the reactivity and accuracy of children's self-monitoring:

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 26 October 2014, At: 10:23Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Child Behavior TherapyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzbe20

The Reactivity and Accuracy of Children's Self-Monitoring:Rosemary O. Nelson a , Linda Rudin Hay b , Jeanne Devany c & Lorrie Koslow-Greena Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training, University of North Carolina,Greensboro, NC, 27412b Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, RutgersUniversity, Piscataway, NJc Grad Student, Psychology Department, University of North Carolina, GreensboroPublished online: 23 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Rosemary O. Nelson , Linda Rudin Hay , Jeanne Devany & Lorrie Koslow-Green (1981) The Reactivity andAccuracy of Children's Self-Monitoring:, Child Behavior Therapy, 2:3, 1-24, DOI: 10.1300/J473V02N03_01

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J473V02N03_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzbe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J473V02N03_01

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J473V02N03_01

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Reactivity and Accuracy of Children's Self-Monitoring: Three Experiments

ROSEMERY 0 . NELSON, LINDA RUDlN HAY JEANNE DEVANY, LORRIE KPSLOW-GREEN

Abstract. The purpose of these threp experiments was to exam$e the accuracy and reactivity of children's self-monitoring of their appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations iq typical classroom settings. In Experiment 1, 24 children self-recorded appropriate or inappropriate verbalizations either prior to or after their occurrence. 111 Experiment 2, all children in two classes self-recorded verbalizations, while in two other classes, only two children self-recorded. In one condition, the self-recording device was on top of the desk, whereas in a n o t h e ~ condition, it was primarily beneath the desk top. In Experiment 3, developmental aspects were investigated as eight children from each of grade.^ one, three, and five self-recorded their verbalizatiqns. There were four major findings. First, although self-recording produced behavior changes for some children, it neither consistently increased appropriate verbalizations nor consistently decreased inappropriate verbabations. Second, the children were relatively inaccurate self- recorders. Third, their accuracy was lower for inappropriateverbalizations than for appropriate. Fourth, the children did not consistently overestimate their a p propriate verbalizations nor congstently underestimate their inappropriate verbalizations.

Gratitude is expressed to the Greensboro and Guilford County School Systems; to the principals, Mr. Skiver and Mrs. Boyles; to the teachers, Ms. Bates. Chapman, Clifton, Corns, Fountain. Gibson, Harris, Hedrick, Jordan, Smith, Surratt, and Wooten, and to their studems; to the observers, Dana Acker. Ken Dixon? Nancy Greene, Allen Hammond, Mary Maxwell, Sharon Mayell. Jamie Provenzano, Debbie Puckett, and Judy Treanor: to the experimenters. Lani Burnett. Lucy Dorsey, and David Lipton; and to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro for Grants 89% 977, and 0-2-1 10-218-6XXXX-7111.

The second author is Assistant Professor at Rutgers University. Graduate School of A p plied and Professional Psychology, Piscataway, NJ, and the third author is a graduate student in the Psvcholonv De~artment. Universitv of North Carolina. Greensboro. . . . -.

Portions of tGs paper were presGted at the meeting of the ~me"can Psychological Association, Toronto. August 1978. Reprints may be requested from Rosemery 0. Nelson. Pro- fessor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training, University of North Carolina, Greens- boro, NC 27412.

Child Behavior Therapy, Vol. 2(3),, Fall 1980 @ 1980 The Haworth Press 1 (1-24)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

2 Child Behavior Therapy

The purpose of these three experiments was to examine the accuracy and reactivity of children's self-monitoring in typical classroom settings. The use of self-recording to modify children's classroom behavior is attractive for several reasons. It is often difficult to persuade teachers to maintain teacher-managed contingency programs (Abidin, 1975). Relatedly, there is an increasing trend toward self-control strategies in the modification of problem behaviors (Mahoney & Thoresen, 1974).

Self-recording has been demonstrated to be an effective self- control technique because it is relatively easy to use and because it usually produces beneficial reactive behavior changes: through self- monitoring, desirable behavior often increases in frequency whereas undesirable behavior often decreases (Cavior & Marabotto, 1976; Kazdin, 1974a; Sieck & McFall, 1976). The first goal of the present studies was to determine whether self-recording within typical classroom settings increases the frequency of appropriate verbalizations, a desirable behavior, and decreases the frequency of inappropriate verbalizations, an undesirable behavior. These behaviors were selected because of their relevance to all children and because of their prece- dence in the literature. Gottman and McFall (1972) found that classroom participation by high school sophomores increased through self- monitoring. Conversely, Broden, Hall, and Mitts (1971) reported that the inappropriate talking of an eighth-grade boy decreased through self-monitoring.

The second goal of these studies was to examine the level of accuracy with which children self-monitored their classroom verbalizations. With reference to the accuracy of self-monitoring, Kazdin (1974b) and McFall (1977) proposed that children would be less accurate self-recorders than adults. Kanfer (1977) suggested that positive behaviors may be self-recorded more accurately than negative behaviors. The rationale for this suggestion was that the self-recorder may refrain from self-monitoring negative behaviors, thereby producing self-recordings of low accuracy, because the self-monitoring of negative behaviors may prompt unpleasant negative self-evaluations. The third goal of these studies was to compare the relative accuracy with which appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations were self-recorded. Kazdin (1974b) concluded that self-recorders tend to overestimate the frequency of their desirable behaviors and to underestimate the frequency of their undesirable behaviors. The fourth goal of these studies was to compare the relative frequencies recorded by the self-recorders

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

NELSON, HAY, DEVANY, KOSLOW-GREEN 3

and by the observers to determine whether self-recorders do overestimate positive behaviors and underestimate negative behaviors.

In addition to these four goals which were common to all three experiments, each experiment had its unique goal. In the first experiment, appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations were self-recorded either prior to or after their occurrence. Kanfer (1970) has speculated that precursory self-recording would cause behavior decreases by breaking undesirable behavior chains. Bellack, Rozensky, and Schwartz (1974) with overeating and Rozensky (1974) with cigarette smoking, found that self-recording prior to these negative behaviors produced greater decreases than self-recording following their occurrence. While timing of self-monitoring has been demonstrated to in- fluence the reactivity of undesirable behaviors, it was hypothesized that timing would be less important with desirable behaviors.

