavioral interventions. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 53, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.1.39- 48
Glomb, R., & West, R. (1990). Teaching behaviorally disordered adolescents to use self-
management skills for improving the completeness, accuracy, and neatness of cre-
ative writing homework assignments. Behavioral Disorders, 14, 233–242. https://doi.
org/10.1177/019874299001500404
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A
meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H.L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S.Graham (Eds.), Handbook
of learning disabilities (pp.323–344). Guilford Press.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction:
Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efcacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.81.3.353
Hansen, B., Wills, H., Kamps, D., & Greenwood, C. (2014). The effects of function-based
self-management interventions on student behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 22, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426613476345
Harchik, A., Sherman, J., & Sheldon, J. (1992). The use of self-management procedures by people
with developmental disabilities: A brief review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13,
211–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891- 4222(92)90026- 3
Harris, K.R., Friedlander, B.D., Sadler, B., Frizzelle, R., & Graham, S. (2005). Self-monitoring
of attention versus self-monitoring of academic performance: Effects among students with
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis

970
ADHD in the general education classroom. Journal of Special Education, 39, 145–156. https://
doi.org/10.1177/00224669050390030201
Holield, C., Goodman, J., Hazelkorn, M., & Hein, L. (2010). Using self-monitoring to increase
attending to task and academic accuracy in children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 25, 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357610380137
Hughes, C., & Agran, M. (1993). Teaching persons with severe disabilities to use self-instruction
in community settings: An analysis of applications. Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 18, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079699301800409
Hughes, C. A., Deshler, D. D., Ruhl, K. L., & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Test-taking strategy
instruction for adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders., 1, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669300100307
Hughes, C.A., & Hendrickson, J.M. (1987). Self-monitoring with at-risk students in the regular
class setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 225–236.
Hughes, C.A., & Schumaker, J.S. (1991). Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents with
learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2, 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362839109524784
Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing
the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007050070040401
Irvine, A.B., Singer, G. H., Erickson, A. M., & Stahlberg, D. (1992). A coordinated program
to transfer self-management skills from school to home. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation, 27, 241–254.
Kanfer, F. H. (1970). Self-regulation: Research, issues, and speculations. In C. Neuringer
& J. L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior modication in clinical psychology (pp. 178–216).
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelick-Buys, L. (1991). Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer (Ed.),
Helping people change: A textbook of methods (pp.305–360). Pergamon Press.
Kern, L., Marder, T., Boyajian, A., Elliot, C., & Mcelhattan, D. (1997). Augmenting the indepen-
dence of self-management procedures by teaching self-initiation across settings and activities.
School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 23–32.
Koegel, L.K., Koegel, R.L., Hurley, C., & Frea, W.D. (1992). Improving social skills and disrup-
tive behavior in children with autism through self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 25, 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25- 341
Koegel, L.K., Park, M.N., & Koegel, R.L. (2014). Using self-management to improve the recip-
rocal social conversation of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 44, 1055–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803- 013- 1956- y
Lancioni, G.E., & O’Reilly, M.F. (2001). Self-management of instruction cues for occupation:
Review of studies with people with severe and profound developmental disabilities. Research
in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891- 4222(00)00063- 9
Lancioni, G., O’Reilly, M., & Oliva, D. (2001). Self-operated verbal instructions for people
with intellectual and visual disabilities: Using instruction clusters after task acquisition.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48, 303–312. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10349120120073430
Lancioni, G., Van Den Hof, E., Furniss, F., O’Reilly, M., & Cunha, B. (1999). Evaluation of a
computer-aided system providing pictorial task instructions and prompts to people with severe
intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 43, 61–66. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365- 2788.1999.43120165
Lee, S., Simpson, R., & Shogren, K. (2007). Effects and implications of self-management for
students with autism: A meta-analysis. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
22, 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220010101
Loftin, R., Odom, S., & Lantz, J. (2008). Social interaction and repetitive motor behaviors.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1124–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10803- 007- 0499- 5
P. Erhard et al.

