School Psychology Quarterly © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 24, No. 2, 106 –118 1045-3830/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016159

Review and Analysis of Literature on Self-Management Interventions

to Promote Appropriate Classroom Behaviors (1988 –2008)

Amy M. Briesch Sandra M. Chafouleas

Northeastern University University of Connecticut

In the late 1980s, J. W. Fantuzzo and colleagues conducted a review of the self-
management literature in order to better define the characteristics of this class of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

interventions. Results indicated that many interventions were minimally student-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

directed despite the title “self-managed” and that student-managed interventions dem-
onstrated incremental effects above teacher-managed interventions. In the current
study, updated information was compiled with regard to how self-management inter-
ventions have been described, including the degree to which self-management inter-
ventions continue to rely on external (i.e., teacher) contingencies. Review of the
literature identified 16 different characterizations of self-management interventions,
each of which varied widely in terms of the number of intervention components
included as well as the degree to which students were involved in implementation.
Although self-observation and recording of a predefined behavior appear to be the
cornerstones of self-management interventions, meaningful differences were noted,
including whether reinforcement was involved and whether changes in performance
were tracked over time. Furthermore, although self-management interventions appear
to have undergone a small shift toward increased reliance on internal (i.e., student-
managed) contingencies, adults continue to play a large role in the implementation.

Keywords: self-management, student-directed intervention, behavioral intervention, classroom

behavior

A powerful determinant of academic a priority, given that it has been identified as the
achievement is the amount of time that a student best mediating variable between instruction and
spends actively thinking about or working on academic achievement (Greenwood, Terry,
academic content (Gettinger & Stoiber, 1999). Marquis, & Walker, 1994). Thus, intervention
However, in many classrooms, behaviors such efforts should be directed toward identification
as inattention or disruption may prevent stu- of effective strategies to promote appropriate
dents from actively engaging in academic ac- classroom behaviors.
tivities. For example, Walker, Ramsey, and Although many empirically based interven-
Gresham (2003) found that 17% of classroom tions exist to promote appropriate classroom
teachers reported losing at least 4 hr of teaching behaviors, limitations of teacher-managed inter-
time per week because of disruptive behavior. ventions have been identified. First, the use of
Although inattention may have less direct im- teacher-directed contingency interventions can
pact at the class-wide level than does disruptive often be costly and logistically difficult
behavior, promoting engagement should also be (Thomas, 1980). If teachers are limited because
of time or resource constraints given the need to
direct regular instruction as well as manage a
contingency system, the intervention may not
Amy M. Briesch, Department of Counseling and Applied
Educational Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston,
be carried out with integrity. Second, because
MA; and Sandra M. Chafouleas, Department of Educational the teacher must attend to the entire classroom,
Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. it can be difficult to observe all instances of
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed behavior. As a result, reinforcement of the de-
to Amy M. Briesch, Department of Counseling and Applied
Educational Psychology, Bouve College of Health Sciences,
sired behavior will be inconsistent, and behav-
203 Lake Hall, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. E-mail: ioral change may therefore be slow or delayed
[Link]@[Link] or [Link]@[Link] (Gross & Wojnilower, 1984). Third, because
106
 SELF-MANAGEMENT 107

the teacher administers the reinforcement, he or performance on a regular basis and to monitor
she may become the discriminative stimulus for progress toward specified goals. Although each
the behavior. If this occurs, the likelihood of of the aforementioned approaches may be found
generalization beyond the classroom, or in isolation, most often, the approaches are
maintenance of the behavior following the combined to create a self-management package.
intervention, is greatly reduced (Gross & Positive effects of self-management interven-
Wojnilower, 1984). Last, teacher-managed tions have been identified across age (e.g., ele-
interventions keep the locus of control away mentary through high school) and ability levels
from the student and thereby fail to promote (e.g., students with learning disabilities and
life skills such as self-reliance and indepen- without exceptionalities), as well as with regard
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

dence (Shapiro & Cole, 1994). In light of to various outcomes (e.g., academic and social
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

these concerns, it has been suggested that behavior, internalizing or externalizing). In ad-
self-management may be an effective alterna- dition to numerous individual studies, recent
tive to teacher-managed interventions. meta-analyses have added evidence regarding
the effectiveness of self-managed approaches.
Self-Management Interventions For instance, Stage and Quiroz (1997) ana-
lyzed 30 studies utilizing self-management ap-
As is currently defined, self-management proaches and found an average effect size of
techniques typically include at least one, or a ⫺.97 (SD ⫽ .64) for reductions in disruptive
combination, of the following elements: per- behavior across age and ability levels. One
sonal goal setting, self-monitoring, self- problem in interpreting such findings is that the
evaluation and recording, self-reinforcement, type of self-management intervention used has
and self-charting (Dalton, Martella, & March- not been consistently defined and explicated
and-Martella, 1999). The most popular of the across reviews. This may be problematic given
aforementioned techniques in classroom set- Fantuzzo, Rohrbeck, and Azar’s (1987) sugges-
tings has been self-monitoring, which involves tion that self-management interventions vary
observing and recording one’s own behavior widely, comprising up to 11 possible compo-
(Maag, Rutherford, & DiGangi, 1992). In self- nents (see Table 1). Although a self-manage-
monitoring, an external prompt (e.g., a timer or ment intervention in the truest sense would give
the teacher) is often used to signal students to students control of all 11 components, in prac-
self-reflect and assess their own behavior using tice this is rarely manifested (Fantuzzo, Polite,
either verbal assessment or a recording sheet. Cook, & Quinn, 1988).
Although self-monitoring can be utilized in iso- With the goal of better defining what was
lation, it is most often accompanied by self- meant by a self-management intervention
evaluation, in which the student compares his or within the literature published between 1967
her self-ratings with an established standard and 1988, Fantuzzo and colleagues created a
(Cole & Bambara, 1992). Self-evaluation often Self-Management Intervention Checklist
involves reinforcing students for rating accu- (SMIC; Fantuzzo et al., 1987; SMIC–2, Fan-
racy, which is operationalized as how closely tuzzo and Polite, 1990). These authors found
self-ratings resemble either teacher ratings or that, on average, only 4.2 of the 11 possible
the results of direct observation (Ardoin & components were managed by students. Those
Martens, 2004). components most commonly managed by stu-
Less frequently used techniques include self- dents included self-observation, self-evaluation,
reinforcement, personal goal setting, and self- and the administration of primary reinforcers
charting. Reinforcement is generally considered (Fantuzzo & Polite, 1990; Fantuzzo et al.,
to be self-managed if the student is responsible 1987). The broad range of self-managed com-
for administering reinforcers. In personal goal ponents identified was also striking. Within that
setting, the student determines, a priori, the literature, the same term was used to classify
short- and long-term behavioral goals, which interventions containing only one self-managed
may then be used to determine what perfor- component as well as interventions in which
mance criteria will be necessary to obtain rein- over half (i.e., 64%) of the components were
forcement (Stevenson & Fantuzzo, 1986). Self- self-managed. Overall, results suggested that
charting requires the student to graph actual despite implications within the term self-
 108 BRIESCH AND CHAFOULEAS

