Token Economy

A token economy is a type of behavioral modification method used in an array of health and education settings. The token economy aims to shape behavior by rewarding individuals that meet target behaviors with reinforcers that they can use to obtain some type of reward. Standard components of a token economy are target behaviors, reinforcers, and rewards. Response costs and backup reinforcers are also aspects of the token economy. An example of a modification to the token economy is the level system. Concerns related to implementation of a token economy include generalizability and response maintenance.

Keywords Backup Reinforcer; Contingent Reinforcement; Level System; Natural Contingencies; Non-Contingent Reinforcement; Reinforcer; Response Cost; Response Maintenance; Reward; Self-Reinforcement; Targeted Behavior; Token Economy

Overview

Within the educational and mental health arenas, token economies are just one of several forms of behavioral methods used to decrease or increase certain types of behavior (Filcheck, McNeil, Greco, & Bernard, 2004). Liberman (2000) dated the 1960s as the time period in which token economies were created and first implemented. Montrose Wolf has been credited with developing the initial idea and terminology for a token economy in the early 1960s (Risley, 1997). It has been argued that the concept of a token economy arose well before the 1960s; Rodriguez, Montesinos, and Preciado (2005) asserted that the history of the token economy can be traced to work described in a textbook from the middle of the 19th century.

No matter the date of origin of the token economy, it is widely accepted that a token economy entails the distribution of tokens after the display of behavior deemed appropriate, (targeted behavior) where tokens can later be used to claim various items for redemption (Zlomke, & Zlomke, 2003). Rodriguez, Montesinos, and Preciado (2005) more specifically define a token economy as, "a reinforcement system in which the occurrence of appropriate behavior (or the absence of problem behavior) produces secondary reinforcement in the form of tokens (e.g., poker chips) that can periodically be exchanged for other reinforcers (e.g., food, toys, free time)." (p. 427) Liberman (2000) noted that prompts and reinforcers were used to shape behavior in this reinforcement system and that a token economy became the designation for the system because of the ease of using tokens as reinforcers.

Key to token economy efficacy is rewarding tokens soon after the target behavior has been observed and as often as the behavior takes place (Kazdin, 2000). Positive attributes of token economies include a set structure that lends to consistent reinforcement of specific behaviors, reinforcers that can be generalized across context, and the ease of using tokens in terms of distribution and attainment (Tarbox, Ghezzi, & Wilson, 2006). Kazdin (2000) described the use of positive reinforcement to promote positive behavior and reduce inappropriate behavior as the goal of token economy.

Tokens, backup reinforcers, or rewards, and the rules regarding rewards comprise the foundation of the token economy. In defining the components of the token economy, Kazdin (1982) made the analogy that tokens, or reinforcers, are income while a backup reinforcer would be an expenditure. Behaviors that earn tokens would be work and as individuals obtain tokens they would amass savings. Another aspect of a token economy is response cost. A token economy with response cost refers to an intervention where reinforcers are taken away if individuals participating in the intervention display inappropriate behaviors (LeBlanc, Hagopian, & Maglieri, 2000).

Applications

The token economy has been implemented in a number of formats and across various contexts. Much of the research that has focused on the token economy can be divided into investigations of single subjects, classrooms, and health settings. An example of single subject research on the token economy comes from Zlomke and Zlomke (2003). The researchers conducted an investigation of the impact of a joint token economy and self-monitoring intervention for an adolescent. Teachers engaged in a point system with the student throughout the day. The student had been trained in self-monitoring and for a portion of the study the student participated in a point system and self-monitoring. Targeted behaviors were seen significantly less frequently when baseline was compared to the period when the point system was implemented. Behaviors further decreased when self-monitoring took place. Although classroom behavior was impacted by the token economy and self-monitoring, home behaviors did not change.

