Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 13, pp. 211-227.

1992
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

0891-4222/92 $5.00 + .OO

Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.

The Use of Self-Management

Procedures
by People With Developmental
Disabilities:
A Brief Review
Alan E. Harchik, James A. Sherman, and Jan B. Sheldon
Universify of Kansas

Self-management procedures, such as self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self-instructing, are frequently taught to people with developmental disabilities. In this paper, research examining the use of selfmanagement procedures is reviewed and critiqued. Areas for future investigation are discussed.

Recently, people with developmental disabilities have been taught to manage their own behavior. Several advantages for the use of self-management
procedures have been suggested: (a) it offers the possibility of control over
behavior when the natural contingencies are too delayed, too improbable,
or too small to be effective (Malott, 1984); (b) learned behaviors may be
more likely to generalize and maintain in unsupervised or novel situations
(Agran & Martin, 1987; Baer, 1984; Fowler, 1984); (c) acting without constant direct supervision by others is valued by society and may help the
person to be viewed more positively (OLeary & Dubey, 1979; Whitman,
1990); and (d) people often prefer situations in which they have some control and opportunities for control may increase participation, reduce problem behaviors, and improve satisfaction without detriment to performance
(Bannerman, Sheldon, Sherman, & Harchik, 1990).
Browder and Shapiro (1985) and Agran and Martin (1987) reviewed
research examining the effects that occurred when people with developThe authors thank Donald M. Baer and Stephen B. Fawcett for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Alan E. Harchik, The May Center, 22 Blanchard
Boulevard, Braintree, MA 02184.
211

212

A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon

mental disabilities were taught to use self-management procedures. The

purpose of this article is to continue this discussion, that is, to include
recent research studies, to comment upon the recommendations made in
these two earlier papers, and to raise some additional issues.
DEFINITIONS OF SELF-MANAGEMENT
Broadly, self-management has been defined as everything a person does
to influence his or her own behavior (Browder & Shapiro, 1983, as those
behaviors a person deliberately undertakes to achieve self-selected outcomes (Kazdin, 1973, and as the control of certain responses by stimuli
generated from other responses of the same person (Brigham, 1982). More
specifically, Baer (1984) noted that one is often considered to be managing
ones own behavior when one (a) acknowledges a problem, (b) translates
that problem into sets of behavior to be changed, (c) finds natural reinforcers and punishers to support a change in behavior (or uses artificial or
contrived reinforcers when natural ones cannot be found or used), (d) rearranges the environment so that these consequences can support the change
in behavior, and (e) records the process. Other authors (e.g., Agran &
Martin, 1987; Gardner & Cole, 1989) have discussed many of the same
issues as Baer (1984) did; however, they have also included the rearrangement of stimuli that precede occurrence of the behavior as an important
component of some self-management practices (e.g., self-instructing, picture or audio cues). Although none of the studies reviewed below have
incorporated all of the procedures included in these definitions of self-management, there are an increasing number of studies that have evaluated one
or more of these components of self-management.
RESEARCH ON SELF-MANAGEMENT
Self-Management

Procedures

Used

and self-administering
consequences.
When self-monitoring, one keeps a record of ones own behavior. When self-administering
consequences, one administers predetermined consequences contingent
upon ones own behavior. There are, of course, both conceptual and procedural differences between self-monitoring and self-administering consequences. In many studies, however, few differences appear in application.
For example, the products of self-monitoring (e.g., hash marks, marked
forms) are often traded for special items or privileges and, therefore, may
function as secondary reinforcers. In the studies reviewed, people were
taught to self-monitor and/or self-administer consequences (typically
Self-monitoring

Self-Management

213

tokens) (a) at the completion of a task or behavior, or (b) when prompted.

For example, at the completion of vocational or academic tasks or when a
specified behavior (e.g., verbalization) was exhibited, people were taught
to mark a form or photo, press a counter, put a ring on a dowel, or move
beads on a bracelet. In other studies, people were taught to take a token,
coin, or sticker that was later traded in for special items or activities. In
some studies, the person self-monitored and/or self-administered consequences when prompted by a teacher, bell, tone, or pocket timer at specified intervals or at the conclusion of a work period. All studies reviewed
are listed in Table 1.
Self-instructing.

