An ABA group contingency worksheet shows whose behavior informs the arrangement, who can receive the outcome, and what happens to each member. It goes beyond whether the group won. Independent, dependent, and interdependent contingencies distribute those relations differently. A vague team score can hide unequal access, absences, peer pressure, or a member whose experience differs from the aggregate.

This artifact separates design, valid meetings, group criteria, person-opportunities, outcome delivery, peer effects, social validity, and fidelity. It neither chooses nor authorizes a contingency. The fictional cooking-club example tests the worksheet and arithmetic without recommending a group, target, outcome, criterion, or duration.

Clinicians & ABA Professionals / Assessment and Treatment Planning.

Clinical boundary: Use only within an authorized, individualized and context-appropriate process. Preserve each member's ordinary communication, AAC, food, water, toileting, education, healthcare, safety, property, breaks, relationships, and access. Do not make one identifiable person the public reason others lose an outcome, invite peers to monitor or pressure one another, or treat participation as mandatory. Hold the arrangement when privacy fails, a member dissents, peer interactions become harmful, the shared outcome is inaccessible, or another unwanted effect appears. The BACB ethics resources offer professional context; this worksheet cannot establish consent, necessity, effectiveness, payer coverage, school or employment authorization, privacy compliance, or legal compliance.

The contingency type changes what the group result means

In an independent group contingency, the same arrangement may be offered across a group, but each member's access depends on that member's behavior. In a dependent arrangement, access for the group depends on the behavior of a particular member or subset. In an interdependent arrangement, access depends on a shared group criterion. Labels alone are insufficient: the worksheet should state the actual response-consequence relation.

The conceptual review Interpersonal and Group Contingencies describes the three arrangements and variables that can influence group members' behavior. It also identifies possible collateral effects of placing group access on one person's behavior. That analysis supports explicit design and peer-impact review; it does not rank one contingency for every setting.

The Sixth Edition BCBA Test Content Outline distinguishes reinforcement contingencies, group contingencies, measurement, preference assessment, integrity, generalization, maintenance, and social validity. The BACB test-content access page identifies the current outlines. Certification content is not a ready-made classroom, clinic, workplace, home, or community protocol.

Purpose, membership, and participation boundaries

Define a shared purpose that members can understand and that matters in the actual setting. “Make the group behave” is not an observable or respectful aim. Record who is included, why the group format is under consideration, what alternative is available to someone who declines, and how membership changes are handled. A person should be able to ask a question, request help, take a break, report peer behavior, choose another accessible option, or withdraw participation through their usual communication form.

Blank participation card

FieldCase-specific entry.What is the shared purpose and meaningful outcome?What are the setting, routine, meeting boundaries, and responsible adults?Who belongs to the group, and why?How does membership begin, change, pause, or end?Which contingency type is under review, and why?What response and variations are accepted?What are the individual and group criteria?Which AAC, sensory, motor, visual, hearing, and processing supports remain available?How are choice, dissent, help, breaks, change, and peer concerns communicated?What nonparticipation or alternative arrangement is available?Which privacy, feedback, and data-access rules apply?Who owns the version, and when does review occur?

The ASHA AAC Practice Portal describes communication as individualized and multimodal. A group rule should not require speech, speed, eye contact, or public disclosure when another accessible response meets the legitimate purpose. Communication supports are not rewards to be earned.

The operating map makes the relation reviewable

Write the contingency in a sentence, then map each part. If a reader cannot tell whose response controls whose access, the arrangement is not ready for review. Distinguish the response definition from the criterion, the criterion from the consequence, and consequence availability from consequence delivery.

Design elementCurrent ruleMember-facing explanationAccess or exceptionEvidence/sourceVersion owner.Contingency typeResponse and opportunity definitionIndividual criterionGroup calculation and criterionOutcome options and current preference evidenceOutcome delivery timingAbsence, cancellation, and unavailable-member ruleFeedback and anonymity rulePeer-interaction safeguardHold, stop, and transition rule

A systematic review of school-based group contingencies found sufficient rigor and replication under its framework, while incomplete reporting limited conclusions about who benefits and under which conditions. The school-based group-contingency review supports careful documentation and bounded claims, not a guarantee for a specific group or permission to import a classroom procedure elsewhere.

