Professional Documents
Culture Documents
59-77
59
1053-0819/91/0300-0059506.50/0 9 1991 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
60
INTRODUCTION
Ecobehavioral analysis is a recent development within the field of applied behavior analysis. It combines the ecological psychologists' concern
with the broader aspects of the environment or habitat (e.g., Barker, 1968;
Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1977) with the applied behavior analysts'
strategies of behavioral assessment (Nelson & Hayes, 1979) and experimental design (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; 1987).
A hallmark of applied behavior analysis has been the continuous assessment of a single subject's behavior and the ability to monitor the effects
on this behavior of various environmental manipulations designed to influence it. Ecobehavioral analysis represents an expansion in this ability to
also include ecological factors. While inclusion of ecological variables is
not a new idea in behavior analysis (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968), only
recently have ecobehavioral assessment protocols emerged that enable
measurement of both behavior and ecological factors, such as physical arrangements, materials, and teacher behaviors (e.g., Greenwood et at., 1981;
Carta, Greenwood, & Atwater, 1985; Repp & Deitz, 1990; Stanley &
Greenwood, 1983).
The goal of ecobehavioral assessment is to display the covariation of
and dependencies between behavior and its ecological contexts, both past
and present. This display has been described as ecobehavioral interaction
(Greenwood, Delquadri, Stanley, Terry, & Hall, 1985), antecedent,
response, consequence (ABC) analysis (Bijou et al., 1968), teacher-student
interaction (Brophy, 1979) and social interaction analysis (Patterson, 1982).
The goal of ecobehavioral analysis', like behavior analysis, is the determination of functional relationships between independent and dependent variables. However, the assessment of ecological factors greatly extends the
power of such analysis. Rather than ruling out the effects of contextual
factors as in traditional behavioral assessment and analysis (Foster & Cone,
1980), in ecobehavioral assessment, contextual factors are represented in
the data record and in the research design.
The resulting advantage of ecobehavioral assessment over traditional
behavior assessment methods is that behavior may be analyzed in terms of
either major and/or minor sets of independent or contextual variables; that
is, those reflecting a treatment (or a treatment component) and/or those
reflecting the contextual factors related to a treatment (or a treatment component). In classrooms, for example, the success and viability of an intervention depends on a clear identification of the contextual factors that
support or interfere with its effective implementation. Thus, the traditional
questions about behavior change effectiveness may be answered and, additionally, questions concerning the structure, quality, and quantity of treat-
Ecobehavioral Analysis
61
62
The interaction between the child and environment is continuous, reciprocal, and
interdependent. We cannot analyze a child without reference to an environment,
nor is it possible to analyze an environmentwithout reference to a child. The two
form an inseparable unit consistingof an interrelated set of variables, or an interactional field. (p. 29)
To date, the majority of successful intervention procedures, including
current classroom behavior management strategies (e.g., Rusch, Rose, &
Greenwood, 1988), have focused on the analysis of the immediately present
and past classroom environment on behavior; that is, within the three-term
contingency (e.g., the antecedent, response, and consequence). While the
use of delayed consequences, for example, has been shown to be effective
(Rusch et al., 1988), basic behavior analysis texts teach the fundamental
wisdom of either reinforcing or punishing a behavior immediately following
its occurrence and in the presence of its controlling stimulus(i).
Recently, however, efforts have emerged to expand the scope and
breadth of functional events in behavior analysis (Wahler & Fox, 1981; Willems, 1974; 1977). Research has emerged addressing the effects of events
more distant in time than just immediately before or after a response has
occurred. These events, termed setting events, are events that are thought
to impact the operation of the three-term antecedent, response, consequence contingency (e.g., Morris & Midgley, 1990). Setting events have been
investigated in analyses of parent-child interactions (Patterson, 1982; Karpowitz & Johnson, 1981, Hart & Risley, 1989), regular classroom instruction
(Greenwood, Carta, Kamps, & Arreaga-Mayer, 1990), early intervention
(Carta, Sainato, & Greenwood, 1988), special education (Rotholz, Kamps,
& Greenwood, 1989), severe aberrant behavior (e.g., Repp & Dietz, 1990),
supported employment (Chadsey-Rusch, 1985), and residential treatment
(Clark, Inchinose, & Naiman, 1990; Reese & Leder, 1990).
