Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 13, pp. 211-227.1992 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
0891-4222/92 $5.00 + .OO Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
The Use of Self-Management Procedures by People With Developmental Disabilities: A Brief Review Alan E. Harchik, James A. Sherman, and Jan B. Sheldon Universify of Kansas
Self-management procedures, such as self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self-instructing, are frequently taught to people with developmental disabilities. In this paper, research examining the use of selfmanagement procedures is reviewed and critiqued. Areas for future investigation are discussed.
Recently, people with developmental disabilities have been taught to manage their own behavior. Several advantages for the use of self-management procedures have been suggested: (a) it offers the possibility of control over behavior when the natural contingencies are too delayed, too improbable, or too small to be effective (Malott, 1984); (b) learned behaviors may be more likely to generalize and maintain in unsupervised or novel situations (Agran & Martin, 1987; Baer, 1984; Fowler, 1984); (c) acting without constant direct supervision by others is valued by society and may help the person to be viewed more positively (O’Leary & Dubey, 1979; Whitman, 1990); and (d) people often prefer situations in which they have some control and opportunities for control may increase participation, reduce problem behaviors, and improve satisfaction without detriment to performance (Bannerman, Sheldon, Sherman, & Harchik, 1990). Browder and Shapiro (1985) and Agran and Martin (1987) reviewed research examining the effects that occurred when people with developThe authors thank Donald M. Baer and Stephen B. Fawcett for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Requests for reprints should be sent to Alan E. Harchik, The May Center, 22 Blanchard Boulevard, Braintree, MA 02184. 211
212
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
mental disabilities were taught to use self-management procedures. The purpose of this article is to continue this discussion, that is, to include recent research studies, to comment upon the recommendations made in these two earlier papers, and to raise some additional issues. DEFINITIONS OF SELF-MANAGEMENT Broadly, self-management has been defined as everything a person does to influence his or her own behavior (Browder & Shapiro, 1983, as those behaviors a person deliberately undertakes to achieve self-selected outcomes (Kazdin, 1973, and as the control of certain responses by stimuli generated from other responses of the same person (Brigham, 1982). More specifically, Baer (1984) noted that one is often considered to be managing one’s own behavior when one (a) acknowledges a problem, (b) translates that problem into sets of behavior to be changed, (c) finds natural reinforcers and punishers to support a change in behavior (or uses artificial or contrived reinforcers when natural ones cannot be found or used), (d) rearranges the environment so that these consequences can support the change in behavior, and (e) records the process. Other authors (e.g., Agran & Martin, 1987; Gardner & Cole, 1989) have discussed many of the same issues as Baer (1984) did; however, they have also included the rearrangement of stimuli that precede occurrence of the behavior as an important component of some self-management practices (e.g., self-instructing, picture or audio cues). Although none of the studies reviewed below have incorporated all of the procedures included in these definitions of self-management, there are an increasing number of studies that have evaluated one or more of these components of self-management. RESEARCH ON SELF-MANAGEMENT Self-Management
Procedures
Used
and self-administering consequences. When self-monitoring, one keeps a record of one’s own behavior. When self-administering consequences, one administers predetermined consequences contingent upon one’s own behavior. There are, of course, both conceptual and procedural differences between self-monitoring and self-administering consequences. In many studies, however, few differences appear in application. For example, the products of self-monitoring (e.g., hash marks, marked forms) are often traded for special items or privileges and, therefore, may function as secondary reinforcers. In the studies reviewed, people were taught to self-monitor and/or self-administer consequences (typically Self-monitoring
Self-Management
213
tokens) (a) at the completion of a task or behavior, or (b) when prompted. For example, at the completion of vocational or academic tasks or when a specified behavior (e.g., verbalization) was exhibited, people were taught to mark a form or photo, press a counter, put a ring on a dowel, or move beads on a bracelet. In other studies, people were taught to take a token, coin, or sticker that was later traded in for special items or activities. In some studies, the person self-monitored and/or self-administered consequences when prompted by a teacher, bell, tone, or pocket timer at specified intervals or at the conclusion of a work period. All studies reviewed are listed in Table 1. Self-instructing.
When self-instructing, one makes directive verbal statements about one’s own behavior. For example, Johnston, Whitman, and Johnson (1980) taught children to state the specific steps required to solve math problems. Content of the directive verbal statements addressed general behaviors, such as “go slowly” or “work faster” (Moore, Agran, & Fodor-Davis, 1989; Salend, Ellis, & Reynolds, 1989) or behaviors specific to the task (e.g., Hughes & Petersen, 1989; Keogh, Faw, Whitman, & Reid, 1984; Rusch, Morgan, Martin, Riva, & Agran, 1985; Whitman, Spence, & Maxwell, 1987). Statements specific to the task may be more effective in improving performance on other similar tasks, whereas general statements may be more effective for improving performance on subsequent tasks that are not highly similar to the original task (Thackwray, Meyers, Schlesser, & Cohen, 1985). Other types of directive statements have also been taught, such as stating the task completed and next task required (Agran, FodorDavis, & Moore, 1986) and stating solutions to problems (Agran, Salzberg, & Stowitschek, 1987; Hughes & Rusch, 1989; Rusch, McKee, Chadsey-Rusch, & Renzaglia, 1988). Each study reviewed is also listed in Table 1. There are also several studes that appear to be closely related to the use of self-instructions but that did not involve teaching the participants to make directive statements. The procedures might be considered variations of self-instructing because, like self-instructing, participant behavior that preceded the occurrence of other targeted behavior was modified to effect the probability of occurrence of the targeted behaviors. These procedures included teaching participants to verbally state an aspect of the stimuli (e.g., color) before sorting or typing (Wacker et al., 1988; Wacker & Greenebaum, 1984), to repeat the supervisor’s instruction (Agran, FodorDavis, Moore, & Deer, 1989; Rusch, Martin, Lagomarcino, & White, 1987), to exhibit correspondence between their verbal statements and subsequent behavior (Crouch, Rusch, & Karlan, 1984) and to operate audiotaped instructions (Alberto, Sharpton, Briggs, & Stright, 1986).
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
214
Studies of Self-Monitoring
TABLE 1 and Self-Administering
Consequences
Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of Participants
Setting
moderate
x = 33
workshop
packaging, photocopying
mild/moderate
26,53
work room
write number on a chart
exercise repetitions
mild/moderate
21-39
room at workshop
Connis, 1979
mark a photo
change of job tasks
moderate
21-24
work room
Hanel & Martin, 1980
take a marble
assembly task
mild
19-54
workshop
Holman & Baer, 1979
move beads on a bracelet
academic
behavior problems
3-7
classroom
Homer, Lahren, Schwartz, O’Neill, & Hunter, 1979
take a token
assembly task
severe
32
workshop
Lagomarcino & Rusch, 1989
take a nickel
packaging task
severe
19
work room
Lovett & Haring, 1989
mark a form
domestic tasks
mild/moderate
19-35
apartments
Mace, Shapiro, West, Campbell, & Altman. 1986
put ring on a dowel
assembly, packaging
severe
30-50
workshop
Mank & Homer, 1987
press counter, write # and time
job tasks
moderate
18-20
restaurants
Matson & Andrasik, 1982
take a token
SOCial
mild
25-43
McNally, Kompik, & Sherman, 1984
take a token
capping and boxing bottles
mild/moderate
Nelson, Lipinski, & Black, 1976
mark tallies on a card
conversation, participation, lace toucnes
mild/moderate
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Ackerman & Shapiro, 1984
press grocery counter
packaging
Belfiore, Mace, & Browder, 1989
put ring on a dowel, mark form
Coleman & Whitman, 1984
At completion of tasks or when behavior exhibited:
pelfOITWlCiZ
interactions
State
hospital 23-49
workshop
215
Self-Management
TABLE 1. Continued
Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of ParticiPants
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Nelson, Lipmski, & Boykin, 1978
press a counter
verbalizations
mild/moderate
12-17
residential center
Rosine & Martin, 1983
press a wrist
tongue protrusions
moderate
21,28
workshop
counter
Schloss & Wood, 1990
press counter or switch
ask or answer questions
mild
23
exp’l room
Shapiro & Ackerman, 1983
press counter, move marker
sorting pins
mild/moderate
19-49
workshop
Shapiro, Browder, & D’Huyvetters, 1984
put penny in container
academic performance
severe
6-10
classroom
Sowers, Verdi, Bourbeau, & Sheehan, 1985
mark a picture
change of job tasks
moderate/ severe
18-21
cafeteria
Wehman, Schutz, Bates, Renzaglia, & Karan, 1978
take a penny
assembly tasks
mild/severe/ profound
18-34
workshop
Zegiob, Klukas, & Junginger, 1978
tally on an index card
nose/mouth picking, head shaking
mild/moderate
17-18
cottage, classroom
Zohn & Bornstein, 1976
tahyona sheet
assembly task
moderate
38-45
workshop
Baer, Fowler, & Carden-Smith, 1984
move pointer
academic performance
severe behavior problems
6
classroom
Gardner, Glees, & Cole, 1983
take a penny, turn a card over
verbalizations
moderate
26
workshop
Gardner, Cole, Beny, & Nowinski, 1983
take a penny, turn a card over
verbalizations
moderate
27,31
workshop
Grace, Cow& Matson, 1988
point to happy orsadface
self-injury (biting)
moderate
14
institution
Setting
When prompted:
(Table continued on next page)
216
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
TABLE 1. Continued Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of ParticiPants
Setting
mild/moderate
lo,13
classroom
attending to task
mild/moderate severe
12-18
group home
write % correct
academic
mild/moderate
7th9th
classroom
Koegel & Koegel, 1990
mark a card
stereotypies
autistic
9-14
classroom, home, community
Litrownik & Freitas, 1980
put marble in a tube
stringing beads
moderate
15-21
work cubicles
McCarl, Svobodny, & Boare, 1991
mark a form
academic on-task and performance
mild/moderate
9-l 1
classroom
McLaughlin, Burgess, & Sackville-West, 1981
mark a form
academic
behavior handicaps
10-12
classroom
Morrow & Presswood, 1984
signing, describe own behavior
stereotypies
moderate/ severe
15
classroom
Reese, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1984
mark on a form
aggression, yelling
mild/moderate
22-28
group home. workshop
Rhode, Morgan, & Young, 1983
write rating of own behavior
appropriate school behavior
mild/moderate
6-9
classroom
Robertson, Simon, Pachman, & Drabman, 1979
write rating of own behavior
classroom disruptions
moderate
5-11
classroom
Rudrud, Ziarnik, & Colman, 1984
mark a form
tongue protrusions
moderate
24
work center
Sainato, Strain, Lefebvre, & Rapp, 1990
mark happy/sad faces
on-task
autistic
4-5
classroom
Shapiro & Klein, 1980
take a token