Table 1 The finding that many of the self-manage-

Self-Management Intervention Checklist ment interventions reported in the literature are
Components minimally student-directed may be of concern,
Intervention Question posed to determine given that greater student involvement and con-
component whether self-managed trol has demonstrated incremental effects above
Selection of target Is the student involved in those of teacher-managed interventions. In iso-
behavior selecting the target behavior? lation, self-monitoring has been shown to be at
Definition Is the student involved in least as (e.g., Bolstad & Johnson, 1972) if not
creating an operational more effective (e.g., Bahr, Fuchs, Fuchs, &
definition of the target
behavior?
Fernstrom, 1993) in decreasing off-task and dis-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Selection of primary Does the child help to determine ruptive behavior than is teacher monitoring. Di-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

reinforcers what the back-up reinforcer(s) rect comparisons of teacher- versus student-
will be (may involve use of managed approaches (Fantuzzo et al., 1988)
reinforcer menu)? have also found the average effect size across
Performance goal Does the child help to determine
the performance criterion?
student-managed interventions (ES ⫽ 4.31) to
Instructional prompt Does the child prompt be twice that of teacher-managed interventions
him/herself to engage in the (ES ⫽ 2.31). Furthermore, Fantuzzo and Polite
target behavior? (1990) used the SMIC–2 to identify a significant
Observation Does the child observe the target correlation (r ⫽ .74, p ⬍ .001) between the
behavior?
degree to which an intervention was self-
Recording Does the child record occurrence
of target behavior? managed and the treatment effect size across 30
Evaluation Is child involved in determining studies. In light of such findings, a call was
whether goal was met? made to increase the degree of student involve-
Administration of Does the child administer ment in, and control over, self-management in-
secondary reinforcers secondary reinforcers to self terventions.
if/when goal is met?
Administration of Does the child administer Over the two decades that have since elapsed,
primary reinforcers primary reinforcers to self many researchers have worked to expand the
if/when goal is met? literature base on self-management interven-
Monitoring Does child help to chart/graph tions. Unfortunately, practitioners may be more
occurrence of behavior over confused than helped by the literature because
time?
of the lack of consensus with regard to the
Note. From Fantuzzo, Polite, Cook, and Quinn (1988). critical components of self-management inter-
ventions (Stage & Quiroz, 1997). Cole and
Bambara (1992) suggested that one of the rea-
sons that self-management has been underuti-
management that the student has control and is lized is because the term has simply been used
chiefly responsible, in practice, an intervention too liberally. In fact, in the 1980s, Fantuzzo and
approach that was truly student-directed was not colleagues found that the term self-management
embraced. Rather, student involvement was of- meant very different things. Two decades later,
ten purely mechanical in that students were self-management interventions continue to
typically responsible for self-recording or ad- demonstrate popularity in the literature, yet it is
ministering reinforcers (Cole & Bambara, not clear whether the recommended shift has
1992). One explanation for this noted reliance occurred to reliance on internal contingencies.
on teacher control, however, may be the fact Thus, an update and addendum to the work of
that teacher-led instruction and modeling are Fantuzzo and colleagues (1987, 1988, 1990)
needed up front in order to train students to use appears due. The purpose of the current study
these procedures (Cole & Bambara, 2000). Al- was to review and quantify the literature on
though the goal is to transfer a greater deal of behavioral self-management through a replica-
responsibility to students as they become more tion and extension of Fantuzzo’s original work.
confident with the procedures, it is possible that In addition to computing effect sizes, the
many studies included in the literature have not SMIC-2 was used to evaluate each study pub-
allowed ample time to track such a shift in lished between 1988 and 2008 in terms of the
intervention management. total number of intervention components uti-
 SELF-MANAGEMENT 109

lized and the degree to which each intervention this stage, an additional 100 studies were de-
was student managed. The central goal of con- leted on the basis of the various exclusionary
ducting such analyses was to facilitate compar- criteria. The reference list of each selected arti-
isons between the findings of current and pre- cle was also examined to identify any relevant
vious reviews. studies not identified through the database
searches. Finally, for those journals within
Method which a significant number of self-management
studies had been identified (i.e., Behavioral Dis-
Criteria for Inclusion of Studies orders, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Psychology in the Schools, School Psychology
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