The second experiment examined the effects on accuracy and reactivity of subject obtrusiveness and of the obtrusiveness of the self- monitoring device. In two classrooms, only two children were asked to self-record, while in another two classrooms, the entire class self- recorded. In one experimental condition, the self-recording device was located on top of the children's desks, while in another condition, it was primarily located beneath the desk tops. Nelson, Lipinski, and Boykin's findings (1978) with adolescent retardates who self-monitored appropriate verbalizations suggested that an obtrusive self-recording device tends to produce greater accuracy and greater reactivity.

The third experiment was a developmental investigation using first, third, and fifth graders. It was hypothesized that the self-monitoring of older children would be more accurate and perhaps more consistently reactive.

EXPERIMENT 1

Method

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Two between subject factors were employed: self-monitoring appropriate or inappropriate verbalizations either prior to or after their occurrence. Following 9 days of baseline observations, the six children in Classes 1 and 2 self-recorded appropriate verbalizations, and the six children in Classes 3 and 4 self-recorded inappropriate verbalizations 20 minutes a day for 18 days. Three children in each classroom recorded

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

4 ChUd Behavior Therapy

verbalizations prior to their occurrences, and the other three chidren recorded verbalizations after their occurrences.

SUBJECTS

After the experiment was procedurally described in a faculty meeting as involv- ing children's self-recording and classroom observations, four female teachers volunteered their classes to participate. Each teacher selected six children who exhibited a high frequency of inappropriate classroom verbalizations. Classes 1 and 3 were f is t grades, Class 2 was a fourth grade, and Class 4 was a second grade. The children in Class 1 were selected to self-record appropriate verbalizations because of a very low baseline frequency of inappropriate verbalizations. The children in the other first- grade class were therefore assigned to self-record inappropriate verbalizations. There- maining assignments to experiment* conditions, including the assignment of subjects to pre or postself-monitoring, was determined randomly.

OBSERVATION PROCEDURES

The observers were four undergraduate students who received course credit for their participation. One pair of observers recorded in all four classrooms on Tuesdays and Thursdays; the second pair of observers recorded on Mondays, Wednes- days, and Fridays. Two observers recorded simultaneously but independently during 63% of the observation sessions. The observers, who were trained by both discussions and practice observations in the classrooms, were not informed of the experimental hypotheses until the study's completion.

The observers recorded the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate classroom verbalizations for 20 minutes per day in each of the four classrooms during 9 days of baseline and 18 days of self-monitoring. Three subjects in each classroom were observed simultaneously for 10 minutes, and the other three subjects were then observed simultaneously for the remaining 10 minutes. The Mminute observation session occurred at the same time in each classroom each day, and the curriculum always consisted of a group discussion. In addition to recording classroom verbalizations, during self-monitoring, the observers also recorded if the child's self-recording response was made prior to or after the occurrence of the verbalization.

Appropriate classroom verbalizations were defined as the child's speaking out in class with permission, including being called on individually or participating in a group recitation. Inappropriate classroom verbalizations were defined as the child's speakingout in class without permission, including giving ananswer when another student had been called on or talking covertly to another child.

Interobserver agreement was calculated by means of a Pearson correlation coefficient on the frequency recorded by each of the two observers (n = 347): .98 for appropriate verbalizations, and .96 for inappropriate verbalizations. Observers' agreement on instances of self-monitoring prior to the target verbalization was .73, and qfter the target verbalization, .63 (n = 198 in both cases).

SELF-MONITORING PROCEDURES

After 9 days of baseline recordings, the 24 subjects were trained in self-monitoring. The self-monitoring device was a sheet of paper divided into 88 squares which was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


taped to the child's desk during the 10 minutes he or she was to self-record. For each verbalization, the child was instructed to color in a square with a crayon.

The three children in each classroom who were to follow the same self-monitoring procedure (e.g., self-recording appropriate verbalizations prior to their occurrence) were trained to self-record by an experimenter outside their classrooms during two =minute sessions. The experimenter utilized a modified version of Meichen- baum and Goodman's (1971) method to train the subjects. After defining the target behavior, the experimenter modeled self-recording, verbalizing the procedure aloud. The child was then asked to practice self-recording while first verbalizing the procedure overtly, and then covertly. After all 24 children were trained in this manner, the observers continued training in the classroom for five 10-minute sessions. The self- recording sheet was taped to the child's desk, and the child was given a crayon. The observer reminded the child of the instructions and then asked the child to repeat the instructions. During training, the observer prompted the child throughout the 10-minute session to self-record appropriately. Each child was considered trained after these seven training sessions, although no explicit measurable criterion was used.

For the I8 days of the self-monitoring condition itself, the observer taped the self-. recording sheet to the child's desk, giving him or her acrayon and areminder about the appropriate self-recording instructions. No further prompts were given during the experimental sessions. After the 10-minute session, the observer removed the self- recording sheet from the child's desk.

Results

CHECK ON EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLE

To determine if the children's self-recording responses were in- deed made prior to or after a classroom verbalization, the number of self-recording responses made in accordance with each condition was divided by the total number of self-recording responses made by subjects in that experimental condition. For the six subjects who were to self-record appropriate verbalizations prior to their occurrence, 76% of their self-recording responses were done in accordance with these instructions. For the six subjects who were to self-record appropriate verbalizations after their occurrence, 94% of their self-recording responses followed,these instructions. The six subjects who were to self-record inappropriate verbalizations prior to their occurrence did so for 87% of their self-recording responses. The six subjects who were to self-record inappropriate verbalizations after their occurrence followed this instruction for 98% of their self-recording responses.