When self-instructing, one makes directive verbal statements about ones own behavior. For example, Johnston, Whitman, and
Johnson (1980) taught children to state the specific steps required to solve
math problems. Content of the directive verbal statements addressed
general behaviors, such as go slowly or work faster (Moore, Agran, &
Fodor-Davis, 1989; Salend, Ellis, & Reynolds, 1989) or behaviors specific
to the task (e.g., Hughes & Petersen, 1989; Keogh, Faw, Whitman, & Reid,
1984; Rusch, Morgan, Martin, Riva, & Agran, 1985; Whitman, Spence, &
Maxwell, 1987). Statements specific to the task may be more effective in
improving performance on other similar tasks, whereas general statements
may be more effective for improving performance on subsequent tasks that
are not highly similar to the original task (Thackwray, Meyers, Schlesser,
& Cohen, 1985). Other types of directive statements have also been taught,
such as stating the task completed and next task required (Agran, FodorDavis, & Moore, 1986) and stating solutions to problems (Agran,
Salzberg, & Stowitschek, 1987; Hughes & Rusch, 1989; Rusch, McKee,
Chadsey-Rusch, & Renzaglia, 1988). Each study reviewed is also listed in
Table 1.
There are also several studes that appear to be closely related to the use
of self-instructions but that did not involve teaching the participants to
make directive statements. The procedures might be considered variations
of self-instructing because, like self-instructing, participant behavior that
preceded the occurrence of other targeted behavior was modified to effect
the probability of occurrence of the targeted behaviors. These procedures
included teaching participants to verbally state an aspect of the stimuli
(e.g., color) before sorting or typing (Wacker et al., 1988; Wacker &
Greenebaum, 1984), to repeat the supervisors instruction (Agran, FodorDavis, Moore, & Deer, 1989; Rusch, Martin, Lagomarcino, & White,
1987), to exhibit correspondence between their verbal statements and subsequent behavior (Crouch, Rusch, & Karlan, 1984) and to operate audiotaped instructions (Alberto, Sharpton, Briggs, & Stright, 1986).

A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon

214

Studies of Self-Monitoring

TABLE 1
and Self-Administering

Consequences

Participants
Disabilities
or Level of
Severity

Age of
Participants

Setting

moderate

x = 33

workshop

packaging,
photocopying

mild/moderate

26,53

work room

write number
on a chart

exercise
repetitions

mild/moderate

21-39

room at
workshop

Connis, 1979

mark a photo

change of
job tasks

moderate

21-24

work room

Hanel & Martin,

1980

take a marble

assembly
task

mild

19-54

workshop

Holman & Baer,

1979

move beads on
a bracelet

academic

behavior
problems

3-7

classroom

Homer, Lahren,
Schwartz, ONeill,
& Hunter, 1979

take a token

assembly
task

severe

32

workshop

Lagomarcino &
Rusch, 1989

take a nickel

packaging
task

severe

19

work room

Lovett & Haring,

1989

mark a form

domestic
tasks

mild/moderate

19-35

apartments

Mace, Shapiro,
West, Campbell,
& Altman. 1986

put ring on
a dowel

assembly,
packaging

severe

30-50

workshop

Mank & Homer,

1987

press counter,
write # and time

job tasks

moderate

18-20

restaurants

Matson &
Andrasik, 1982

take a token

SOCial

mild

25-43

McNally, Kompik,
& Sherman, 1984

take a token

capping and
boxing bottles

mild/moderate

Nelson, Lipinski, & Black,

1976

mark tallies on
a card

conversation,
participation,
lace toucnes

mild/moderate

Form of SelfManagement

Behavior
Addressed

Ackerman &
Shapiro, 1984

press grocery
counter

packaging

Belfiore, Mace,
& Browder, 1989

put ring on a
dowel, mark form

Coleman &
Whitman, 1984

At completion of
tasks or when
behavior exhibited:

pelfOITWlCiZ

interactions

State

hospital
23-49

workshop

215

Self-Management

TABLE 1. Continued

Participants
Disabilities
or Level of
Severity

Age of
ParticiPants

Form of SelfManagement

Behavior
Addressed

Nelson, Lipmski, & Boykin,

1978

press a counter

verbalizations

mild/moderate

12-17

residential
center

Rosine & Martin,

1983

press a wrist

tongue
protrusions

moderate

21,28

workshop

counter

Schloss & Wood,

1990

press counter
or switch

ask or answer
questions

mild

23

expl room

Shapiro &
Ackerman, 1983

press counter,
move marker

sorting pins

mild/moderate

19-49

workshop

Shapiro, Browder,
& DHuyvetters,
1984

put penny in
container

academic
performance

severe

6-10

classroom

Sowers, Verdi,
Bourbeau, &
Sheehan, 1985

mark a picture

change of
job tasks

moderate/
severe

18-21

cafeteria

Wehman, Schutz,
Bates,
Renzaglia, &
Karan, 1978

take a penny

assembly
tasks

mild/severe/
profound

18-34

workshop

Zegiob, Klukas,
& Junginger,
1978

tally on an
index card

nose/mouth
picking, head
shaking

mild/moderate

17-18

cottage,
classroom

Zohn &
Bornstein, 1976

tahyona
sheet

assembly
task

moderate

38-45

workshop

Baer, Fowler, &

Carden-Smith,
1984

move pointer

academic
performance

severe
behavior
problems

classroom

Gardner, Glees,
& Cole, 1983

take a penny,
turn a card over

verbalizations

moderate

26

workshop

Gardner, Cole,
Beny, &
Nowinski, 1983

take a penny,
turn a card over

verbalizations

moderate

27,31

workshop

Grace, Cow& Matson, 1988

point to happy
orsadface

self-injury
(biting)

moderate

14

institution

Setting

When prompted:

(Table continued on next page)