At the Classroom Level

Kazdin (1973) explored the impact of a token economy in six elementary school classrooms. Students in classrooms that received contingent reinforcement, or the receipt of reinforcers when target behaviors were demonstrated, evidenced significantly more appropriate behavior after the intervention was implemented. Generalizability of behaviors was more evident for students in contingent reinforcement groups as compared to students who received non-contingent reinforcement, or reinforcement that was not based on the display of targeted behaviors.

Swain and McLaughlin (1998) referred to the token economy as a token-reinforcement program during their study of middle school students in special education. Math accuracy was the target behavior of interest. Students were awarded points for a number of behaviors and response costs for other behaviors were also implemented. A bonus contingency, or the opportunity for students to earn additional points if they achieved a certain score on the assessment of math accuracy, was another aspect of the study. Math accuracy was higher during the bonus contingency portion of the token-reinforcement as compared to the baseline period.

Token economies have also been implemented at the college and university level. For instance, Boniecki and Moore (2003) used a token economy in a college classroom in order to increase student participation. Students received a token after participating during class. Tokens were then to be used for extra credit by students. Compared to a baseline period before the initiation of the token economy, significantly more students participated in class, as evidenced by the number of students responding to questions posed during class. Participation declined after the token economy intervention ended. Hodge and Nelson (1991) also employed a differential reinforcement intervention during a university level course. The purpose of their study was to promote class participation for those students who did not participate often and decrease participation for the few students who tended to dominate class participation. After the intervention was conducted, the instructor deemed classroom participation was more evenly distributed across students.

Other Educational Applications

Lazarus (1990) detailed the aspects of a cooperative home-school token economy. In a cooperative home-school token economy, students who display targeted behaviors in either the home or school setting have an opportunity to accumulate tokens or points. A "Point Balance Passbook" is given to each student who brings the passbook home for review by parents and also uses it at school with teachers. The cooperative home-school token economy promoted communication between parent and child as well as parent and teacher. Parents also played a role in developing the program and received training on token economies.

Health Settings

Health settings, such as psychiatric hospitals or hospitals in general, are settings in which the token economy has been consistently put into practice for quite some time. Inpatient psychiatric units are an example of a setting where token economies have been utilized to promote a functional environment and reduce negative behavior such as violence (LePage, DelBen, Pollard, McGhee, VanHorn, Murphy, et al., 2003). LePage and colleagues studied a psychiatric unit over time where periods before and after token economy implementation were examined. Injuries, between patients and toward staff, were significantly reduced during the token economy intervention.

In an investigation of patients in a psychiatric hospital by Bedell and Archer (1980), comparisons were made between token economies that were either peer managed, staff managed, or used a non-contingent reinforcement schedule. Individuals in the peer managed and staff managed token economy programs earned higher amounts of tokens than did participants in the non-contingent reinforcement group. In another study described by Bedell and Archer in the same article, a group performance incentive group and standard individual incentive group were compared. In the group performance incentive group, some of the points individuals could earn were due to how many points earned by the group of patients with which they were aligned. No statistically significant differences were found between the incentive groups in regard to how many points participants earned. Similar amounts of points were earned in both studies reviewed in the article.

The Behavioral Rehabilitation and Interpersonal Treatment Environment, or BRITE program, is another example of a token economy implemented in a psychiatric hospital (Bellus, Vergo, Kost, Stewart, & Barkstrom, 1999). As part of the BRITE program, a token economy with a response cost and level system component was put in place to affect changes in assaults and self-injuries in the hospital. Self-injury and assaults for BRITE participants were significantly lower after two years of operation of BRITE as compared with levels of self-injury and assaults in traditional wards in the psychiatric hospital.