Because of children's absences, 10% of the data were estimated for the analyses of variance. Data estimation was done by using the mean frequency of that experimental condition for that subject.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


ACCURACY OF SELF-RECORDING

To determine the accuracy of the children's self-recording, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated using the daily frequency recorded by the observer (or the mean frequency of two observers) and the daily frequency recorded by the self-recorder. The accuracy of the 12 subjects who self-monitored appropriate verbalizations was .79. The accuracy of the 12 subjects who self-monitored inappropriate verbalizations was 31. The self-recording accuracy for appropriate verbalizations was significantly greater than the self- recording accuracy for inappropriate verbalizations, z(172, 198) = 4 . 9 0 , ~ < .001. Accuracies were further analyzed for each experimental condition: for self-recording appropriate verbalizations prior to their occurrence, .763; for self-recording appropriate verbalizations after their occurrence, .826; for self-recording inappropriate verbalizations prior to their occurrence, 593; and for self-recording inappropriate verbalizations after their occurrence, .012.

On the average, the self-recorders recorded slightly more appropriate verbalizations (X= 3.90 per subject per 10 minutes) than did the observers (X = 3.78). Similarly, the self-recorders recorded more inappropriate verbalizations (X = 8.83) than did the observers (K = 2.16).

REACTIVITY OF SELF-RECORDING

Appropriate verbalizations. Although all 18 self-monitoring days were procedurally comparable, an examination of the data revealed changes in patterns of reactivity over time. Therefore, a 2 (grades) x 2 (before-after) x 3 (conditions: baseline, Days 1-9 of self-monitoring, Days 10-18 of self-monitoring) x 9 (days) analysis of variance was performed on the frequency of appropriate verbalizations for the 12 subjects who self-recorded appropriate verbalizations. Neither grades nor before-after yielded significant differences. There was, however, a significant difference among the experimental conditions, F(2, 16) = 8.81, p < .01. There was also a significant conditions by grades interaction, F(2, 16) = 5 . 7 5 , ~ < .05.

When this interaction was examined, two different patterns of appropriate verbalizations as a function of the experimental conditions emerged. The first pattern is typical of Class 1, a fist-grade class. Self-recording seemed to interfere with appropriate verbalizations, as the frequency of appropriate verbalizations decreased during their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


self-monitoring. The mean frequency per student per day of appropriate verbalizations for Class 1 was: baseline = 4.92, Days 1-9 of self-monitoring = 4.52, Days 10-18 of self-monitoring = 3.11. The mean data for each subject is presented in Table 1.

The second pattern is typical of Class 2, a fourth-grade class. Self- monitoring produced an initial but temporary increase in the frequency of appropriate verbalizations. The mean frequency per student per

Table 1

Mean Daily Frequency (10 minutes) of Appropriate or Inappropriate Claesroom

Verbalizations during Baseline and durin~ Self-Recording, Before or After

Appropriate or Inappropriate Classrow Verbalizations - Experiment 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


day of appropriate verbalizations for Class 2 was: baseline = 2.35, Days 1-9 of self-monitoring = 4.70, Days 1@18 of self-monitoring = 1 C?

Inappropriate verbalizations. A similar analysis of variance as described above was performed on the frequency of inappropriate verbalizations. Neither grades, nor before-after, nor conditions yielded significant differences. There was, however, a significant conditions by grades interaction, F(2, 16) = 4 . 9 5 , ~ < .05.

When this interaction was examined, two different patterns of inappropriate verbalizations as a function of the experimental conditions emerged. The first pattern is typical of some subjects in Class 3, a first-grade class. For these subjects, continued self-monitoring of inappropriate verbalizations produced a dramatic increase in their frequency. The mean frequency per student per day of inappropriate verbalizations for Class 3 was: baseline = 2.72, Days 1-9 of self-monitoring = 2.52, Days 10-18 of self-monitoring = 3.94.

The second pattern was more typical of the remaining students in Class 3 and of the subjects in Class 4, a second-grade class. Self-monitoring of inappropriate verbalizations produced a decrease in their frequency. The mean frequency per student per day of inappropriate verbalizations for Class 4 was: baseline = 3.72, Days 1-9 of self-monitoring = 1.35, Days 10-18 of self-monitoring = .046.

Discussion

With respect to the general theme of these three experiments, the accuracy and reactivity of children's self-recording, the children were relatively inaccurate self-recorders. Even though each child's accuracy at the end of training was not determined, each child did receive seven self-monitoring training sessions. Although correlations are often used to compute agreement for frequency data (Hartmann, 1977), correlations do not permit a response-by-response molecular analysis. The present findings simply reveal that the total frequencies recorded by observers and by self-recording children over 10-minute time intervals do not correspond well. The reasons for the children's inaccuracy are not known, for example, failing to record responses that are made, recording responses that are not made, and evaluating responses as appropriate or inappropriate using standards that differ from the ob-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

NELSON, HAY, DEVANY, KOSLOW-C@EN 9

servers'. The children's relative inaccuracy, however, does confirm Kazdin's (1974b) and McFall's (1977) conclusion.

In accordance with Kanfer's (1977) suggestion, the children's accuracy for self-recording inappropriate verbalizations (.51) was even lower than for appropriate verbalizations (.79). As opposed to Kazdii's (1974b) belief, however, self-recorders did not tend to underestimate their negative behaviors. For both appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations, the frequency recorded by the self-recorder was higher than the frequency recorded by the observers.

Although reactive behavior changes occurred through self- monitoring, the results were not consistent within the study, nor with previous studies which-generally find that self-recording increases positive behavior and decreases negative behavior. In the present study, self-recording of appropriate verbalizations by the first-graders seemed to interfere with their occurrence, producing decreases in appropriate verbalizations. Self-recording of appropriate verbalizations by the fourth-graders produced only temporary increases in their frequency. On one hand, self-recording of inappropriate verbalizations did produce a decrease in their frequency for the second-graders and for some of the first-graders. On the other hand, self-recording of inappropriate verbalizations increased their frequency for Subjects 13 and 15, both of whom self-monitored prior to the occurrence of inappropriate verbalizations. As one of the observers commented, these two girls used the self-recording response as a "license" to Speak out. Alternatively, the girls enjoyed coloring in the squares so much, that they talked in order to take the opportunity to color. The general rule that self-recording of positive behaviors increases their frequency and of negative behaviors decreases their frequency was not consistently demonstrated with the children in the present study, especially with the first-graders.

