The Social Validity of Token Economy Interventions in Instructional Settings: A Registered Report Systematic Review
Saved in:
| Title: | The Social Validity of Token Economy Interventions in Instructional Settings: A Registered Report Systematic Review |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Lydia A. Beahm (ORCID |
| Source: | Behavioral Disorders. 2026 51(3):177-196. |
| Availability: | SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses |
| Descriptors: | Token Economy, Intervention, Validity, Student Behavior, Behavioral Science Research, Measures (Individuals) |
| DOI: | 10.1177/01987429261421266 |
| ISSN: | 0198-7429 2163-5307 |
| Abstract: | Token economies are a commonly used evidence-based practice to increase appropriate behavior in classrooms and other instructional settings. However, little is known about the perceptions of teachers, students, and parents regarding the practice. Therefore, we examined the social validity of token economy interventions in instructional settings in this Registered Report systematic review. One hundred thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 29 of those studies (25.6%) systematically evaluated social validity. The most common type of social validity evaluation was surveys involving the teachers or students at the end of the study. Findings suggest that most parents and students had a positive perception of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the practice. However, teachers' perceptions were more mixed. Overall, teachers found token economies to be beneficial; however, several noted that implementing them with fidelity was time consuming and challenging. Implications of these findings are discussed. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1502983 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHSLAolC_Kb7oFBY2OFhRPjAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBCNiWFQexNGTzy4JQIBEICBmygFpLcd1DaKPYmaZRwLASHM-IGDV0zSh1PGlcZmg2nxbQeTw7hO6sP_2ApfSzVcaPzLbUmQkm7T1UdtK_tD8En9E2z12JGcfNGkGT2BZkh0p3BYwHgIJxHbUJC8jDS0SKy1VZxDGSroxOpp5xz3Tmfww-JCDRBmKrtRFLgseu-g5jSlolk_C8dhCmLlNPg3ojOnz27gG8_1FlE1 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0192953822;bhd01may.26;2026Apr15.01:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0192953822-1">The Social Validity of Token Economy Interventions in Instructional Settings: A Registered Report Systematic Review </title> <p>Token economies are a commonly used evidence-based practice to increase appropriate behavior in classrooms and other instructional settings. However, little is known about the perceptions of teachers, students, and parents regarding the practice. Therefore, we examined the social validity of token economy interventions in instructional settings in this Registered Report systematic review. One hundred thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 29 of those studies (25.6%) systematically evaluated social validity. The most common type of social validity evaluation was surveys involving the teachers or students at the end of the study. Findings suggest that most parents and students had a positive perception of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the practice. However, teachers' perceptions were more mixed. Overall, teachers found token economies to be beneficial; however, several noted that implementing them with fidelity was time consuming and challenging. Implications of these findings are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: behavioral; interventions; evidence-based practices; systematic review; teacher perceptions; teacher(s)</p> <p>The token economy is a commonly used behavioral intervention that has been shown to increase appropriate behavior in classrooms and other settings ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref1">53</reflink>]). By engaging in specified target behaviors, individuals earn tokens that can be exchanged for items or activities valuable to them ([<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref2">138</reflink>]). Evidence suggests that token economies are effective across various populations, including individuals with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref5">33</reflink>]). Indeed, token economies are an evidence-based practice that has been shown to increase social behaviors, academic engagement, and appropriate classroom behavior in individuals with EBD ([<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref6">118</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref7">155</reflink>]). Implementing practices that improve student behavior is essential for students with EBD, particularly because challenging behavior is one of the primary causes of teacher burnout and stress ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>In token economies, tokens function as generalized conditioned reinforcers because a neutral stimulus (i.e., the token) can be exchanged for a variety of reinforcing stimuli or events ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]). Tokens (e.g., stickers, checkmarks, and points) have limited or no inherent value, but the opportunity to accumulate and exchange them for backup reinforcers (e.g., toys, time on a tablet, access to the playground) establishes their value as a reinforcing consequence. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref10">28</reflink>] highlighted three functions of tokens that help make them effective in applied settings. First, tokens are reinforcing even when access to the backup reinforcer is delayed. For example, students may accumulate tokens throughout the week but access the backup reinforcers on Friday. Second, tokens can be applied across settings because students may, for example, earn tokens at school as well as at home. Finally, token economies mitigate potential satiation and habituation because the tokens can be redeemed for a variety of backup reinforcers that can be adjusted as student preferences change ([<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref11">122</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref12">84</reflink>] found that token economies are generally effective in changing behavior; however, the research base did not meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for an evidence-based practice (EBP) at that time, as too few of the studies demonstrated positive effects. However, a subsequent review ([<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref13">138</reflink>]) found that token economies met the WWC standards for an EBP.</p> <p>Despite being empirically validated as a generally effective practice, token economies require time and effort to implement ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref14">96</reflink>]). Effective implementation requires instructors to manage at least six different elements of the intervention ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref15">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref16">73</reflink>]): (a) identify the target behavior(s), (b) conditioning the token as a reinforcer (i.e., through association with the backup reinforcers), (c) providing access to backup reinforcers (e.g., food, toys, preferred activities), (d) establishing the response requirements for earning each token, (e) establishing procedures for exchanging tokens for backup reinforcers (i.e., exchange-production schedule), and (f) establishing the cost of each backup reinforcer. If any of these steps is mismanaged, the effectiveness of token economies may be compromised. For example, failure to program variable exchange-production schedules can result in pausing and lack of engagement in the early parts of the schedule, when the delay to the backup reinforcers is the greatest ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref17">48</reflink>]). More fundamentally, failure to identify and program contingent access to valuable backup reinforcers might render the intervention ineffective ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref18">82</reflink>]). The complex multiple-step process required for the effective use of token economies is time-consuming, and some instructors have lamented that it is too challenging to implement effectively in real-world settings ([<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref19">116</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref20">129</reflink>]). For example, in a study comparing self- and teacher management systems for students with autism, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref21">129</reflink>] found that the teacher felt that she could not continue to use the token economy system because of the time and effort required for implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-2">Social Validity</hd> <p>Social validity refers to the acceptability and perceived social importance of intervention procedures, goals, and outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref22">153</reflink>]). Social validity likely affects both adaptation and long-term sustainability of behavioral interventions ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref23">90</reflink>]). Given the concerns expressed in the literature about the perceived difficulties of implementing token economies in real-world settings, we conducted a systematic review of social validity in the token economy literature.</p> <p>Social validity is defined as the extent to which the goals, procedures, and outcomes of interventions are perceived as usable, feasible, and valuable by direct and indirect consumers of intervention services ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref24">73</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref25">153</reflink>]). Social validity is an essential feature of applied research and is a critical consideration when developing and implementing behavioral interventions ([<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref26">153</reflink>]). Wolf specified three constructs in social validity: (a) the social significance of the behavioral goal (i.e., the <emph>goals</emph>), (b) the social appropriateness of the procedures (i.e., the <emph>procedures</emph>), and (c) the importance of the effects of the intervention (i.e., the <emph>outcomes</emph>). [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref27">63</reflink>] described four indicators of social validity:</p> <p>(a) the dependent variable is socially important; (b) the magnitude of change in the dependent variable resulting from the intervention is socially important; (c) implementation of the independent variable is practical and cost-effective; and (d) social validity is enhanced by implementation of the independent variable over extended time periods, by typical intervention agents, in typical physical and social contexts (p. 174).</p> <p>Constructs related to social validity such as treatment acceptability, buy-in, and teacher preferences have been found to have moderate intervention effectiveness ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref29">90</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref30">97</reflink>]). Moreover, teachers who have positive initial perceptions of an intervention are more likely to implement it with fidelity ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref31">55</reflink>]). Teachers and other interested parties (e.g., students, families) perceiving interventions and targeted outcomes as beneficial, feasible, and effective are theorized to increase treatment adoption and adaptation, which in turn may improve student outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref32">64</reflink>]). For example, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref33">90</reflink>] found that district priority (i.e., teacher buy-in) was "strongly correlated and significantly related to sustained implementation" (p. 306). Similarly, [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref34">151</reflink>] found that teachers who perceived another behavior management practice (i.e., the good behavior game) as effective and appropriate had higher implementation fidelity compared with teachers who did not have positive perceptions.</p> <p>It is important to objectively evaluate social validity from multiple interested parties. For example, perceptions of the social importance of a dependent variable (the target behavior), the social importance of the magnitude of behavior change (the outcome), and the acceptability of intervention procedures will likely vary between and within interested groups. Therefore, it is recommended that researchers systematically evaluate social validity by assessing the perceptions of multiple parties regarding the intervention procedures, such as teachers, students, and parents ([<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref35">136</reflink>]). Rather than make our own subjective judgments about the social importance of interventions, procedures, and outcomes, in this paper we will review reported results of interested parties' perceptions of token economies (i.e., social validity) in the experimental research base.</p> <p>When reviewing perceptions of an intervention, it is important to examine which elements of social validity were evaluated and reported. In addition, it is important to consider which methods (e.g., surveys, interviews) were used to examine perceptions of social validity, from whom social validity data were collected (e.g., study participants, implementers, parents), and when social validity data were collected (e.g., before, during, or after the intervention is implemented; [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref36">78</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref37">137</reflink>]). It is also important to consider whose perceptions were evaluated because perceptions of social validity might differ significantly across stakeholders. For example, teachers' perspectives may vary meaningfully from how parents and students perceive the intervention.</p> <p>Although collecting data on interested parties' perceptions of an intervention before, during, and after the intervention is considered best practice ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref38">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref39">137</reflink>]), most researchers collect social validity data only at the end of the intervention ([<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref40">136</reflink>]). This is inconsistent with best practice which recommends that the input of key stakeholders such as the student and parents is used to inform the selection and development of the intervention to increase its acceptability ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref42">137</reflink>]). In addition, it is important to conduct ongoing assessment of social validity because the perceptions of social acceptability may change over the course of a study. For example, teachers may find an intervention ineffective or complicated in the beginning but change their opinion after witnessing its effects.