Other health issues addressed with the token economy have been substance use and eating disorders. Vouchers have been used to promote targeted behavior such as abstinence from cocaine use for individuals with cocaine dependence (Higgins, Roll, Wong, Tidey, & Dantona, 1999). In the intervention conducted by Higgins and colleagues, individuals participating in interventions where vouchers were contingent upon abstinence from substance use were significantly more likely to remain abstinent than those who received vouchers in a noncontingent manner. Another population with whom token economies have been used were individuals with anorexia nervosa (AN) (Okamoto, Yamashita, Nagoshi, Masui, Wada, Kashima, Et Al., 2002). In one study, activity restriction therapy and token economy were integrated (TET) and then compared to two other forms of behavior therapy to promote weight gain. Therapy that integrated a token economy showed an increase in body mass index for study participants. Individuals that received TET showed greater gains in BMI than one of the other forms of therapy and somewhat fewer gains than the form of therapy that showed the greatest overall gains.

Modification of the Token Economy

Level Systems

Level systems are modifications of a token economy and posited to be effective and relevant strategies for educating students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) (Farrell, Smith, & Brownell, 1998). Level systems have been, "designed to be an organizational framework based on token economies within which a teacher can shape desired student behaviors by systematically applying behavioral principles (Farrell, Smith, & Brownell, 1998, p. 89)."

Steps, or levels, comprise the foundation for a level system. A step within a level system is composed of a set of rules and reinforcers such that when students follow the rules they are able to obtain reinforcers and move to the next step within the system (Farrell, Smith, & Brownell, 1998). In a level system a multi-tiered chart is constructed so that one level is a starting point and levels above and below represent students' engagement in appropriate or inappropriate behavior, respectively (Filcheck, McNeil, Greco, & Bernard, 2004). Rewards are delegated several times throughout the day by the teacher based on how students have moved up or down the levels.

In an investigation of teachers of students with EBD, a solid majority of teachers (71%) used level systems (Farrell, Smith, & Brownell, 1998). An example of a level system used with EBD students is the system used by The Turning Point Program-a program that works with school-age youth whose emotional and behavioral challenges led them to be educated outside of regular education classrooms (Havill, 2004).

Havill (2004) described the level system process in The Turning Point Program by noting that students complete a note sheet about their behavior every day. Staff participate in a level review with the student to evaluate on what level the staff and student believe the student should be placed. In The Turning Point Program, five levels-A, B, C, D, and OOPS-comprise the system such that the lowest level is D with levels ascending to the A level. The fifth, or OOPS, level represents when a student is "out of program status."

Filcheck and colleagues (2004) described the implementation of a whole-class token economy, or level system, intervention with preschool children. A whole-class intervention was chosen due to its capacity to save time and money when implemented and its avoidance of focusing on individual children. Comparisons were made to a parent-training method of behavior management. Filcheck and colleagues found there were less frequent displays of inappropriate behavior by preschool students participating in the whole-class token economy intervention. Additional reduction of inappropriate behavior was seen when other behavior management skill techniques were integrated with the level system.

In Combination with Other Strategies

Along with modifications to the token economy, such as the level system, token economies can be one of several components in an intervention. For example, Musser, Bray, Kehle, and Jenson (2001) depicted an intervention with students with serious emotional disturbance (SED) in which the token economy was implemented along with other intervention strategies such as precision requests and antecedent strategies. The multicomponent intervention reduced displays of inappropriate behavior. Another example of research on a token economy modification incorporated differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) as a type of reinforcement-based intervention. DRA was used concurrently with a token economy to address childhood feeding disorders (Kahng, Boscoe, & Byrne, 2003). If the study participant accepted the food presented to them, a reinforcer was given to them. This type of reinforcer was a differential positive reinforcement of alternative behavior. If the participant obtained enough tokens mealtime could be curtailed; this was a differential negative reinforcement of alternative behavior. Food acceptance increased over the course of the investigation for the study participant.

Issues

There are a number of pertinent issues in regard to the token economy. Attending to treatment integrity is integral to the efficacy of the token economy as it is implemented and to obtaining sound information from a program evaluation (Kazdin, 1982). More research on the token economy helps to promote treatment integrity, yet researchers have noted that studies focused on the token economy have been seen less frequently in the current research landscape (Swain & McLaughlin, 1998) and a recent meta-analysis suggests that the efficacy of the token economy is not supported by research (Maggin, Chafouleas, Goddard & Johnson, 2011).