Ecobehavioral assessment and analysis is a logical attempt to operationalize the interaction between behavior and environment such that both
past and present environmental events may be considered within an experimental analysis of behavior. In ecobehavioral assessment, as compared to
traditional behavioral assessment, student behavior is assessed in relationship
to events such as the classroom setting, the subject of instruction, the
materials being used, and the teacher's behavior directed toward the student.
In ecobehavioral analysis, the temporal relationships between ecological and
student behavior variables, and not just the rate of behavior, are the units of
analysis for predicting or manipulating student outcomes, such as developmental or academic achievement gains (Carta & Greenwood, 1985; 1987).
The advantages of this expansion within behavior analysis appear to
be several but remain to be demonstrated fully. First, in the area of assessment, ecobehavioral measures offer the user the ability to describe a
Ecobehavioral Analysis
63
behavior and its immediate and subsequent situational events. If these data
records are extensive, spanning several hours, days, or weeks, they also lend
themselves to the study of environmental effects distant in time from a
particular target response (e.g., Wahler & Fox, 1981). For an individual's
performance that is problematic or less than optimal, the ability to assess
its situational context presents the opportunity to form "empirical"
hypotheses about controlling relationships that may be tested for function
(e.g., Bijou et al., 1968). In fact, these data may suggest the most direct
and effective forms of treatment (Patterson, 1974).
Second, the use of ecobehavioral assessment within experimental
studies of behavior can document important features of the independent
variable, and allow quantitative comparisons of structural differences in the
independent variable(s) between baseline and experimental phases. Third,
the use of ecobehavioral assessment within experimental studies increases
the ability to explain changes in behavior that emerge, and also variability
in this change, in terms of immediate or distal situational events. As envisioned by Bijou et al. (1968), the interrelationship between descriptive
and experimental data when integrated by way of an objective measure,
such as ecobehavioral assessment, is as follows:
Ecological psychologistscould show in terms of frequencyof events, the practices
of a culture, subculture, or an institutional activityof a subculture; experimental
investigators workingwith the same data, terms, and empirical concepts would attempt to demonstrate the conditions and processes which establish and maintain
the interrelationships observed. (p. 176)
When applied to a problem such as school failure by children from poverty
(e.g., Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Bernick, 1986; Levin,
1986; Smith & Lincoln, 1988), descriptive data describing the ecological
features of classroom practices may reveal important differences between
poverty versus nonpoverty students in these practices and their effects on
students' behavior. Alternatively, experimental data documenting the
ecobehavioral features of practices that increase achievement and reduce
failure for children of poverty may suggest procedures that may be applied
to the education of all children. Thus, ecobehavioral analysis offers education a powerful, expanded process measure for the study of the delivery
of teaching and its effects on students, including the causes of academic
success and failure.
64
educational settings (e.g., Copper & Speece, 1990; Carta & Greenwood,
1985; Greenwood, Schulte, Dinwiddie, Kohler, & Carta, 1986; Greenwood,
Carta, Kamps, Arreaga-Mayer, 1990; Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Christenson, &
Weiss, 1987). We also have traced the evolution in research conducted over
time within a poverty-level community, including the community's public
schools. Initially this work was based on a standard behavior analysis
paradigm, but it has developed into an ecobehavioral analysis as questions
regarding the causes and the solutions to academic delay, retardation, and
school failure have remained unanswered (Greenwood, Carta, Hart,
Thurston, & Hall, 1989; Kamps, Carta, Delquadri, Arreaga-Mayer, Terry,
& Greenwood, 1989).