The unique purpose of this first experiment was to examine the effects on accuracy and reactivity of the timing of the self-monitoring response in relation to the occurrence of the target behavior. Although a check on the experimental manipulation revealed that the subjects generally followed their respective instructions, self-recording prior to or after the occurrence of a verbalization did not differentially affect the reactivity of either appropriate or inappropriate verbalizations. Self-recording itself may have been a sufficiently novel and difficult response for the children to perform that the more subtle effects produced by timing of self-monitoring were not evidenced. The relative accuracy of self-recording prior to or after the occurrence of the target

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


behavior seemed to depend on the nature of the target behavior. Ap- propriate verbalizations were self-recorded more accurately after (.826) rather than prior to (.763) their occurrence, whereas inappropriate verbalizations were self-recorded more accurately prior to (393) rather than after (.012) their occurrence. It would seem that, in general, self-recording following a target behavior would be easier because the target behavior would cue the self-recording response. Again, Kan- fer's (1977) hypotheses might explain the above findings, that children tended to avoid self-monitoring after inappropriate verbalizations to avoid negative self-evaluation.

In addition to the general theme of the reactivity and accuracy of children's self-monitoring, the focus of the second experiment was the obtrusiveness of the self-recorder and of the self-recording device.

EXPERIMENT 2

Method

EXPERLMENTAL DESIGN

To manipulate the obtrusiveness of the subject who was self-recording, in Classes 1 and 2, only two subjects self-recorded, whereas in Classes 3 and4, the whole class self-recorded (even though observers collected data on only two subjects per class). To manipulate the obtrusiveness to the self-recorder of the self-recording device, a within subject factor was used. In one self-monitoring condition, the self- recording device was clearly visible on top of the subject's desk, whereas in the other self-monitoring condition, the device when not in use was kept beneath the desk top.

Theorder of condition for students in Classes 1 and 3 was baseline 1, self-monitoring on top, baseline 2, self-monitoring under, and baseline 3. For students in . . s lasses 2 and 4, the order of conditions wasbaseline 1, self-monitoring under, baseline 2, self-monitoring on top, and baseline 3. The four classes were assigned to the experimental condition; to match the subjects' rate of inappropriate talkiig during the ixst 5 days of baseline only. Each experimental condition lasted 7 days. While self-monitoring, each child self-recorded both appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations. Throughout all conditions, observers recorded the subjects' appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations plus hand-raising.

SUBJECTS

After hearing a description of the procedures to be used, four female second- grade teachers volunteered for this experiment. Each teacher selected four children who had a high frequency of inappropriate talking. Observers recorded the frequency of their inappropriate verbalizations for pairs of these children for 10-minute intervals for 3 days. Two children per classroom who had the highest frequency of inappropriate verbalizations were selected as subjects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

NELSON, HAY, DEVANY, KOSLOWGREEN 11


Twoundergraduate observers who received coursecredit alternated observation days in all four classrooms. A graduate student served as reliability checker by making simultaneous observations 34% of the days, distributed across all conditions.

The observers recorded simultaneously the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations, defined as in Experiment 1, of both subjects in each classroom for 20 minutes per day. The 20-minute observation session occurred at the same time in each classroom each day, and the curriculum always consisted of a group discussion. In addition to recording the subjects' verbalizations, the observers also recorded the frequency of their hand-raising since the frequency of this last behavior was seen as being related to but having fewer environmental constraints than appropriate verbalizations.

Observer agreement was calculated by means of a Pearson correlation coefficient on the frequency recorded by each of the two observers (n = 94): appropriate verbalizations, .83; inappropriate verbalizations, 3 3 ; hand-raising, .91. Appropriate verbalizations and hand-raising were correlated -.09.


After the 3 days of subject selection and 7 days of baseline recording, training in self-monitoring was conducted. The two subjects in each of Classes 1 and 2 were trained outside their classrooms by two experimenters, whereas in Classes 3 and 4, the entire class was trained inside their classrooms by the same two experimenters. Training consisted of instructions, modeling, and role-playing. Training was repeated prior to the second self-monitoring condition to teach subjects to keep the device, on top of or under their desks, respectively (except when it was being used for self-recording purposes). In addition to these formal training periods, after the 20 minutes of self-recording each day, the observers provided further instructions on the self-monitoring procedure to individual subjects who blatantly were not following the instructions.

The self-monitoring device was a sheet of paper divided in half lengthwise. On the left half were seven rows of three "smiling faces" per row. The children were instructed to cross out a smiling face after each appropriate verbalization. On the right half were seven rows of three "frowning faces" per row. The children were instructed to cross out a frowning face after each inappropriate verbalization. In Classes 1 and 2, the self-monitoring sheets were distributed only to the two subjects per class for the duration of the 20-minute observation session. In Classes 3 and 4, the self-monitoring sheets were distributed to the entire classes for the duration of the 20-minute observation session.

Results


To determine the accuracy of the children's self-recording, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated using the daily frequency recorded by the observer (or the mean frequency of two observers) and the daily frequency recorded by the self-recorder. The accuracy of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


the eight subjects (n = 103) for appropriate verbalizations was .20; for inappropriate verbalizations, .07. Although consistent with Experi- ment 1, this difference is not statistically significant, Z (103, 103) = .95. Self-recording accuracy was further analyzed for each experimental condition: when only two children recorded with the sheets on top of their desks (n = 25), appropriate = .32, inappropriate = .02; when only two children recorded with the sheets kept primarily under their desk tops (n = 27), appropriate = -.OS, inappropriate = .03; when the whole class recorded with the sheets on top of their desks (n = 23), appropriate = .45, inappropriate = .23; when the whole class recorded with the sheets under their desk tops (n = 28), appropriate = .74, inappropriate = .49.

On the average, the observers recorded more appropriate verbalizations (K= 9.45 per subject per 20 minutes) than did the self-recorders (F = 6.78). Similarly, the observers recorded more inappropriate verbalizations (X = 4.61) than did the self-recorders (X = 0.95).