academic on-task
moderate
6-9
classroom
Shapiro, McGonigle, & Ollendick, 1980
put a star on a chart
academic
mild/moderate
7-12
classroom
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Homer & Brigham, 1979
mark on a form
academic on-task
Kapadia & Fantuzzo, 1988
takeastar
Knapczak & Livingston, 1973
grade
pXfOllKiIlC%
pelfOllKIIlCe
Self-Management
217
TABLE 1. Continued Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of ParticiPants
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Sugai & Rowe, 1984
mark a chart
in/out of class seat
mild/moderate
15
classroom
Wheeler, Bates, Marshall, & Miller, 1988
mark a chart
social skills, appearance
moderate
22
aninlaI care unit
solving math computations
mild/moderate
11-13
classroom
mild/moderate
18-20
vocational training center
18-29
workshop
moderate
9-14
classroom
mild/moderate
21-30
work room
Setting
Studies of Self-Instructing: Albion & Sal&erg, 1982
statespecific
Agran, FodorDavis, & Moore, 1986
state task completed and next task required
work task completed
Agran, Sal&erg, & Stowitschek, 1987
state steps and solutions to solving a problem
moderate/ initiating solutions to severe problems at work
Burgio, Whitman, &Johnson, 1980
state specific behaviors of task
attending to task, academic
behaviors
of task
pelfORlMIlCe
Hughes & Petersen, 1989
statespecific behaviors of task
attending to task, work ptXfOfUKUlUZ
statesteps and
use of sclfinstructions at work
severe
33,37
solutions to problems
supply company
Johnston, Whitman, & Johnson, 1980
state specific behaviors of task
solving math problems
mild
9-10
classroom
Keogh, Faw, Whitman, & Reid, 1984
statespecific behaviors of task
playing a leisure-time
severe
11-19
state facility
Moore, Agran, & Fodor-Davis, 1989
state general behaviors
rate of work
severe
19-21
workshop
Peters & Davies, 1981
state general behaviors
test of matching
mild/moderate
12-18
exp’l room
Rusch, McKee, Chadsey-Rusch, & Renzaglia, 1988
state steps and solutions to problems
requesting materials at work
severe
16
work room
Hughes & Rusch, 1989
game
pfOllIl?XlCE
figures
(Table continued
on next page)
218
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
TABLE 1. Continued Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of ParticiPants
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Rusch, Morgan, Martin, Riva, & Agran, 1985
state general behaviors
amount of time working
mild
‘28, 38
college dormitory
Salend, Ellis, & Reynolds, 1989
state general behaviors
work production rates
severe
25-36
prevocat’l workshop
Whitman & Johnston, 1983
state specific behaviors of task
solving math computations
mild
lo-13
classroom
Whitman, Spence, & Maxwell, 1987
state specific behaviors of task
work tasks
mild/moderate
18-46
workshop
Effectiveness
in Changing
Setting
Behavior
The effects of teaching self-management procedures to people with developmental disabilities were evaluated in 59 studies. In 55 of these studies, desirable consistent changes in behavior were found. Based on these many research studies, to what people and situations can the results be generalized (cf. Martin & Hrydowy, 1989)? and settings. Most of the studies included people with mild or moderate developmental disabilities (46), and a few studies included people with severe disabilities or autism (13). It was not clear whether any prerequisite skills (e.g., counting, language) are required if self-management procedures are to be successfully taught. The effects of self-management procedures were evaluated primarily in sheltered workshops and residential settings and for short periods of time. In addition, the procedures were usually implemented and supervised by the researchers. Thus, although selfmanagement procedures can be adapted for use by people with developmental disabilities, more examination of their use during extended periods, in natural community situations, and with people with the most severe disabilities is needed (see Koegel & Koegel, 1990, for an example of a study meeting these criteria). Further, although the research literature shows that self-management procedures can have a positive effect upon a person’s functioning where the person currently lives or works (e.g., increased work performance, decreases in occurrences of problem behavior), the role that self-management procedures may play in the person’s successful functioning in other integrated community settings remains to be more fully explored.
Participants
SeEf-Management
219
Behaviors addressed. Self-management procedures were used to address a variety of academic and vocational skills, domestic and leisure tasks, and problem behaviors. Self-monitoring and self-administering consequences were typically used to increase the occurrence of behaviors already in the person’s repertoire (e.g., work skills, domestic tasks) whereas self-instructing was also used to address skills not yet mastered (e.g., academic skills, solving problems). Procedures. Often, self-management procedures were combined with other procedures, such as token motivational systems or with the use of prompts and praise for exhibiting self-management procedures or for the target behavior. Moreover, most studies (53) compared the effects of teaching self-management procedures to typical conditions in the setting or to conditions with no interactions or consequences. Thus, it was not always clear whether the observed effects were due to the implementation of a systematic management procedure or due to a self-management procedure implemented by the person himself or herself. Eight studies, however, directly compared “self-” and “other-” managed procedures. The results of these studies suggested that self-management procedures had effects equal to or better than procedures managed by teachers (Baer, Fowler, & Carden-Smith, 1984; Homer, Lahren, Schwartz, O’Neill, & Hunter, 1979; Knapczyk & Livingston, 1973; McLaughlin, Burgess, & Sackville-West, 1981; Rhode, Morgan, & Young, 1983; Shapiro, Browder, & D’Huyvetters, 1984; Wehman, Schutz, Bates, Renzaglia, & Karan, 1978; Whitman et al., 1987). Moreover, Baer et al. (1984) and Sainato, Strain, Lefebvre, & Rapp (1990) found that teachers devoted much less time to behavior management after self-management procedures were taught. A few studies also examined variables involved in the effects observed. For example, behavior changed more when desirable rather than undesirable behaviors were monitored (Litrownik & Freitas, 1980; Nelson, Lipinski, & Black, 1976) and when there was reinforcement for self-monitoring (Zegiob, Klukas, & Junginger, 1978) for accuracy (McLaughlin et al., 1981>, or for the target behavior (Mace, Shapiro, West, Campbell, & Altman, 1986; Mank & Homer, 1987) than when self-monitoring was used alone. Further, experimenter presence may account for some of the effects (Belfiore, Mace, & Browder, 1989) and self-administering consequences may enhance the effects of self-monitoring alone (Homer & Brigham, 1979; Lovett & Hating, 1989). Eflectiveness in Maintenance and Generalization Improving generalization and maintenance were primary reasons for teaching self-management procedures; however, maintenance was assessed
220
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and .I. B. Sheldon
in only 28 studies and generalization in only 13 studies. In some studies, behavior was maintained when self-management procedures were taught after the initial use of teacher- or supervisor-implemented procedures (Ackerman & Shapiro, 1984; Horner et al., 1979; Shapiro & Klein, 1980; Shapiro, McGonigle, & Ollendick, 1980; Shapiro et al., 1984; Wehman et al., 1978). In others, self-management procedures were systematically faded while behavior maintained, supporting the notion that the procedures may not be required indefinitely (Burgio, Whitman, & Johnson, 1980; Gardner, Clees, & Cole, 1983; Knapczyk & Livingston, 1973; Robertson, Simon, Pachman, & Drabman, 1979; Rudrud, Ziarnik, & Colman, 1984; Sugai & Rowe, 1984; Zohn & Bornstein, 1980). In two studies, however, self-management procedures appeared to be necessary for maintenance of behavior change (Koegel & Koegel, 1990; Mank & Homer, 1987). Generalization was sometimes assessed but rarely programmed. In studies in which generalization was assessed, it occurred in different settings (Albion & Salzberg, 1982; Agran et al., 1987; Holman 8z Baer, 1979; Hughes & Petersen, 1989; Rusch et al., 1985) with novel tasks (Hughes & Rusch, 1989; Sowers, Verdi, Bourbeau, & Sheehan, 1985), during different time periods (Robertson et al., 1979) or in an unsupervised situation (Coleman & Whitman, 1984). In a few studies, however, generalization did not occur without training with new tasks or in additional situations (Burgio et al., 1980; Rhode et al., 1983; Rosine & Martin, 1983). In summary, maintenance and generalization were sometimes assessed and often occurred. The reasons for their occurrence, however, were rarely analyzed. It is, therefore, possible that other variables controlled the maintenance or generalization of behavior, such as naturally occurring reinforcement, common stimuli, or temporary maintenance during extinction (Baer, 1984). Use of Self-Management
Procedures by Participants
Forty studies included direct measurement of the person’s use of selfmanagement procedures. Self-monitoring and self-administering consequences were frequently used, but not always accurately. Accuracy improved when contingencies for accuracy were implemented; however, desirable effects were found even when behaviors were not always recorded correctly (Koegel & Koegel, 1990; Nelson et al., 1976; Reese, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1984; Shapiro et al., 1980; Zegiob et al., 1978), although three studies found a relationship between accuracy and desirable behavior (McLaughlin et al., 1981; Rhode et al., 1983; Shapiro et al., 1984). Teaching self-instructing was associated with desirable behavior change, but self-instructions were often not exhibited outside of training. In some
Self-Management
221
studies, when subjects did use self-instructions, there was a relationship between the use of the statements and desirable behavior change (Agran et al., 1986; Keogh et al., 1984; Whitman et al., 1987). Overall, few studies employed specific procedures to increase the likelihood that the self-management procedures themselves would maintain or generalize. Amount
of Participant
Control
Self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self-instructing were the most frequently used procedures in studies with people with developmental disabilities. None of the 59 studies specified opportunities for the person to identify the problem, determine target behaviors, select consequences, or determine what environmental rearrangements would be made. Further, in studies examining self-administration of consequences, the consequences were often highly supervised by teachers or supervisors (cf. Gross & Wojnilower, 1984). Thus, the existing literature, at best, approximates maximal self-management. Partial participation in self-management, however, may be preferable to no participation (Browder & Shapiro, 1985) and future research may likely include additional components. For example, recent work in the areas of community improvement (e.g., Fawcett, 1991; Schriner & Fawcett, 1988) and families who have members with disabilities (e.g., Tumbull, Tumbull, Bronicki, Summers, & Roeder-Gordon, 1989) contains suggestions about ways to increase each participant’s role in self-management. CONCLUSIONS
AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Based on the current research, it seems clear that people with developmental disabilities can implement specific self-management procedures. Although there is ongoing discussion regarding why these procedures are sometimes effective (e.g., they function as mediators, steps in a chain, discriminative stimuli, or as a version of control by others, Baer, 1984, 1990; Nelson & Hayes, 1981; Rachlin, 1974) researchers continue to examine applications and effects of self-management procedures. More than a dozen research studies published since the Browder and Shapiro (1985) and Agran and Martin (1987) reviews attest to the ongoing interest in these types of procedures. In general, the more recent research has expanded upon the types of applications of self-management procedures (e.g., different tasks and behaviors, new settings); however, the recommendations made in these earlier reviews have not yet been fully addressed. These recommendations remain valid and are discussed below. First, more research is needed to determine if there are any prerequisite skills, entry-level abilities, or idiosyncratic individual differences that are
222
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
related to the subsequent effectiveness of self-management procedures. Variables to be examined might include the participant’s level of language, ability to count, skill at discriminating occurrences and nonoccurrences of his or her own behavior, and skill at discriminating the situations or conditions under which certain behaviors are or are not required. A second area for study is the adaptation of self-management procedures based upon the specific characteristics of the person and setting and examinations of adaptations that increase the ease with which the procedures can be used in less controlled settings (e.g., wrist counters, timers that automatically reset at the end of each preset interval). Further, methods to expand the range of self-management procedures to include those that more fully involve the person in the design of the procedures would be of interest to researchers and practitioners. For example, there has been little research examining methods to teach people with developmental disabilities how to select their own behaviors to modify or how to select methods to modify these behaviors. Third, behaviors or classes of behaviors that appear most amenable to modification by self-management procedures can be examined in research studies. For example, a growing number of studies are addressing the reduction of occurrences of problem behaviors. Research might address whether typical self-management procedures have differential effects depending upon the function of the behavior addressed (e.g., escape- or attention-maintained). A fourth area for continued study is the maintenance and generalization of the use of self-management procedures and further analysis of the effects of self-management procedures on the maintenance and generalization of targeted behaviors. For example, there may be ways for the use of self-management procedures to be maintained by reinforcers currently available in the person’s environment. It also seems likely that the analysis of conditions or situations that require certain behaviors may provide useful information about how to promote generalization. Finally, a fifth research area can address application of research findings in everyday life. This would include developing methods for teaching teachers, parents, and staff members to teach people with developmental disabilities to use these self-management procedures successfully and in ways that promote improved functioning in their living and working situations. In conclusion, future research examining the processes and applications of self-management procedures will test the robustness of these procedures across a wide range of problems, behaviors, and disabilities. Furthermore, it will add to a growing methodology that provides new opportunities for personal control by a group of people not typically given these opportunities.
Self-Management
223
REFERENCES Ackerman, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1984). Self-monitoring and work productivity with mentally retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17.403407. Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., & Moore, S. (1986). The effects of self-instructional training on jobtask sequencing: Suggesting a problem-solving strategy. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21.273-281.
Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., Moore, S., & Deer, M. (1989). The application of a self-management program on instruction following skills. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14,147-154.
Agran, M., & Martin, J. E. (1987). Applying a technology of self-control in community environments for individuals who are mentally retarded. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 21) (pp. 108-151). New York: Academic Press. Agran, M., Sal&erg, C. L., & Stowitschek, .I. J. (1987). An analysis of the effects of a social skills training program using self-instructions on the acquisition and generalization of two social behaviors in a work setting. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 12, 131-139. Alberta, P. A., Sharpton, W. R., Briggs, A., & Stright, M. H. (1986). Facilitating task acquisition through the use of a self-operated auditory prompting system. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 11,85-91.
Albion, F. M., & SaJzberg, C. L. (1982). The effect of self-instructions on the rate of correct addition problems with mentally retarded children. Education and Treatment of Children, 5, 121-131.
Baer, D. M. (1984). Does research on self-control
need more
control? Analysis and Intervention
in Developmental Disabilities, 4.211-218.
Baer, D. M. (1990). Why choose self-regulation as the focal analysis of retardation? American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 363-364.
Baer, M., Fowler, S. A., & Carden-Smith, L. (1984). Using reinforcement and independent grading to promote and maintain task accuracy in a mainstreamed class. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 157-169.
Bannerman, D. J., Sheldon, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Harchik, A. E. (1990). Balancing the right to habihtation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 79-89.
Belfiore, P. J., Mace, F. C., & Browder, D. M. (1989). Effects of experimenter surveillance on reactive self-monitoring. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 171-182. Brigham, T. (1982). Self-management: A radical behavioral perspective. In P. Karoly & F. H. Kanfer t&k..), Selfmanagement and behavior change (pp. 32-59). New York: Pergamon. Browder, D. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1985). Applications of self-management to individuals with severe handicaps: A review. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 10, 200-208. Burgio, L. D., Whitman, T. L., &Johnson, M. R. (1980). A self-instructional package for increasing attending behavior in educable mentally retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13.443459. Coleman, R. S., & Whitman, T. L. (1984). Developing, generalizing, and maintaining physical fitness in mentally retarded adults: Toward a self-directed program. Analysis and Zntervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 109-127.
Connis, R. T. (1979). The effects of sequential pictorial cures, self-recording, and praise on the job task sequencing of retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 355-361. Crouch, K. P., Rusch, F. R., & Karlan, G. R. (1984). Competitive employment: Utilizing the correspondence training paradigm to enhance productivity. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 268-275.
224
Fawcctt,
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
S. B. (1991). Some values guiding community
research
and action. Journal ofApplied
BehaviorAnalysis,24, 621-636. Fowler, S. A. (1984). Intmductory comments: The pragmatics of self-management for the developmentally disabled. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4,85-89. Gardner, W. I., Clees, T. J., & Cole, C. L. (1983). Self-management of disruptive verbal ruminations by a mentally retarded adult. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4,41-58. Gardner, W. I., & Cole, C. L. (1989). Self-management approaches. In E. Cipani (Ed.), The treatment of severe behavior disorders: Behavior analysis approaches (pp. 19-35). Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation. Gardner, W. I., Cole, C. L., Berry, D. L., & Nowinski, J. M. (1983). Reduction of disruptive behaviors in mentally retarded adults: A self-management approach. Behavior Modification, 7,76-%. Grace, N., Cowart, C., & Matson, J. L. (1988). Reinforcement and self-control for treating a chronic case of self-injury in Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome. Journal of the Multihandicapped Person, 1, 53-59. Gross, A. M., & Wojnilower, D. A. (1984). Self-directed behavior change in children: Is it selfdirected? Behavior Therapy, 15, 501-514. Hanel, F., & Martin, G. L. (1980). Self-monitoring, self-administration of token reinforcement, and goal-setting to improve work rates with retarded clients. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 3, 505-517. Holman, J., & Baer, D. M. (1979). Facilitating generalization of on-task behavior through selfmonitoring of academic tasks. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9.429-446. Homer, R. H., & Brigham, T. A. (1979). The effects of self-management procedures on the study behavior of two retarded children. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 14, 18-24. Homer, R. H., Lahren, B., Schwartz, T. P., O’Neill, C. T., & Hunter, J. D. (1979). Dealing with the low production rates of severely retarded workers. AAESPH Review, 4, 202-212. Hughes, C., & Petersen, D. L. (1989). Utilizing a self-instructional training package to increase on-task behavior and work performance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 114-120. Hughes, C., & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Teaching supported employees with severe mental retardation to solve problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 365-372. Johnston, M. B., Whitman, T. L., & Johnson, M. (1980). Teaching addition and subtraction to mentally retarded children: A self-instruction program. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 1, 141-160. Kapadia, S., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1988). Training children with developmental disabilities and severe behavior problems to use self-management procedures to sustain attention to preacademic/academic tasks. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 59-69. Kazdin, A. E. (1975). Behavior modiJication in applied settings. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Keogh, D. A., Faw, G. D., Whitman, T. L., & Reid, D. H. (1984). Enhancing leisure skills in severely retarded adolescents through a self-instructional treatment package. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 333-351. Knapczyk, D. R., & Livingston, G. (1973). Self-recording and student teacher supervision: Variables within a token economy structure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 481-486. Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (1990). Extended reductions in stereotypic behavior of students with autism through a self-management treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 119-127. Lagomarcino, T. R., & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Utilizing self-management procedures to teach independent performance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24,297-305. Litrownik, A. J., & Freitas, J. L. (1980). Self-monitoring in moderately retarded adolescents: Reactivity and accuracy as a function of valence. Behavior Therapy, 11,245-255. Lovett, D. L., & Haring, K. A. (1989). The effects of self-management training on the dally living of adults with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 306323.