For example, after years of concentrating our efforts on improving
behavior management methods in the classroom by reorganizing classroom
environments in specific ways (e.g., behavior-specific rules, contingencies,
training social agents, including peers, etc.), it became clear that we had
little data on the reasons that some teachers were less successful in their
efforts to teach at-risk students in regular and special education classrooms (Hall, Delquadri, Greenwood, & Thurston, 1982). We knew that
children of poverty were academically delayed as early as kindergarten
and first grade and that, as a group, they performed at about the 20th
percentile on tests of academic achievement, rarely achieving normative
levels of performance during their early years in school (e.g., Becker,
1977). We concluded that a larger impact that would prevent or remediate
this problem might be possible if interventions were implemented early
and if they were designed to better address the classroom causes of
academic delay. Thus, our research focus changed from addressing the
specific, immediate needs of individual teachers and individual behaviors,
or training teachers to apply the general principles of behavior, to one of
systematic, longitudinal description and intervention (Greenwood, Carta,
Hart, Thurston, & Hall, 1989). We sought to develop the link between
descriptive and experimental data described by Bijou and by Patterson as
it related to the instruction provided students, its immediate effect on
students' academic behavior in the classroom, and its more distal impact
on students' academic development over significant periods of time in
school.
To date, this effort has led to the development of four ecobehavioral observation systems for use in classroom settings. These systems,
the Code for Instructional Structure and Student Academic Response (CISSAR) (e.g., Stanley & Greenwood, 1981; Greenwood & Delquadri, 1988),
the Code for Instructional Structure and Student Academic ResponseMainstream Version (MS-CISSAR) (Carta, Greenwood, Schulte, ArreagaMayer, & Terry, 1988), the Ecobehavioral System for Complex Assessment
Ecobehavioral Analysis
65
INSTRUCTION
Descriptive Data
Our earliest studies sought to account for the less than optimal performance of low-SES, low-achieving students in terms of both their daily
academic behavior and its instructional ecology. Our approach was to
66
Instructional
Instructional Practices
.........
......
Promoting High L e v e l s
of Acidemlr
Relponcllng
Interaction
~ _ ~ C ur r iculum-Based~
[.
~i
Measures
Practices
ii
..........
......
t andardized
chievement
Measures
Ecobehavioral Analysis
67
Ecobehavioral Contribution
In the absence of ecobehavioral comparison between high- versus lowSES students, an empirical link between low-achievement and instruction
and its effects on students' academic behavior could not have been made.
And, as has traditionally been the case, the problem of low-achievement
would continue to be attributed to other, largely nonempirical, nonalterable
factors (e.g., Carta, in press). For example, up to 1978 behavior analysis
had demonstrated the effectiveness of the principles of behavior in the
classroom (e.g., Hall, Lund, & Jackson, 1968; Walker & Buckley, 1968)
and a number of effective instructional practices had developed, including
Direct Instruction (e.g., Becker, 1977), Precision Teaching (White & Liberty,
1976), and Personalized Systems of Instruction (Keller, 1968). However, it
had not led to an understanding of the home, community, and school
mechanisms (e.g., situations/student behavior interactions) that led to the
persistent problems of academic delay and school failure encountered by
Iow-SES students. Behavior analysis had demonstrated how to fix the
68
problems but had not yet contributed to understanding how or why the
problems emerged.
Ecobehavioral Analysis
69
Ecobehavioral Contribution
70
As described, initial development of CWPT benefited from the conceptual and empirical integration of the findings from the earlier descriptive research and subsequent single-subject experimental research very
much in the way envisioned by Bijou et al. (1968). However, because
these data did not include standard measures of achievement and did
not cover significant periods of schooling, they were not sufficient in
scope to address the original problem of academic delay and its causes,
remediation, and prevention. Thus, during the 1982-87 school years, we
conducted a controlled field trial that included a group of Iow-SES students, whose teachers employed CWPT in grades 1, 2, 3, and 4, who
were compared to two control groups (low- and high-SES), whose
teachers employed conventional instruction. Included in the overall
design (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989) were repeated measures
on standardized achievement, curriculum-based achievement measures,
ecobehavioral observations, and measures of treatment fidelity.