Another area to consider in regard to token economies is that despite the success of the token economy across a number of contexts, some treatment gains are not sustained in individuals when left their particular settings (Liberman, 2000). In this regard, response maintenance, or sustaining changes brought about through the intervention after a token economy has been ended, is the area of concern. Novak and Hammond (1983) denoted self-reinforcement and natural contingencies as strategies to promote response maintenance. Self-reinforcement involves individuals giving tokens, or reinforcers, to themselves when they meet a set of criteria. Natural contingencies are the reinforcers that exist within an environment that individuals can be trained to recognize and use to shape behavior.

Kazdin (1982) had several suggestions for how to increase response maintenance and transfer after a token economy has concluded. Examples of his suggestions were slow withdrawal of the token economy, enacting reinforcers across different contexts, or using ordinary reinforcers existing in the environment instead of tokens. A study by Novak and Hammond (1983) served to illustrate some aspects of Kazdin's suggestions on response maintenance. A fourth grade classroom was split into four groups and a token economy was implemented. Students were randomly assigned into one of four groups:

• Self-reinforcement,

• Natural contingencies,

• A combination of self-reinforcement and natural contingencies, and

• Token reinforcement.

All groups saw more completions of reading problems after the various treatments were implemented as compared to baseline levels. The combination treatment group was the sole group that showed response maintenance after reinforcers were removed.

Other concerns about the token economy are notions that the token economy does not focus on the individual and can be abusive (LePage, DelBen, Pollard, McGhee, VanHorn, Murphy, et al., 2003). For instance, Kazdin (1982) noted the concern about the possibility of coercion and what can be considered a reinforcer in light of patient rights. Johnson (1999) argued that reinforcement theory is both the foundation for point systems and misplaced as a means to modify behavior in residential treatment. She asserted that natural contingencies are more effective in behavior change and less bound to the power struggles and punitive aspect she perceived in point and level systems. Kazdin (2000) has noted that tokens are not the only reinforcers that have an impact on shaping behavior; praise and feedback can successfully influence behavior also, as can the implementation of self-management programs (Shogren, Lang, Machalicek, Rispoli & O'Reilly, 2011).

Other factors found to impact the use of token economies included difficulties of training staff to use the token economy, the applicability of a token economy in less structured contexts than inpatient hospitals, and finding natural reinforcers outside of the hospital setting (Liberman, 2000). Training staff in implementing a token economy has been promoted through the use of tactile prompts such as a pager whereby staff are reminded to monitor the classroom for events such as target behavior to reinforce (Petscher & Bailey, 2006). Research has also shown the effectiveness of a token economy administered by peers rather than teachers or other authority figures (Alstot, 2012). Educational applications of the token economy have extended the reach of token economies outside of hospitals and broadened the types of reinforcers found to be effective.

Conclusions

Since its popular inception, the token economy has played an integral role in behavior modification across a number of settings most notably in the education and health arenas. The idea that reinforcing individuals for their behavior with rewards can promote or reduce any number of target behaviors has been accepted and implemented by many people in schools, hospitals, and other environments. There have been concerns about the generalizability and implementation of the token economy and the manner in which behavior change occurs in a token economy. Research into the token economy has been more infrequent in recent years. Despite concerns about the token economy and reduced attention to the token economy in terms of research, valuable lessons have been learned about behavior and change from work on the token economy over the years. The lessons learned about the token economy have benefited many individuals across age ranges and contexts.

Terms & Concepts

Backup Reinforcer: A backup reinforcer is the actual reward an individual receives as part of a token economy. An individual would accumulate a certain number of tokens, or reinforcers, as part of a token economy and exchange them for backup reinforcers such as free time in a classroom setting.