</p> <p>It is also important to consider which social validity measures are used because different assessments provide researchers with different information. Surveys typically provide information regarding how participants feel about the goals, procedures, and outcomes of an intervention, whereas interviews and focus groups explain why participants hold those perceptions. In addition, direct observation measures can provide valuable information on important aspects of social validity. For example, researchers can arrange opportunities for students to make choices between different ways to implement token economies or between token economies and alternative interventions. Furthermore, researchers can observe whether students and teachers choose to continue the intervention after the study concludes ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref43">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>] examined how interested parties' perceptions were assessed and reported in experimental studies examining the effects of Tier 2 behavior interventions and supports. The authors evaluated who participated in social validity assessments, when social validity data were collected, what social validity measurements were used, and the results of reported social validity assessments. Results indicated that social validity was typically assessed using surveys administered to interventionists and student participants after the intervention was completed. Interventionists had mostly positive perceptions of Tier 2 interventions, but students' perceptions were mixed, ranging from unfavorable to favorable. Beahm and colleagues indicated that the generally positive results regarding the social validity of Tier 2 interventions should be interpreted with caution. In addition, the authors interpreted similar findings differently. For example, some authors might interpret a mean of 3.5 on a six-point Likert scale as moderately positive, whereas others could interpret it as representing mixed or neutral perceptions. To illustrate, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref45">89</reflink>] interpreted a mean rating of 3.2 on a 6-point Likert scale as representing mixed results, whereas [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref46">19</reflink>] interpreted 3.7 as positive. To supplement survey results, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref47">11</reflink>] recommended conducting interviews to obtain qualitative data that could help generate ideas for improving social validity in future applications. The authors also suggested that researchers should report individual item-level survey data in addition to mean ratings.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-3">Social Validity in the Token Economy Literature</hd> <p>In their review of research on token economies in K–12 public classrooms, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref48">84</reflink>] assessed the quality of reporting of social validity data. The authors rated the reporting of social validity as <emph>absent</emph> or <emph>weak</emph> (i.e., provided minimal details regarding the methodological aspect of collecting and reporting social validity) in 79.2% of studies reviewed (19 of 24), as <emph>fair</emph> in 12.5% (i.e., 3 out of 24), and as <emph>good</emph> in 8.3% (i.e., 2 out of 24). However, the authors did not provide details on how social validity was assessed (i.e., participants, timing, measures) or the results of the social validity evaluations in the token-economy research base. [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref49">138</reflink>] meta-analysis of token economies included 28 single-case studies that were published between 1980 and 2014 and included school-age participants (i.e., 3 to 21 years old). However, the authors did not assess how social validity was evaluated in the included studies. Because token economies are commonly implemented in applied, instructional settings and practitioners have expressed concerns regarding their complexity ([<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref50">129</reflink>]), it is important to systematically evaluate how social validity has been assessed and reported in the token-economy literature.</p> <p>Systematically reviewing whether and how social validity has been examined in the token-economy research base, as well as the results of such evaluations, may identify gaps in the literature, which can then be addressed in future research. Teachers are more likely to implement interventions they perceive as beneficial ([<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref51">94</reflink>]). Therefore, examination of interested parties' perceptions of token economies has the potential to inform practice by identifying, for example, aspects of the intervention that are perceived negatively and might be adapted to improve interested parties' perceptions and positively impact the implementation of token economies. The purpose of this systematic review is to update and extend previous reviews by examining social validity within the token economy literature and applying [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>] framework for systematically assessing interested parties' perceptions of token economies. Specifically, we pose the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1.In what proportion of token-economy intervention studies are interested parties' perceptions of intervention goals, procedures, and outcomes evaluated and reported?</item> <p></p> <item> (a) When were the interested parties' perceptions evaluated?</item> <p></p> <item> 2.What elements (i.e., goals, procedures, outcomes) are included in evaluations of interested parties' perceptions of token economy interventions, and what are the results by element of social validity?</item> <p></p> <item> 3.Who participated in evaluations of interested parties' perceptions of token economy interventions, and what are the results by type of interested party (e.g., students, teachers)?</item> <p></p> <item> 4.What types of measures were used to evaluate interested parties' perceptions of token economy interventions, and what are the results by measurement type?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0192953822-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192953822-5">Search and Screening</hd> <p>We preregistered the review when the stage-1 manuscript for this Registered Report was approved according to procedures specified by the guest editors. We openly shared all data from systematic search, screening, coding, and inter-rater reliability, as well as all materials used in the review (e.g., coding form, coding guide with operational definitions) on the project page on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/8bpqz/?view%5fonly=6273b94f5a5a409ba7c79aabe365e667). Guided by [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref53">85</reflink>] quality indicators for systematic reviews in special education, we conducted a systematic search of multiple electronic databases, including preprint archives to help identify gray literature (i.e., EdArXiv, PsyArXiv, EBSCO Research Complete, Education Full Text, PsycINFO, PubMed, Teacher Reference Center, Education Resource Information Center, and ProQuest [including dissertations and theses]) using (AB "token econom*" OR TI "token econom*"). After screening articles, we conducted ancestral (i.e., citations within the included article) and forward (i.e., articles that have cited the included article) searches on the studies that met inclusion criteria. In addition, any articles in the [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref54">84</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref55">138</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref56">67</reflink>] reviews on token economies that were not identified in the electronic searches were screened. Finally, we hand-searched all journals with two or more included studies back to the date of the earliest identified study (see [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref57">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref58">121</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref59">85</reflink>] recommendations, inter-rater reliability (IRR) was evaluated at each stage of the process: (a) title/abstract screening, (b) full-text screening, (c) ancestral search screening, and (d) coding. The same general approach was applied for each process. The first author was the primary coder and the second author was the secondary coder. The primary coder was responsible for training the secondary coder on the task, providing and explaining the coding guide, and providing practice opportunities. Training was conducted via Zoom, where the two coders met to discuss the codes and procedures, then independently coded ten studies to evaluate reliability. The secondary coder met a 90% agreement criterion before independent coding. The primary coder evaluated 100% of the documents, and the secondary coder evaluated 50% of the documents. To calculate IRR, we used the following formula (agreements / [agreements + disagreements]) x 100 and Cohen's Kappa using an online calculator ([<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref60">124</reflink>]). A total of 1,411 papers were included in the title and abstract screening, with 1054 papers excluded. Three hundred fifty-seven articles were included in the full-text screening, with 244 articles excluded, resulting in 113 articles included in the final screening process (see Figure 1). The lead author screened all eligible publications, and the other three screeners were assigned collectively a random subset of 50% of articles. Interrater agreement (IRR) was 88% for the title and abstract screening with a Cohen's Kappa of.72, and 71% IRR for full-text screening with a Cohen's Kappa of.37. IRR for extraction coding was 90%. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Following the discussions, agreement was 100%.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-6">Inclusion Criteria</hd> <p>The five inclusion criteria were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The independent variable involved participants earning tokens or points that are then exchanged for backup reinforcers, regardless of what the intervention is called.</item> <p></p> <item> The token economy was implemented in an applied, instructional setting (e.g., public school, private school, classroom in a juvenile-justice facility, early intervention center, ABA clinic, university clinic).</item> <p></p> <item> The study included one or more participants who were school-age children or youth ages 3 to 21.</item> <p></p> <item> Articles were published in 1975 or after (when Public Law 94-124 was enacted).</item> <p></p> <item> The article reported an experimental study (e.g., single-case design, quasi-experimental group designs, randomized control trials).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0192953822-7">Exclusion Criteria</hd> <p>Our five exclusion criteria were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The independent variable did not include a token economy or was a multicomponent intervention for which data specific to a token economy cannot be disaggregated. Even if referred to as a token economy, interventions that involved a "clip chart" or another form of a level system where students move up and down a scale, rather than receive tokens or points that are exchanged for backup reinforcers, were excluded.</item> <p></p> <item> The study did not take place in an applied, instructional setting (e.g., hospital setting and business setting).</item> <p></p> <item> All participants were younger than 3 years or older than 21 years (i.e., were not school-age children/youth).</item> <p></p> <item> The study was published prior to Public Law 94-142 being enacted (i.e., before 1975).</item> <p></p> <item> The study was not experimental (e.g., qualitative, AB design).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0192953822-8">Coding</hd> <p>A coding book was used to guide the extraction of data from identified studies and to describe the literature base (contact first author for codebook). Coding of study characteristics included (a) the age/grade of participants, (b) race/ethnicity of participants, (c) disability status of participants, (d) independent variable, (e) dependent variable, (f) study design, (g) interventionists' roles, (h) author, and (i) publication date. The independent variable was coded if the intervention was a token economy implemented in isolation or part of an intervention package. Age and grade were open-coded and reported as the authors stated in the article. For studies that included participants with a range of grades and ages, the number of participants within each relevant age/grade category was coded if that information was reported. Means and standard deviations of age/grade were coded if those were reported in lieu of individual participant information. Race/ethnicity of participants was coded as (a) Black or African American, (b) American Indian or Alaskan Native, (c) Asian, (d) Latin-X or Hispanic, (e) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, (f) White, (g) other, or (h) not reported. Disabilities were coded as (a) emotional and behavioral disorder, (b) autism spectrum disorder, (c) intellectual disability, (d) learning disability, (e) attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)/other health impaired, (f) other disability, (g) identified as at-risk, (h) typically developing/no disability or at-risk status reported, or (i) multiple disabilities. The roles of interventionists included (a) classroom teacher, (b) researcher, (c) behavior analyst, (d) administrator, (e) teacher who was not in the classroom, (f) behavior technician, paraprofessional, and (g) other. The setting was documented according to the phrasing used in the article and then categorized into classroom, therapy room (i.e., an area or room designated to provide one-on-one instruction), kitchen/cafeteria, and gym/playground. The original plan was to code the setting as eight different categories; however, following some trial and error, it became clear that the coding accuracy was greatly enhanced by open coding the setting as reported.</p> <p>Similar to the procedures in [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref61">11</reflink>], the following variables were coded to evaluate social validity data collection methods and how they were reported in the results and discussion sections of the relevant articles: (a) who participated in the social validity evaluation, (b) when social validity data were collected, (c) the type of social validity measurement used, (d) the element of social validity evaluated, and (e) the results of the evaluation of social validity.