For the purposes of the current review, a Quarterly, and School Psychology Review), a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

literature search was conducted using the Psy- thorough review was conducted of each issue in
cINFO and ERIC databases. The search was order to verify that relevant studies had not been
limited to peer-reviewed studies published be- missed. In the end, a total of 30 studies were
tween April 1988 and March 2008 in order to identified that met all inclusion criteria (a com-
avoid duplicating references utilized by Fan- plete list of references is available upon request
tuzzo and Polite (1990). As the focus of this from Amy M. Briesch).
study was on examining the use of self-
management as a behavioral intervention strat- Rating Procedure
egy, studies targeting academic variables (e.g.,
assignment completion) were not included (see All studies meeting criteria for inclusion in
Mooney, Ryan, Uhing, Reid, & Epstein, 2005, the study were rated with the Self-Management
for a review of academic outcomes). The key- Intervention Checklist (SMIC–2; Fantuzzo and
words used to conduct the search were identical Polite, 1990). First, to the extent available,
to those used by Fantuzzo and colleagues: (a) demographic information (e.g., gender, age,
behavioral interventions, (b) classroom behav- and disability) was noted. Second, each study
ior, (c) classroom behavior modification, (d) was evaluated on the 11 dimensions compos-
classroom discipline, (e) self-management, (f) ing the SMIC–2. It was first noted whether the
self-monitoring, (g) self-regulation, (h) self- intervention component was present. For exam-
reinforcement, (i) self-control, (j) self-instruc- ple, studies that did not utilize reinforcers auto-
tion, and (k) self-report. matically received a zero for 3 of the 11 com-
As per the original investigation, only studies ponents (i.e., selection of primary reinforcer,
of school-age children of normal intelligence in administration of primary reinforcers, and ad-
regular or special education were included. Use ministration of secondary reinforcers). If the
of these criteria resulted in the disqualification component was present, however, a determina-
of a number of studies involving preschoolers, tion was then made as to whether it was (a)
college students, and students with significantly primarily teacher managed, (b) primarily stu-
limited intellectual capacities. In order to ensure dent managed, or (c) not able to be determined
that treatment effects were due to self-manage- because of a lack of details. After each study
ment procedures, studies with more than one had been evaluated, a proportion of self-
treatment were not included. Finally, all studies management was calculated by dividing the
were required to (a) include an experimental number of self-managed components by the to-
design, (b) report observational data, (c) provide tal number of intervention components used
checks for reliability, and (d) take place in a (Fantuzzo & Polite, 1990).
classroom setting. A final area of evaluation focused on treat-
Utilizing the 11 keywords, the database ment efficacy. A determination was first made
searches produced a total of 794 references. as to whether social validity had been assessed
Any studies that did not focus on self- by either teacher or student participants. A
management or duplicate references were first study was coded as assessing social validity
excluded (n ⫽ 664). The abstracts were next regardless of whether the measure was pub-
reviewed in order to identify studies meeting the lished or researcher generated. Second, evi-
selection criteria, and if that information was dence of generalization of treatment effects
insufficient, the full article was reviewed. At across individuals, time, settings, and behaviors
 110 BRIESCH AND CHAFOULEAS

was examined. Finally, given increased empha- mentary measure of intervention effectiveness,
sis on the importance of treatment integrity, it a percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) was
was noted whether any integrity checks were also computed (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto,
made. 1987). PND is calculated by determining the
number of data points in the intervention phase
Interrater Agreement that exceed the highest data point in the baseline
phase, dividing this value by the total number of
All studies were rated by the primary re- data points in the treatment phase, and multi-
searcher using both the SMIC–2 and the addi- plying by 100. Calculation of this metric has
tional categories (e.g., treatment integrity and been advocated as one step in the analysis of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

generalization). One third were then randomly single subject data, with minimal overlap be-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

selected and coded by a second researcher to tween the phases indicating a strong effect
establish interrater agreement. Agreement was (Kratochwill et al., 2002).
calculated by dividing the number of agree-
ments by the number of agreements plus dis- Results and Discussion
agreements and dividing this value by 100.
Agreement for the demographic and study char- Study Characteristics
acteristic variables was 100%. Average agreement
for the individual intervention components was A summary of demographic information and
92% (range ⫽ 73%–100%). The average kappa intervention characteristics are presented in
statistic across intervention components was .79 Table 2. Across a total of 30 studies, 106 stu-
(range ⫽ .29 –1.0). dents participated in self-management interven-
tions. Of these students, 84% (n ⫽ 89) were
Calculation of Effect Sizes boys and 16% (n ⫽ 17) were girls. The mean
age of the participants across all studies was 11
All single subject graphs were digitized with years, 7 months. Although three studies targeted
the XYit software (Geomatix, 2007). First, PDF students without exceptionalities, 70% (n ⫽ 16)
versions of all articles were obtained and of studies included students diagnosed with
opened with the XYit Digitizer. After specify- learning disabilities (LD), 50% (n ⫽ 15) in-
ing the axes, each data point in the series was cluded students diagnosed with behavior disor-
clicked on, thus entering the exact coordinates ders 关i.e., serious emotional disturbance (SED),
into a Notepad file. Values on the y axis were behavior disorder (BD), and emotional disorder
then exported into an Excel spreadsheet, within (ED)兴, and 17% (n ⫽ 5) included students di-
which effect sizes were calculated. Any studies agnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity dis-
involving a reversal design (e.g., ABAB) were order (ADHD). Self-management interventions
rearranged in order to create a single baseline as were just as likely to be implemented in general
well as a single intervention phase (i.e., AABB). (n ⫽ 12) and self-contained special education
Although debate exists regarding the calcula- (n ⫽ 12) settings, with fewer taking place in
tion of effect sizes for single subject designs, resource classrooms (n ⫽ 5). The overwhelm-
given that the guidelines put forth by Busk and ing majority (93%) targeted task engagement
Serlin (1992) are currently endorsed by the (i.e., on task/off task) as a dependent variable,
American Psychological Association’s Divi- with less than a quarter implemented to reduce
sion 16 Task Force on Evidence-Based Inter- disruptive behavior (23%).
ventions in School Psychology (Kratochwill et Members of the research team were most
al., 2002), the “no assumptions” method was often responsible for carrying out training ses-
utilized. Additionally, this method was used by sions with the student participants, with less
Fantuzzo and Polite (1990) in their quantitative than a third of studies using classroom teachers.
analysis of the self-management literature, Less than half (40%) of the studies included
therefore allowing for more meaningful com- assessments of social validity, most often in-
parisons. This effect size is calculated by sub- volving interviews or questionnaires adminis-
tracting the mean of the baseline from the mean tered to some combination of participants. Gen-
of the intervention phase and dividing by the eralization effects were assessed in 18 of the
standard deviation of the baseline. As a supple- studies reviewed, including examination of ef-
 SELF-MANAGEMENT 111