Contingent Reinforcement: Contingent reinforcement refers to the receipt of reinforcers when target behaviors are demonstrated.

Cooperative Home-School Token Economy: A cooperative home-school token economy refers to a token economy that is extended between the home and school contexts. Students are able to earn tokens or points at home and in school.

Level System: A level system is a modification of a token economy such that an individual is situated at a starting point on a chart and can move up or down levels, or steps, based on behavior they exhibit. Rewards are distributed based on points individuals accumulate during specified intervals of time.

Natural Contingencies: Natural contingencies are reinforcers that exist within an environment that individuals can be trained to recognize and use to shape behavior.

Non-contingent Reinforcement: Non-contingent reinforcement is reinforcement individuals receive that is not based on the display of targeted behaviors.

Reinforcer: A reinforcer is what individuals receive in a token economy when they exhibit target behavior. Tokens are prime examples of reinforcers used in a token economy. Points are also frequently used as reinforcers in a token economy.

Response Cost: Response cost occurs when reinforcers are taken away from an individual for displaying inappropriate behavior.

Response Maintenance: Response maintenance refers to sustaining changes brought about through a token economy after the intervention has been ended.

Reward: A reward in a token economy is what individuals exchange the tokens or points they receive for displaying the target behavior in the token economy. Rewards are also referred to as backup reinforcers.

Self-reinforcement: Self-reinforcement refers to individuals giving tokens, or reinforcers, to themselves when they meet a set of criteria.

Token Economy: A token economy is a form of behavior modification where a reinforcer is distributed when an individual meets a target behavior. Reinforcers are then used to obtain rewards.

Bibliography

Alstot, A. E. (2012). The effects of peer-administered token reinforcement on jump rope behaviors of elementary physical education students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 31, 261-278. Retrieved on December 17, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77696820&site=ehost-live

Bedell, J., & Archer, R. (1980). Peer managed token economies: Evaluation and description. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36 , 716-722. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15934480&site=ehost-live

Bellus, S., Vergo, J., Kost, P., Stewart, D., & Barkstrom, S. (1999). Behavioral rehabilitation and the reduction of aggressive and self-injurious behaviors with cognitively impaired, chronic psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatric Quarterly, 70 , 27-37. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11303812&site=ehost-live

Boniecki, K., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the silence: using a token economy to reinforce classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology, 30 , 224-227. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10604103&site=ehost-live

Farrell, D., Smith, S., & Brownell, M. (1998). Teacher perceptions of level system effectiveness on the behavior of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 32 , 89-98. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=906089&site=ehost-live

Filcheck, H., McNeil, C., Greco, L., & Bernard, R. (2004). Using a whole-class token economy and coaching of teacher skills in a preschool classroom to manage disruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 41 , 351-361. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12215735&site=ehost-live

Havill, L. (2004). Levels of involvement: the power of choice in a middle school level system. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 13 , 155-161. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15230504&site=ehost-live

Higgins, S. T., Roll, J. M., Wong, C. J., Tidey, J. W., & Dantona, R. (1999). Clinic and laboratory studies on the use of incentives to decrease cocaine and other substance use. In S. T. Higgins, & K. Silverman (Eds). Motivating behavior change among illicit-drug abusers: Research on contingency management interventions. (pp. 35-56). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Hodge, G., & Nelson, N. (1991). Demonstrating differential reinforcement by shaping classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology, 18 , 239-241. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6382420&site=ehost-live

Johnson, M. (1999). Managing perceptions: a new paradigm for residential group care. Child & Youth Care Forum, 28 , 165-179. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11304538&site=ehost-live

Kahng, S., Boscoe, J. H., & Byrne, S. (2003). The use of an escape contingency and a token economy to increase food acceptance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 349-353. Retrieved November 26, 2007 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284448&blobtype=pdf

Kazdin, A. E. (2000). Token economy. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed). Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 8. (pp. 90-92). Washington, DC, US: Oxford University Press.