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Who participated in evaluations of social validity</emph> was coded as (a) study participants (i.e., the students), (b) interventionists (i.e., instructors, teachers, practitioners), (c) parents or guardians, (d) outside observers (e.g., administration, blinded researchers, and other education personnel), (e) peers who were not targets of the intervention, (f) other, and/or (g) not specified.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>When social validity was evaluated</emph> was coded as (a) before the introduction of the intervention, (b) during the intervention, (c) after all intervention, maintenance, and generalization data points were collected, or (d) not specified.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>The type of social validity measure used</emph> was coded as (a) survey (e.g., Likert scale and open-ended questions), (b) 1:1 interviews, (c) focus group sessions, (d) observations, (e) participant choice, (f) other, or (g) not specified.</item> <p></p> <item> When social validity was evaluated using a survey, the survey was further coded as (a) confidential (i.e., the implementers did not know who completed the survey), (b) not confidential (i.e., the implementers knew who completed the survey), or (c) confidentiality of survey not reported; (a) an existing, adapted survey, (b) a researcher-created survey, or (c) source of survey not reported. Further, we noted whether quantitative data (e.g., mean, mode, <emph>SD</emph>, range, and raw data) were reported for all items or all constructs reportedly evaluated (yes/no).</item> <p></p> <item> When social validity was evaluated using an interview or a focus group, we coded whether (a) all interview/focus group questions were reported, (b) some but not all interview/focus group questions were reported, or (c) no specific interview/focus group questions were reported; and whether qualitative methods for analyzing data were reported (yes/no).</item> <p></p> <item> When social validity was evaluated using an observation, we coded for whether observers were reported to be masked to the conditions of the study (yes/no).</item> <p></p> <item> Elements of social validity being evaluated were coded as (a) goals, (b) feasibility of procedures, (c) continued use of procedures, (d) recommending procedures to others, (e) other elements of procedures, and (f) outcomes.</item> <p></p> <item> Results of social validity evaluations were coded as (a) entirely negative (e.g., every interested party gave a negative rating or statement), (b) moderate/neutral (e.g., every interested party gave a moderate/neutral rating or statement), (c) mixed (e.g., interested parties rated the intervention positive, negative, and neutral), and (d) entirely positive (e.g., every interested party gave a positive rating or statement).</item> <p></p> <item> Results of social validity evaluations were coded by participant (e.g., teacher, student, and family member), interested parties (e.g., student participants, teachers, and family members), and social validity element (e.g., goals, procedures, and outcomes).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0192953822-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192953822-10">Overview Studies</hd> <p>Table S1 describes each of the 113 studies reviewed. Note that the following percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, except for the percentages below one percent. Ninety-five studies (84%) used a single-case design, eight were randomized control trials (7%), eight used a pre/post design (7%), one was a correlational study (1%), and one used a quasi-experimental group design (e.g., participants not randomly assigned to groups; 1%). Twenty-three studies (20%) focused on decreasing challenging behavior, 64 (57%) focused on increasing appropriate behavior, and 27 (24%) focused on both. Fifty-two studies (46%) were conducted in the United States, four (4%) were conducted in other countries (i.e., Australia, Nigeria, and New Zealand), and 57 (50%) did not report the country where the study was conducted. In all 113 studies, a total of 2,710 participants were reported. Most studies (<emph>n</emph> = 61; 54%) did not report the age or grade of the participants. Of the studies that did report this information, 33 (54%) included elementary-age students (i.e., Grades K–5), 16 (26%) included middle schoolers (i.e., grades 6-8), nine (15%) included preschoolers, and six (1%) included high schoolers (i.e., grades 9-12). Seventy-one (63%) studies reported that all participants were identified as having a disability; 33 (29%) did not report participants' disability status; five (4%) included participants without a disability; and four (4%) reported that some, but not all, of the participants had a disability. Thirty studies (27%) included students with ASD, sixteen studies (14%) included students with EBD, ten studies (9%) included students with intellectual disabilities, eight studies (7%) had students with specific learning disabilities, and five studies (4%) included students with ADHD. Nineteen studies (17%) included students with disabilities that did not fit into those categories (e.g., cerebral palsy, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injuries), or the study only stated that the students were in a special education classroom. This exceeds 113 because several of the studies included students with multiple disability classifications. Thirty-nine (35%) studies included only males, four included only females (4%), 39 (35%) included both, and 31 (27%) did not report participants' gender. Eighty-five (75%) studies did not report the participants' race or ethnicity. Ninety-one (81%) studies occurred in classrooms, 16 (14%) in therapy rooms or small group settings, five (4%) in playgrounds or gyms, and two (2%) in cafeterias. The total is higher than 113 because one study occurred in both a classroom and a kitchen. In 49 (43%) studies, a member of the research team implemented the token economy, a professional service provider (not part of the research team) implemented the token economy in 47 (42%) studies, and it was not reported who implemented the token economy in 17 (15%) studies.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-11">Research Question 1: Evaluations of Social Validity</hd> <p>We considered the evaluation of social validity to be systematic when it was described in the Method section of the article and findings reported in either the Results or Discussion section. Twenty-nine studies (25%) systematically evaluated social validity. Social validity was evaluated only after the intervention procedures in 13 of these studies (45%); only during intervention procedures in five of these studies (17%); during and after intervention procedures in four studies (14%); before and after intervention procedures in three studies (10%); and before, during, and after intervention procedures in two studies (7%). Two studies that systematically evaluated social validity (7%) did not specify when social validity data were collected.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-12">Research Question 2: Findings by Element of Social Validity</hd> <p>Of the 29 studies that systematically evaluated social validity, the social validity of only the intervention procedures was evaluated in eight studies (28%); only the outcomes in four studies (14%), the procedures and outcomes in 12 studies (41%), and all three elements in five studies (17%). It should be noted that in two of the studies that evaluated all three elements, different individuals participated in the evaluation of different elements. Specifically, in [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref62">152</reflink>], teachers reported their perceptions of the procedures and parents reported their perceptions of the goals and outcomes. In [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref63">146</reflink>], teachers reported their perceptions of the goals and procedures, and students reported their perceptions of the procedures and the outcomes.</p> <p>Overall, most study participants reported positive perceptions of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of token economy interventions. The goals were positively perceived in four studies, and mixed perceptions were received from parents in one study ([<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref64">152</reflink>]). The perceptions of the procedures were positive in 11 studies, mixed in five studies, negative in two studies (teachers only), and neutral in one study (students only; see Figure 2). Ten studies reported entirely positive perceptions of the outcomes, five studies reported mixed perceptions, and teachers had entirely negative perceptions in one study ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref65">79</reflink>]; see Figure 3). Six studies evaluated the procedures by asking interested parties which condition (e.g., response cost vs. no response cost) they preferred. These studies were not counted in the positive, negative, mixed, or neutral count because the preference evaluations were relative rather than absolute. These results suggest that most teachers and parents found the intervention to be socially valid. Although most teachers perceived the intervention to be feasible and effective, some teachers did not.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Perceptions of the Procedures of the Study.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Perceptions of the Outcomes of the Study.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-13">Research Question 3: Results by Social Validity Participants</hd> <p>Of the 29 studies in which researchers reported systematically evaluating social validity, social validity data were collected from educators in 19 studies (66%). Researchers reported systematic evaluations of social validity from educators for goals, procedures, and outcomes in four, 12, and 8 studies, respectively. All educators positively perceived the goals of the token economy. Most educators positively perceived the procedures of the token economy as well; however, some had mixed or negative perceptions (see Figure 4). For example, some expressed concern over the feasibility of the intervention and stated that it required a lot of time and effort to implement. Some teachers who positively rated the intervention indicated they were only "somewhat likely" to implement it in the future ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]) or reportedly discontinued implementing the intervention once the researcher's support ended ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref67">61</reflink>]). One study ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref68">52</reflink>]) reported that the teacher preferred implementing a token economy using an app due to ease and convenience. Only one study reported that the teacher planned on implementing the practice immediately and would recommend it to others ([<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref69">99</reflink>]). Similarly, many of the teachers positively viewed the outcomes of the token economy (see Figure 4). Two studies ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref70">80</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref71">129</reflink>]) reported mixed perceptions from the teachers. One study ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref72">79</reflink>]) reported entirely negative perceptions of the outcomes. The teachers in this study stated that they did not feel the token economy was effective in reducing the overall level of disruptive behavior in their classroom.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Teacher Perceptions of the Procedures and the Outcomes.</p> <p>Social validity data were collected from student participants in 19 studies (66%). Researchers reported systematic evaluations of social validity from students for procedures and outcomes in 12 and 10 studies, respectively. Most of the students positively perceived procedures and outcomes, while some reported mixed or neutral perceptions (see Figure 5). Many students stated that they liked earning a reward for completing their work or engaging in appropriate behavior.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Student Perceptions of the Procedures and the Outcomes.</p> <p>In two of the 29 studies that systematically evaluated social validity (7%), researchers evaluated parents' or family members' perceptions of the token economy. [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref73">152</reflink>] reported mixed perceptions of goals and outcomes. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref74">49</reflink>] reported that parents positively perceived goals, procedures, and outcomes. In one study ([<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref75">150</reflink>]), researchers evaluated the social validity with student participants and a behavior facilitator who was not involved in the study. In this study, the behavior facilitator positively viewed the procedures but was neutral regarding the outcomes.</p> <p>In summary, all teachers found token economies to target important behavior. Most teachers positively perceived the intervention and found it to effectively improve student behavior. However, some teachers did not. Most students also positively perceived token economies and found them to be effective. No student had entirely negative perceptions.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-14">Research Question 4: Social Validity Findings by Type of Measurement</hd> <p>In 19 of the 29 studies that systematically evaluated social validity (66%); researchers evaluated social validity using surveys, interviews, or focus groups in 12 studies (41%); observation methods in four studies (14%); peer/normative comparison in two studies (7%); and teacher preference in one study (3%). Nine studies (31%) used more than one type of measurement approach (e.g., surveys and interviews). Of the 19 studies that evaluated social validity using surveys, most participants gave positive ratings to the goals, procedures, and outcomes (see Figure 6). The procedures and outcomes were negatively rated in only one study ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref76">79</reflink>]). Of the 12 studies that evaluated social validity data using interviews or focus groups, most participants positively rated the goals, procedures, and outcomes (see Figure 7). In the only study in which token economies were perceived negatively in an interview ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref77">54</reflink>]), teachers commented that they preferred the comparison intervention (demanded eye contact) to the token economy. The teachers felt that the demanded eye contact was more feasible and appropriate than the token economy.