Results of this four-year study replicated prior findings and extended them to standardized achievement measures over a period spanning four years of public schooling. It also confirmed our original
hypotheses about instructional risks for students and the relative power
of CWPT in mitigating these risks (Carta & Greenwood, 1988; Greenwood, in press a). For example, at second grade, the p r e d i c t e d
ecobehavioral differences between the low- versus high-SES conventional
instruction groups emerged and then widened in subsequent grades,
replicating findings in our original descriptive study at fourth grade
(Greenwood, Delquadri et al., 1981). Additionally significant was the observation that CWPT resulted in ecobehavioral processes and academic
outcomes more equivalent to those obtained in the high-SES group than
those in the low-SES control group. Moreover, in a sixth-grade follow-up,
we reported that 9% fewer low-SES students (whose teachers had used
Ecobehavioral Analysis
71
CWPT) were eventually placed into special education programs for learning disabilities or mental retardation compared to the Iow-SES control
group (Greenwood, in press b). Thus, it was demonstrated that sustained
and systematic use of CWPT removed specific instructional risks for lowSES students and produced significant, socially important gains in
academic achievement.
Ecobehavioral Contribution
In the absence of these data and findings, it would not have been
possible to confirm the link between ecobehavioral features of instruction
and delayed academic development at the elementary school level. In particular, it (a) provided a means for assessing and evaluating classroom instruction, (b) led to an analysis of what features of the instructional ecology
were critical to desired behavioral and eventual outcome effects, (c) contributed to an ecobehavioral theory of instructional risk and academic
delay, and (d) provided a number of plausible directions for designing and
testing new instructional practices.
72
instruction and use of reading texts, in which oral reading or silent reading
responses might be expected to occur.
Ecobehavioral analysis supports the experimental analysis of complex
instructional environments (e.g., contextual arrangements of variables) in
addition to specific procedural components (e.g., use of teacher instructions). It supports the notion that instruction must be evaluated in terms
of both the efforts made to teach and their immediate and long-term effects
on students' performance.
Only recently has an ecobehavioral technology emerged for use by
school personnel in the regular education classroom. Foremost has been
ecobehavioral observational methods. One promising approach is the
ecobehavioral matrix. For example, Touchette, MacDonald, and Langer
(1985) used this approach as a means of relating the frequency of certain
behavior problems (recorded across one dimension of the matrix) to particular hours of the day (recorded across the other dimension of the
matrix). A similar matrix procedure also has been used to record the
joint occurrences of specifically defined ecological events (e.g., instructional materials) and student's behavior (Greenwood & Carta, 1988).
This method generates data on the frequency of ecological and behavioral event co-occurrences, rather than only the frequency of behavioral events, that could be used by classroom teachers as a basis for
planning interventions.
Teachers in regular education classrooms may use such data to identify the instructional conditions most related to desired academic behaviors
and the conditions that interfere with these behaviors. These data then may
be used to support modifications that represent progress toward specific
instructional goals (Greenwood, Delquadri et al., 1985). An ecobehavioral
technology for use by applied personnel (e.g., classroom teachers) is clearly
an area in need of future research and development.
Equally relevant are the newly emerging intervention procedures and
methods based on ecobehavioral research. For example, CWPT (Berliner,
1990; Shapiro, 1988), classroom survival skills interventions (e.g., Carta, Atwater et al., in press) and functional communication training (Carr &
Durand, 1985) may be employed by classroom teachers to increase instructional effectiveness and reduce classroom behavior problems.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have made a case for the relevance of ecobehavioral
analysis to the improvement of classroom instruction and behavior management, including increasing students' academic outcomes. We noted that be-
Ecobehavioral Analysis
73
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded by grants from the National Institute of Health
and Human Development (HD 03144) and from the Office of Special
Education Programs and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of
E d u c a t i o n (G008730254; G008730085; G008730080; G008630226;
G00860071; G008400654; G008300067; and H024J80003). The authors
would like to acknowledge the pioneering work of Sidney B i j o u - i n particular, his clear appreciation for the importance of integrating descriptive
74
and experimental data. This work is dedicated to the families and children
of the Kansas City metropolitan area.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation
of readers: The report of the Commission on reading. Champaign, IL: The Center for the
Study of Reading.