Self-Management
225
Mace, F. C., Shapiro, E. S., West, B. _I.,Campbell, C., & Altman, J. (1986). The role of reinforcement in reactive self-monitoring. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 315-327. Malott, R. W. (1984). Rule-governed behavior, self-management, and the developmentally disabled: A theoretical analysis. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 199-209. Mank, D. M., & Homer, R. H. (1987). Self-recruited feedback: A cost-effective procedure for maintaining behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8,91-112. Martin, G. L., & Hrydowy, E. R. (1989). Self-monitoring and self-managed reinforcement procedures for improving work productivity of developmentally disabled workers: A review. Behavior Modification, 13, 322-329. Matson, J. L., & Andrasik, F. (1982). Training leisure-time social-interaction skills to mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86,533-542. McCarl, J. J., Svobodny, L., & Boare, P L. (1991). Self-recording in a classroom for students with mild to moderate mental handicaps: Effects on productivity and on-task behavior. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 79-88. McLaughlin, T. F., Burgess, N., & Sackville-West, L. (1981). Effects of self-recording and selfrecording + matching on academic performance. Child Behavior Therapy, 3, 17-27. McNally, R. I., Kompik, J. J., & Sherman, G. (1984). Increasing the productivity of mentally retarded workers through self-management. Analysis and Intervenfion in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 129-135. Moore, S. C., Agran, M., & Fodor-Davis, J. (1989). Using self-management strategies to increase the production rates of workers with severe handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 324-332. Morrow, L. W., & Presswood, S. (1984). The effects of a self-control technique on eliminating three stereotypic behaviors in a multiply-handicapped institutionalized adolescent. Behavioral Disorders, 9,247-253. Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1981). Theoretical explanations for reactivity in self-monitoring. Behavior Modification, 5,3-14. Nelson, R. O., Lipinski, D. l?, & Black, J. L. (1976). The reactivity of adults retardates’ self-monitoring: A comparison of different valences, and a comparison with token reinforcement. Psychological Record, 26, 189-201. Nelson, R. O., Lipinski, D. P., & Boykin, R. A. (1978). The effects of self-recorders’ training and the obtrusiveness of the self-recording device on the accuracy and reactivity of self-monitoring. Behavior Therapy, 9, 200-208. O’Leary, S. G., & Dubey, D. R. (1979). Applications of self-control procedures by children: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12,449-465. Peters, R. D., & Davies, K. (1981). Effects of self-instructional training on cognitive impulsivity of mentally retarded adolescents. American JOU~Q~ of Mental Dejiciency, S&377-382. Rachlin, H. (1974). Self-control. Behaviorism, 2.94-107. Rtxx, R. M., Sherman, J. A., & Sheldon, J. B. (1984). Reducing agitated-disruptive behavior of mentally retarded residents of community group homes: The role of self-recording and peer prompted self-recording. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4,91-107. Rhode, G., Morgan, D. P., & Young, K. R. (1983). Generalization and maintenance of treatment gains of behaviorally handicapped students from resource rooms to regular classrooms using self-evaluation procedures. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 16, 171-188. Robertson, S. J., Simon, S. J., Pachman, J. S., & Drabman, R. S. (1979). Self-control and generalization procedures in a classroom of disruptive retarded children. Child Behavior Therapy, 1, 347-362. Rosine, L. P., & Martin, G. L. (1983). Self-management training to decrease undesirable behavior of mentally handicapped adults. Rehabilitation Psychology, 28, 195-205. Rutid, E. H., Ziamik, J. P., & Colman, G. (1984). Reduction of tongue protrusion of a 24-yearold woman with Down Syndrome through self-monitoring. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 647-652.
226
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
Rusch, F. R., Martin, J. E., Lagomarcino, T. R., & White, D. M. (1987). Teaching task sequencing via verbal mediation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22,229-235. Rusch, F. R., McKee, M., Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Renzaglia, A. (1988). Teaching a student with severe handicaps to self-instruct. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 51-58. Rusch, F. R., Morgan, T. K., Martin, J. E., Riva, M., & Agran, M. (1985). Competitive employment: Teaching mentally retarded employees self-instructional strategies. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6, 389-407. Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., Lefebvre, D., & Rapp, N. (1990). The effects of a self-evaluation package on the independent work skills of handicapped preschool children. Exceptional Children, 56540-549. Salend, S. J., Ellis, L. L., & Reynolds, C. J. (1989). Using self-instruction to teach vocational skills to individuals who are severely retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24,248-254. Schloss, P J., &Wood, C. E. (1990). Effect of self-monitoring on maintenance and generalization of conversational skills of persons with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 28, 105-113. Schriner, K. F., & Fawcett, S. B. (1988). Development and validation of a community concerns report method. Journal of Community Psychology, 16,306316. Shapiro, E. S., & Ackerman, A. (1983). Increasing productivity rates in adult mentally retarded clients: The failure of self-monitoring. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 163-181. Shapiro, E. S., Browder, D. M., & D’Huyvetters, K. K. (1984). Increasing academic productivity of severely multihandicapped children with self-management: Idiosyncratic effects. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 171-178. Shapiro, E. S., & Klein, R. D. (1980). Self-management of classroom behavior with retarded/disturbed children. Behavior Modification, 4, 83-97. Shapiro, E. S., McGonigle, J. J., & Ollendick, T. H. (1980). An analysis of self-assessment and self-reinforcement in a self-managed token economy with mentally retarded children. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 1, 227-240. Sowers, J., Verdi, M., Bourbeau, P., & Sheehan, M. (1985). Teaching job independence and flexibility to mentally retarded students through the use of a self-control package. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 81-85. Sugai, G., & Rowe, P (1984). The effect of self-recording on out-of-seat behavior of an EMR student. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19.23-28. Thackwray, D., Meyers, A., Schlesser, R., & Cohen, R. (1985). Achieving generalization with general versus specific self-instructions: Effects on academically deficient children. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9,297-308. Turnbull, H. R., Turnbull, A. P., Bronicki, G. J., Summers, J. A., & Roeder-Gordon, C. (1989). Disability and the family: A guide to decisions for adulthood. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., McMahon, C., Templeman, M., McKinney, J., Swarts, V., Visser, M., & Marquardt, P. (1988). An evaluation of labeling-then-doing with moderately handicapped persons: Acquisition and generalization with complex tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 369-380. Wacker, D. P., & Greenebaum, F. T. (1984). Efficacy of a verbal training sequence on the sorting performance of moderately and severely mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88.653-660. Wehman, P., Schutz, R., Bates, P., Renzaglia, A., & Karan, D. (1978). Self-management programmes with mentally retarded workers: Implications for developing independent vocational behavior. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17,57-64. Wheeler, J. J., Bates, P., Marshall, K. J., & Miller, S. R. (1988). Teaching appropriate social behaviors to a young man with moderate mental retardation in a supported competitive employment setting. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 105-116. Whitman, T., & Johnston, M. B. (1983). Teaching addition and subtraction with regrouping to educable mentally retarded children: A group self-instructional training program. Behavior Therapy, 14,127-143.
Self-Management
227
Whitman, T. L. (1990). Self-regulation and mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation,94, 341-362. Whitman, T. L., Spence, B. H., & Maxwell, S. (1987). A comparison of external and self-mstructional teaching formats with mentally retarded adults in a vocational training setting. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities,8, 371-388. Zegiob, L., Klukas, N., & Junginger, J. (1978). Reactivity of self-monitoring procedures with retarded adolescents. AmericanJournal of MentalDeficiency,83, 156-163. Zohn, C. J., & Bornstein, P. H. (1980). Self-monitoring of work performance with mentally retarded adults: Effects upon work productivity, work quality, and on-task behavior. Mental Retardation,18, 19-25.