fects across time (n ⫽ 8), settings (n ⫽ 8), and a combination of both performance and accu-
behaviors (n ⫽ 2). Treatment integrity was as- racy criteria for determining reinforcement.
sessed infrequently, reported in less than one An average of 51% of the components included
quarter of the studies. Across these studies, in each intervention were determined to be either
treatment integrity was defined diversely, with self- or joint-managed (range ⫽ 30%–75%),
some studies examining procedural integrity which is comparable to results reported by Fan-
during intervention training, some examining tuzzo and colleagues (1987, 1988, 1990). Students
whether students monitored behavior according were responsible for the observation and record-
to guidelines, and others noting that an assess- ing of target behaviors in all cases, consistent with
ment of integrity took place without specifying earlier reviews, whereas adults (e.g., teachers and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

what variables were examined. researchers) were nearly always responsible for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

selecting (97%, n ⫽ 29) and defining (93%, n ⫽

28) the target behaviors. Although goal setting and
Component Analysis and Calculation of reinforcement components were just as likely to
Effect Sizes be included as not, adults were predominately
responsible for setting a performance goal (85%)
Results of the current review both support and administering both primary (93%) and sec-
and contrast with those findings obtained by ondary (92%) reinforcers when these components
Fantuzzo and colleagues (1987, 1988, 1990; see were included. Shifts were observed regarding
Table 3). The average self-management inter- responsibility (e.g., student vs. teacher) for moni-
vention examined between 1967 and 1988 con- toring behavior and delivering instructional
tained 9.6 (range ⫽ 6 –11) of 11 intervention prompts. Fantuzzo and Polite’s (1990) review
components (Fantuzzo & Polite, 1990). Studies found that these prompts were statistically more
carried out since March 1988 have used slightly likely to be managed by adults than by students.
fewer overall components (M ⫽ 7.6, range ⫽ However, in the current study, students were
4 –11). Surprisingly, in contrast to previous nearly always (93%) responsible for prompting
findings in which over 60% of self-management themselves to self-reflect, perhaps because of
interventions reviewed contained all 11 changes in technology (i.e., availability of elec-
SMIC–2 components (Fantuzzo & Polite, tronic timers). Furthermore, in the small number
1990), this occurred in only one study in the of studies (n ⫽ 6) that used ongoing data moni-
current review. In fact, only four of the compo- toring, students were always involved in the pro-
nents (i.e., selection of target behavior, defini- cess. Little to no change has occurred, however, in
tion of target behavior, observation of target terms of where the responsibility lies for selecting
behavior, and recording of target behavior) and defining target behavior. Students continue to
were consistently used across all 30 studies. In play an insignificant role, as the what and why of
contrast, the least frequently incorporated com- empirical self-management studies is most often
ponents included selection/administration of dictated by the researchers themselves.
primary reinforcers (47%, n ⫽ 14), administra- Effect size was calculated in the current review
tion of secondary reinforcers (40%, n ⫽ 12), by using two separate metrics (i.e., Cohen’s d and
and monitoring (20%, n ⫽ 6). Although nearly PND), each of which yielded slightly different
half (47%, n ⫽ 14) of interventions reviewed results. The mean effect size (ES) of 4.11 in the
did not involve an evaluation component, those current review was nearly twice as large as that
that did were divided in terms of the evaluative previously identified by Fantuzzo and Polite
standard utilized. The majority (50%, n ⫽ 8) (1990) for behavioral outcome variables
containing an evaluative component utilized a (ES ⫽ 2.30), therein indicating a very strong ef-
performance criterion (e.g., on task during 75% fect. In addition, the mean PND was 76.30%.
of intervals) in order to determine whether or Given that an intervention is considered to be
not students met goals and received any related highly effective with a PND value of 85% or
reinforcement. On the other hand, 31% (n ⫽ 5) above (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998), current
of these interventions administered reinforce- PND findings suggest a moderate intervention ef-
ment contingent on an accuracy criterion, or fect. Conservative interpretation based on both
how closely the student’s self-ratings matched data sources therefore suggests that self-manage-
those conducted by an adult. Three studies used ment was moderately effective at improving be-
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 2
112
Summary of Reviewed Studies
No. of Mean age, Disability Total no. of Total no. of SM Percentage of SM
Study boys/girls years status Setting Target behaviors componentsa componentsb components Effect sizec PND
Wolfe et al.
(2000) 4/0 9.00 LD Resource room On task 11 4 0.36 1.02 20.00
DiGangi et al.
(1991) 0/2 10.50 LD General education On task 10 6 0.60 3.03 100.00
Smith et al.
(1988) 3/1 14.00 BD, LD Resource room Off task, disruptive 10 6 0.60 ⫺3.29 89.25
Dalton Martella,
& Marchand-
Martella (1999) 2/0 14.60 LD General education Off task 10 4 0.40 ⫺7.44 100
Edwards et al.
(1995) 3/0 8.20 ADHD General education Attention to task 10 4 0.40 4.14 91.00
Hertz &
McLaughlin
(1990) 2/0 13.50 BD, LD Resource room On task 10 4 0.40 2.04 66.00
Smith & Sugai 1/0 13.00 EBD Special education On task, talk- outs, 10 4 0.40 ⫺1.14 88.00
(2000) keeping cool,
hand raising
Smith et al.
(1992) 8/0 10th grade BD/LD General education Off task 10 4 0.40 ⫺0.58 46.00
Dunlap et al.
(1995) 1/1 10.50 SED Special education Task engagement 10 3 0.30 1.94 96.00
Dunlap et al. 1/1 10.50 SED Special education Disruptive 10 3 0.30 82.50
BRIESCH AND CHAFOULEAS