216

A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon

TABLE 1. Continued
Participants
Disabilities
or Level of
Severity

Age of
ParticiPants

Setting

mild/moderate

lo,13

classroom

attending
to task

mild/moderate
severe

12-18

group home

write %
correct

academic

mild/moderate

7th9th

classroom

Koegel & Koegel,

1990

mark a card

stereotypies

autistic

9-14

classroom,
home,
community

Litrownik &
Freitas, 1980

put marble
in a tube

stringing
beads

moderate

15-21

work
cubicles

McCarl, Svobodny,
& Boare, 1991

mark a form

academic
on-task and
performance

mild/moderate

9-l 1

classroom

McLaughlin,
Burgess, &
Sackville-West,
1981

mark a form

academic

behavior
handicaps

10-12

classroom

Morrow &
Presswood, 1984

signing, describe
own behavior

stereotypies

moderate/
severe

15

classroom

Reese, Sherman,
& Sheldon, 1984

mark on a form

aggression,
yelling

mild/moderate

22-28

group home.
workshop

Rhode, Morgan,
& Young, 1983

write rating of
own behavior

appropriate
school behavior

mild/moderate

6-9

classroom

Robertson,
Simon, Pachman,
& Drabman, 1979

write rating of
own behavior

classroom
disruptions

moderate

5-11

classroom

Rudrud, Ziarnik,
& Colman, 1984

mark a form

tongue
protrusions

moderate

24

work center

Sainato, Strain,
Lefebvre, &
Rapp, 1990

mark happy/sad
faces

on-task

autistic

4-5

classroom

Shapiro & Klein,

1980

take a token

academic
on-task

moderate

6-9

classroom

Shapiro,
McGonigle, &
Ollendick, 1980

put a star on
a chart

academic

mild/moderate

7-12

classroom

Form of SelfManagement

Behavior
Addressed

Homer &
Brigham, 1979

mark on a
form

academic
on-task

Kapadia &
Fantuzzo, 1988

takeastar

Knapczak &
Livingston, 1973

grade

pXfOllKiIlC%

pelfOllKIIlCe

Self-Management

217

TABLE 1. Continued
Participants
Disabilities
or Level of
Severity

Age of
ParticiPants

Form of SelfManagement

Behavior
Addressed

Sugai & Rowe,

1984

mark a chart

in/out of
class seat

mild/moderate

15

classroom

Wheeler, Bates,
Marshall, &
Miller, 1988

mark a chart

social skills,
appearance

moderate

22

aninlaI
care unit

solving math
computations

mild/moderate

11-13

classroom

mild/moderate

18-20

vocational
training
center

18-29

workshop

moderate

9-14

classroom

mild/moderate

21-30

work room

Setting

Studies of Self-Instructing:
Albion &
Sal&erg, 1982

statespecific

Agran, FodorDavis, & Moore,

1986

state task completed and next

task required

work task
completed

Agran, Sal&erg,
& Stowitschek,
1987

state steps and

solutions to
solving a problem

moderate/
initiating
solutions to
severe
problems at work

Burgio, Whitman,
&Johnson, 1980

state specific
behaviors of task

attending to
task, academic

behaviors

of task

pelfORlMIlCe

Hughes &
Petersen, 1989

statespecific
behaviors of task

attending to
task, work
ptXfOfUKUlUZ

statesteps and

use of sclfinstructions
at work

severe

33,37

solutions to
problems

supply
company

Johnston,
Whitman, &
Johnson, 1980

state specific
behaviors of task

solving math
problems

mild

9-10

classroom

Keogh, Faw,
Whitman, & Reid,
1984

statespecific
behaviors of task

playing a
leisure-time

severe

11-19

state
facility

Moore, Agran, &

Fodor-Davis, 1989

state general
behaviors

rate of work

severe

19-21

workshop

Peters & Davies,

1981

state general
behaviors

test of
matching

mild/moderate

12-18

expl room

Rusch, McKee,
Chadsey-Rusch,
&
Renzaglia, 1988

state steps and

solutions to
problems

requesting
materials at
work

severe

16

work room

Hughes & Rusch,

1989

game

pfOllIl?XlCE

figures

(Table continued

on next page)