0891-4222/92 $5.00 + .OO Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
The Use of Self-Management Procedures by People With Developmental Disabilities: A Brief Review Alan E. Harchik, James A. Sherman, and Jan B. Sheldon Universify of Kansas
Self-management procedures, such as self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self-instructing, are frequently taught to people with developmental disabilities. In this paper, research examining the use of selfmanagement procedures is reviewed and critiqued. Areas for future investigation are discussed.
Recently, people with developmental disabilities have been taught to manage their own behavior. Several advantages for the use of self-management procedures have been suggested: (a) it offers the possibility of control over behavior when the natural contingencies are too delayed, too improbable, or too small to be effective (Malott, 1984); (b) learned behaviors may be more likely to generalize and maintain in unsupervised or novel situations (Agran & Martin, 1987; Baer, 1984; Fowler, 1984); (c) acting without constant direct supervision by others is valued by society and may help the person to be viewed more positively (O’Leary & Dubey, 1979; Whitman, 1990); and (d) people often prefer situations in which they have some control and opportunities for control may increase participation, reduce problem behaviors, and improve satisfaction without detriment to performance (Bannerman, Sheldon, Sherman, & Harchik, 1990). Browder and Shapiro (1985) and Agran and Martin (1987) reviewed research examining the effects that occurred when people with developThe authors thank Donald M. Baer and Stephen B. Fawcett for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Requests for reprints should be sent to Alan E. Harchik, The May Center, 22 Blanchard Boulevard, Braintree, MA 02184. 211
212
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
mental disabilities were taught to use self-management procedures. The purpose of this article is to continue this discussion, that is, to include recent research studies, to comment upon the recommendations made in these two earlier papers, and to raise some additional issues. DEFINITIONS OF SELF-MANAGEMENT Broadly, self-management has been defined as everything a person does to influence his or her own behavior (Browder & Shapiro, 1983, as those behaviors a person deliberately undertakes to achieve self-selected outcomes (Kazdin, 1973, and as the control of certain responses by stimuli generated from other responses of the same person (Brigham, 1982). More specifically, Baer (1984) noted that one is often considered to be managing one’s own behavior when one (a) acknowledges a problem, (b) translates that problem into sets of behavior to be changed, (c) finds natural reinforcers and punishers to support a change in behavior (or uses artificial or contrived reinforcers when natural ones cannot be found or used), (d) rearranges the environment so that these consequences can support the change in behavior, and (e) records the process. Other authors (e.g., Agran & Martin, 1987; Gardner & Cole, 1989) have discussed many of the same issues as Baer (1984) did; however, they have also included the rearrangement of stimuli that precede occurrence of the behavior as an important component of some self-management practices (e.g., self-instructing, picture or audio cues). Although none of the studies reviewed below have incorporated all of the procedures included in these definitions of self-management, there are an increasing number of studies that have evaluated one or more of these components of self-management. RESEARCH ON SELF-MANAGEMENT Self-Management
Procedures
Used
and self-administering consequences. When self-monitoring, one keeps a record of one’s own behavior. When self-administering consequences, one administers predetermined consequences contingent upon one’s own behavior. There are, of course, both conceptual and procedural differences between self-monitoring and self-administering consequences. In many studies, however, few differences appear in application. For example, the products of self-monitoring (e.g., hash marks, marked forms) are often traded for special items or privileges and, therefore, may function as secondary reinforcers. In the studies reviewed, people were taught to self-monitor and/or self-administer consequences (typically Self-monitoring
Self-Management
213
tokens) (a) at the completion of a task or behavior, or (b) when prompted. For example, at the completion of vocational or academic tasks or when a specified behavior (e.g., verbalization) was exhibited, people were taught to mark a form or photo, press a counter, put a ring on a dowel, or move beads on a bracelet. In other studies, people were taught to take a token, coin, or sticker that was later traded in for special items or activities. In some studies, the person self-monitored and/or self-administered consequences when prompted by a teacher, bell, tone, or pocket timer at specified intervals or at the conclusion of a work period. All studies reviewed are listed in Table 1. Self-instructing.
When self-instructing, one makes directive verbal statements about one’s own behavior. For example, Johnston, Whitman, and Johnson (1980) taught children to state the specific steps required to solve math problems. Content of the directive verbal statements addressed general behaviors, such as “go slowly” or “work faster” (Moore, Agran, & Fodor-Davis, 1989; Salend, Ellis, & Reynolds, 1989) or behaviors specific to the task (e.g., Hughes & Petersen, 1989; Keogh, Faw, Whitman, & Reid, 1984; Rusch, Morgan, Martin, Riva, & Agran, 1985; Whitman, Spence, & Maxwell, 1987). Statements specific to the task may be more effective in improving performance on other similar tasks, whereas general statements may be more effective for improving performance on subsequent tasks that are not highly similar to the original task (Thackwray, Meyers, Schlesser, & Cohen, 1985). Other types of directive statements have also been taught, such as stating the task completed and next task required (Agran, FodorDavis, & Moore, 1986) and stating solutions to problems (Agran, Salzberg, & Stowitschek, 1987; Hughes & Rusch, 1989; Rusch, McKee, Chadsey-Rusch, & Renzaglia, 1988). Each study reviewed is also listed in Table 1. There are also several studes that appear to be closely related to the use of self-instructions but that did not involve teaching the participants to make directive statements. The procedures might be considered variations of self-instructing because, like self-instructing, participant behavior that preceded the occurrence of other targeted behavior was modified to effect the probability of occurrence of the targeted behaviors. These procedures included teaching participants to verbally state an aspect of the stimuli (e.g., color) before sorting or typing (Wacker et al., 1988; Wacker & Greenebaum, 1984), to repeat the supervisor’s instruction (Agran, FodorDavis, Moore, & Deer, 1989; Rusch, Martin, Lagomarcino, & White, 1987), to exhibit correspondence between their verbal statements and subsequent behavior (Crouch, Rusch, & Karlan, 1984) and to operate audiotaped instructions (Alberto, Sharpton, Briggs, & Stright, 1986).
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
214
Studies of Self-Monitoring
TABLE 1 and Self-Administering
Consequences
Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of Participants
Setting
moderate
x = 33
workshop
packaging, photocopying
mild/moderate
26,53
work room
write number on a chart
exercise repetitions
mild/moderate
21-39
room at workshop
Connis, 1979
mark a photo
change of job tasks
moderate
21-24
work room
Hanel & Martin, 1980
take a marble
assembly task
mild
19-54
workshop
Holman & Baer, 1979
move beads on a bracelet
academic
behavior problems
3-7
classroom
Homer, Lahren, Schwartz, O’Neill, & Hunter, 1979
take a token
assembly task
severe
32
workshop
Lagomarcino & Rusch, 1989
take a nickel
packaging task
severe
19
work room
Lovett & Haring, 1989
mark a form
domestic tasks
mild/moderate
19-35
apartments
Mace, Shapiro, West, Campbell, & Altman. 1986
put ring on a dowel
assembly, packaging
severe
30-50
workshop
Mank & Homer, 1987
press counter, write # and time
job tasks
moderate
18-20
restaurants
Matson & Andrasik, 1982
take a token
SOCial
mild
25-43
McNally, Kompik, & Sherman, 1984
take a token
capping and boxing bottles
mild/moderate
Nelson, Lipinski, & Black, 1976
mark tallies on a card
conversation, participation, lace toucnes
mild/moderate
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Ackerman & Shapiro, 1984
press grocery counter
packaging
Belfiore, Mace, & Browder, 1989
put ring on a dowel, mark form
Coleman & Whitman, 1984
At completion of tasks or when behavior exhibited:
pelfOITWlCiZ
interactions
State
hospital 23-49
workshop
215
Self-Management
TABLE 1. Continued
Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of ParticiPants
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Nelson, Lipmski, & Boykin, 1978
press a counter
verbalizations
mild/moderate
12-17
residential center
Rosine & Martin, 1983
press a wrist
tongue protrusions
moderate
21,28
workshop
counter
Schloss & Wood, 1990
press counter or switch
ask or answer questions
mild
23
exp’l room
Shapiro & Ackerman, 1983
press counter, move marker
sorting pins
mild/moderate
19-49
workshop
Shapiro, Browder, & D’Huyvetters, 1984
put penny in container
academic performance
severe
6-10
classroom
Sowers, Verdi, Bourbeau, & Sheehan, 1985
mark a picture
change of job tasks
moderate/ severe
18-21
cafeteria
Wehman, Schutz, Bates, Renzaglia, & Karan, 1978
take a penny
assembly tasks
mild/severe/ profound
18-34
workshop
Zegiob, Klukas, & Junginger, 1978
tally on an index card
nose/mouth picking, head shaking
mild/moderate
17-18
cottage, classroom
Zohn & Bornstein, 1976
tahyona sheet
assembly task
moderate
38-45
workshop
Baer, Fowler, & Carden-Smith, 1984
move pointer
academic performance
severe behavior problems
6
classroom
Gardner, Glees, & Cole, 1983
take a penny, turn a card over
verbalizations
moderate
26
workshop
Gardner, Cole, Beny, & Nowinski, 1983
take a penny, turn a card over
verbalizations
moderate
27,31
workshop
Grace, Cow& Matson, 1988
point to happy orsadface
self-injury (biting)
moderate
14
institution
Setting
When prompted:
(Table continued on next page)