Meeting-level and person-level records answer different questions

The meeting ledger captures whether the planned group arrangement was actually available. A cancelled activity, closed room, inaccessible direction, absent responsible adult, or unavailable outcome may make a meeting invalid for evaluating the contingency. That event still belongs in the implementation record.

Date/timeVersionPlanned meeting?Arrangement available and accessible?Members presentGroup criterion met?Outcome due?Delivered within rule?Valid? reasonPeer event or unwanted effectObserver.yes / no / not scorableyes / no / not scorable

A person-level ledger preserves variation that a group result cannot show. Use coded member identifiers and limit access according to the agreed purpose. An absence is not a failure. A member can have a valid person-opportunity even when the group misses its criterion, and another member may not have an interpretable opportunity at all.

Meeting IDCoded memberPresent and available?Individual opportunity valid?Initial responseMeets individual definition?Support usedOutcome accessDissent/help/peer eventNotes.yes / no / not scorableyes / no / not scorable

Do not post individual scores by default. A public team display can often show only information needed for the shared activity. The clinical record may require more detail, but access should remain limited and justified. “Everyone knows who lost it” is evidence of a design concern, not a neutral feature.

Outcome choice, peer impact, and social validity

Preference should be assessed at the level relevant to the arrangement. A majority choice can obscure a minority member's dislike or inaccessibility. The group can have multiple acceptable options, an individual alternative, or a way to revisit a choice. Appearance, adult enthusiasm, or prior popularity does not establish that an outcome currently functions as reinforcement for every member.

A study used a group-oriented concurrent-chains arrangement to examine preferences among independent, dependent, and interdependent contingencies. The group-contingency preference study found that students in the same class could prefer different arrangements and also measured procedural integrity and social validity. Those results support asking each member and measuring implementation. They do not prescribe the selection procedure or imply that a group vote resolves an individual's concern.

Review dateCoded memberPurpose matters?Arrangement understood?Outcome acceptable and accessible?Pressure, blame, exclusion, or relief reported/observedWants to continue?Change requestedFollow-up owner.

Peer effects can be supportive, neutral, competitive, coercive, or mixed. Record helping, reminders, avoidance, blaming, teasing, intimidation, concealment, withdrawal, and requests to stop without assigning intent that was not observed. A lower group rate does not erase a harmful interaction.

A 2024 Good Behavior Game study compared forms of feedback and found that all tested game versions reduced disruptive behavior in the participating classes; one class showed increased negative peer interactions immediately after losing. The feedback and preference study illustrates why direct peer-impact measurement matters even when an aggregate target improves. Its procedures and results do not establish that a Good Behavior Game or any group contingency is suitable here.

Denominators should remain visible

Review questionNumeratorDenominatorResultWhat it does not showValid meeting coveragevalid group meetingsplanned group meetingsGroup or individual performance.Group criterion attainmentvalid meetings meeting the group criterionvalid group meetingsEvery member's result or causation.Planned-meeting yieldvalid meetings meeting the group criterionall planned meetingsWhy meetings were invalid.Individual response occurrencevalid person-opportunities meeting the response definitionvalid observed person-opportunitiesDistribution across members unless disaggregated.Timely outcome deliverydue group outcomes delivered within the current rulevalid meetings in which the outcome was dueReinforcement or benefit.Implementation fidelitycorrectly implemented componentsobservable component opportunitiesClient outcome, assent, fairness, or safety.

A group percentage and an individual percentage are not substitutes. Preserve meeting-level raw counts, person-level raw counts, coded member patterns, invalid reasons, and the exact version. Any small subgroup or public display also requires separate privacy review.

Fictional community cooking-club example

This invented example involves four fictional members of a community cooking club. Fifteen group meetings were planned. One was cancelled when the room was closed and another when the planned activity was unavailable. Thirteen meetings were valid. The case-defined group criterion was met in 10.

  • valid meeting coverage: 13 / 15 × 100 = 86.7%;
  • criterion attainment among valid meetings: 10 / 13 × 100 = 76.9%; and
  • planned-meeting yield: 10 / 15 × 100 = 66.7%.