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 6. Results of Surveys.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 7. Results of Interviews and Focus Groups.</p> <p>Two studies (7%; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref79">129</reflink>]) included normative comparisons to evaluate whether participants' behavior was similar to that of their peers following the implementation of the intervention. In [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref80">129</reflink>], both participants' behavior improved to be similar to that of their peers. In [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref81">13</reflink>], two of the three students' behavior improved to a level similar to that of their peers. Researchers in two studies (7%) used observations to assess participants' perceptions of the token economy. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref82">50</reflink>] conducted observations to assess whether the participants preferred personalized tokens to generic tokens. Results indicated that participants were more engaged and displayed less challenging behavior with the generic tokens. [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref83">106</reflink>] presented choices between interventions in a concurrent-chains arrangement (see [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref84">57</reflink>]) to evaluate if participants' preference for response-cost token economy or differential reinforcement of appropriate behavior (DRA) was influenced by the presence of tokens when choosing which intervention (i.e., response cost or DRA) they preferred. Results indicated that only one out of three students' selections was influenced by the presence of tokens.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-15">Discussion</hd> <p>In this systematic literature review, we synthesized evaluations of the social validity of token economy interventions in the experimental literature. Specifically, we evaluated (a) how many studies systematically evaluated and reported social validity, (b) the results of social validity assessments, and (c) how social validity was measured (i.e., who participated, what measurements were used, when data were collected; see Table S1). One hundred thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 29 of those studies (25.6%) systematically evaluated social validity. This proportion is consistent with [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref85">137</reflink>] finding that 26.8% of single-case studies published between 2005 and 2016 evaluated social validity. However, in [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref86">11</reflink>] review of social validity in Tier 2 studies, they found that 66% of experimental studies examining Tier 2 interventions evaluated social validity. We conjecture that more studies included social validity evaluations in Beahm and colleagues' review because the tiered framework is designed to include input from interested parties.</p> <p>Furthermore, in [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref87">11</reflink>] review, the oldest study was conducted in 2005, the same year as [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref88">63</reflink>] article describing quality indicators for single-case research was published, which specified social validity as a critical element of high-quality single-case design research. In the current review, the oldest study was conducted in 1975, 30 years before Horner et al. published their quality indicators. Indeed, 18 of the 29 experimental studies examining token economy interventions that collected social validity were conducted after 2005.</p> <p>Similar to findings from [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref89">11</reflink>] review, 12 studies in the current review, or 41% of studies in which social validity was systematically examined, used only surveys to collect social validity data. Although some scholars have argued that surveys provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate interested parties' perceptions (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref90">88</reflink>]), others have expressed concern that surveys do not provide a comprehensive picture of social validity (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref91">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref92">40</reflink>]). Surveys provide information on <emph>how</emph> interested parties perceive the intervention, but qualitative data (e.g., from interviews) are more likely to provide information on <emph>why</emph> participants have those perceptions. It is essential to understand how interested parties perceive an intervention and the variables that influence these perceptions. This helps researchers and practitioners gain an in-depth understanding of the full effects of an intervention and any potential unintended consequences, as well as potential ways to improve the social validity of the intervention ([<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref93">141</reflink>]). In the current review, five studies collected social validity data using both surveys and interviews. For example, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref94">52</reflink>] used surveys and interviews to evaluate a teacher's perception of a token economy intervention. The teacher rated the intervention positively and provided a rationale for this rating during the interview. The teacher explained that using an app (i.e., Class Dojo) made the token economy easier to implement because the app kept track of all the tokens for her. This explanation is beneficial because it suggests a socially valid method to improve the feasibility of a token economy.</p> <p>Another approach used to evaluate social validity involved systematic direct observation. [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref95">129</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref96">13</reflink>] evaluated if the target participants' behavior improved to levels similar to their peers (i.e., peer/normative comparison). Shogren and colleagues found the target participants' behavior was similar to their peers following the implementation of a token economy, whereas Berryman and colleagues found the same for two of their three participants. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref97">61</reflink>] used direct observation to evaluate whether a classroom teacher continued implementing the token economy intervention after the conclusion of the study. In this case, the teacher decided to discontinue the token economy and instead use the behavior management practices employed prior to the study (i.e., verbal reprimands, discussions, and writing the students' names on the board). When interviewed, the teacher stated that she wanted to use procedures similar to those of the students' future classrooms, but would likely use the token economy procedures in her class next year. When educators continue to implement a token economy independently after the study ends, it is likely an indicator that they found the practice to be valuable and feasible.</p> <p>Overall, only about a quarter of the studies included social validity data, and only two evaluated social validity before, during, and after the implementation of the intervention. Evaluating interested parties' perceptions of practices is essential because positive social validity predicts the adoption and implementation of evidence-based practices ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref98">90</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref99">94</reflink>]). Regardless of their efficacy, practices with low social validity are unlikely to maintain in real-world settings. Scholars have noted the importance of examining social validity from multiple interested parties before, during, and after implementing the intervention ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref100">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref101">137</reflink>]). One way to promote the valid assessment of social validity at multiple points in time throughout an intervention is to use easily accessible, validated surveys, such as the Usage Rating Profile—Intervention Revised (URP-IR; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref102">23</reflink>]). The URP-IR can be adapted to assess various interventions. In addition, it may be helpful to develop a structured set of social validity interview and focus group questions that researchers can easily access, use, and adapt if and as needed.</p> <p>It is well documented that token economies are effective, and the results of this review indicate that they are perceived positively by most students and parents, but teachers have mixed perceptions. This is concerning, as teachers ultimately decide whether to use and maintain token economies in their classrooms. As such, it is important to find methods of improving the social validity of the intervention to potentially improve high implementation fidelity, especially because token economies improve outcomes for students with EBD ([<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref103">155</reflink>]).</p> <p>In two studies ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref104">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref105">79</reflink>]), teachers had entirely negative perceptions of token economy procedures. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref106">79</reflink>] conducted a survey to evaluate whether a response-cost-only condition or a gain condition where students earned a minute of reward for each star (i.e., token) was preferable. Each of the teachers preferred the response cost-only condition, and most students preferred the response cost condition as well. The authors stated that the teachers found the response cost to be more effective, and the students felt more "in control" during that condition. However, both teachers reported that neither condition effectively reduced student behavior despite the data indicating that both conditions significantly decreased challenging behavior compared with baseline. This finding highlights the notion that changes in behavior that researchers view as clinically significant are not always perceived by practitioners as socially significant. Evaluating teachers' perceptions of token economy interventions can inform researchers' efforts to improve educators' awareness of the positive effects of the intervention. For example, teachers could assist in collecting, graphing, and interpreting changes in student outcomes to highlight the positive effects of the token economies on student behavior.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref107">54</reflink>] evaluated whether a token economy or a demanded eye contact condition (i.e., requiring the participant to maintain eye contact with the teacher while instruction was delivered) was more effective in increasing compliance when given a prompt. Despite outcome data indicating that the token economy was more effective at increasing appropriate behavior, teachers reported a preference for the demanded eye contact condition because they said it was more age-appropriate for the students and easier to implement. However, the author mentioned that the students did not prefer the demanded eye contact and engaged in more inappropriate behaviors. Despite these results, the teachers still rated demanded eye contact as preferable to the token economy. Hamlet used a survey to assess social validity; therefore, it is unclear why the teachers perceived the demanded eye contact condition as easier. This highlights the importance of using multiple methods to evaluate social validity, because this may provide a deeper understanding of variables that contribute to social validity ratings.</p> <p>Three studies reported that teachers had mixed perceptions of token economy procedures ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref108">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref109">129</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref110">146</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref111">129</reflink>] reported that the teacher in the study liked the token economy but reported it was too time-consuming to implement consistently. Teachers in [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref112">146</reflink>] study shared similar opinions, stating that they disliked the amount of time required to implement the token economy. In [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref113">49</reflink>] study, one of the classroom staff members was neutral to many of the components of the token economy, while the other two staff members viewed the intervention positively. The amount of time and effort it takes for teachers to effectively implement a token economy is a common theme in the literature ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref114">67</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref115">96</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref116">116</reflink>]). Therefore, it seems important to investigate procedural adaptations aimed at improving the feasibility of token economy implementation to increase the likelihood that the practice is carried out with fidelity in schools.</p> <p>The teachers who positively perceived token economies often stated they found the intervention effective at improving classroom behavior; however, there was still concern about the feasibility of implementation. Only one study ([<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref117">99</reflink>]) reported that the teacher would implement the token economy the following year and recommend the practice to others.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-16">Implications and Recommendations for Research</hd> <p>Only about a quarter of studies reported social validity. Moreover, of the 16 studies that included students with EBD, only five of those studies included social validity data. It is possible that teachers had very different perceptions in the other 84 studies. For example, there may have been more studies where the teachers positively perceived the intervention and continued implementing. However, as the researchers did not report the interested parties' perceptions, it is impossible to know. Had more studies collected social validity data, we would have a more robust and perhaps different understanding of the social validity of token economies. Therefore, it is important to improve the feasibility of collecting social validity in order to increase clarity on how interested parties perceive the intervention.