⫺1.69
(1995) behavior
Maag, Rutherford,
& DiGangi
(1992) 4/2 9.40 LD General education On task 10 3 0.30 3.75 93.33
Barry & Messer
(2003) 5/0 12.00 ADHD General education Disruptive, on task 9 4 0.44 6.23 96.00
Prater et al. 4/1 14.90 LD, BD Special, general On task 9 4 0.44 2.47 84.60
(1991) education
Cavalier et al. 2/0 13.80 LD Special education Inappropriate 9 3 0.33 ⫺5.36 53.50
(1997) verbalizations
Hoff & DuPaul 1/1 9.00 At risk for General education Disruptive, 9 3 0.33 ⫺2.41 78.22
(1998) CD aggression
Moore et al. 3/0 8.00 None General education On task 8 6 0.75 2.85 94.33
(2001) specified
(table continues)
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 2 (Continued)
No. of Mean age, Disability Total no. of Total no. of SM Percentage of SM
Study boys/girls years status Setting Target behaviors componentsa componentsb components Effect sizec PND
Stewart &
McLaughlin
(1992) 1/0 15.00 BD Special education Off task 8 3 0.38 ⫺2.34 92.00
Shimabukuro et 3/0 12.40 LD, Special education On task 7 5 0.71 5.73 94.00
al. (1999) ADHD
Harris et al.
(1994) 3/1 10.70 LD Special education On task 6 4 0.67 3.81 92.00
Harris et al.
(2005) 5/1 4th grade ADHD General education On task 6 4 0.67 2.35 97.17
Wood et al. 2/2 13.00 None General education On task 6 3 0.50 3.73 85.67
(2002) specified
Amato-Zech et al. 2/1 11.00 SLD, SLI, Special education On task 5 3 0.67 1.86 66.33
(2006) EBD
Lam et al. (1994) 3/0 13.80 SED Special education On task, disruptive 5 3 0.60 OT: 0.62; OT: 10;
DB: 0.92 DB: 33.63
Levendoski &
Cartledge
(2000) 4/0 10.30 SED Special education On task 5 3 0.60 3.05 100.00
Lloyd et al. 3/2 10.10 SED/LD Special education On task, teacher– 5 3 0.60 4.12 99.00
(1989) pupil interaction
SELF-MANAGEMENT

Maag et al.
(1993) 5/1 10.40 LD General education On task 5 3 0.60 2.73 56.00
Mathes & Bender 3/0 10.10 BD, Resource room On task 5 3 0.60 5.93 100.00
(1997) ADHD
McDougall & 3/0 6.10 ED Special education On task, study 5 3 0.60 1.02 26.00
Brady (1995) behavior
Prater et al.
(1992) 1/0 14.00 LD/BD Resource room On task 5 3 0.60 35.98 100.00
Rooney et al.
(1988) 5/0 13.30 LD Special education On task 5 3 0.60 0.93 11.00
Wood et al. 3/1 13.80 None General education On task 4 2 0.50 7.09 100.00
(1998) specified
Note. SM ⫽ self management; PND ⫽ percentage nonoverlapping data; LD ⫽ learning disability; BD ⫽ behavior disorder; ADHD ⫽ attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; SED ⫽
serious emotional disturbance; CD ⫽ conduct disorder; SLD ⫽ specific learning disability; SLI ⫽ specific language impairment; EBD ⫽ emotional and/or behavioral disorder; OT ⫽
on-task; DB ⫽ disruptive behavior; ED ⫽ emotional disorder.
a
Total number of self-management components included. b Total number of components primarily self-managed. c Negative effect size values indicate decrease in undesired
behaviors (e.g., off task or disruptive behavior).
113
 114 BRIESCH AND CHAFOULEAS

Table 3
Comparison of Key Findings
Fantuzzo, Rohrbeck, &
Variable Azar (1987) Fantuzzo and Polite (1990) Current investigation
Average number of
intervention
components 8.80a 9.60 (range ⫽ 6–11) 7.60 (range ⫽ 4–11)
Average percentage of
self-managed
intervention
components 46% (range ⫽ 11–70a) 40% (range ⫽ 9–73) 51% (range ⫽ 30–5)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Average effect size nsb 2.30 (range ⫽ 0.56–5.22)a 4.11 (range ⫽ 0.58–35.98)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Components most Observation, recording, Observation, evaluation, Instructional prompt,

frequently student administration of administration of primary observation, recording,
managed secondary reinforcers reinforcers monitoring
Components most Identification, definition, Identification, definition, monitoring, Identification, definition,
frequently adult goal, administration goal, instructional prompt administration of
managed of primary reinforcers primary and secondary
reinforcers
a b
Note. Computed from data provided in tables. Data not provided in study.