REACITVITY OF SELF-RECORDING

To determine the reactivity of self-monitoring, three univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed, one for each target behavior of inappropriate verbalizations, appropriate verbalizations, and hand-raising. There were four factors in each ANOVA: two levels of subject obtrusiveness (only two children self-recording versus whole class-between subjects factor) x two classes per level of subject obtrusiveness (one class self-recorded first with the sheet on top of the desk, while the other class self-recorded first with the sheet kept beneath the desk top-between subjects factor) x five experimental conditions (baseline 1, self-monitoring sheet on top, baseline 2, self-monitoring sheet primarily under the desk top, baseline 3-within subjects factor) x 7 days per experimental condition (within subjects factor). The classes and subjects were considered to be random factors. Due to children's absences, 7% of the data were estimated for these ANOVA by using the mean of that experimental condition for that child.

Inappropriate verbalizations. In this ANOVA, there were two significant effects: the main effect for Days (Condition), F(30,60) = 1 31, p < .05, which cannot be interpreted meaningfully in this study, and the interaction of Conditions x Class (Obtrusiveness), F(8, 16) = 7.56, p < .Ol. Further inspection of this latter interaction failed to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


confirm the prediction that self-monitoring would consistently decrease the frequency of inappropriate verbalizations: for baseline 1, self- monitoring-top of desk, baseline 2, self-monitoring-beneath desk, baseline 3, respectively, Class 1 means are 12.00,4.93,2.36,2.71,3.50; Class 2 means are 7.93,7.71,12.57,6.36,4.78; Class 3 means are 6.28, 4.28, 4.14, 3.36, 4.00; and Class 4 means are 10.21, 4.86, 5.07, 3.28, 6.00. The means for individual subjects are presented in Table 2. Class 4 is the only class that shows the expected reversal pattern, but Table 2 demonstrates that Subject 8 is largely responsible for this pattern. In fact, Subject 8 is the only subject who shows the expected reversal pattern.

Appropriate verbalizations. For this ANOVA there were two significant effects, the main effect for Classes (Obtrusiveness), F(2,4) = 8.56, p < .05, and the interaction of Classes (Obtrusiveness) x Days (Condition), F(60, 120) = 1.52, p < .05. Since neither effect involves an interaction with the Conditions, they are not important to this study. As shown in Table 2, contrary to prediction, self-monitoring did not increase the frequency of appropriate verbalizations.

Hand-raising. For this ANOVA, there were three significant effects: the main effect for Classes (Obtrusiveness), F(2,4) = 51 .74 ,~ < .01; the interaction of Classes (Obtrusiveness) x Conditions, F(8, 16) = 2 . 8 4 , ~ < .05; and the interaction of Classes (Obtrusiveness) x Days (Condition), F(60, 120) = 2.06, p < .01. For purposes of this study, only the first of these two interactions merits further inspection. For baseline 1, self-monitoring-top of desk, baseline 2, self-monitoring -beneath desk, baseline 3, respectively, Class 1 means are 2.00, 1.28, 0.86,2.07,1.50; Class 2 means are 6.64,s .64,5.71,6.78,3.28; Class 3 means are 12.71, 10.71,7.36, 11 .50,7.86; and Class 4 means are 3.78, 6.00, 5.43, 6.50, 5.07. Self-monitoring did not consistently increase the frequency of hand-raising, although it did so for individual subjects, e.g., Subjects 4 and 7 (Table 2) (recall that both of these subjects self-monitored first with the sheets primarily under their desk tops).

Discussion

With respect to the general theme of these three experiments, the accuracy and reactivity of children's self-recording, the children self- recorded even less accurately in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 2

Mean Daily Frequency (20 minutes) of Appropriate and Inappropr ia te Verba l i za t ions and o f Hand-Raising

During Base l ines 1. 2. and 3 and During Self-monitor in^ -- Experiment 2

Subjects

Only two c h i l d r e n

self-recorded

Whole c l a s s

self-recorded

t h i s c l a s s , se l f - record ing with the s h e e t on top of the desk preceded se l f - record ing with che s h e e t primari ly under t h e desk top .

b ~ o r t h i s c l a s s , se l f - record ing wi th the s h e e t p r imar i ly under t h e desk top preceded se l f - record ing v i t h the sheet an top of t h e desk.

'01, 82. 8 3 Baseline 1.2, or 3 ; SK-top- sclf-monitoring w i t h t h e s h e e t an top of t h e desk; SM-under = self-monitoring v i t h t h e s h e e t p r imar i ly under rhe desk top.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

NELSON. HAY, DEVANY. KOSLOW-GREEN 15

further confirming Kazdin's (1974b) and McFall's (1977) conclusions. Again, as in Experiment 1 and in accordance with Kanfer's (1977) suggestion, the children's accuracy for self-recording appropriate verbalizations was higher (.20) than their accuracy for self-recording inappropriate verbalizations (.07). As opposed to Kazdin's (1974b) suggestion, however, self-recorders did not tend to overestimate their positive behaviors. In opposition to Experiment 1, the frequency recorded by the observer was higher than the frequency recorded by the self- recorder for both appropriate.and inappropriate verbalizations.

In agreement with Experiment 1, self-monitoring did not produce consistent behavior changes, although the inappropriate verbalizations of Subjects 3 and 8 did show the expected reversal, as did the appropriate verbalizations of Subject 8 and the hand-raising of Subject 7. Across all subjects, however, self-monitoring did not consistently decrease inappropriate verbalizations nor consistently increase inappropriate verbalizations or hand-raising. Self-monitoring also did not cause any dramatic increases in inappropriate verbalizations as it did for two subjects in Experiment 1. Perhaps it was more reinforcing to color in squares (the self-monitoring device used in Experiment 1) than to cross off frowning faces (the device used in Experiment 2).