218

A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon

TABLE 1. Continued
Participants
Disabilities
or Level of
Severity

Age of
ParticiPants

Form of SelfManagement

Behavior
Addressed

Rusch, Morgan,
Martin, Riva,
& Agran, 1985

state general
behaviors

amount of
time working

mild

28, 38

college
dormitory

Salend, Ellis, &

Reynolds, 1989

state general
behaviors

work production
rates

severe

25-36

prevocatl
workshop

Whitman &
Johnston, 1983

state specific
behaviors of task

solving math
computations

mild

lo-13

classroom

Whitman, Spence,
& Maxwell, 1987

state specific
behaviors of task

work tasks

mild/moderate

18-46

workshop

Effectiveness

in Changing

Setting

Behavior

The effects of teaching self-management procedures to people with

developmental disabilities were evaluated in 59 studies. In 55 of these studies, desirable consistent changes in behavior were found. Based on these
many research studies, to what people and situations can the results be generalized (cf. Martin & Hrydowy, 1989)?
and settings. Most of the studies included people with mild or
moderate developmental disabilities (46), and a few studies included people with severe disabilities or autism (13). It was not clear whether any prerequisite skills (e.g., counting, language) are required if self-management
procedures are to be successfully taught. The effects of self-management
procedures were evaluated primarily in sheltered workshops and residential
settings and for short periods of time. In addition, the procedures were usually implemented and supervised by the researchers. Thus, although selfmanagement procedures can be adapted for use by people with developmental disabilities, more examination of their use during extended periods,
in natural community situations, and with people with the most severe disabilities is needed (see Koegel & Koegel, 1990, for an example of a study
meeting these criteria). Further, although the research literature shows that
self-management procedures can have a positive effect upon a persons
functioning where the person currently lives or works (e.g., increased work
performance, decreases in occurrences of problem behavior), the role that
self-management
procedures
may play in the persons successful
functioning in other integrated community settings remains to be more
fully explored.

Participants

SeEf-Management

219

Behaviors addressed. Self-management procedures were used to address a

variety of academic and vocational skills, domestic and leisure tasks, and
problem behaviors. Self-monitoring and self-administering consequences
were typically used to increase the occurrence of behaviors already in the
persons repertoire (e.g., work skills, domestic tasks) whereas self-instructing was also used to address skills not yet mastered (e.g., academic skills,
solving problems).
Procedures. Often, self-management procedures were combined with other
procedures, such as token motivational systems or with the use of prompts
and praise for exhibiting self-management procedures or for the target
behavior. Moreover, most studies (53) compared the effects of teaching
self-management procedures to typical conditions in the setting or to conditions with no interactions or consequences. Thus, it was not always clear
whether the observed effects were due to the implementation of a systematic management procedure or due to a self-management procedure implemented by the person himself or herself.
Eight studies, however, directly compared self- and other- managed
procedures. The results of these studies suggested that self-management
procedures had effects equal to or better than procedures managed by
teachers (Baer, Fowler, & Carden-Smith, 1984; Homer, Lahren, Schwartz,
ONeill, & Hunter, 1979; Knapczyk & Livingston, 1973; McLaughlin,
Burgess, & Sackville-West,
1981; Rhode, Morgan, & Young, 1983;
Shapiro, Browder, & DHuyvetters,
1984; Wehman, Schutz, Bates,
Renzaglia, & Karan, 1978; Whitman et al., 1987). Moreover, Baer et al.
(1984) and Sainato, Strain, Lefebvre, & Rapp (1990) found that teachers
devoted much less time to behavior management after self-management
procedures were taught. A few studies also examined variables involved in
the effects observed. For example, behavior changed more when desirable
rather than undesirable behaviors were monitored (Litrownik & Freitas,
1980; Nelson, Lipinski, & Black, 1976) and when there was reinforcement
for self-monitoring (Zegiob, Klukas, & Junginger, 1978) for accuracy
(McLaughlin et al., 1981>, or for the target behavior (Mace, Shapiro, West,
Campbell, & Altman, 1986; Mank & Homer, 1987) than when self-monitoring was used alone. Further, experimenter presence may account for
some of the effects (Belfiore, Mace, & Browder, 1989) and self-administering consequences may enhance the effects of self-monitoring alone (Homer
& Brigham, 1979; Lovett & Hating, 1989).
Eflectiveness in Maintenance and Generalization
Improving generalization and maintenance were primary reasons for
teaching self-management procedures; however, maintenance was assessed

220

A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and .I. B. Sheldon

in only 28 studies and generalization in only 13 studies. In some studies,

behavior was maintained when self-management procedures were taught
after the initial use of teacher- or supervisor-implemented
procedures
(Ackerman & Shapiro, 1984; Horner et al., 1979; Shapiro & Klein, 1980;
Shapiro, McGonigle, & Ollendick, 1980; Shapiro et al., 1984; Wehman et
al., 1978). In others, self-management procedures were systematically
faded while behavior maintained, supporting the notion that the procedures
may not be required indefinitely (Burgio, Whitman, & Johnson, 1980;
Gardner, Clees, & Cole, 1983; Knapczyk & Livingston, 1973; Robertson,
Simon, Pachman, & Drabman, 1979; Rudrud, Ziarnik, & Colman, 1984;
Sugai & Rowe, 1984; Zohn & Bornstein, 1980). In two studies, however,
self-management procedures appeared to be necessary for maintenance of
behavior change (Koegel & Koegel, 1990; Mank & Homer, 1987).
Generalization was sometimes assessed but rarely programmed. In studies in which generalization was assessed, it occurred in different settings
(Albion & Salzberg, 1982; Agran et al., 1987; Holman 8z Baer, 1979;
Hughes & Petersen, 1989; Rusch et al., 1985) with novel tasks (Hughes &
Rusch, 1989; Sowers, Verdi, Bourbeau, & Sheehan, 1985), during different
time periods (Robertson et al., 1979) or in an unsupervised situation
(Coleman & Whitman, 1984). In a few studies, however, generalization did
not occur without training with new tasks or in additional situations
(Burgio et al., 1980; Rhode et al., 1983; Rosine & Martin, 1983).
In summary, maintenance and generalization were sometimes assessed
and often occurred. The reasons for their occurrence, however, were rarely
analyzed. It is, therefore, possible that other variables controlled the maintenance or generalization of behavior, such as naturally occurring reinforcement, common stimuli, or temporary maintenance during extinction
(Baer, 1984).
Use of Self-Management