Kazdin, A. E. (1982). The token economy: A decade later. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 431-445. Retrieved November 26, 2007 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1308287&blobtype=pdf

Lazarus, B. (1990). A cooperative home-school token economy. Preventing School Failure, 34 , 37-40. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9604173855&site=ehost-live

LeBlanc, L., Hagopian, L., & Maglieri, K. (2000). Use of a token economy to eliminate excessive inappropriate social behavior in an adult with developmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions, 15 , 135-143. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11818570&site=ehost-live

LePage, J., DelBen, K., Pollard, S., McGhee, M., VanHorn, L., Murphy, J., et al. (2003). Reducing assaults on an acute psychiatric unit using a token economy: a 2-year follow- up. Behavioral Interventions, 18 , 179-190. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10258348&site=ehost-live

Liberman, R. (2000). The token economy. American Journal of Psychiatry,157 , 1398. Retrieved November 25, 2007 from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/157/9/1398

Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., & Johnson, A. H. (2011). A systematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 529-554. Retrieved on December 17, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65501742&site=ehost-live

Musser, E., Bray, M., Kehle, T., & Jenson, W. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30 , 294-304. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4883827&site=ehost-live

Novak, G., & Hammond, J. (1983). Self-reinforcement and descriptive praise in maintaining token economy reading performance. Journal of Educational Research, 76 , 186-189. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4907473&site=ehost-live

Okamoto, A., Yamashita, T., Nagoshi, Y., Masui, Y., Wada, Y., Kashima, A., et al. (2002). A behavior therapy program combined with liquid nutrition designed for anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 56 , 515-520. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database from Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7225126&site=ehost-live

Petscher, E. S., & Bailey, J. S. (2006). Effects of training, prompting, and self-monitoring on staff behavior in a classroom for students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 215-226. Retrieved November 26, 2007 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1479776&blobtype=pdf

Risley, T. R. (1997). Montrose M. Wolf: The origin of the dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 377-381. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1284056&blobtype=pdf

Rodriguez, J. O., Montesinos, L., & Preciado, J. (2005). A 19th century predecessor of the token economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 427. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1226179&blobtype=pdf

Shogren, K. A., Lang, R., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M. J., & 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. Retrieved on December 17, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=59474800&site=ehost-live

Swain, J., & McLaughlin, T. (1998). The effects of bonus contingencies in a classwide token program on math accuracy with middle-school students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Interventions, 13 , 11-19. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11818525&site=ehost-live

Tarbox, R., Ghezzi, P., & Wilson, G. (2006). The effects of token reinforcement on attending in a young child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 21 , 155-164. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21517023&site=ehost-live

Tiano, J. D., Fortson, B. L., McNeil, C. B., & Humphreys, L. A. (2005). Managing classroom behavior of head start children using response cost and token economy procedures. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 2, 28-39. Retrieved December 2, 2007 from http://www.behavior-analyst-today.com/JEIBI-VOL-2/JEIBI-2-1.pdf

Zlomke, K., & Zlomke, L. (2003). Token economy plus self - monitoring to reduce disruptive classroom behaviors. Behavior Analyst Today, 4 , 177-182. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12074297&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Cruz, L., & Cullinan, D. (2001). Awarding points, using levels to help children improve behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 , 16-23. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4022657&site=ehost-live

Didden, R., De Moor, J., & Bruyns, W. (1997). Effectiveness of DRO tokens in decreasing disruptive behavior in the classroom with five multiply handicapped children. Behavioral Interventions, 12 , 65-75. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11818006&site=ehost-live

Truchlicka, M., McLaughlin, T., & Swain, J. (1998). Effects of token reinforcement and response cost on the accuracy of spelling performance with middle-school special education students with behavior disorders. Behavioral Interventions, 13 , 1-10. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11818530&site=ehost-live