The unique purpose of this second experiment was to examine the effects on accuracy and reactivity of the obtrusiveness of the self-recorder and of the obtrusiveness of the self-recording device. Since consistent reactivity was not produced by self-monitoring, more subtle effects from obtrusiveness could not be determined. Regarding the accuracy of self-recording, the children were more accurate when the whole class self-recorded rather than only two children. Perhaps there were more cues to self-record in the former situation. The children were also more accurate when the whole class self-recorded and their self-recording sheets were primarily beneath their desk tops. Perhaps there was a "game" quality to this situation, again producing more cues to self-record. Despite the improvements in accuracy produced by the whole class self-recording with the sheets primarily beneath their desk tops, consistent reactivity was nonetheless not generated, confirming Nelson and McReynolds' (1971) view that accuracy and reactivity are independent.

The purpose of the third experiment was to ascertain if age differences in children were a controlling variable in producing through self- monitoring differential accuracy and/or reactivity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


EXPERIMENT 3

Method

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Two classes from each of three grade levels, grades one, three, and five, were selected. With 8 days per condition, there were four experimental conditions: baseline 1, self- monitoring of appropriate verbalizations, baseline 2, and self-monitoring of inappropriate verbalizations. To control for sequence effects, two children from each class self-recorded appropriate verbalizations first, whereas two other children from each class self-recorded inappropriate verbalizations f is t .

SUBJECTS

After hearing a description of the procedures to be used, six female teachers, two from grades one, three, and five, respectively, volunteered their classes for this study. Each teacher selected two boys and two girls who exhibited a high frequency of inappropriate classroom verbalizations. One boy and one girl from each class were randomly assigned to the sequence of self-recording first either appropriate or inappropriate verbalizations.


The observers were three undergraduate students who received course credit for their participation. Two observers alternated observation days, while the third observer took simultaneous but independent observations with them on 34% of the observation sessions, distributed across experimental conditions.

The observers recorded the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations (defined in Experiment 1) and of hand-raising for two children simultaneously for 8 minutes. The lbminute observation session (four subjects per class) occurred at the same time in each classroom each day when the curriculum consisted of a group discussion.

Observer agreement was calculated by means of a Pearson correlation coefficient on the frequency recorded by each of the two observers (n = 244): appropriate verbalizations, .95; inappropriate verbalizations, .91; and hand-raising, .96. The correlation between appropriate verbalizations and hand-raising was .I8 (n = 768).


After 8 days of baseline recording, training in self-monitoring was conducted. Pairs of subjects were trained outside of the classroom for one session by a male and a female graduate student. The training procedure consisted of instructions, modeling, and role playing. The observers then continued training within the classroom for four 8-minute sessions. When the self-monitoring condition actually began, the observers were permitted to give feedback to the subjects on the self-monitoring procedure only at the end of the self-monitoring session. Similar training also preceded the second self-monitoring phase.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


During any one self-monitoring phase, each child self-recorded only appropriate or inappropriate verbalizations for 8 minutes per school day. The self-monitoring device was the same as in Experiment 1, a sheet of paper divided into 88 squares which was taped to the child's desk during the 8 minutes he or she was to self-record. For each verbalization, the child was instructed to color in a square with a crayon.

Results

Due to children's absences, 79'0 of the data were estimated by using the mean frequency of that experimental condition for that subject. Sub- stitute teachers were present for 5% of the sessions.


To determine the accuracy of the children's self-recording, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated using the daily frequency recorded by the observer (or the mean frequency of two observers) and the daily frequency recorded by the self-recorder. The accuracy for all 24 subjects for appropriate verbalizations was .68 (n = 179); for inappropriate verbalizations, .52 (n = 180). Consistent with Experiments 1 and 2, appropriate verbalizations were recorded significantly more accurately than inappropriate verbalizations, Z (179,180) = 2.38, p < .02. When the accuracy for each grade was determined separately, this pattern was repeated for the third and fifth-graders but not for the first-graders. The correlations for appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations, respectively, for the first-graders were .32 (n = 57) and .71 (n = 59); for the third-graders, .71 (n = 62) and .41 (n = 59); and for the fifth-graders, .76 (n = 60) and .37 (n = 62).

Examining these same correlations in a developmental fashion, the accuracy with which appropriate verbalizations were self-recorded followed the expected pattern: there was an increase in the accuracy of the self-monitoring of appropriate verbalizations across grades one, three, and five. Conversely, and unexpectedly, there was a decrease in the accuracy of the self-monitoring of inappropriate verbalizations across grade levels.

For all three grades considered together, the observers recorded more inappropriate verbalizations (z= 1.34 per subject per 8 minute session) than did the self-recorders (X= 1.09). On the average, the observers and the self-recorders recorded the same number of appropriate verbalizations ( F i n both cases = 3.16). For all three grades, the observers recor'ded more inappropriate verbalizations than did the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

18 Cbid Behavior Therapy

self-recorders (for grade one, observer X = 1.76, self-recorder K = 1.54; for grade three, observer %= 1.12, self-recorder r= 1.05; for grade five, observer X= 1.14, self-recorder r= 0.69). For appropriate verbalizations, the pattern differed across the three grade levels (for grade one, observer X= 3.42, self-recorderz= 3.75; for grade three, observer = 4.69, self-recorder X = 4.68; for grade five, observer = 1.33, self-recorder = 1.02).

REACTIVITY OF SELF-RECORDING

Nine univariate ANOVA were performed on the three dependent variables (appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations and hand- raising) for the three grade levels. To maximize the probability of ob- taining a main effect for experimental conditions, each ANOVA col- lapsed across teacher and order and thus had only two within subject factors: the four experimental conditions (baseline 1, self-monitoring of appropriate verbalizations, baseline 2, and self-monitoring of inappropriate verbalizations) x 8 days within each condition.

Grade one. For all three dependent variables, there was no significant main effect for condition. As can be seen from Table 3, the frequency of inappropriate verbalizations increased when they were self-monitored, contrary to prediction. When appropriate verbalizations were self-recorded, they showed a mild increase in frequency, while hand-raising showed equivocal effects.

Grade three. For all three dependent variables, there was no significant main effect for condition. As can be seen from Table 3, self- monitoring of inappropriate verbalizations did not decrease their frequency. As predicted, the frequency of appropriate verbalizations increased with self-monitoring, while hand-raising showed equivocal effects.