Procedures by Participants

Forty studies included direct measurement of the persons use of selfmanagement procedures. Self-monitoring and self-administering consequences were frequently used, but not always accurately. Accuracy
improved when contingencies for accuracy were implemented; however,
desirable effects were found even when behaviors were not always recorded correctly (Koegel & Koegel, 1990; Nelson et al., 1976; Reese, Sherman,
& Sheldon, 1984; Shapiro et al., 1980; Zegiob et al., 1978), although three
studies found a relationship between accuracy and desirable behavior
(McLaughlin et al., 1981; Rhode et al., 1983; Shapiro et al., 1984).
Teaching self-instructing was associated with desirable behavior change,
but self-instructions were often not exhibited outside of training. In some

Self-Management

221

studies, when subjects did use self-instructions, there was a relationship

between the use of the statements and desirable behavior change (Agran et
al., 1986; Keogh et al., 1984; Whitman et al., 1987). Overall, few studies
employed specific procedures to increase the likelihood that the self-management procedures themselves would maintain or generalize.
Amount

of Participant

Control

Self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self-instructing

were the most frequently used procedures in studies with people with
developmental disabilities. None of the 59 studies specified opportunities
for the person to identify the problem, determine target behaviors, select
consequences, or determine what environmental rearrangements would be
made. Further, in studies examining self-administration of consequences,
the consequences were often highly supervised by teachers or supervisors
(cf. Gross & Wojnilower, 1984). Thus, the existing literature, at best,
approximates maximal self-management. Partial participation in self-management, however, may be preferable to no participation (Browder &
Shapiro, 1985) and future research may likely include additional components. For example, recent work in the areas of community improvement
(e.g., Fawcett, 1991; Schriner & Fawcett, 1988) and families who have
members with disabilities (e.g., Tumbull, Tumbull, Bronicki, Summers, &
Roeder-Gordon, 1989) contains suggestions about ways to increase each
participants role in self-management.
CONCLUSIONS

AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Based on the current research, it seems clear that people with developmental disabilities can implement specific self-management procedures.
Although there is ongoing discussion regarding why these procedures are
sometimes effective (e.g., they function as mediators, steps in a chain, discriminative stimuli, or as a version of control by others, Baer, 1984, 1990;
Nelson & Hayes, 1981; Rachlin, 1974) researchers continue to examine
applications and effects of self-management procedures. More than a dozen
research studies published since the Browder and Shapiro (1985) and
Agran and Martin (1987) reviews attest to the ongoing interest in these
types of procedures. In general, the more recent research has expanded
upon the types of applications of self-management procedures (e.g., different tasks and behaviors, new settings); however, the recommendations
made in these earlier reviews have not yet been fully addressed. These recommendations remain valid and are discussed below.
First, more research is needed to determine if there are any prerequisite
skills, entry-level abilities, or idiosyncratic individual differences that are

222

A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon

related to the subsequent effectiveness of self-management procedures.

Variables to be examined might include the participants level of language,
ability to count, skill at discriminating occurrences and nonoccurrences of
his or her own behavior, and skill at discriminating the situations or conditions under which certain behaviors are or are not required.
A second area for study is the adaptation of self-management procedures
based upon the specific characteristics of the person and setting and examinations of adaptations that increase the ease with which the procedures can
be used in less controlled settings (e.g., wrist counters, timers that automatically reset at the end of each preset interval). Further, methods to expand
the range of self-management procedures to include those that more fully
involve the person in the design of the procedures would be of interest to
researchers and practitioners. For example, there has been little research
examining methods to teach people with developmental disabilities how to
select their own behaviors to modify or how to select methods to modify
these behaviors.
Third, behaviors or classes of behaviors that appear most amenable to
modification by self-management procedures can be examined in research
studies. For example, a growing number of studies are addressing the
reduction of occurrences of problem behaviors. Research might address
whether typical self-management
procedures have differential effects
depending upon the function of the behavior addressed (e.g., escape- or
attention-maintained).
A fourth area for continued study is the maintenance and generalization
of the use of self-management procedures and further analysis of the
effects of self-management procedures on the maintenance and generalization of targeted behaviors. For example, there may be ways for the use of
self-management procedures to be maintained by reinforcers currently
available in the persons environment. It also seems likely that the analysis
of conditions or situations that require certain behaviors may provide useful information about how to promote generalization.
Finally, a fifth research area can address application of research findings
in everyday life. This would include developing methods for teaching
teachers, parents, and staff members to teach people with developmental disabilities to use these self-management
procedures successfully
and in ways that promote improved functioning in their living and
working situations.
In conclusion, future research examining the processes and applications
of self-management procedures will test the robustness of these procedures
across a wide range of problems, behaviors, and disabilities. Furthermore, it
will add to a growing methodology that provides new opportunities for personal control by a group of people not typically given these opportunities.

