Exploring the Use of Token Economies for Students on the Autism Spectrum: A Brief Review of the Literature
By Zachary Carter-Best
Abstract
Token economies are a commonly used behavioral intervention in self-contained classrooms for students with autism spectrum disorder. While instructors may be familiar with implementing a token economy, many may not understand some of the nuances presented in this research. Token economies are shown to increase rates of attending, on-task behavior, and rates of responding, while decreasing challenging behaviors. One study, however, did show no significant difference in responding for token economies as compared to primary reinforcement, but this study does not consider the effect this will have on rates of reinforcer satiation. Future researchers should investigate how different levels of student interest in the token economy will affect long-term rates of responding and attending, as well as rates of satiation for preferred reinforcers in token conditions compared to primary reinforcement conditions.
Literature Review
Introduction
The topic of interest for this literature review is the effects of implementing a token economy with children on the autism spectrum. This is a relevant topic for teachers working in special education classrooms as it is a common behavioral intervention for students, especially those on the autism spectrum. As referenced in Tarbox et al. (2014), token economies are systems by which users collect and trade tokens for backup reinforcers, and they have been shown in an extensive list of studies to be effective in a wide range of populations, including people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. This study further demonstrates one of the primary benefits to using this intervention in the classroom: students using token economies show increased attending during discrete trial style lessons (2014). In support of this conclusion, Sleiman et al. (2014) showed that whether or not participants manipulate tokens themselves, using the token economy increased response rates. Another finding that similarly shows benefits for educators who decide to use token economies comes from a study conducted by Carnett et al. (2006) wherein it was demonstrated that reinforcement based on a token economy was able to increase on-task behavior while decreased challenging behaviors for a student on the autism spectrum, especially when tokens take advantage of a student’s perseverative interest.
It is important to note, however, that not all of the literature is in agreement about the benefits of using token economies as opposed to a primary reinforcement schedule. In a study conducted by Fiske et al. (2014), they helped show that effective token economies rely on desirable backup reinforcers, but also in some cases levels of responding were not significantly different when compared with primary reinforcement.
Token Economy
Classroom Implications
Tabox et al. (2006) say that you can increase the number of tokens required before reinforcement without sacrificing attending behavior. We can extrapolate from these results that this can lead to a preservation of reinforcers and increase time before reinforcer satiation. As such, even though Fisk et al. (2014) found inconsistent performance differences between a condition of using primary reinforcers with no tokens and using a token condition, it may still be preferable for teachers to use token economies because, as discussed above, reinforcer satiation is less likely to occur if students are increasing the intervals between reinforcement via tokens.
Student Interest
The extent to which students will “buy in” to participate with the token economy was suggested by the literature to be an important component of running these systems for classroom behavior management. Sleiman et al. (2020) found that while a no manipulation condition can lead to higher response rate in participants, the participants actually preferred the token manipulation condition. While teachers may prefer the condition that leads to higher response rates, it would be wise for teachers to take heed of their student’s preferences when designing their token economies. Teachers may want to conduct a preference assessment with their students to try and determine if they would rather handle the tokens themselves or not. Further, from Carnett et al. (2014) we find another example of how increasing student interest in running the token economy by incorporating their perseverative interests with it. While they did find token economies to be successful without including these interests, they did find an even greater degree of success by making the process more appealing to the student by including what they like (2014). Although this was not investigated in the literature discussed, one can presume that students will, over the long-term, show greater and more consistent attending and responding if they are also more satisfied with the way they operate their token cards.
Sources
The works referenced in this literature review were drawn from the APA PsychInfo database, accessed through the FIU Library. This literature review took a close look at the variables surrounding the efficacy of using token economies in the classroom for children on the autism spectrum. The following articles will be reviewed: The Effects of Token Reinforcement on Attending in Young Children with Autism (Tarbox et al., 2006), Effects of Token Manipulation on Responding within a Token Economy Implemented with Children with Autism (Sleiman et al., 2020), Effects of a Perseverative Interest-Based Token Economy on Challenging and On-Task Behavior in a Child with Autism (Carnett et al., 2014), and Assessing the Value of Token Reinforcement for Individuals with Autism (Fiske et al., 2014).
References
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9195-7
Fiske, K. E., Isenhower, R. W., Bamond, M. J., Delmolino, L., Sloman, K. N., & LaRue, R. H. (2015). Assessing the Value of Token Reinforcement for Individuals with Autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(2), 448-453. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.207
Sleiman, A.A., Betz, A.M., Rey, C.N. et al. Effects of Token Manipulation on Responding within a Token Economy Implemented with Children with Autism. Educ. Treat. Child.43, 323–333 (2020). doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00014-2
Tarbox, R. S., Ghezzi, P. M., & Wilson, G. (2006a). The effects of token reinforcement on attending in a young child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 21(3), 155–164. doi.org/10.1002/bin.213
To download a PDF file version of this issue of NASET’s Autism Spectrum Disorder Series: Click Here
To return to the main page for NASET’s Autism Spectrum Disorder Series – Click Here
