In vivo rating of treatment acceptability by children: Group size effects in group contingencies to improve spelling performance

Abstract

A primary criticism of studies on acceptability of interventions has been their analogue approach to experimentation. In the present, two-study investigation, acceptability of intervention as rated by children was examined prior to, during, and immediately following the implementation of a group contingency designed to improve spelling performance. In the first study, the relationships of group size to interdependent and dependent group contingencies were investigated. The second study specifically examined the effects of group size and interdependent contingencies only. The results of the studies showed that these interventions were successful at improving the spelling performance of students, particularly the poorest spellers in the class. Differences related to group size were inconsistent across the two studies. Acceptability ratings of students in both studies showed that students rated each combination of group size and type of group contingency as more acceptable after experiencing treatment. Although pre- and postintervention acceptability ratings tended to be correlated, no correlations between acceptability ratings and student performance in spelling were found at any point in the studies. The implications for using acceptability ratings in decision making are discussed.