Self-Management

223

REFERENCES
Ackerman, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1984). Self-monitoring and work productivity with mentally
retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17.403407.
Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., & Moore, S. (1986). The effects of self-instructional training on jobtask sequencing: Suggesting a problem-solving strategy. Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded, 21.273-281.

Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., Moore, S., & Deer, M. (1989). The application of a self-management
program on instruction following skills. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe
Handicaps, 14,147-154.

Agran, M., & Martin, J. E. (1987). Applying a technology of self-control in community environments for individuals who are mentally retarded. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P M. Miller
(Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 21) (pp. 108-151). New York: Academic Press.
Agran, M., Sal&erg, C. L., & Stowitschek, .I. J. (1987). An analysis of the effects of a social skills
training program using self-instructions on the acquisition and generalization of two social
behaviors in a work setting. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 12,
131-139.
Alberta, P. A., Sharpton, W. R., Briggs, A., & Stright, M. H. (1986). Facilitating task acquisition
through the use of a self-operated auditory prompting system. Journal of the Association for
Persons With Severe Handicaps, 11,85-91.

Albion, F. M., & SaJzberg, C. L. (1982). The effect of self-instructions on the rate of correct addition problems with mentally retarded children. Education and Treatment of Children, 5,
121-131.

Baer, D. M. (1984). Does research on self-control

need more

control? Analysis and Intervention

in Developmental Disabilities, 4.211-218.

Baer, D. M. (1990). Why choose self-regulation as the focal analysis of retardation? American
Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 363-364.

Baer, M., Fowler, S. A., & Carden-Smith, L. (1984). Using reinforcement and independent grading to promote and maintain task accuracy in a mainstreamed class. Analysis and Intervention
in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 157-169.

Bannerman, D. J., Sheldon, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Harchik, A. E. (1990). Balancing the right to
habihtation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23,
79-89.

Belfiore, P. J., Mace, F. C., & Browder, D. M. (1989). Effects of experimenter surveillance on
reactive self-monitoring. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 171-182.
Brigham, T. (1982). Self-management: A radical behavioral perspective. In P. Karoly & F. H.
Kanfer t&k..), Selfmanagement and behavior change (pp. 32-59). New York: Pergamon.
Browder, D. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1985). Applications of self-management to individuals with
severe handicaps: A review. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 10,
200-208.
Burgio, L. D., Whitman, T. L., &Johnson, M. R. (1980). A self-instructional package for increasing attending behavior in educable mentally retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 13.443459.
Coleman, R. S., & Whitman, T. L. (1984). Developing, generalizing, and maintaining physical fitness in mentally retarded adults: Toward a self-directed program. Analysis and Zntervention in
Developmental Disabilities, 4, 109-127.

Connis, R. T. (1979). The effects of sequential pictorial cures, self-recording, and praise on
the job task sequencing of retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12,
355-361.
Crouch, K. P., Rusch, F. R., & Karlan, G. R. (1984). Competitive employment: Utilizing the correspondence training paradigm to enhance productivity. Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded, 19, 268-275.

224

Fawcctt,

A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon

S. B. (1991). Some values guiding community

research

and action. Journal ofApplied

BehaviorAnalysis,24, 621-636.
Fowler, S. A. (1984). Intmductory comments: The pragmatics of self-management
for the developmentally disabled. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4,85-89.
Gardner, W. I., Clees, T. J., & Cole, C. L. (1983). Self-management
of disruptive verbal ruminations by a mentally retarded adult. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4,41-58.
Gardner, W. I., & Cole, C. L. (1989). Self-management
approaches. In E. Cipani (Ed.), The treatment of severe behavior disorders: Behavior analysis approaches (pp. 19-35). Washington,
D.C.: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Gardner, W. I., Cole, C. L., Berry, D. L., & Nowinski, J. M. (1983). Reduction of disruptive behaviors in mentally retarded adults: A self-management approach. Behavior Modification, 7,76-%.
Grace, N., Cowart, C., & Matson, J. L. (1988). Reinforcement
and self-control for treating a
chronic case of self-injury
in Lesch-Nyhan
Syndrome. Journal of the Multihandicapped
Person, 1, 53-59.
Gross, A. M., & Wojnilower, D. A. (1984). Self-directed behavior change in children: Is it selfdirected? Behavior Therapy, 15, 501-514.
Hanel, F., & Martin, G. L. (1980). Self-monitoring,
self-administration
of token reinforcement,
and goal-setting
to improve work rates with retarded clients. International Journal of
Rehabilitation Research, 3, 505-517.
Holman, J., & Baer, D. M. (1979). Facilitating generalization of on-task behavior through selfmonitoring of academic tasks. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9.429-446.
Homer, R. H., & Brigham, T. A. (1979). The effects of self-management
procedures on the study
behavior of two retarded children. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 14,
18-24.
Homer, R. H., Lahren, B., Schwartz, T. P., ONeill, C. T., & Hunter, J. D. (1979). Dealing with the
low production rates of severely retarded workers. AAESPH Review, 4, 202-212.
Hughes, C., & Petersen, D. L. (1989). Utilizing a self-instructional
training package to increase
on-task behavior and work performance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24,
114-120.
Hughes, C., & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Teaching supported employees with severe mental retardation
to solve problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 365-372.
Johnston, M. B., Whitman, T. L., & Johnson, M. (1980). Teaching addition and subtraction to
mentally
retarded children:
A self-instruction
program.
Applied Research in Mental
Retardation, 1, 141-160.
Kapadia, S., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1988). Training children with developmental
disabilities and
severe behavior problems to use self-management
procedures to sustain attention to preacademic/academic
tasks. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 59-69.
Kazdin, A. E. (1975). Behavior modiJication in applied settings. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Keogh, D. A., Faw, G. D., Whitman, T. L., & Reid, D. H. (1984). Enhancing leisure skills in
severely retarded adolescents through a self-instructional
treatment package. Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 333-351.
Knapczyk, D. R., & Livingston,
G. (1973). Self-recording
and student teacher supervision:
Variables within a token economy structure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6,
481-486.
Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (1990). Extended reductions in stereotypic behavior of students
with autism through a self-management
treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 23, 119-127.
Lagomarcino,
T. R., & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Utilizing self-management
procedures to teach independent performance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24,297-305.
Litrownik, A. J., & Freitas, J. L. (1980). Self-monitoring
in moderately retarded adolescents:
Reactivity and accuracy as a function of valence. Behavior Therapy, 11,245-255.
Lovett, D. L., & Haring, K. A. (1989). The effects of self-management
training on the dally living
of adults with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 306323.