havior. No statistically significant differences in may not have been representative of the larger
effect sizes were found on the basis of the disabil- literature base.
ity status of the target students or behavior or of
the intervention setting. Limitations
Whereas previous investigations (Fantuzzo et
al., 1988, Fantuzzo and Polite, 1990) identified Although the current review provides a
highly significant (r ⫽ .56 –.74) relationships be- timely update to the literature on self-manage-
tween the degree of student management and the ment interventions, limitations are worth not-
size of the intervention effect, such results were ing. First, several studies were excluded from
not replicated. In fact, the relationship between the review, given that more than one intervention
proportion of self-managed components and over- was in place. Examples included studies in
all intervention effect size was weak (r ⫽ .13). which both self-management and social skills
Several potential explanations exist for this ob- training (e.g., Peterson, Young, Salzberg, West,
served discrepancy. First, an overall restriction of & Hill, 2006) were implemented, as well as
variance was observed in the current review with both self-management and peer tutoring (e.g.,
regard to degree of self-management. For exam- Hogan & Prater, 1993). Second, concerns have
ple, one third of the studies were found to be 60% been raised regarding the use of effect size
self-managed, which is likely to have significantly metrics originally intended for use in group
attenuated the observed correlation. Second, given designs. For instance, autocorrelations in sin-
that the 1990 review included both academic and gle-participant data may serve to artificially in-
behavioral variables, it may be that the relation- flate effect size estimates (Jenson, Clark, &
ship between degree of self-management and Kircher, 2007). In addition, given that the effect
treatment effectiveness is stronger for academic sizes obtained from single-participant data are
than for social behaviors. Insufficient information often much higher than are those obtained from
was provided in the Fantuzzo (1987, 1990) stud- group designs, it can be difficult to meaning-
ies, however, to facilitate separate analyses for the fully interpret results. As validation of effect
two types of dependent variables. Third, although size metrics appropriate for single case designs
Fantuzzo and Polite (1990) included a total of 42 becomes available, it may be relevant to recon-
articles in their review, effect sizes were provided sider the current findings. Third, the current
for only 24 of these studies because of insufficient review was limited to studies targeting behav-
data. Given that correlational information pro- ioral variables and therefore did not include the
vided was based on only a subset of the data, it myriad of studies aimed to increase task com-
 SELF-MANAGEMENT 115

pletion and accuracy. Results may vary depend- quently enough to justify conclusions regarding
ing on the type of outcome variable chosen; value. Most notably, despite emphasis on the im-
thus, generalization of findings is discouraged. portance of personal goal setting and monitoring
within the clinical literature on self-regulation
Implications for Research and Practice (e.g., Kanfer & Gaelik-Buys, 1991), these compo-
nents have played a minimal role in school-based
Results lend further support to previous find- research. When behavioral goals were included in
ings that self-management is an effective interven- the current review, they were predominately set by
tion strategy with utility noted across setting and adults, and behavior was monitored over time in
populations. Despite continued popularity within only 20% of studies. Thus, additional investiga-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the literature, clear recommendations regarding tions need to be conducted in which these com-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

how these interventions should be structured still ponents play a larger role.
have not emerged. Current findings suggest that Third, methodological weaknesses within the
this general class of interventions varies in mean- extant literature on self-management limit the
ingful ways; however, the common foundation generalizations that can be made. One concern
among all of the studies reviewed was that a target is that less than one third (n ⫽ 7) of studies
behavior was both identified by and defined by an included an evaluation of treatment integrity,
adult (e.g., teacher or researcher) and that this thus raising questions as to whether intervention
behavior was then observed and recorded by the procedures were carried out as planned. This
student. Self-observation and recording appear to finding is of concern, given that the average
be the cornerstones of self-management interven- effect size for those studies that assessed treat-
tions, thereby suggesting a consensus that students ment integrity was lower than the effect size
must, at a minimum, observe and record pre- identified overall (ES ⫽ 2.23, PND ⫽ 51.98).
defined behaviors in order for an intervention to Assessment of social validity is another area of
be considered “self-managed.” Future researchers concern, in that less than half (40%) of the
are encouraged to consider these findings when studies reviewed specifically inquired as to
presenting clear definitions of self-management whether either the teachers or the students ac-
terminology. cepted self-management as a classroom inter-
For three primary reasons, strong conclusions vention strategy. Given the fact that widespread
cannot yet be drawn with regard to incorpora- use of self-management has not historically
tion of the remaining intervention components. been identified in school settings (Cole & Bam-
First, given the widespread use of self- bara, 1992), it appears that any potential barriers
management intervention packages, it is impos- to implementation, including acceptability,
sible to sort out the effect of particular compo- should be more thoroughly investigated in fu-
nents. For example, in the current review of 30 ture research. Furthermore, variability in the
studies, 16 different intervention configurations quality of research designs was identified,
(e.g., which components were included and thereby limiting comparisons that can be made
self-managed) were identified. The most consis- across studies. Although all studies were pub-
tently utilized (n ⫽ 9) intervention package in lished in peer-reviewed journals, decision rules
the current review did not incorporate reinforce- for phase changes (e.g., time based and stability
ment but involved two adult-directed compo- of data) and the number of data points collected
nents (identification and definition) and three varied. It is important that future investigations
student-directed components (instructional address both treatment integrity and design
prompt, observation, and recording). Results for quality in order to validate that the intervention
this configuration were mixed, however, with itself is responsible for changes in behavior.
effect sizes ranging from 0.62 to 35.98. In order In addition, high reliance on teacher manage-
to answer questions about the critical composi- ment has been sustained over the past two decades
tion of self-management interventions, future despite reference to the approach as “self-
researchers must more systematically manipu- management.” This confusion may be attributed,
late the presence and management responsibil- in part, to conflicting literature with regard to
ity of individual components. whether or not shifting greater responsibility to
A second limiting factor is that particular inter- the student results in stronger effect sizes. De-
vention components have not been used fre- spite 40 years of research, it appears that more
 116 BRIESCH AND CHAFOULEAS