216
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
TABLE 1. Continued Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of ParticiPants
Setting
mild/moderate
lo,13
classroom
attending to task
mild/moderate severe
12-18
group home
write % correct
academic
mild/moderate
7th9th
classroom
Koegel & Koegel, 1990
mark a card
stereotypies
autistic
9-14
classroom, home, community
Litrownik & Freitas, 1980
put marble in a tube
stringing beads
moderate
15-21
work cubicles
McCarl, Svobodny, & Boare, 1991
mark a form
academic on-task and performance
mild/moderate
9-l 1
classroom
McLaughlin, Burgess, & Sackville-West, 1981
mark a form
academic
behavior handicaps
10-12
classroom
Morrow & Presswood, 1984
signing, describe own behavior
stereotypies
moderate/ severe
15
classroom
Reese, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1984
mark on a form
aggression, yelling
mild/moderate
22-28
group home. workshop
Rhode, Morgan, & Young, 1983
write rating of own behavior
appropriate school behavior
mild/moderate
6-9
classroom
Robertson, Simon, Pachman, & Drabman, 1979
write rating of own behavior
classroom disruptions
moderate
5-11
classroom
Rudrud, Ziarnik, & Colman, 1984
mark a form
tongue protrusions
moderate
24
work center
Sainato, Strain, Lefebvre, & Rapp, 1990
mark happy/sad faces
on-task
autistic
4-5
classroom
Shapiro & Klein, 1980
take a token
academic on-task
moderate
6-9
classroom
Shapiro, McGonigle, & Ollendick, 1980
put a star on a chart
academic
mild/moderate
7-12
classroom
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Homer & Brigham, 1979
mark on a form
academic on-task
Kapadia & Fantuzzo, 1988
takeastar
Knapczak & Livingston, 1973
grade
pXfOllKiIlC%
pelfOllKIIlCe
Self-Management
217
TABLE 1. Continued Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of ParticiPants
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Sugai & Rowe, 1984
mark a chart
in/out of class seat
mild/moderate
15
classroom
Wheeler, Bates, Marshall, & Miller, 1988
mark a chart
social skills, appearance
moderate
22
aninlaI care unit
solving math computations
mild/moderate
11-13
classroom
mild/moderate
18-20
vocational training center
18-29
workshop
moderate
9-14
classroom
mild/moderate
21-30
work room
Setting
Studies of Self-Instructing: Albion & Sal&erg, 1982
statespecific
Agran, FodorDavis, & Moore, 1986
state task completed and next task required
work task completed
Agran, Sal&erg, & Stowitschek, 1987
state steps and solutions to solving a problem
moderate/ initiating solutions to severe problems at work
Burgio, Whitman, &Johnson, 1980
state specific behaviors of task
attending to task, academic
behaviors
of task
pelfORlMIlCe
Hughes & Petersen, 1989
statespecific behaviors of task
attending to task, work ptXfOfUKUlUZ
statesteps and
use of sclfinstructions at work
severe
33,37
solutions to problems
supply company
Johnston, Whitman, & Johnson, 1980
state specific behaviors of task
solving math problems
mild
9-10
classroom
Keogh, Faw, Whitman, & Reid, 1984
statespecific behaviors of task
playing a leisure-time
severe
11-19
state facility
Moore, Agran, & Fodor-Davis, 1989
state general behaviors
rate of work
severe
19-21
workshop
Peters & Davies, 1981
state general behaviors
test of matching
mild/moderate
12-18
exp’l room
Rusch, McKee, Chadsey-Rusch, & Renzaglia, 1988
state steps and solutions to problems
requesting materials at work
severe
16
work room
Hughes & Rusch, 1989
game
pfOllIl?XlCE
figures
(Table continued
on next page)
218
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
TABLE 1. Continued Participants’ Disabilities or Level of Severity
Age of ParticiPants
Form of SelfManagement
Behavior Addressed
Rusch, Morgan, Martin, Riva, & Agran, 1985
state general behaviors
amount of time working
mild
‘28, 38
college dormitory
Salend, Ellis, & Reynolds, 1989
state general behaviors
work production rates
severe
25-36
prevocat’l workshop
Whitman & Johnston, 1983
state specific behaviors of task
solving math computations
mild
lo-13
classroom
Whitman, Spence, & Maxwell, 1987
state specific behaviors of task
work tasks
mild/moderate
18-46
workshop
Effectiveness
in Changing
Setting
Behavior
The effects of teaching self-management procedures to people with developmental disabilities were evaluated in 59 studies. In 55 of these studies, desirable consistent changes in behavior were found. Based on these many research studies, to what people and situations can the results be generalized (cf. Martin & Hrydowy, 1989)? and settings. Most of the studies included people with mild or moderate developmental disabilities (46), and a few studies included people with severe disabilities or autism (13). It was not clear whether any prerequisite skills (e.g., counting, language) are required if self-management procedures are to be successfully taught. The effects of self-management procedures were evaluated primarily in sheltered workshops and residential settings and for short periods of time. In addition, the procedures were usually implemented and supervised by the researchers. Thus, although selfmanagement procedures can be adapted for use by people with developmental disabilities, more examination of their use during extended periods, in natural community situations, and with people with the most severe disabilities is needed (see Koegel & Koegel, 1990, for an example of a study meeting these criteria). Further, although the research literature shows that self-management procedures can have a positive effect upon a person’s functioning where the person currently lives or works (e.g., increased work performance, decreases in occurrences of problem behavior), the role that self-management procedures may play in the person’s successful functioning in other integrated community settings remains to be more fully explored.
Participants
SeEf-Management
219
Behaviors addressed. Self-management procedures were used to address a variety of academic and vocational skills, domestic and leisure tasks, and problem behaviors. Self-monitoring and self-administering consequences were typically used to increase the occurrence of behaviors already in the person’s repertoire (e.g., work skills, domestic tasks) whereas self-instructing was also used to address skills not yet mastered (e.g., academic skills, solving problems). Procedures. Often, self-management procedures were combined with other procedures, such as token motivational systems or with the use of prompts and praise for exhibiting self-management procedures or for the target behavior. Moreover, most studies (53) compared the effects of teaching self-management procedures to typical conditions in the setting or to conditions with no interactions or consequences. Thus, it was not always clear whether the observed effects were due to the implementation of a systematic management procedure or due to a self-management procedure implemented by the person himself or herself. Eight studies, however, directly compared “self-” and “other-” managed procedures. The results of these studies suggested that self-management procedures had effects equal to or better than procedures managed by teachers (Baer, Fowler, & Carden-Smith, 1984; Homer, Lahren, Schwartz, O’Neill, & Hunter, 1979; Knapczyk & Livingston, 1973; McLaughlin, Burgess, & Sackville-West, 1981; Rhode, Morgan, & Young, 1983; Shapiro, Browder, & D’Huyvetters, 1984; Wehman, Schutz, Bates, Renzaglia, & Karan, 1978; Whitman et al., 1987). Moreover, Baer et al. (1984) and Sainato, Strain, Lefebvre, & Rapp (1990) found that teachers devoted much less time to behavior management after self-management procedures were taught. A few studies also examined variables involved in the effects observed. For example, behavior changed more when desirable rather than undesirable behaviors were monitored (Litrownik & Freitas, 1980; Nelson, Lipinski, & Black, 1976) and when there was reinforcement for self-monitoring (Zegiob, Klukas, & Junginger, 1978) for accuracy (McLaughlin et al., 1981>, or for the target behavior (Mace, Shapiro, West, Campbell, & Altman, 1986; Mank & Homer, 1987) than when self-monitoring was used alone. Further, experimenter presence may account for some of the effects (Belfiore, Mace, & Browder, 1989) and self-administering consequences may enhance the effects of self-monitoring alone (Homer & Brigham, 1979; Lovett & Hating, 1989). Eflectiveness in Maintenance and Generalization Improving generalization and maintenance were primary reasons for teaching self-management procedures; however, maintenance was assessed
220
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and .I. B. Sheldon
in only 28 studies and generalization in only 13 studies. In some studies, behavior was maintained when self-management procedures were taught after the initial use of teacher- or supervisor-implemented procedures (Ackerman & Shapiro, 1984; Horner et al., 1979; Shapiro & Klein, 1980; Shapiro, McGonigle, & Ollendick, 1980; Shapiro et al., 1984; Wehman et al., 1978). In others, self-management procedures were systematically faded while behavior maintained, supporting the notion that the procedures may not be required indefinitely (Burgio, Whitman, & Johnson, 1980; Gardner, Clees, & Cole, 1983; Knapczyk & Livingston, 1973; Robertson, Simon, Pachman, & Drabman, 1979; Rudrud, Ziarnik, & Colman, 1984; Sugai & Rowe, 1984; Zohn & Bornstein, 1980). In two studies, however, self-management procedures appeared to be necessary for maintenance of behavior change (Koegel & Koegel, 1990; Mank & Homer, 1987). Generalization was sometimes assessed but rarely programmed. In studies in which generalization was assessed, it occurred in different settings (Albion & Salzberg, 1982; Agran et al., 1987; Holman 8z Baer, 1979; Hughes & Petersen, 1989; Rusch et al., 1985) with novel tasks (Hughes & Rusch, 1989; Sowers, Verdi, Bourbeau, & Sheehan, 1985), during different time periods (Robertson et al., 1979) or in an unsupervised situation (Coleman & Whitman, 1984). In a few studies, however, generalization did not occur without training with new tasks or in additional situations (Burgio et al., 1980; Rhode et al., 1983; Rosine & Martin, 1983). In summary, maintenance and generalization were sometimes assessed and often occurred. The reasons for their occurrence, however, were rarely analyzed. It is, therefore, possible that other variables controlled the maintenance or generalization of behavior, such as naturally occurring reinforcement, common stimuli, or temporary maintenance during extinction (Baer, 1984). Use of Self-Management