Self-Management

225

Mace, F. C., Shapiro, E. S., West, B. _I.,Campbell, C., & Altman, J. (1986). The role of reinforcement in reactive self-monitoring. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 315-327.
Malott, R. W. (1984). Rule-governed
behavior, self-management,
and the developmentally
disabled: A theoretical analysis. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4,
199-209.
Mank, D. M., & Homer, R. H. (1987). Self-recruited feedback: A cost-effective
procedure for
maintaining behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8,91-112.
Martin, G. L., & Hrydowy, E. R. (1989). Self-monitoring and self-managed reinforcement procedures for improving work productivity
of developmentally
disabled workers: A review.
Behavior Modification, 13, 322-329.
Matson, J. L., & Andrasik, F. (1982). Training leisure-time social-interaction
skills to mentally
retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86,533-542.
McCarl, J. J., Svobodny, L., & Boare, P L. (1991). Self-recording in a classroom for students with
mild to moderate mental handicaps: Effects on productivity and on-task behavior. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 79-88.
McLaughlin, T. F., Burgess, N., & Sackville-West, L. (1981). Effects of self-recording
and selfrecording + matching on academic performance. Child Behavior Therapy, 3, 17-27.
McNally, R. I., Kompik, J. J., & Sherman, G. (1984). Increasing the productivity of mentally
retarded workers through self-management.
Analysis and Intervenfion in Developmental
Disabilities, 4, 129-135.
Moore, S. C., Agran, M., & Fodor-Davis, J. (1989). Using self-management
strategies to increase
the production rates of workers with severe handicaps. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation, 24, 324-332.
Morrow, L. W., & Presswood, S. (1984). The effects of a self-control technique on eliminating
three stereotypic behaviors in a multiply-handicapped
institutionalized adolescent. Behavioral
Disorders, 9,247-253.
Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1981). Theoretical explanations for reactivity in self-monitoring.
Behavior Modification, 5,3-14.
Nelson, R. O., Lipinski, D. l?, & Black, J. L. (1976). The reactivity of adults retardates self-monitoring: A comparison
of different valences, and a comparison with token reinforcement.
Psychological Record, 26, 189-201.
Nelson, R. O., Lipinski, D. P., & Boykin, R. A. (1978). The effects of self-recorders training and
the obtrusiveness of the self-recording device on the accuracy and reactivity of self-monitoring. Behavior Therapy, 9, 200-208.
OLeary, S. G., & Dubey, D. R. (1979). Applications of self-control procedures by children: A
review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12,449-465.
Peters, R. D., & Davies, K. (1981). Effects of self-instructional
training on cognitive impulsivity
of mentally retarded adolescents. American JOU~Q~ of Mental Dejiciency, S&377-382.
Rachlin, H. (1974). Self-control. Behaviorism, 2.94-107.
Rtxx, R. M., Sherman, J. A., & Sheldon, J. B. (1984). Reducing agitated-disruptive
behavior of
mentally retarded residents of community group homes: The role of self-recording
and peer
prompted self-recording. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4,91-107.
Rhode, G., Morgan, D. P., & Young, K. R. (1983). Generalization and maintenance of treatment
gains of behaviorally handicapped students from resource rooms to regular classrooms using
self-evaluation procedures. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 16, 171-188.
Robertson, S. J., Simon, S. J., Pachman, J. S., & Drabman, R. S. (1979). Self-control and generalization procedures in a classroom of disruptive retarded children. Child Behavior Therapy, 1,
347-362.
Rosine, L. P., & Martin, G. L. (1983). Self-management
training to decrease undesirable behavior
of mentally handicapped adults. Rehabilitation Psychology, 28, 195-205.
Rutid, E. H., Ziamik, J. P., & Colman, G. (1984). Reduction of tongue protrusion of a 24-yearold woman with Down Syndrome through self-monitoring.
American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 88, 647-652.