is needed in order to draw more specific con- Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., Jackson, M., Wright, S.,
clusions about particular intervention manifes- Ramos, E., & Brinson, J. (1995). Self-monitoring
tations, as well as to bring consensus regarding of classroom behaviors with students exhibiting
best practice recommendations for use. emotional and behavioral challenges. School Psy-
chology Quarterly, 10, 165–177.
Edwards, L., Salant, V., Howard, V. F., et al. (1995).
References Effectiveness of self-management on attentional
behavior and reading comprehension for children
Amato Zech, N. A., Hoff, K. E., & Doepke, K. J. with attention deficit disorder. Child & Family
(2006). Increasing on-task behavior in the class- Behavior Therapy, 17, 1–17.
room: Extension of self-monitoring strategies. Fantuzzo, J. W., & Polite, K. (1990). School-based,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Psychology in the Schools, 43, 211–221. behavioral self-management: A review and analy-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Ardoin, S. P., & Martens, B. K. (2004). Training sis. School Psychology Quarterly, 5, 180 –198.
children to make accurate self-evaluations: Effects Fantuzzo, J. W., Polite, K., Cook, D. M., & Quinn, G.
on behavior and the quality of self-ratings. Journal (1988). An evaluation of the effectiveness of
of Behavioral Education, 13, 1–23. teacher- vs. student-management classroom inter-
Bahr, M. W., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Fernstrom, P. ventions. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 154 –163.
(1993). Effectiveness of student versus teacher Fantuzzo, J. W., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Azar, S. T.
monitoring during prereferral intervention. Excep- (1987). A component analysis of behavioral self-
tionality, 4, 17–30. management interventions with elementary school
Barry, L. M., & Messer, J. J. (2003). A Practical students. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 9,
Application of Self-Management for Students Di- 33– 43.
agnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Dis- Geomatix. (2007). XY digitizer. Retrieved from
order. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven- [Link]
tions, 5, 238 –248. Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (1999). Excellence in
Bolstad, O. D., & Johnson, S. M. (1972). Self- teaching: Review of instructional and environmen-
regulation in the modification of disruptive class- tal variables. In C. Reynolds & T. Gutkin (Eds.),
room behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal- The handbook of school psychology (Vol. 3, pp.
ysis, 5, 443– 454. 383– 409). New York: Wiley.
Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for Greenwood, C. R., Terry, B., Marquis, J., & Walker,
single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. D. (1994). Confirming a performance-based in-
Levin (Eds.), Single case research design and structional model. School Psychology Review, 23,
analysis: New directions for psychology and edu-
652– 668.
cation (pp. 187–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gross, A. M., & Wojnilower, D. A. (1984). Self-
Cavalier, A. R., Ferretti, R. P., & Hodges, A. E.
directed behavior change in children: Is it self-
(1997). Self-management within a classroom to-
directed? Behavior Therapy, 15, 501–514.
ken economy for students with learning disabili-
Harris, K. R., Friedlander, B. D., & Saddler, B.
ties. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18,
167–178. (2005). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-
Cole, C. L., & Bambara, L. M. (1992). Issues sur- monitoring of academic performance: Effects
rounding the use of self-management interventions among students with ADHD in the general educa-
in schools. School Psychology Review, 21, 193– tion classroom. Journal of Special Education, 39,
201. 145–156.
Cole, C. L., & Bambara, L. M. (2000). Self- Harris, K. R., & Graham, S., Reid, R., McElroy, K.,
monitoring: Theory and practice. In E. S. Shapiro & Hamby, R. S. (1994). Self-monitoring of atten-
& T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment tion versus self-monitoring of performance: Rep-
in schools: Theory, research, and clinical founda- lication and cross-task comparison studies. Learn-
tions (2nd ed., pp. 202–232). New York: Guilford ing Disability Quarterly, 17, 121–139.
Press. Hertz, V., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1990). Self-
Dalton, T. D., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, recording: Effects for on-task behavior of mildly
N. E. (1999). The effects of a self-management handicapped adolescents. Child & Family Behav-
program in reducing off-task behavior. Journal of ior Therapy, 12, 1–11.
Behavioral Education, 9, 157–176. Hoff, K. E., & DuPaul, G. J. (1998). Reducing dis-
DiGangi, S. A., Maag, J. W., & Rutherford, R. B. ruptive behavior in general education classrooms:
(1991). Self-graphing of on-task behavior: En- The use of self-management strategies. School
hancing the reactive effects of self-monitoring on Psychology Review, 27, 290 –303.
on-task behavior and academic performance. Hogan, S., & Prater, M. A. (1993). The effects of
Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 221–230. peer tutoring and self-management training on on-
 SELF-MANAGEMENT 117