Grade five. For aLI three dependent variables, there was no significant main effect for condition. As can be seen from Table 3, the frequency of inappropriate verbalizations did decrease during self- monitoring, as expected. Self-monitoring of appropriate verbalizations, however, neither increased their frequency nor that of hand- raising.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 3

D a i l y Means (8 mlnutes) for Appropriate and Inappropriate Verbalizations end for

Hand-Raising for Grades One, Three, and Five - Experiment 3

First

Inappropriate

I 1 I I I

+hese frequencies were expected to decrease.

b~hese frequencies were expected to increase.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014


Discussion

With respect to the general theme of these three experiments, the accuracy and reactivity of children's self-recording, the findings of Ex- periment 3 are discussed in the general discussion.

The unique aspect of the present study was its developmental investigation across three grade levels of the accuracy and reactivity of children's self-monitoring. As expected, the accuracy of self-recording appropriate verbalizations increased across grade levels. With the self-recording of inappropriate verbalizations, however, the first- graders were surprisingly accurate and the fifth-graders, surprisingly inaccurate. This finding may be related to the particular self-recording device used in the present study, a sheet of paper divided into 88 squares with a crayon to color in one square per verbalization.

The first graders seemed to enjoy coloring in the squares and hence may have been more accurate than expected. Relatedly, the frequency of inappropriate verbalizations increased when the first- graders self-recorded them. Thus, their hypothesized enjoyment in coloring in the squares seemed to have enhanced both the accuracy of self-recording inappropriate verbalizations as well as the frequency of their occurrence. On the other hand, for the fist-graders, self-monitoring of appropriate verbalizations produced only a slight increase in their frequency. However, the first-graders self-recorded more appropriate verbalizations than did the observers, resulting in their relatively low accuracy.

In contrast with the first-graders, the fifth-graders seemed em- barrassed to color in the squares. For both appropriate and inappropriateverbalizations, they self-recorded a lower frequency than did the observers. The discrepancy between the observers' and fifth-grade self-recorders' frequencies was greater for inappropriate verbalizations than for appropriate, as reflected in the lower accuracy for inappropriate verbalizations. With a similar rationale, both appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations decreased in frequency when the fifth-graders respectively self-monitored them.

An alternative explanation for the lower accuracy with which fifth-graders self-recorded inappropriate verbalizations as compared with the first-graders is that the fifth-graders may have been more aware of the potential consequences of inappropriate verbalizations, resulting in an unwillingness to record them.

In conclusion, the accuracy of self-recording increased across grade levels as expected when appropriate verbalizations were self-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

NELSON, HAY, DEVANY, KOSLOW-GWEN 21

recorded. Also as predicted, during self-recording, appropriate verbalizations by third-graders increased in frequency, and ipappro- priate verbalizations by the fifth-graders decreased in frequency. Con- trary to expectation, however, the fifth-graders were not more accurate than the first-graders in self-recording inappropriate verbalizations. Also contrary to prediction, during self-recording, inappropriate verbalizations by first-graders increased in frequency, and appropriate verbalizations by fifth-graders did not increase in frequency.

General Discussion

The purpose of these three experiments was to determine if self-monitoring is a viable classroom management procedure by examining the accuracy and reactivity of children's self-monitoring in typical classroom settings. Reactivity and accuracy may be evaluated separately, since reactive changes do not appear to be dependent on accurate self- recording (Nelson & McReynolds, 197 1).

The first finding of the present studies was that self-monitoring neither consistently increased the frequency of appropriate verbalizations nor consistently decreased the frequency of inappropriate verbalizations. This finding is in contrast to Gottman and McFall(1972) and to Broden et al. (1971), who respectively demonstrated these beneficial changes with older children. Perhaps for older children and for adults, self-monitoring serves to more effectively cue environmental consequences that are contingent on the self-monitored behavior (Nel- son & Hayes, in press; Rachlin, 1974).

Despite the lack of consistent effects in the present studies, self- monitoring may nonetheless be an effective treatment strategy for some children, as it was, for example, with Subjects 10, 14, 16-24 in Experiment 1, with Subject 8 in Experiment 2, and with the appropriate verbalizations of the first and third-graders and with the inappropriate verbalizations of the fifth-graders in Experiment 3. To increase the probability that reactive behavior changes occur, reinforcement may be used in addition to self-monitoring (Layne, Rickard, Jones, & Lyman, 1976; Lyman, Rickard, & Elder, 1975).

One warning from the present studies is to select carefully the self-recording device. Coloring in squares for each inappropriate verbalization actually produced an unwanted increase in their frequency for the first-graders in Experiment 1 (Subjects 13 and 15) and in Ex- rirnent 3. Similarly, coloring in squares for each appropriate ver-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

22 Chid Behavior Therapy

balization may have actually suppressed their frequency for the fifth- graders in Experiment 3. Given the overall inconsistent reactivity produced by self-monitoring, no conclusions were reached regarding the more subtle variables of the timing of the self-recording response in relation to the occurrence of the target behavior (Experiment I), the obtrusiveness of the self-recorder or of the self-recording device (Experi- ment 2), or of age-related changes (Experiment 3).

The second finding of the present studies was that children are inaccurate self-recorders, confirming Kazdin's (1974b) and McFall's (1977) views. For Experiments 1 and 3, the children's accuracy ranged from .51 to .79; but for Experiment 2, it was even worse (.20 for appropriate verbalizations, and .07 for inappropriate). Experiment 1 demonstrated that accuracy was greater when inappropriate verbalizations were self-recorded before their occurrence, and appropriate verbalizations, after their occurrence. Experiment 2 revealed that accuracy was greater for both appropriate and inappropriate verbalizations when the entire class self-recorded (rather than only two children) and when the self-recording devices were beneath the desk tops when not in use (rather than on top of the desks). Experiment 3 showed that the accuracy of self-recording appropriate verbalizations (but not inappropriate) improved from first to third to fifth grade. These patterns for accuracy were unrelated to the reactivity of self-recording. Other variables which may enhance the accuracy of children's self- recording are: awareness that their accuracy is being checked (Lipinski & Nelson, 1974), reinforcement for accurate data (Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, 1972; Risley & Hart, 1968), and the reduction of concurrent response requirements (Epstein, Miller, & Webster, 1976; Epstein, Web- ster, & Miller, 1975).