226

A. E. Harchik, J. A. Sherman, and J. B. Sheldon

Rusch, F. R., Martin, J. E., Lagomarcino, T. R., & White, D. M. (1987). Teaching task sequencing
via verbal mediation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22,229-235.
Rusch, F. R., McKee, M., Chadsey-Rusch,
J., & Renzaglia, A. (1988). Teaching a student with
severe handicaps to self-instruct. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 51-58.
Rusch, F. R., Morgan, T. K., Martin, J. E., Riva, M., & Agran, M. (1985). Competitive employment: Teaching mentally retarded employees self-instructional
strategies. Applied Research in
Mental Retardation, 6, 389-407.
Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., Lefebvre, D., & Rapp, N. (1990). The effects of a self-evaluation
package on the independent
work skills of handicapped
preschool children. Exceptional
Children, 56540-549.
Salend, S. J., Ellis, L. L., & Reynolds, C. J. (1989). Using self-instruction
to teach vocational
skills to individuals who are severely retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retardation,
24,248-254.
Schloss, P J., &Wood, C. E. (1990). Effect of self-monitoring on maintenance and generalization
of conversational skills of persons with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 28, 105-113.
Schriner, K. F., & Fawcett, S. B. (1988). Development and validation of a community concerns
report method. Journal of Community Psychology, 16,306316.
Shapiro, E. S., & Ackerman, A. (1983). Increasing productivity rates in adult mentally retarded
clients: The failure of self-monitoring. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 163-181.
Shapiro, E. S., Browder, D. M., & DHuyvetters, K. K. (1984). Increasing academic productivity
of severely multihandicapped
children with self-management:
Idiosyncratic effects. Analysis
and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 171-178.
Shapiro, E. S., & Klein, R. D. (1980). Self-management
of classroom behavior with retarded/disturbed children. Behavior Modification, 4, 83-97.
Shapiro, E. S., McGonigle, J. J., & Ollendick, T. H. (1980). An analysis of self-assessment
and
self-reinforcement
in a self-managed token economy with mentally retarded children. Applied
Research in Mental Retardation, 1, 227-240.
Sowers, J., Verdi, M., Bourbeau, P., & Sheehan, M. (1985). Teaching job independence and flexibility to mentally retarded students through the use of a self-control
package. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 81-85.
Sugai, G., & Rowe, P (1984). The effect of self-recording on out-of-seat behavior of an EMR student. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19.23-28.
Thackwray, D., Meyers, A., Schlesser, R., & Cohen, R. (1985). Achieving generalization
with
general versus specific self-instructions:
Effects on academically deficient children. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 9,297-308.
Turnbull, H. R., Turnbull, A. P., Bronicki, G. J., Summers, J. A., & Roeder-Gordon,
C. (1989).
Disability and the family: A guide to decisions for adulthood. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., McMahon, C., Templeman, M., McKinney, J., Swarts, V., Visser, M.,
& Marquardt, P. (1988). An evaluation of labeling-then-doing
with moderately handicapped
persons: Acquisition and generalization
with complex tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 21, 369-380.
Wacker, D. P., & Greenebaum, F. T. (1984). Efficacy of a verbal training sequence on the sorting
performance of moderately and severely mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 88.653-660.
Wehman, P., Schutz, R., Bates, P., Renzaglia, A., & Karan, D. (1978). Self-management
programmes with mentally retarded workers: Implications for developing independent vocational
behavior. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17,57-64.
Wheeler, J. J., Bates, P., Marshall, K. J., & Miller, S. R. (1988). Teaching appropriate social
behaviors
to a young man with moderate mental retardation
in a supported competitive
employment setting. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 105-116.
Whitman, T., & Johnston, M. B. (1983). Teaching addition and subtraction with regrouping to
educable mentally retarded children: A group self-instructional
training program. Behavior
Therapy, 14,127-143.

Self-Management

227

Whitman, T. L. (1990). Self-regulation and mental retardation. American Journal on Mental

Retardation,94, 341-362.
Whitman, T. L., Spence, B. H., & Maxwell, S. (1987). A comparison of external and self-mstructional teaching formats with mentally retarded adults in a vocational training setting. Research
in DevelopmentalDisabilities,8, 371-388.
Zegiob, L., Klukas, N., & Junginger, J. (1978). Reactivity of self-monitoring procedures with
retarded adolescents. AmericanJournal of MentalDeficiency,83, 156-163.
Zohn, C. J., & Bornstein, P. H. (1980). Self-monitoring of work performance with mentally
retarded adults: Effects upon work productivity, work quality, and on-task behavior. Mental
Retardation,18, 19-25.