task, academic, and disruptive behaviors. Behav- ders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 203–
ioral Disorders, 18, 118 –128. 221.
Jenson, W. R., Clark, E., & Kircher, J. C. (2007). Moore, D. W., Prebble, S., Robertson, J., Waetford,
Statistical reform: Evidence-based practice, meta- R., & Anderson, A. (2001). Self-recording with
analyses, and single-subject designs. Psychology goal setting: A self-management programme for
in the Schools, 44, 483– 493. the classroom. Educational Psychology, 21, 255–
Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelik-Buys, L. (1991). Self- 265.
management methods. In F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Peterson, L. D., Young, K. R., Salzberg, C. L., West,
Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change: A text- R. P., & Hill, M. (2006). Using self-management
book of methods (4th ed., pp. 305–360). New procedures to improve classroom social skills in
York: Pergamon Press. multiple general education settings. Education and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Kratochwill, T. K., Stoiber, K. C., Christenson, S., Treatment of Children, 29, 1–21.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Durlak, J., Levin, J. R., Talley, R., et al. (2002). In Prater, M. A., & Hogan, S., & Miller, S. R. (1992).
T. R. Kratochwill & K. C. Stoiber (Eds.), Proce- Using self-monitoring to improve on-task be-
dural and coding manual for review of evidence- havior and academic skills of an adolescent with
based interventions. Task force on the Evidence mild handicaps across special and regular edu-
Based Interventions in School Psychology, Spon- cation settings. Education & Treatment of Chil-
sored by Division 16 of the American Psycholog- dren, 15, 43–55.
ical Association and Society for the Study of Psy- Prater, M. A., Joy, R., & Chilman, B. (1991). Self-
chology. monitoring of on-task behavior by adolescents
Lam, A. L., Cole, C. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1994). with learning disabilities. Learning Disability
Relative effects of self monitoring on task- Quarterly, 14, 164 –177.
behavior, academic accuracy, and disruptive be- Rooney, K. J., & Hallahan, D. P. (1988). The effects
havior in students with behavior disorders. School of self-monitoring on adult behavior and student
Psychology Review, 23, 44 –58. independence. Learning Disabilities Research, 3,
Levendoski, L. S., & Cartledge, G. (2000). Self- 88 –93.
monitoring for elementary school children with Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Sum-
serious emotional disturbances: Classroom appli- marizing single-subject research: Issues and appli-
cations for increased academic responding. Behav- cations. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.
ioral Disorders, 25, 211–224. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G.
Lloyd, J. W., Bateman, D. F., Landrum, T. J., & (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-
Hallahan, D. P. (1989). Self-recording of attention subject research: Methodology and validation. Re-
versus productivity. Journal of Applied Behavior medial and Special Education, 8, 24 –33.
Analysis, 22, 315–323. Shapiro, E. S., & Cole, C. L. (1994). Behavior
Maag, J. W., Reid, R., & DiGangi, S. A. (1993). Changes in the Classroom: Self-management in-
Differential effects of self-monitoring attention, terventions. New York: Guilford.
accuracy, and productivity. Journal of Applied Be- Shimabukuro, S. M., Prater, M. A., Jenkins, A., &
havior Analysis, 26, 329 –344. Edelen-Smith, P. (1999). The effects of self-
Maag, J. W., Rutherford, R. B., & DiGangi, S. A. monitoring of academic performance on students
(1992). Effects of self-monitoring and contingent with learning disabilities and ADD/ADHD. Edu-
reinforcement on on-task behavior and academic pro- cation and Treatment of Children, 22, 397– 414.
ductivity of learning-disabled students: A social val- Smith, B. W., & Sugai, G. (2000). A self-manage-
idation study. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 157– ment functional assessment-based behavior sup-
172. port plan for a middle school student with EBD.
Mathes, M. Y., & Bender, W. N. (1997). The effects Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2,
of self-monitoring on children with attention def- 208 –217.
icit/hyperactivity disorder who are receiving phar- Smith, D. J., Young, K. R., Nelson, J. R., & West,
macological interventions. Remedial and Special R. P. (1992). The effect of a self-management
Education, 18, 121–128. procedure on the classroom and academic behavior
McDougall, D., & Brady, M. P. (1995). Using audio- of students with mild handicaps. School Psychol-
cued self-monitoring for students with severe be- ogy Review, 21, 59 –72.
havior disorders. Journal of Educational Re- Smith, D. J., Young, K. R., & West, R. P. (1988).
search, 88, 309 –317. Reducing the disruptive behavior of junior high
Mooney, P., Ryan, J. B., Uhing, B. M., Reid, R., & school students: A classroom self-management
Epstein, M. H. (2005). A review of self-manage- procedure. Behavioral Disorders, 13, 231–239.
ment interventions targeting academic outcomes Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis
for students with emotional and behavioral disor- of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom
 118 BRIESCH AND CHAFOULEAS

behavior in public education settings. School Psy- Wolfe, L. H., Heron, T. E., & Goddard, Y. L. (2000).
chology Review, 26, 333–368. Effects of self-monitoring on the on-task behavior
Stevenson, H. C., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1986). The and written language performance of elementary
generality and social validity of a competency- students with learning disabilities. Journal of Be-
based self-control training intervention for under- havioral Education, 10, 49 –73.
achieving students. Journal of Applied Behavior Wood, S. J., Murdock, J. Y., & Cronin, M. E. (2002).
Analysis, 19, 269 –276. Self-monitoring and at-risk middle school stu-
Stewart, K. G., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1992). Self- dents: Academic performance improves, main-
recording: Effects of reducing off-task behavior tains, and generalizes. Behavior Modification, 26,
with a high school student with an attention deficit 605– 626.
hyperactivity disorder. Child & Family Behavior Wood, S. J., Murdock, J. Y., Cronin, M. E., Dawson,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Therapy, 14, 53–59. N. M., & Kirby, P. C. (1998). Effects of self-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Thomas, J. W. (1980). Agency and achievement: monitoring on on-task behaviors of at-risk middle
Self-management and self-regard. Review of Edu- school students. Journal of Behavioral Educa-
cational Research, 50, 213–240. tion, 8, 263–279.
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M.
(2003). Heading off disruptive behavior: How
early intervention can reduce defiant behavior—
and win back teaching time. American Education. Received July 14, 2008
AFT Publications. American Educator, Winter Revision received February 10, 2009
(2003/2004) pp. 6 –15, 18 –21, 45. Accepted February 26, 2009 䡲