The third finding of the present studies confirm Kanfer's (1977) suggestion that positive behaviors may be self-recorded more accurately than negative behaviors. In all three experiments, the children self-recorded appropriate verbalizations more accurately than inappropriate verbalizations. The only exception was the first grade in Experiment 3.

The last finding of the present studies is contrary to Kazdin's (1974b) conclusion that self-recorders tend to overestimate the frequency of positive behaviors and to underestimate the frequency of negative behaviors. No consistent pattern was revealed in the frequencies recorded by the observers and by the self-recorders for either appropriate or inappropriate verbalizations. In Experiment 1, the self- recorders recorded a greater number of both appropriate and inappro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

NELSON, HAY. DEVANY, KOSLOW-GREEN W

priate verbalizations. In Experiment 2, the observers recorded more of both. In Experiment 3, the observers recorded more inappropriate verbalizations, while the observers and self-recorders recorded equivalent numbers of appropriate verbalizations.

In conclusion, self-monitoring is a viable classroom management technique for some children under some circumstances. It is not, however, sufficiently powerful to produce consistent results for all children in a great variety of circumstances.

REFERENCES

Abidin. R. R. Negative effects of behavioral consultation: "I know I ought to, but it hurts too much." Journal of School Psychology, 1975, 13, 51-57,

Eellack, A. S.. Rozensky. R., &Schwanz. 1. A comparisonof two formsof self-monitoringin a behavioral weight reduction program. Behavior Therapy, 1974.5. 516522.

Broden, M., Hall, R. V., &Mitts. B. The effect of self-recording on the classroom behavior of two eighth-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 191-199.

Cavior, N.. & Marabotto, C. M. Monitoring verbal behaviors in a dyadic interaction: Valence of target behaviors. type. timing, and reactivity of monitoring. Journal of Consulling and Clinical Psychology, 1976,44, 68-76.

Epstein, L. H., Miller, P. M., & Webster, J . S. The effects of reinforcing concurrent behavior on self-monitoring. Behavior Therapy, 1976, 7, 89-95.

Epstein, L. H.. Webster. J. S., &Miller, P. M. Accuracy andcontrollingeffectsof self-monitoring as a function of concurrent responding and reinforcement. Behavior Therapy, 1975.

, 6, 654-666. Fisen, D. L.. Phillips, E. L., & Wolf, M. M. Achievement place: The reliability of self-report-

ing and peer-reporting and their effects on behavior. JournalofAppliedBehavior Analy- sir 1972. 5, 19-30.

Gottman. J. M., & McFall, R. M. Self-monitoring effects in a program for potential h~ghschool dronouts: A time-series analvris. Journal of Consul~inn and Clrnical Psvcholonv. 1972. - . 39, i73-281.

Hartmann, D. P. Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysir. 1977. 10, 103-1 16.

Kanfer, F. H. Self-monitoring: Methodological limitations and clinical applications. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychologv, 1970.35, 148-152.

Kanfer, F. H. The many faces of self-control, or behavior modification changes its focus. In R. B. Stuart (Ed.). Behavioral self-management: Strategies techniques, and outcome. New York: Brunner/Mazel. 1977.

Kazdin, A. E. Reactive self-monitoring: The effects of response desirability, goal setting, and feedback. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974.42, 704-716. (a)

Kazdin, A. E. Self-monitoring and behavior change. In M. J. Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.). Self-control: Power to the person. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. 1974. (b)

Layne, C. C.. Rickard, H. C., Jones, M. P., & Lyman, R. D. Accuracy of self-recording on a variable ratio schedule of observer verification. Behavior Therapy, 1976, 7, 481-488.

Lipinski, D. P., & Nelson, R. 0. The reactivity and unreliability of self-recording. Journal of Consulting ond Clinical Psychology, 1974,42, 11 8- 123.

Lyman. R. D., Rickard, H. C., & Elder, I. R. Contingency management of self-report and clean- ing behavior. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 1975.3. 155-162.

Mahoney, M. J., &Thoresen, C. E. Self-control: Powerlotheperson. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1974.

McFall. R. M. Parameters of self-monitoring. In R. B. Stuart (Ed.), Behavioralselfmanage- menf: Strategies, technique, and outcome. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1977.

Meichenbaum, D. H., & Goodman, I. Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journalof AbnormalPsychology, 1971. 77, 115-126.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

24 Chid Behavior Tberapy

Nelson, C. M., & McReynolds, %'. T. Self-recording and control of behavior: A reply to Sikins. Behavior Therapy, 1971.2, 594-597.

Nelson. R. 0.. & Hayes, S. C. Theoretical explanqtions for the reactive effects of self-monitoring. Behavior Modification, in press.

Nelson. R. O., Lipinski, D. P.. & Boykin, R. A. The effects of self-recorder$' training and the obtrusiveness of the self-recording device on the accuracy and reactivity of self-monitor- in$. Behavior Therapy, 1978, 9, 200-208.

Rachlin, H. Self-contfol. ~ehaviorirm; 1974.2, 94-107. Risley, T. R., & Hart. B. Developing cqrrespondence between the non-vorbal and verbal behav-

ior of preschool children. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis. 1968, 1, 267-281. Rozensky, R. H. The effect of timin(l of self-monitoring behavior on reducing cigarette con-

sumption. Journal DfBeEovior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1974,5, 301-303. Sieck. W. A., & McFall. R. M. Some determinants of self-monitoring effects. Journalof Con-

sulting and Clinjcol Psychology, 1976.44. 958-965.

RECEIVED: 3/23/79 REVISED: 2/6/80

ACCEPTED: 2/U)/80

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

23 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

the reactivity and accuracy of children's self-monitoring:

Documents