Four members across 13 valid meetings create 52 potential person-meeting opportunities. Five were unavailable because a member was absent, leaving 47 valid observed person-opportunities. Thirty-six met the case-defined individual response, or 36 / 47 × 100 = 76.6%. The worksheet would also retain each coded member's counts because 76.6% does not show how results were distributed.

The group outcome was due after the 10 meetings that met the criterion. It was delivered within the fictional timing rule after nine, so timely delivery was 9 / 10 × 100 = 90.0%. A late outcome is an implementation event and does not change whether the criterion was met.

Implementation was observed separately across 16 observations and eight components, creating 128 component opportunities. One hundred nineteen were correct and nine were mismatches, reconciling to 128. Fidelity was 119 / 128 × 100 = 93.0%.

Fictional result table

Evidence layerFictional resultBounded interpretationPlanned coverage13 valid of 15 plannedTwo meetings could not test the arrangement.Group criterion10 of 13 validDoes not show every member's outcome.Planned yield10 of 15 plannedKeeps cancelled meetings visible.Individual response36 of 47 valid person-opportunitiesMust still be disaggregated by coded member.Timely outcome delivery9 of 10 dueOne delivery was late; group performance is separate.Implementation fidelity119 of 128 componentsNine mismatches require review.Peer impactdirect descriptive review neededAggregate percentages do not show pressure or blame.Generalization or maintenancenot establishedNo durable or cross-context claim follows.

These figures invite review of the cancellations, absences, member-level distributions, late delivery, fidelity mismatches, individual feedback, and any peer event. They do not automatically justify continuing, changing contingency type, raising a criterion, or ending the arrangement.

Fidelity record

ObservationVersionType/criterion correctValid opportunitiesPrivate dataCorrect feedbackTimely outcomeDissent honoredPeer safeguardCorrectOpportunitiesNotes.

Define each component before observing. A mismatch may reflect unclear rules, inaccessible feedback, training gaps, staff coverage, unavailable outcomes, a calculation error, or version drift. Fidelity is an implementer measure; it should not be relabeled as member motivation or treatment success.

Transition, maintenance, and stopping questions

Changing an interdependent arrangement to an independent one, altering the criterion, reducing feedback, changing outcome access, or ending the contingency are different decisions. Record one question at a time, preserve the earlier version, and state what evidence would trigger a pause or rollback.

Change versionElement under reviewPrior arrangementProposed arrangementElements held constantMember feedbackGroup resultIndividual distributionPeer impactFidelityRollback/stop ruleOwner.

The CASP ABA Practice Guidelines access page provides current professional context for individualized care. It does not endorse this worksheet or decide whether a group arrangement should start, continue, transition, or stop.

The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts keeps competence, client rights, involvement, informed consent, assent when applicable, confidentiality, documentation, treatment review, and data use with the responsible professional. A group score does not discharge those individual responsibilities.

Decision and exception record

FieldReview entry.Which version, dates, contingency type, and setting were reviewed?What shows individual participation, assent/dissent, communication, and privacy?What are the valid-meeting, group-criterion, and planned-yield results?What do coded person-opportunities and individual distributions show?Was the outcome available, delivered, and supported by current preference evidence?Which peer interactions, burden, stigma, exclusion, or unwanted effects occurred?Which fidelity mismatches and environmental barriers remain?Which generalization, maintenance, or transition evidence is missing?Which consent, rights, safety, school, employment, payer, or legal issue needs separate review?Is the question to hold, revise, continue, change type, or end?Who owns the decision, and when is the next review?

Preserve disagreement and uncertainty in every completed ABA group contingency worksheet. The group can meet its criterion while one member experiences pressure, an individual can improve while the shared result falls short, and a preferred outcome can become unavailable. No single percentage establishes fairness, reinforcement, assent, safety, effectiveness, maintenance, or benefit.

Related resources

Sources

The evidence spans educational and other settings, different contingency types, outcomes, group sizes, preference methods, feedback conditions, measures, and designs. It supports explicit relations, direct implementation measurement, member-level review, and attention to collateral effects. It does not provide a universal group arrangement, target, criterion, outcome, privacy rule, feedback method, duration, transition sequence, or prediction for a particular group.