Atwater, J. B., Carta, J. J., & Schwartz, I. (1989). Assessment Code~Checklist for Evaluating
Survival Skills: (ACCESS). Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau
of Child Research, University of Kansas.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1987). Some still current dimensions of applied
behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 313-327.
Barker, R. G., (1963). The stream of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Barker, R. G., (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Becker, W. C. (1977). What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review,
47, 518-543.
Berliner, D. C. (1988). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In E. L. Meyen,
G. A. Vergason, and R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Effective instructional strategies for exceptional
children (pp. 7-31). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.
Berliner, D. C., (1990). The case for peer tutoring: Research. Instructot; 99, 16-17.
Bernick, M. (1986). Illiteracy and inner-city unemployment. Phi Delta Kappan, January, 364367.
Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Behavior analysis of child development. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method of integrating descriptive and
experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 1, 175-191.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,
733-750.
Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communications training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.
Carta, J. J. (in press). Education for young children in inner-city classrooms. In T. Thompson,
& S. Hupp (Eds.), Return us the children: Prevention and early intervention in developmental
disabilities. New York: Sage.
Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. B., Schwartz, I. S., & Miller, P. A., (in press). Applications of
ecobehavioral analysis to the study of transitions across early education settings. Education
Ecobehavioral Analysis
75
Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Atwater, J. (1985). Ecobehavioral system for the complex
assessment of preschool environments: ESCAPE. Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens
Childrens' Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas. ERIC (ED 288 268)
(EC 200 587).
Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., & Robinson, S. L. (1987). Application of an ecobehavioral
approach to the evaluation of early intervention programs. In R. Prinz (Ed.), Advances
in the behavioral assessment of children and families (Vol. 3), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., Schulte, D., Arreaga-Mayer, & Terry, B. (1988). Code for
instructional structure and student academic response: Mainstream version (MS-CISSAR).
Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University
of Kansas.
Carta, J. J , Sainato, D. M, & Greenwood, C. R. (1988). Advances in the ecological assessment
of classroom instruction for young children with handicaps. In S. L. Odom & M. B.
Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps (pp. 217-239).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Chadsey-Rusch, J. C. (1985). Community integration and mental retardation: The
ecobehavioral approach to service provision and assessment. In R. H. Bruininks & K. C.
Lakin (Eds.), Living and leamhTg hi the least restrictive environment (pp. 245-260). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Clark, H. B., Inchinose, C. K., & Naiman, D. E. (1990). Ecobehavioral engineering: Considerations in designing and organizing residential and day treatment programs. In S.
Schroeder (Ed.), Ecobehavioral analysis and developmental disabilities: The twenty-first century (pp. 94-104). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Cooper, D. H., & Speece, D. L. (1990). Instructional correlates of students' academic responses: Comparisons between at-risk and control students. Early Education and Development,
4, 279-299.
Delquadri, J. C. (1978). An analysis of the generalization effects of four tutoring procedures on
the oral reading responses of eight learning disability children. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Human Development and Family Life, University of Kansas.
Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R. V. (1983). The peer tutoring game:
A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling performance.
Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 225-239.
Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J., & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwide
peer tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52, 535-542.
Fawcett, S., Mathews, R. M., & Fletcher, R. K. (1980). Some promising dimensions for behavioral community technology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, L3, 505-518.
Foster, S. L., & Cone, J. D. (1980). Current issues in direct observation. BehavioralAssessment,
2, 313-338.
Greenwood, C. R. (in press a). A longitudinal analysis of time to learn, engagement, and
academic achievement in urban versus suburban schools. Exceptional Children.