Procedures by Participants
Forty studies included direct measurement of the person’s use of selfmanagement procedures. Self-monitoring and self-administering consequences were frequently used, but not always accurately. Accuracy improved when contingencies for accuracy were implemented; however, desirable effects were found even when behaviors were not always recorded correctly (Koegel & Koegel, 1990; Nelson et al., 1976; Reese, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1984; Shapiro et al., 1980; Zegiob et al., 1978), although three studies found a relationship between accuracy and desirable behavior (McLaughlin et al., 1981; Rhode et al., 1983; Shapiro et al., 1984). Teaching self-instructing was associated with desirable behavior change, but self-instructions were often not exhibited outside of training. In some
Self-Management
221
studies, when subjects did use self-instructions, there was a relationship between the use of the statements and desirable behavior change (Agran et al., 1986; Keogh et al., 1984; Whitman et al., 1987). Overall, few studies employed specific procedures to increase the likelihood that the self-management procedures themselves would maintain or generalize. Amount
of Participant
Control
Self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self-instructing were the most frequently used procedures in studies with people with developmental disabilities. None of the 59 studies specified opportunities for the person to identify the problem, determine target behaviors, select consequences, or determine what environmental rearrangements would be made. Further, in studies examining self-administration of consequences, the consequences were often highly supervised by teachers or supervisors (cf. Gross & Wojnilower, 1984). Thus, the existing literature, at best, approximates maximal self-management. Partial participation in self-management, however, may be preferable to no participation (Browder & Shapiro, 1985) and future research may likely include additional components. For example, recent work in the areas of community improvement (e.g., Fawcett, 1991; Schriner & Fawcett, 1988) and families who have members with disabilities (e.g., Tumbull, Tumbull, Bronicki, Summers, & Roeder-Gordon, 1989) contains suggestions about ways to increase each participant’s role in self-management. CONCLUSIONS
AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Based on the current research, it seems clear that people with developmental disabilities can implement specific self-management procedures. Although there is ongoing discussion regarding why these procedures are sometimes effective (e.g., they function as mediators, steps in a chain, discriminative stimuli, or as a version of control by others, Baer, 1984, 1990; Nelson & Hayes, 1981; Rachlin, 1974) researchers continue to examine applications and effects of self-management procedures. More than a dozen research studies published since the Browder and Shapiro (1985) and Agran and Martin (1987) reviews attest to the ongoing interest in these types of procedures. In general, the more recent research has expanded upon the types of applications of self-management procedures (e.g., different tasks and behaviors, new settings); however, the recommendations made in these earlier reviews have not yet been fully addressed. These recommendations remain valid and are discussed below. First, more research is needed to determine if there are any prerequisite skills, entry-level abilities, or idiosyncratic individual differences that are
222
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
related to the subsequent effectiveness of self-management procedures. Variables to be examined might include the participant’s level of language, ability to count, skill at discriminating occurrences and nonoccurrences of his or her own behavior, and skill at discriminating the situations or conditions under which certain behaviors are or are not required. A second area for study is the adaptation of self-management procedures based upon the specific characteristics of the person and setting and examinations of adaptations that increase the ease with which the procedures can be used in less controlled settings (e.g., wrist counters, timers that automatically reset at the end of each preset interval). Further, methods to expand the range of self-management procedures to include those that more fully involve the person in the design of the procedures would be of interest to researchers and practitioners. For example, there has been little research examining methods to teach people with developmental disabilities how to select their own behaviors to modify or how to select methods to modify these behaviors. Third, behaviors or classes of behaviors that appear most amenable to modification by self-management procedures can be examined in research studies. For example, a growing number of studies are addressing the reduction of occurrences of problem behaviors. Research might address whether typical self-management procedures have differential effects depending upon the function of the behavior addressed (e.g., escape- or attention-maintained). A fourth area for continued study is the maintenance and generalization of the use of self-management procedures and further analysis of the effects of self-management procedures on the maintenance and generalization of targeted behaviors. For example, there may be ways for the use of self-management procedures to be maintained by reinforcers currently available in the person’s environment. It also seems likely that the analysis of conditions or situations that require certain behaviors may provide useful information about how to promote generalization. Finally, a fifth research area can address application of research findings in everyday life. This would include developing methods for teaching teachers, parents, and staff members to teach people with developmental disabilities to use these self-management procedures successfully and in ways that promote improved functioning in their living and working situations. In conclusion, future research examining the processes and applications of self-management procedures will test the robustness of these procedures across a wide range of problems, behaviors, and disabilities. Furthermore, it will add to a growing methodology that provides new opportunities for personal control by a group of people not typically given these opportunities.
Self-Management
223
REFERENCES Ackerman, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1984). Self-monitoring and work productivity with mentally retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17.403407. Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., & Moore, S. (1986). The effects of self-instructional training on jobtask sequencing: Suggesting a problem-solving strategy. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21.273-281.
Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., Moore, S., & Deer, M. (1989). The application of a self-management program on instruction following skills. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14,147-154.
Agran, M., & Martin, J. E. (1987). Applying a technology of self-control in community environments for individuals who are mentally retarded. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 21) (pp. 108-151). New York: Academic Press. Agran, M., Sal&erg, C. L., & Stowitschek, .I. J. (1987). An analysis of the effects of a social skills training program using self-instructions on the acquisition and generalization of two social behaviors in a work setting. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 12, 131-139. Alberta, P. A., Sharpton, W. R., Briggs, A., & Stright, M. H. (1986). Facilitating task acquisition through the use of a self-operated auditory prompting system. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 11,85-91.
Albion, F. M., & SaJzberg, C. L. (1982). The effect of self-instructions on the rate of correct addition problems with mentally retarded children. Education and Treatment of Children, 5, 121-131.
Baer, D. M. (1984). Does research on self-control
need more
control? Analysis and Intervention
in Developmental Disabilities, 4.211-218.
Baer, D. M. (1990). Why choose self-regulation as the focal analysis of retardation? American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 363-364.
Baer, M., Fowler, S. A., & Carden-Smith, L. (1984). Using reinforcement and independent grading to promote and maintain task accuracy in a mainstreamed class. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 157-169.
Bannerman, D. J., Sheldon, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Harchik, A. E. (1990). Balancing the right to habihtation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 79-89.
Belfiore, P. J., Mace, F. C., & Browder, D. M. (1989). Effects of experimenter surveillance on reactive self-monitoring. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 171-182. Brigham, T. (1982). Self-management: A radical behavioral perspective. In P. Karoly & F. H. Kanfer t&k..), Selfmanagement and behavior change (pp. 32-59). New York: Pergamon. Browder, D. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1985). Applications of self-management to individuals with severe handicaps: A review. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 10, 200-208. Burgio, L. D., Whitman, T. L., &Johnson, M. R. (1980). A self-instructional package for increasing attending behavior in educable mentally retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13.443459. Coleman, R. S., & Whitman, T. L. (1984). Developing, generalizing, and maintaining physical fitness in mentally retarded adults: Toward a self-directed program. Analysis and Zntervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 109-127.
Connis, R. T. (1979). The effects of sequential pictorial cures, self-recording, and praise on the job task sequencing of retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 355-361. Crouch, K. P., Rusch, F. R., & Karlan, G. R. (1984). Competitive employment: Utilizing the correspondence training paradigm to enhance productivity. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 268-275.