</p> <p>Collecting social validity data provides researchers with opportunities to (a) improve the procedures of their own intervention and (b) contribute to the broader literature on how to make interventions more acceptable and appropriate. As discussed above, using pre-existing surveys (e.g., Usage Rating Profile; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref118">23</reflink>]), including modifying these surveys to match the intervention and context, is an efficient approach for collecting social validity data. Another method to improve the feasibility of collecting social validity is for researchers to publish the interview questions, allowing others to use them (and possibly practitioners as well). Researchers can also evaluate ways to standardize the reporting of results from the validated surveys and commonly used interview questions. This has multiple potential benefits: (a) more researchers having access to social validity data collection methods, (b) researchers gaining a better understanding of and more confidence in analyzing the social validity data, and (c) social validity results being easier for readers to interpret and compare across studies. Many of the survey results we reviewed were reported as a mean rating. The mean rating could indicate that all participants had similar perceptions or that there could be a meaningful difference in perceptions of the intervention that is not seen in the mean. Therefore, standardizing the reporting of social validity data to include some statistics describing the distribution around the mean (e.g., <emph>SD</emph>) may help improve interpretation.</p> <p>Overall, educators, teachers, and families perceived token economies positively. Nonetheless, several teachers in the studies included in this review stated that implementing a token economy was demanding, time-consuming, and difficult. Collecting social validity data using multiple methods may help provide a deeper understanding of why teachers had these perceptions. A method for potentially improving participants' perceptions of a token economy is for researchers to include them in the development of the intervention when possible. For example, involving teachers in the development of the token economy allows them to determine the target behaviors that will earn tokens, as well as when and how tokens will be delivered to students and exchanged for backup reinforcers. After working with teachers to develop the token economy, researchers could collect social validity data on teachers' perceptions of the goals and procedures of the intervention. This may improve their perception of the token economy by (a) increasing their buy-in before implementation, (b) giving them some power in the decision-making process, and (c) allowing them to implement the token economy in a way that is feasible to them.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-17">Implications and Recommendations for Practice</hd> <p>A primary outcome of this review is that many teachers were concerned about the time, effort, and money required to implement a token economy effectively. One method of reducing the time and effort associated with implementing token economies may be to use an app to deliver and keep track of the tokens. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref119">11</reflink>] evaluated the effectiveness and social validity of an app-based token economy in increasing engagement in vocational tasks and activities of daily living with adults with disabilities. Although the instructors in their study stated that the app was helpful in keeping track of the tokens, they nevertheless reported that consistently delivering tokens and providing opportunities for token exchange was difficult and time-consuming.</p> <p>Another way in which schools can reduce the effort and cost of a token economy is by providing time and resources for supplying backup reinforcers and opportunities for token exchange. For example, schools could have a designated area where backup reinforcers are stored, and parent volunteers and other school staff could assist in exchanging the tokens on a rotating basis. Alternatively, the backup reinforcer "store" could be housed in the cafeteria, where a parent volunteer, administrator, or teacher could help students exchange their tokens during lunch every Friday. Furthermore, students could complete a preference assessment survey periodically to indicate what items they would like to have in the store. To reduce cost demands, some of the prizes could include passes such as "eat lunch in a special area with friends," "sit in a special chair," or "wear a hat to school." Parents could also donate items that students are likely to want to purchase.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-18">Limitations</hd> <p>There are several important limitations to consider when interpreting the results of this review. First, we reviewed only quantitative experimental studies. It is possible that including non-experimental and qualitative studies of token economies would have changed our findings. Second, although we used multiple search engines and search methods to identify studies that met our inclusion criteria, it is possible that we did not identify some relevant token economy studies. Third, we coded systematic social validity as occurring only if authors explicitly referred to "social validity, treatment acceptability, or participants' perceptions." It is possible that we failed to identify studies that collected social validity data but used different terms or phrasing. Finally, we coded social validity findings as positive, negative, neutral, or mixed based on the authors' interpretations. For example, if an author interpreted a mean rating of 3.9 on a 1 to 6 Likert scale as indicating positive perceptions of intervention procedures, we coded that as positive even if we might not have agreed with the author's interpretation. Coding social validity findings based on our own interpretations of the data may have changed our findings and conclusions.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>This systematic literature review evaluated how social validity was reported in experimental studies of token economies. Surveys were the most common social validity measure, and social validity data were most commonly collected from students and educators at the end of the study. Researchers should consider collecting social validity data at multiple points during implementation, using multiple measures (e.g., surveys and focus groups), and from multiple interested parties (e.g., student participants and teachers) to more robustly evaluate the social validity of token economies. Results indicated nearly a quarter of the included studies systematically evaluated social validity and token economies were perceived positively by most teachers, students, and families. However, several teachers reported that the token economy was time-consuming and too effortful to implement consistently. Nevertheless, most teachers, families, and students perceived token economies as effective and beneficial for improving student behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0192953822-20">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, Supplemental_Table for The Social Validity of Token Economy Interventions in Instructional Settings: A Registered Report Systematic Review by Lydia A. Beahm, Bryan G. Cook, Einar T. Ingvarsson and Ekemini Eshiett in Behavioral Disorders</p> <ref id="AN0192953822-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> *Alexander R. N., Apfel C. H. (1976). Altering schedules of reinforcement for improved classroom behavior. Exceptional Children, 43(2), 97–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297604300206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> *Allard T. (2011). An investigation of non-aversive procedures to increase variety of food consumed [Northeastern University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/889054243/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/73">http://www.proquest.com/docview/889054243/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/73</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> *Almeida D. A., Allen R., Maguire R. W., Maguire K. (2018). Identifying community-based reinforcers of adults with autism and related disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27(3), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9295-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref66" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> *Alstot A. E. (2012). The effects of peer-administered token reinforcement on jump rope behaviors of elementary physical education students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 31(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.31.3.261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> *Alstot A. E. (2015). Effects of a peer-administered token economy on second grade physical education students' overhand throw performance. Physical Educator, 72(2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.31.3.261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> *Alter P. (2012). Helping students with emotional and behavioral disorders solve mathematics word problems. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2011.565283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> *Andzik N., Smith E., Neef N. (2022). Using a token economy to treat escape-maintained problem behavior without extinction. Behavior Modification, 46(1), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445520966762</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> *Ardoff D. G., Weaver J. F. (1975). Token economy at the classroom level. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=eric&amp;AN=ED113917&amp;site=ehost-live</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> *Badejo A. O., Anyanwu A. C. (2016). Comparative effect of rational emotive behaviour therapy and token economy on junior secondary school students' performance in Basic Science in Lagos State. IFE Psychologia: An International Journal, 24(2), 139–146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Baer A. M. (1978). Token economies: An incomplete technology? (Publication No. 7728830) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beahm L. A., Cook B. G., McLucas A., Ellis K., Bradshaw C. P. (2024). A systematic review of the evaluation of social validity in experimental examinations of Tier 2 schoolwide positive behavior interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 27, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007241230596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berger N. I., Manston L., Ingersoll B. (2016). Establishing a scale for assessing the social validity of skill building interventions for young children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 3258–3269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2863-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Berryman D., O'Brien P., Cummins R. (1983). The development of fluency, stimulus generalisation and response maintenance of student academic engaged time with children in a special school: An educational mainstream preparation procedure validated against normative peer data. Educational Psychology, 3(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341830030105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Bippes R., McLaughlin T. F., Williams R. L. (1986). A classroom token system in a detention center: Effects for academic and social behavior. Techniques, 2(2), 126–132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Bolarin T. A. (1990). Effects of two treatment techniques on the adjustment of Juvenile delinquents in Lagos approved schools [University of Lagos (Nigeria)]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2700778983/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/70">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2700778983/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/70</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Bolich B. (1995). The effects of a copy, cover, compare procedure and a token economy on the retention of basic multiplication facts by two middle school students with ADD and ADHD. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 19(1), 1–10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Bonfonte S. A., Bourret J. C., Lloveras L. A. (2020). Comparing the reinforcing efficacy of tokens and primary reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(3), 1593–1605. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brunsting N. C., Stark K., Bettini E., Lane K. L., Royer D. J., Common E. A. L., Rock M. (2024). Self-efficacy, burnout, and intent to leave for teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 49(2), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429231201566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell A., Anderson C. M. (2011). Check-in/check-out: A systematic evaluation and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(2), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Carnett A., Raulston T., Lang R., Tostanoski A., Lee A., Sigafoos J., Machalicek W. (2014). Effects of a perseverative interest-based token economy on challenging and on-task behavior in a child with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(3), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9195-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carr J. E., Austin J. L., Britton L. N., Kellum K. K., Bailey J. S. (1999). An assessment of social validity trends in applied behavior analysis. Behavioral Interventions, 14(4), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-078X(199910/12)14:4223::AID-BIN373.0.CO;2-Y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Center D. B., Wascom A. M. (1984). Transfer of reinforcers: A procedure to enhance response cost. Educational &amp; Psychological Research, 4(1), 19–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chafouleas S. M., Briesch A. M., Neugebauer S. R., Riley-Tillman T. C. (2011). Usage rating profile—Intervention (revised). University of Connecticut. https://doi.org/10.1037/t32863-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chalmers A. (2015). Teacher preference for response cost and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior within token economies [Southern Illinois University at Carbondale]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2081762741/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/58">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2081762741/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/58</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cohen L. (1976). The effects of a token economy upon reduction of plaque concentration on teeth of elementary school children [Western Michigan University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/302798828/citation/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/249">http://www.proquest.com/docview/302798828/citation/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/249</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Common E. A., Lane K. L., Pustejovsky J. E., Johnson A. H., Johl L. E. (2017). Functional assessment–based Interventions for students with or at-risk for high-incidence disabilities: Field testing single-case synthesis methods. Remedial and Special Education, 38(6), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517693320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Contrada J. (2012). Implementation of a positive behavior support in a preschool setting [Caldwell College]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/1021033863/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/152">http://www.proquest.com/docview/1021033863/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/152</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper J. O., Heron T. E., Heward W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damon D. J. B. (2016). Attachment theory from a behavioral standpoint: Addressing attachment difficulties in the behaviors of children with autism spectrum disorder in a school setting [Kaplan University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/1803253045/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/76">http://www.proquest.com/docview/1803253045/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/76</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dariotis J. K., Mirabal-Beltran R., Cluxton-Keller F., Gould L. F., Greenberg M. T., Mendelson T. (2017). A qualitative exploration of implementation factors in a school-based mindfulness and yoga program: Lessons learned from students and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 54(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21979</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *DeJager B., Houlihan D., Filter K. J., Mackie P. F. E., Klein L. (2020). Comparing the effectiveness and ease of implementation of token economy, response cost, and a combination condition in rural elementary school classrooms. Journal of Rural Mental Health, 44(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/rmh0000123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drege P., Beare P. L. (1991). The effect of a token reinforcement system with a time-out backup consequence on the classroom behavior of E/BD students. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 15(1), 39–46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DuPaul G. J., Stoner G. (2014). ADHD in the schools, third edition: Assessment and intervention strategies. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Eidson C. E. (1989). The effect of behavioral music therapy on the generalization of interpersonal skills from sessions to the classroom by emotionally handicapped middle school students. Journal of Music Therapy, 26(4), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/26.4.206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Eller B. F., Ideker J. S., Holben M. M. (1978). So you don't have any money for your token economy. Psychological Reports, 43(1), 322–322. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1978.43.1.322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Falligant J. M., Kornman P. T. (2019). Preferences for accumulated and distributed token exchange-production schedules: A behavior-economic analysis. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(4), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Fantuzzo J., Smith C. (1984). Linking community-based treatment settings for a disturbed autistic child. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19(2), 102–107. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1983.53.3.871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Feldi K. (1980). Behavioral treatment of alienated adolescents [Columbia University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/303032510/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/97">http://www.proquest.com/docview/303032510/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/97</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson J. L., Cihon J. H., Leaf J. B., Van Meter S. M., McEachin J., Leaf R. (2019). Assessment of social validity trends in the journal of applied behavior analysis. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 20(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2018.1534771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finn C. A., Sladeczek I. E. (2001). Assessing the social validity of behavioral interventions: A review of treatment acceptability measures. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 176–206. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.16.2.176.18703</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Fiske K. E., Isenhower R. W., Bamond M. J., Lauderdale-Littin S. (2020). An analysis of the value of token reinforcement using a multiple-schedule assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(1), 563–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Fry L., Thomas J. (1976). A behaviour modification approach to rehabilitating behaviorally disordered children in an adjustment class. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 11(2), 124–131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gadaire D. M., Senn L., Albert K. M., Robinson T. P., Passage M., Shaham Y., Topmouglu B. (2021). Differential effects of token production and exchange on responding of children with developmental disabilities. Learning &amp; Motivation, 73, 101694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gallagher R. L. (2005). The effects of a token economy in a seventh grade special education classroom [Southwest Minnesota State University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/304912838/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/86">http://www.proquest.com/docview/304912838/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/86</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gaughan E. J. (1985). The relationship between point earning behavior and academic achievement in a token economy for emotionally disturbed children (1986-51111-001)[ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Giblin M. S. (2019). Implementation of differential reinforcement of other behavior and response cost procedures in children with down syndrome [University of South Florida]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2248594880/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/85">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2248594880/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/85</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gilley C. R. (2012). The effects of manipulating establishing operations and a token economy procedure on the assistance needed to share between peers with autism [Southern Illinois University at Carbondale]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/1621433222/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/210">http://www.proquest.com/docview/1621433222/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/210</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Glodowski K. R., Bourret J., Ivy J. W., Seaver J. P., Jackson J., Stine J. M., Nuzzolilli A. E. (2020). A comparison of token and tandem schedules of reinforcement on response patterns for adolescents with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 35(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1704</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gongola L. C. (2008). The influence of a differential reinforcement of other behaviors (DRO) protocol with an embedded token economy to reduce challenging behaviors among children with autism (2009-99090-567) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gordon H. (2018). "Picture this": Token economy systems with or without pictures [Trinity Christian College]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2058100525/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/13">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2058100525/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/13</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Greene D., Sternberg B., Lepper M. R. (1976). Overjustification in a token economy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(6), 1219–1234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.6.1219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gyke C. N. (2020). Effectiveness of an interdependent group contingency with randomization using the iPad [Duquesne University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2484855036/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/142">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2484855036/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/142</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hackenberg T. D. (2018). Token reinforcement: Translational research and application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(2), 393–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hamlet C. C. (1988). A comparison of the direct and indirect effects of demanded eye contact and a token economy on compliant behavior (1989-51473-001) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han S. S., Weiss B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 665–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-7646-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanley G. P. (2010). Toward effective and preferred programming: A case for the objective measurement of social validity with recipients of behavior-change programs. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391754</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanley G. P., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Contrucci S. A., Maglieri K. A. (1997). Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(3), 459–473.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hartman L. C. (1980). The development, implementation and evaluation of an alternative approach to learning for selected students [East Tennessee State University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/302991619/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/158">http://www.proquest.com/docview/302991619/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/158</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hawkins A. H. (1982). Influencing leisure choices of autisticlike children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 12(4), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01538323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Heinicke M. R., Carr J. E., Mozzoni M. P. (2009). Using differential reinforcement to decrease academic response latencies of an adolescent with acquired brain injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 861–865. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-861</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Herschell A. D. (1999). Managing disruptive behavior in elementary classrooms: Relative contribution of time-out when added to a whole-class token economy [West Virginia University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/304534457/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/241">http://www.proquest.com/docview/304534457/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/241</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Higgins J. W., Williams R. L., McLaughlin T. F. (2001). The effects of a token economy employing instructional consequences for a third-grade student with learning disabilities: A data-based case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(1), 99–106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner R. H., Carr E. G., Halle J., McGee G., Odom S., Wolery M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hugh M. L., Johnson L. D., Cook C. (2022). Preschool teachers' selection of social communication interventions for children with autism: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Autism, 26(1), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211024795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Humphrey L. L., Karoly P., Kirschenbaum D. S. (1978). Self-management in the classroom: Self-imposed response cost versus self-reward. Behavior Therapy, 9(4), 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(78)80132-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Iverson M. K. (2011). Evaluation of a token economy's effectiveness in a self-contained classroom in a psychiatric rehabilitation facility with secondary students diagnosed with emotional and behavioral disabilities (2011-99051-073) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivy J. W., Meindl J. N., Overley E., Robson K. M. (2017). Token economy: A systematic review of procedural descriptions. Behavior Modification, 41(5), 708–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445517699559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *James D. A. (1990). Behavior modification project: Reducing and controlling calling out behaviors. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=eric&amp;AN=ED319171&amp;site=ehost-live</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Jones M. N., Weber K. P., McLaughlin T. F. (2013). No teacher left behind: Educating students with ASD and ADHD in the inclusion classroom. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 2(2), 1026. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=eric&amp;AN=EJ1127784&amp;site=ehost-live</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Jowett Hirst E. S., Dozier C. L., Payne S. W. (2016). Efficacy of and preference for reinforcement and response cost in token economies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(2), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Karl K. F. (2015). A behavioral intervention for child obesity: Increasing physical activity on the playground via reinforcement in a preschool classroom (2015-99160-054) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Karraker R. J. (1977). Self versus teacher selected reinforcers in a token economy. Exceptional Children, 43(7), 454. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297704300708</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin A. (2012). The token economy: A review and evaluation. The Plenum behavior therapy series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-4121-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kazdin A. E., Geesey S. (1980). Enhancing classroom attentiveness by preselection of back-up reinforcers in a token economy. Behavior Modification, 4(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/014544558041006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kistner J., Hammer D., Wolfe D., Rothblum E., Drabman R. S. (1982). Teacher popularity and contrast effects in a classroom token economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1982.15-85</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kourilsky M., Hirshleifer J. (1976). Mini-Society vs. token economy: An experimental comparison of the effects on learning and autonomy of socially emergent and imposed behavior modification. Journal of Educational Research, 69(10), 376–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1976.10884930</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kurash F. (1976). The relation between children's participation in a token economy classroom and changes in their locus of control and test anxiety (1977-32523-001) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford J. R., Hall E., Conder E., Lane J. D. (2016). Research for young children with autism spectrum disorders: Evidence of social and ecological validity. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415585956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Lee K., Penrod B., Price J. N. (2017). A comparison of cost and reward procedures with interdependent group contingencies. Behavior Modification, 41(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516650964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Lippman Y. (1990). Paradox and praise compared with a token economy and praise for the reduction of off-task behavior of third-grade students (1992-74644-001) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Luiselli J. K. (1988). Comparative effects of a time-out contingency when combined with alternate methods of reinforcement. Journal of the Multihandicapped Person, 1(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098252</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madden G. J., Mahmoudi S., Brown K. (2023). Pavlovian learning and conditioned reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 56(3), 498–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.1004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Maes K. M. (1994). Token economy used to increase performance in solving algebra problems for high school students [University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/230992930/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/84">http://www.proquest.com/docview/230992930/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/84</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggin D. M., Chafouleas S. M., Goddard K. M., Johnson A. H. (2011). A systematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 529–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggin D. M., Talbott E., Van Acker E. Y., Kumm S. (2017). Quality indicators for systematic reviews in behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 42(2), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742916688653</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Majewski K. (2022). Effects of the token economy system in an autistic classroom [Western Illinois University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2702209616/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/52">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2702209616/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/52</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Mangus B., Henderson H., French R. (1986). Implementation of a token economy by peer tutors to increase on-task physical activity time of autistic children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63(1), 97–98. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1986.63.1.97</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marchant M., Heath M. A., Miramontes N. Y. (2013). Merging empiricism and humanism: Role of social validity in the school-wide positive behavior support model. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(4), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712459356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDaniel S. C., Bruhn A. L., Mitchell B. S. (2017). A responsive Tier 2 process for a middle school student with behavior problems. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61(4), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1275503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh K., Mercer S., Hume A., Frank J., Turri M., Mathews S. (2012). Factors related to sustained implementation of school-wide positive behavior support. Exceptional Children, 79, 1–39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *McLaughlin T. F. (1981). The effects of individual and group contingencies on reading performance of special education students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6(1), 76–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476x(81)90032-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *McLaughlin T. F., Malaby J. E. (1976). An analysis of assignment completion and accuracy across time under fixed, variable, and extended token exchange periods in a classroom token economy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1(4), 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(76)90054-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *McNeely M. (2018). A comparison of fixed- and variable-ratio token exchange-production schedules with children with autism spectrum disorder [University of North Texas]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2190267266/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/123">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2190267266/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/123</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeill J. (2019). Social validity and teachers' use of evidence-based practices for autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(11), 4585–4594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04190-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Mendham R. P., Thorne M. T. (1984). A description and evaluation of a "Levelled Token Economy" operating within the school day in a residential school for junior maladjusted boys. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 12(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0141347300009824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miltenberger R. G. (2015). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures. Cengage Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miramontes N. Y., Marchant M., Heath M. A., Fischer L. (2011). Social validity of a positive behavior interventions and support model. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(4), 445–468. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Molloy G. N. (1979). Reinforcement effects on intrinsic interest. Mental Retardation Bulletin, 7(1), 31–44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Mottram L. M., Bray M. A., Kehle T. J., Broudy M., Jenson W. R. (2002). A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1300/j008v19n01_05</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Musser E. H., Bray M. A., Kehle T. J., Jenson W. R. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Neef N. A., Mace F. C., Shea M. C., Shade D. (1992). Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(3), 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-691</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Neilans T. H., Israel A. C. (1981). Towards maintenance and generalization of behavior change: Teaching children self-regulation and self-instructional skills. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ninness H. C., Graben L., Miller B., Whaley D. (1985). The effect of contingency management strategies on the Bender Gestalt diagnostic indicators of emotionally disturbed children. Child Study Journal, 15(1), 13–28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Noble D. E. (1979). A comparison of token economy and response cost systems in a special classroom for severely and profoundly handicapped children (1980-70853-001) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Novak G., Hammond J. M. (1983). Self-reinforcement and descriptive praise in maintaining token economy reading performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 76(3), 186–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1983.10885447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Nzuki I. (2016). Variables that influence preference for response cost [Southern Illinois University at Carbondale]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/1803939486/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/165">http://www.proquest.com/docview/1803939486/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/165</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *O'Neal A. M. (2019). Increasing student on-task behavior in a juvenile detention day school through the use of a token procedure implemented by juvenile correctional officers [University of Kansas]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2350387977/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/102">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2350387977/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/102</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Palmieri S. J. (2019). The effects of the token economy system on challenging behaviors of students with autism [Caldwell University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2236464843/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/29">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2236464843/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/29</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Patel R. R., Normand M. P., Kohn C. S. (2019). Incentivizing physical activity using token reinforcement with preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(2), 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.536</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Plavnick J. B., Ferreri S. J., Maupin A. N. (2010). The effects of self-monitoring on the procedural integrity of a behavioral intervention for young children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(2), 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Presley G. L. (1982). A program to improve the attending behavior of perceptually impaired children in a self-contained classroom [Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/303275108/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/159">http://www.proquest.com/docview/303275108/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/159</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Reed D. D. (2009). Children's responsiveness to immediate and delayed classroom contingencies: An application and extension of temporal discounting (2009-99080-413) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning]. <ulink href="http://proxy01.its.virginia.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=psyh&amp;AN=2009-99080-413&amp;site=ehost-live&amp;scope=site">http://proxy01.its.virginia.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=psyh&amp;AN=2009-99080-413&amp;site=ehost-live&amp;scope=site</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Reinecke D. R., Newman B., Meinberg D. L. (1999). Self-management of sharing in three pre-schoolers with autism. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34(3), 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/215416479903400307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Reiss S., Sushinsky L. W. (1975). Overjustification, competing responses, and the acquisition of intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(6), 1116–1125. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076936</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Reitman D., Hupp S. D. A., O'Callaghan P. M., Gulley V., Northup J. (2001). The influence of a token economy and methylphenidate on attentive and disruptive behavior during sports with ADHD-diagnosed children. Behavior Modification, 25(2), 305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445501252007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reitman D., Murphy M. A., Hupp S. D., O'Callaghan P. M. (2004). Behavior change and perceptions of change: Evaluating the effectiveness of a token economy. Child &amp; Family Behavior Therapy, 26(2), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1300/j019v26n02_02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Reynolds F. (2017). Differential reinforcement of other behavior versus response cost: Effects of immediate and delayed consequences in token economies [University of South Florida]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2002343209/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/34">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2002343209/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/34</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riden B. S., Kumm S., Maggin D. M. (2022). Evidence-based behavior management strategies for students with or at risk of EBD: A mega review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 43(4), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211047947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Robertson S. J., deReus D. M., Drabman R. S. (1976). Peer and college-student tutoring as reinforcement in a token economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1976.9-169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Rosenberg M. S. (1986). Maximizing the effectiveness of structured classroom management programs: Implementing rule-review procedures with disruptive and distractible students. Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874298601100405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Royer D. J., Lane K. L., Dunlap K. D., Ennis R. P. (2019). A systematic review of teacher-delivered behavior-specific praise on K–12 student performance. Remedial and Special Education, 40(2), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell D., Ingvarsson E. T., Haggar J. L., Jessel J. (2018). Using progressive ratio schedules to evaluate tokens as generalized conditioned reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sabaini K. D. (2008). Evaluating the impact of acceptance and commitment therapy on children with emotional and behavioral disorders [Southern Illinois University at Carbondale]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/1475248042/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/121">http://www.proquest.com/docview/1475248042/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/121</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarpellini G. (2025). Cohen's kappa free calculator. https://meta-analysis.actilab.onl/cohen-kappa-free-calculator/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Self-Brown S. R., Samuel M. II. (2003). Effects of classroom structure on student achievement goal orientation. Journal of Educational Research, 97(2), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309597513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Shapiro E. S., Browder D. M., D'Huyvetters K. K. (1984). Increasing academic productivity of severely multi-handicapped children with self-management: Idiosyncratic effects. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-4684(84)90039-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *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(3–4), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-3092(80)90006-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Shaw H. L. (1978). A comprehensive token economy with DRO and its effects on disruptive behavior in an SMI class [Western Michigan University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/302905493/citation/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/223">http://www.proquest.com/docview/302905493/citation/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/223</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Shogren K. A., Lang R., Machalicek W., Rispoli M. J., O'Reilly M. (2011). Self-versus teacher management of behavior for elementary school students with Asperger syndrome: Impact on classroom behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300710384508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Shook S. C., LaBrie M., Vallies J., McLaughlin T. F., Williams R. L. (1990). The effects of a token economy on first grade students inappropriate social behavior. Reading Improvement, 27(2), 96–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simmons J. B. (1977). Effects on school work productivity among emotionally disturbed boys with the removal of a level system from a token economy (1978-24120-001) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning]. <ulink href="http://proxy01.its.virginia.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=psyh&amp;AN=1978-24120-001&amp;site=ehost-live&amp;scope=site">http://proxy01.its.virginia.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=psyh&amp;AN=1978-24120-001&amp;site=ehost-live&amp;scope=site</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Simmons J. B. (1982). Effects on school work productivity among emotionally disturbed boys with the removal of a level system from a token-economy [The University of Utah]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/302838696/citation/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/188">http://www.proquest.com/docview/302838696/citation/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/188</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Simon S. J., Ayllon T., Milan M. A. (1982). Behavioral compensation: Contrastlike effects in the classroom. Behavior Modification, 6(3), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/014544558263006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sleiman A. A., Betz A. M., Rey C. N., Blackman A. L. (2020). Effects of token manipulation on responding within a token economy implemented with children with autism. Education and Treatment of Children, 43(4), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00014-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Slider B. (2009). The effect of an applied behavior analysis based treatment on the participation of a kindergarten student with Autism Spectrum Disorder in a general education classroom [West Virginia University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/305028515/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/118">http://www.proquest.com/docview/305028515/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/118</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snodgrass M. R., Chung M. Y., Kretzer J. M., Biggs E. E. (2022). Rigorous assessment of social validity: A scoping review of a 40-year conversation. Remedial and Special Education, 43, 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211017295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snodgrass M. R., Chung M. Y., Meadan H., Halle J. W. (2018). Social validity in single-case research: A systematic literature review of prevalence and application. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 74, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soares D. A., Harrison J. R., Vannest K. J., McClelland S. S. (2016). Effect size for token economy use in contemporary classroom settings: A meta-analysis of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 45(4), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-4.379-399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Spratlen J., Hamm N. H. (1983). The use of a token economy to increase the classroom attending behavior of a mongoloid child: A case study. Behavioral Engineering, 8(2), 59–63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stine J. M. (2011). Comparison of second-order token and tandem schedules using clinically common production and exchange values [Northeastern University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/888184327/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/87">http://www.proquest.com/docview/888184327/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/87</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strain P. S., Barton E. E., Dunlap G. (2012). Lessons learned about the utility of social validity. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Swain J. C., McLaughlin T. F. (1998). The effects of bonus contingencies in a classwide token program on math accuracy with middle-school students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Interventions, 13(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-078x(199802)13:111::aid-bin63.0.co;2-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Tarbox R. S. F., Ghezzi P. M., Wilson G. (2006). The effects of token reinforcement on attending in a young child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 21(3), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Thompson M. J., McLaughlin T. F., Derby K. M. (2011). The use of differential reinforcement to decrease the inappropriate verbalizations of a nine-year-old girl with autism. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(1), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v9i23.1433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Truchlicka M., McLaughlin T. F., Swain J. C. (1998). Effects of token reinforcement and response cost on the accuracy of spelling performance with middle-school special education students with behavior disorders. Behavioral Interventions, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-078x(199802)13:11::aid-bin13.0.co;2-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Urlaub M. S. (2002). Evaluation of the Armed for Life program for inner-city students who are emotionally impaired (2002-95012-002) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Vargas K. (2022). Effects of combining a wearable visual schedule and a class-wide token economy on self-initiated transitions [Southern Illinois University at Carbondale]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/2719519780/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/49">http://www.proquest.com/docview/2719519780/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/49</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Vasta R., Stirpe L. A. (1979). Reinforcement effects on three measures of children's interest in math. Behavior Modification, 3(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/014544557932006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waggy K. (2022). The effects of a token economy system in comparison to social praise on the manifest behaviors of elementary learning-disabled students [Marshall University]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/305356670/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/35">http://www.proquest.com/docview/305356670/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/35</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ward-Maguire P. R. (2007). Increasing on -task behavior and assignment completion of high school students with emotional behavioral disorders [University of South Dakota]. <ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/304816032/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/65">http://www.proquest.com/docview/304816032/abstract/DB3151EDE8C64135PQ/65</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wehby J. H., Maggin D. M., Moore Partin T. C., Robertson R. (2012). The impact of working alliance, social validity, and teacher burnout on implementation fidelity of the good behavior game. School Mental Health, 4, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-011-9067-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wolfe B. D., Dattilo J., Gast D. L. (2003). Effects of a token economy system within the context of cooperative games on social behaviors of adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 37(2), 124–141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolfe M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Young Welch C. (2009). A mixed-method study utilizing a token economy to shape behavior and increase academic success in urban students (2009-99031-190) [ProQuest Information &amp; Learning].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaheer I., Maggin D., McDaniel S., McIntosh K., Rodriguez B. J., Fogt J. B. (2019). Implementation of promising practices that support students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 44(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918821331</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0192953822-22"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Lydia A. Beahm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7229-7419 Bryan G. Cook</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9294-0873 Einar T. Ingvarsson</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7092-9208 Ekemini Eshiett</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5677-3161</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supplemental material for this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429261421266</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lydia A. Beahm; Bryan G. Cook; Einar T. Ingvarsson and Ekemini Eshiett</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib152" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref102"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1502983 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Social Validity of Token Economy Interventions in Instructional Settings: A Registered Report Systematic Review – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lydia+A%2E+Beahm%22">Lydia A. Beahm</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7229-7419">0000-0002-7229-7419</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bryan+G%2E+Cook%22">Bryan G. Cook</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9294-0873">0000-0001-9294-0873</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Einar+T%2E+Ingvarsson%22">Einar T. Ingvarsson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7092-9208">0000-0002-7092-9208</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ekemini+Eshiett%22">Ekemini Eshiett</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5677-3161">0009-0009-5677-3161</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Behavioral+Disorders%22"><i>Behavioral Disorders</i></searchLink>. 2026 51(3):177-196. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 20 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Token+Economy%22">Token Economy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Validity%22">Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavioral+Science+Research%22">Behavioral Science Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1177/01987429261421266 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0198-7429<br />2163-5307 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Token economies are a commonly used evidence-based practice to increase appropriate behavior in classrooms and other instructional settings. However, little is known about the perceptions of teachers, students, and parents regarding the practice. Therefore, we examined the social validity of token economy interventions in instructional settings in this Registered Report systematic review. One hundred thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 29 of those studies (25.6%) systematically evaluated social validity. The most common type of social validity evaluation was surveys involving the teachers or students at the end of the study. Findings suggest that most parents and students had a positive perception of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the practice. However, teachers' perceptions were more mixed. Overall, teachers found token economies to be beneficial; however, several noted that implementing them with fidelity was time consuming and challenging. Implications of these findings are discussed. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1502983 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1502983 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1177/01987429261421266 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 20 StartPage: 177 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Token Economy Type: general – SubjectFull: Intervention Type: general – SubjectFull: Validity Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Behavior Type: general – SubjectFull: Behavioral Science Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Social Validity of Token Economy Interventions in Instructional Settings: A Registered Report Systematic Review Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lydia A. Beahm – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bryan G. Cook – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Einar T. Ingvarsson – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Ekemini Eshiett IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 05 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0198-7429 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 2163-5307 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 51 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Behavioral Disorders Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