971
Lovitt, T. C., & Curtiss, K. A. (1969). Academic response rate as a function of teacher- and
self-imposed contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 49–53. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba/1969.2- 49
Lui, C. M., Moore, D. W., & Anderson, A. (2014). Using a self-management intervention to
increase compliance in children with ASD. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 36, 259–279.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07317107.2014.967613
Maag, J.W. (2004). Behavior management: From theoretical implications to practical applica-
tions (2nd ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Mace, F.C., Brown, D.K., & West, B.J. (1987). Behavioral self-management in education. In
C.A. Maher & J.E. Zins (Eds.), Psychoeducational interventions in the schools (pp.160–176).
Pergamon.
Maggin, D. M., Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2013). An application of the what
works clearinghouse standards for evaluating single-subject research: Synthesis of the
self-management literature base. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 44–58. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0741932511435176
Mancina, C., Tankersley, M., Kamps, D., Kravits, T., & Parrett, J. (2000). Brief report: Reduction
of inappropriate vocalizations for a child with autism using a self-management treatment pro-
gram. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 300, 599–606. https://doi.org/10.102
3/a:1005695512163
McConnell, M. (1999). Self-monitoring, cueing, recording, and managing: Teaching students
to manage their own behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(2), 14–21. https://doi.
org/10.1177/004005999903200202
Mechling, L. (2007). Assistive technology as a self-management tool for prompting students with
intellectual disabilities to initiate and complete daily tasks: A literature review. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 252–269.
Meichenbaum, D.H., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A
means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 113–126. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0030773
Miranda, A., & Presentación, M. J. (2000). Efcacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy in the
treatment of children with ADHD, with and without aggressiveness. Psychology in the
Schools, 37, 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520- 6807(200003)37:2<169::
AID- PITS8>3.0.CO:2- 8
Montague, M., & Dietz, S. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruc-
tion and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75, 285–302. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001440290907500302
Mooney, P., Ryan, J. B., Uhing, B. M., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2005). A review of self-
management interventions targeting academic outcomes for students with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10864- 005- 6298- 1
Myles, B.S., & Simpson, R.L. (2003). In Asperger syndrome: A guide for educators and parents
(2nd ed.). PRO-ED.
National Autism Center. (2015). Findings and conclusions: National standards project, phase
2. Author.
Newman, B., & Eyck, P. (2005). Self-management of initiations by students diagnosed with
autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393013
O’Reilly, M., Tiernan, R., Lancioni, G., Lacey, C., Hillery, J., & Gardiner, M. (2002). Use of self-
monitoring and delayed feedback to increase on-task behavior in a post-institutionalized child
within regular classroom settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 91–102.
Otero, T.L., & Haut, J.M. (2016). Differential effects of reinforcement on the self-monitoring
of on-task behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/
spq0000113
Palmen, A., Didden, H., & Arts, M. (2008). Improving question asking in high- functioning
adolescents with autism spectrum disorders—Effectiveness of small-group training.
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis

972
Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 12(1), 83–98. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362361307085265
Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1994). Teaching daily living skills to children with autism in unsu-
pervised settings through pictorial self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
27(3), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27- 471
Posner, M.I., & Snyder, C.R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive model. In R.L. Solso (Ed.),
Information-processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp.55–85). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rafferty, L. (2010). Step-by-step: Teaching students to self-monitor. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 43(2), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991004300205
Rafferty, L.A. (2012). Self-monitoring during whole group reading instruction: Effects among
students with emotional and behavioral disabilities during summer school intervention ses-
sions. Emotional and Behavioural Difculties, 17, 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363275
2.2012.672866
Reid, R., Trout, A., & Schartz, M. (2005). Self-regulation interventions for children with attention
decit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 71, 361–377.
Reinecke, D.R., Newman, B., & Meinberg, D. (1999). Self-management of sharing in three pre-
schoolers with autism. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 34, 312–317.
Riffel, L., Wehmeyer, M., Turnbull, A., Lattimore, J., Davies, D., Stock, S., & Fisher, S. (2005).
Promoting independent performance of transition-related tasks using a palmtop PC-based self-
directed visual and auditory prompting system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20,
5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340502000201
Sam, A., & AFIRM Team. (2016). Self-management. Chapel Hill, NC: National Professional
Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder, FPG Child Development Center, University
of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://arm.fpg.unc.edu/self- management.
Schneider, W., & Schiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information process-
ing: I.Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.103
7/0033- 295X.84.1.1
Shimabukuro, S. M., Prater, M. A., Jenkins, A., & Edelen-Smith, P. (1999). The effects of
self-monitoring of academic performance on students with learning disabilities and ADD/
ADHD. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 397–414.
Shogren, K., Lang, R., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., & O’Reilly, M. (2011). Self-versus teacher-
management of behavior for elementary school students with Asperger Syndrome: Impact
on classroom behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 87–96. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300710384508
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Author. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8093528
Southall, C., & Gast, D. (2011). Self-management procedures: A comparison across the autism
spectrum. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 155–171.
Stahmer, A., & Schreibman, L. (1992). Teaching children with autism appropriate play in unsuper-
vised environment using a self-management treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 25, 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25- 447
Stasolla, F., Perilli, V., & Damiani, R. (2014). Self-monitoring to promote on-task behavior by two
high functioning boys with autism spectrum disorders and symptoms of ADHD. Research in
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8, 472–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.01.007
Steinbrenner, J. R., Hume, K., Odom, S. L., Morin, K. L., Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski, B.,
Szendrey, S., McIntyre, N.S., Yücesoy-Özkan, S., & Savage, M.N. (2020). Evidence-based
practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism. The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Clearinghouse on
Autism Evidence and Practice Review Team.
Strain, P., Kohler, F., Storey, K., & Danko, C. (1994). Teaching preschoolers with autism to self-
monitor their social interactions: An analysis of results in home and school settings. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669400200202
P. Erhard et al.

973
Tomasone, J., Flood, S., Ma, J., Scime, N., Burke, S., Sleeth, L., Marrocco, S., & The Scire
Research Team. (2018). Physical activity self-management interventions for adults with
spinal cord injury: Part 1—A systematic review of the use and effectiveness of behavior
change techniques. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 37, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2018.01.012
Uberti, H.Z., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2004). Check it off: Individualizing a math
algorithm for students with disabilities via self-monitoring checklists. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 39, 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512040390050301
Self-Management Skills andApplied Behavior Analysis