Greenwood, C. R. (in press b). Classwide peer tutoring: Longitudinal effects on the reading,
language, and mathematics achievement of at-risk students. Reading, Writing, and Learning
Disabilities International.
Greenwood, C. R., & Carta, J. J. (1988). An ecobehavioral interaction analysis of instruction
within special education. In E. L: Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Effective instructional strategies for exceptional children (pp. 505-521). Denver, CO: Love
Publishing Co.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. V. (1988). The use of tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction. School Psychology Review, 258-275.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Kamps, D. (1990). Teacher-mediated versus peer-mediated
instruction: A review of advantages and disadvantages. In H. C. Foot, M. J. Morgan, &
R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 177-206). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
76
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Hart, B., Thurston, L., & Hall, R. V. (1989). A behavioral
approach to research on psychosocial retardation. Education and Treatment of Children,
12, 330-346.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Kamps. D., & Arreaga-Mayer, C. (1990). Ecobehavioral
analysis of classroom instruction. In S. Schroeder (Ed.), Ecobehavioral analysis and
developmental disabilities: The twenty-first century (pp. 33-63). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Greenwood, C. R., & Delquadri, J. (1988). Code for instructional structure and student
academic response: CISSAR. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques (pp. 120-122). NY: Pergamon.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Carta, J. J. (1988). Classwidepeer tutoring (CWPT). Delray
Beach, FL: Educational Achievement Systems.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student
academic performance. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer
tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., Stanley, S. O., Sasso, G., Whorton, D., & Schulte, D.
(1981). Allocating opportunity to learn as a basis for academic remediation: A developing
model for teaching. Monograph in Behavior Disorders, Summer, 22-33.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. Stanley, S. O., Terry, B., & Hall, R. V. (1985). Assessment
of eco-behavioral interaction in school settings. Behavioral Assessment, 7, 331-347.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., Stanley, S., Terry, B., & Hall, R. V. (1986). Observational
assessment of eco-behavioral interaction during academic instruction. In S. E. Newstead,
S. H. Irvine, & P. D. Dan (Eds.), Human assessment: Cognition and motivation (pp. 319340). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Nijhoff Press.
Greenwood, C. R., Dinwiddie, G., Terry, B., Wade, L., Stanley, S., Thibadeau, S., &
Delquadri, J. (1984). Teacher- versus peer-mediated instruction: An eco-behavioral
analysis of achievement outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 521-538.
Greenwood, C. R., Schulte, D., Dinwiddie, G., Kohler, F., & Carta, J. (1986). Assessment
and analysis of eco-behavioral interaction. In R. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in behavioral assessment of children and families (Vol. 2, pp. 69-98). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
Hall, R. V., Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., & Thursto.n, L. (1982). The importance of
opportunity to respond to children's academic success. In E. Edgar, N. Haring, J. Jenkins,
& C. Pious (Eds.), Selving young handicapped children: Issues and research (pp. 107-140).
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Hall, R. V., Delquadri, J., & Harris, (1977, May). Opportunity to respond: A new focus in the
field of applied behavior analysis. Paper presented at the Midwest Association for Behavior
Analysis, Chicago, IL.
Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior,
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 1-12.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1989). The longitudinal study of interactive systems. Education and
Treatment of Children, 12, 347-358.
Kamps, D., Carta, J., Delquadri, J. Arreaga-Mayer, C., Terry, B., & Greenwood, C. R. (1989).
School-based research and intervention.Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 359-390.
Kamps, D. M., Leonard, B. R., & Greenwood, C. R. (in press). Ecobehavioral assessment of
students with autism and developmental disabilities. In R. J. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in
behavioral assessment of children and families (Vol. 4). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehavioral psychology. Chicago: Principia Press.
Karpowitz, D. H., & Johnson, S. M. (1981). Stimulus control in child-family interaction. Behavioral Assessment, 3, 161-172.
Keller, F. S. (1968). "Good-Bye Teacher . . ." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79-89.
