Independent and interdependent group contingencies to increase on‐task work behavior among adults with intellectual disabilities

Daly et al. (2024) tested two group reward systems with adults who have intellectual disabilities. One system paid each worker for his or her own on-task behavior. The other paid the whole team only if every member stayed on task.

They used an ABAB reversal design. Work shifts flipped between the two systems while staff counted on-task minutes.

Both systems pushed on-task behavior above 80% for every adult. One group still held the gain four weeks after the study ended.

Cariveau et al. (2017) got similar high engagement in second-graders, but they used a randomized dependent contingency plus common cues. The kids kept working even after rewards stopped because the classroom cues stayed the same. Daly’s adults kept no extra cues, yet one group still held the gain.

Koegel et al. (2014) also boosted independent work in adults with ID, yet they used single-person differential reinforcement instead of any group plan. Their tactic worked, but Daly shows you can reach the same goal faster by rewarding the whole table.

Barnard et al. (1977) warned that reinforcing ‘just sitting still’ can backfire when the teacher leaves. Daly’s team set the bar higher: adults had to do actual work steps, not just stay seated. The higher bar still worked and kept the staff away from empty praise.

If you run a vocational or day-hab program, pick either style and start tomorrow. Independent contingencies let top workers shine. Interdependent ones build peer support. Both hit 80% on-task in days, not months. Track one-minute samples, hand out points at lunch, and watch the work climb.