224
Fawcctt,
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
S. B. (1991). Some values guiding community
research
and action. Journal ofApplied
BehaviorAnalysis,24, 621-636. Fowler, S. A. (1984). Intmductory comments: The pragmatics of self-management for the developmentally disabled. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4,85-89. Gardner, W. I., Clees, T. J., & Cole, C. L. (1983). Self-management of disruptive verbal ruminations by a mentally retarded adult. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4,41-58. Gardner, W. I., & Cole, C. L. (1989). Self-management approaches. In E. Cipani (Ed.), The treatment of severe behavior disorders: Behavior analysis approaches (pp. 19-35). Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation. Gardner, W. I., Cole, C. L., Berry, D. L., & Nowinski, J. M. (1983). Reduction of disruptive behaviors in mentally retarded adults: A self-management approach. Behavior Modification, 7,76-%. Grace, N., Cowart, C., & Matson, J. L. (1988). Reinforcement and self-control for treating a chronic case of self-injury in Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome. Journal of the Multihandicapped Person, 1, 53-59. Gross, A. M., & Wojnilower, D. A. (1984). Self-directed behavior change in children: Is it selfdirected? Behavior Therapy, 15, 501-514. Hanel, F., & Martin, G. L. (1980). Self-monitoring, self-administration of token reinforcement, and goal-setting to improve work rates with retarded clients. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 3, 505-517. Holman, J., & Baer, D. M. (1979). Facilitating generalization of on-task behavior through selfmonitoring of academic tasks. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9.429-446. Homer, R. H., & Brigham, T. A. (1979). The effects of self-management procedures on the study behavior of two retarded children. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 14, 18-24. Homer, R. H., Lahren, B., Schwartz, T. P., O’Neill, C. T., & Hunter, J. D. (1979). Dealing with the low production rates of severely retarded workers. AAESPH Review, 4, 202-212. Hughes, C., & Petersen, D. L. (1989). Utilizing a self-instructional training package to increase on-task behavior and work performance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 114-120. Hughes, C., & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Teaching supported employees with severe mental retardation to solve problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 365-372. Johnston, M. B., Whitman, T. L., & Johnson, M. (1980). Teaching addition and subtraction to mentally retarded children: A self-instruction program. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 1, 141-160. Kapadia, S., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1988). Training children with developmental disabilities and severe behavior problems to use self-management procedures to sustain attention to preacademic/academic tasks. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 59-69. Kazdin, A. E. (1975). Behavior modiJication in applied settings. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. Keogh, D. A., Faw, G. D., Whitman, T. L., & Reid, D. H. (1984). Enhancing leisure skills in severely retarded adolescents through a self-instructional treatment package. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 333-351. Knapczyk, D. R., & Livingston, G. (1973). Self-recording and student teacher supervision: Variables within a token economy structure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 481-486. Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (1990). Extended reductions in stereotypic behavior of students with autism through a self-management treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 119-127. Lagomarcino, T. R., & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Utilizing self-management procedures to teach independent performance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24,297-305. Litrownik, A. J., & Freitas, J. L. (1980). Self-monitoring in moderately retarded adolescents: Reactivity and accuracy as a function of valence. Behavior Therapy, 11,245-255. Lovett, D. L., & Haring, K. A. (1989). The effects of self-management training on the dally living of adults with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 306323.
Self-Management
225
Mace, F. C., Shapiro, E. S., West, B. _I.,Campbell, C., & Altman, J. (1986). The role of reinforcement in reactive self-monitoring. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 315-327. Malott, R. W. (1984). Rule-governed behavior, self-management, and the developmentally disabled: A theoretical analysis. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 199-209. Mank, D. M., & Homer, R. H. (1987). Self-recruited feedback: A cost-effective procedure for maintaining behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8,91-112. Martin, G. L., & Hrydowy, E. R. (1989). Self-monitoring and self-managed reinforcement procedures for improving work productivity of developmentally disabled workers: A review. Behavior Modification, 13, 322-329. Matson, J. L., & Andrasik, F. (1982). Training leisure-time social-interaction skills to mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86,533-542. McCarl, J. J., Svobodny, L., & Boare, P L. (1991). Self-recording in a classroom for students with mild to moderate mental handicaps: Effects on productivity and on-task behavior. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 79-88. McLaughlin, T. F., Burgess, N., & Sackville-West, L. (1981). Effects of self-recording and selfrecording + matching on academic performance. Child Behavior Therapy, 3, 17-27. McNally, R. I., Kompik, J. J., & Sherman, G. (1984). Increasing the productivity of mentally retarded workers through self-management. Analysis and Intervenfion in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 129-135. Moore, S. C., Agran, M., & Fodor-Davis, J. (1989). Using self-management strategies to increase the production rates of workers with severe handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 324-332. Morrow, L. W., & Presswood, S. (1984). The effects of a self-control technique on eliminating three stereotypic behaviors in a multiply-handicapped institutionalized adolescent. Behavioral Disorders, 9,247-253. Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1981). Theoretical explanations for reactivity in self-monitoring. Behavior Modification, 5,3-14. Nelson, R. O., Lipinski, D. l?, & Black, J. L. (1976). The reactivity of adults retardates’ self-monitoring: A comparison of different valences, and a comparison with token reinforcement. Psychological Record, 26, 189-201. Nelson, R. O., Lipinski, D. P., & Boykin, R. A. (1978). The effects of self-recorders’ training and the obtrusiveness of the self-recording device on the accuracy and reactivity of self-monitoring. Behavior Therapy, 9, 200-208. O’Leary, S. G., & Dubey, D. R. (1979). Applications of self-control procedures by children: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12,449-465. Peters, R. D., & Davies, K. (1981). Effects of self-instructional training on cognitive impulsivity of mentally retarded adolescents. American JOU~Q~ of Mental Dejiciency, S&377-382. Rachlin, H. (1974). Self-control. Behaviorism, 2.94-107. Rtxx, R. M., Sherman, J. A., & Sheldon, J. B. (1984). Reducing agitated-disruptive behavior of mentally retarded residents of community group homes: The role of self-recording and peer prompted self-recording. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4,91-107. Rhode, G., Morgan, D. P., & Young, K. R. (1983). Generalization and maintenance of treatment gains of behaviorally handicapped students from resource rooms to regular classrooms using self-evaluation procedures. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 16, 171-188. Robertson, S. J., Simon, S. J., Pachman, J. S., & Drabman, R. S. (1979). Self-control and generalization procedures in a classroom of disruptive retarded children. Child Behavior Therapy, 1, 347-362. Rosine, L. P., & Martin, G. L. (1983). Self-management training to decrease undesirable behavior of mentally handicapped adults. Rehabilitation Psychology, 28, 195-205. Rutid, E. H., Ziamik, J. P., & Colman, G. (1984). Reduction of tongue protrusion of a 24-yearold woman with Down Syndrome through self-monitoring. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 647-652.
226
A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon
Rusch, F. R., Martin, J. E., Lagomarcino, T. R., & White, D. M. (1987). Teaching task sequencing via verbal mediation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22,229-235. Rusch, F. R., McKee, M., Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Renzaglia, A. (1988). Teaching a student with severe handicaps to self-instruct. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 51-58. Rusch, F. R., Morgan, T. K., Martin, J. E., Riva, M., & Agran, M. (1985). Competitive employment: Teaching mentally retarded employees self-instructional strategies. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6, 389-407. Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., Lefebvre, D., & Rapp, N. (1990). The effects of a self-evaluation package on the independent work skills of handicapped preschool children. Exceptional Children, 56540-549. Salend, S. J., Ellis, L. L., & Reynolds, C. J. (1989). Using self-instruction to teach vocational skills to individuals who are severely retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24,248-254. Schloss, P J., &Wood, C. E. (1990). Effect of self-monitoring on maintenance and generalization of conversational skills of persons with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 28, 105-113. Schriner, K. F., & Fawcett, S. B. (1988). Development and validation of a community concerns report method. Journal of Community Psychology, 16,306316. Shapiro, E. S., & Ackerman, A. (1983). Increasing productivity rates in adult mentally retarded clients: The failure of self-monitoring. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 163-181. Shapiro, E. S., Browder, D. M., & D’Huyvetters, K. K. (1984). Increasing academic productivity of severely multihandicapped children with self-management: Idiosyncratic effects. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 171-178. Shapiro, E. S., & Klein, R. D. (1980). Self-management of classroom behavior with retarded/disturbed children. Behavior Modification, 4, 83-97. Shapiro, E. S., McGonigle, J. J., & Ollendick, T. H. (1980). An analysis of self-assessment and self-reinforcement in a self-managed token economy with mentally retarded children. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 1, 227-240. Sowers, J., Verdi, M., Bourbeau, P., & Sheehan, M. (1985). Teaching job independence and flexibility to mentally retarded students through the use of a self-control package. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 81-85. Sugai, G., & Rowe, P (1984). The effect of self-recording on out-of-seat behavior of an EMR student. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19.23-28. Thackwray, D., Meyers, A., Schlesser, R., & Cohen, R. (1985). Achieving generalization with general versus specific self-instructions: Effects on academically deficient children. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9,297-308. Turnbull, H. R., Turnbull, A. P., Bronicki, G. J., Summers, J. A., & Roeder-Gordon, C. (1989). Disability and the family: A guide to decisions for adulthood. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., McMahon, C., Templeman, M., McKinney, J., Swarts, V., Visser, M., & Marquardt, P. (1988). An evaluation of labeling-then-doing with moderately handicapped persons: Acquisition and generalization with complex tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 369-380. Wacker, D. P., & Greenebaum, F. T. (1984). Efficacy of a verbal training sequence on the sorting performance of moderately and severely mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88.653-660. Wehman, P., Schutz, R., Bates, P., Renzaglia, A., & Karan, D. (1978). Self-management programmes with mentally retarded workers: Implications for developing independent vocational behavior. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17,57-64. Wheeler, J. J., Bates, P., Marshall, K. J., & Miller, S. R. (1988). Teaching appropriate social behaviors to a young man with moderate mental retardation in a supported competitive employment setting. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 105-116. Whitman, T., & Johnston, M. B. (1983). Teaching addition and subtraction with regrouping to educable mentally retarded children: A group self-instructional training program. Behavior Therapy, 14,127-143.
Self-Management
227
Whitman, T. L. (1990). Self-regulation and mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation,94, 341-362. Whitman, T. L., Spence, B. H., & Maxwell, S. (1987). A comparison of external and self-mstructional teaching formats with mentally retarded adults in a vocational training setting. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities,8, 371-388. Zegiob, L., Klukas, N., & Junginger, J. (1978). Reactivity of self-monitoring procedures with retarded adolescents. AmericanJournal of MentalDeficiency,83, 156-163. Zohn, C. J., & Bornstein, P. H. (1980). Self-monitoring of work performance with mentally retarded adults: Effects upon work productivity, work quality, and on-task behavior. Mental Retardation,18, 19-25.