Levin, H. M. (1986). Educational reform for disadvantaged students: An emerging crisis. Westhaven, CT: National Education Association.
Maheady, L., & Harper, G. (1987). A classwide peer tutoring program to improve the spelling
test performance of low-income, third- and fourth-grade students. Education and Treatmerit of Children, 10, 120-133.
Ecobehavioral Analysis
77
Morris, E. K., & Midgley, B. D. (1990). Some historical and conceptual foundations of
ecobehavioral analysis. In S. Schroeder (Ed.), Ecobehavioral analysis and developmental
disabilities: The twenty-first century (pp. 1-32). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). The nature of behavioral assessment: Some current
dimensions of behavioral assessment. Behavioral Assessment, L 1-16.
Patterson, G. R. (1974). A basis for identifying stimuli which control behaviors in natural
settings. Child Development, 45, 900-911.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). A microsocial analysis of structure and process. In G. R. Patterson,
Coercive family process (pp. 169-198). Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.
Peterson, L., Homer, A. L., & Wonderlich, S. A. (1982). The integrity of independent variables
in behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 477-492.
Repp, A. C., & Dietz, E. D. (1990). Using an ecobehavioral analysis to determine a taxonomy
of stereotyped responding. In S. Schroeder (Ed.), Ecobehavioral analysis and developmental disabilities: The twenty-first century (pp. 122-140). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Reese, R. M., & Leder, D. (1990). An ecobehavioral setting event analysis of residential
facilities for people with mental retardation. In S. Schroeder (Ed.), Ecobehavioral analysis
and developmental disabilities: The twenty-first century (pp. 82-93). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Risley, T. R. (1977). The ecology of applied behavior analysis. In A. Rogers-Warren & S.
Warren (Eds.), Ecological perspectives in behavior analysis (pp. 149-163). Baltimore, MD:
University Park Press.
Rotholz, D. A., Kamps, D. M., & Greenwood, C. R. (1989). Ecobehavioral assessment and
analysis in special education settings: Applications with autistic and developmentally disabled students. Journal of Special Education, 23, 59-81.
Rusch, F. R., Rose, T. & Greenwood, C. R. (1988). Introduction to behavior analysis in special
education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shapiro, E. (1988). Preventing academic failure. School Psychology Review, 17, 601-613.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Sc&nce and human behavior'. New York: Macmillan.
Smith, R. C., & Lincoln, C. A. (1988). America's shame, America's hope, twelve million youth
at t~sk. Chapel Hill, NC: MDC, Inc.
Stanley, S. O., & Greenwood, C. R. (1981). Code for instructional stmctme and student
academic response (CISSAR): Obsetver's manual. Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens
Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas.
Stanley, S. O., & Greenwood, C. R. (1983). Assessing opportunity to respond in classroom
environments through direct observation: How much opportunity to respond does the
minority, disadvantaged student receive in school? Exceptional Children, 49, 370-373.
Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Longer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying
stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 245-250.
Wahler, R. G., & Fox, J. J. (1981). Setting events in applied behavior analysis: Toward a
conceptual and methodological expansion. Journal of Applied Behavior"Analysis, 14, 327338.
Walker, H. M., & Buckley, N. K. (1968). The use of positive reinforcement in conditioning
attending behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 245-250.
White, O. R., & Liberty, K. A. (1976). Behavioral assessment and precise educational measurement. In N. G. Haring, R. L. Schiefelbusch, & R. K. Hoyt (Eds.), Teaching ~pecial
children (pp. 31-71). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Willems, E. P. (1974). Behavioral technology and behavioral ecology. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 7, 151-165.
Willems, E. P. (1977). Steps toward an ecobehavioral technology. In A. Rogers-Warren & S.
F. Warren (Eds.), Ecological perspectives in behavior analysis (pp. 36-61). Baltimore, MD:
University Park Press.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Christenson, S. L., & Weiss, J. (1987). Time allocated to
instruction of mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and nonhandicapped elementa~ students. Journal of Special Education, 21, 43-55.