Fallon, Lindsay M., Marcotte, Amanda M., Ferron, John M. (2020). Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions v22 n4 p246-258. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1265213
Reviewed: January 2023
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Good Behavior Game.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Good Behavior Game Intervention Report (516 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 67% | |
| Other or unknown | 17% | |
| White | 17% |
| Hispanic | 17% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 83% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 100% |
The study took place in two classrooms in a Title I elementary school in an urban setting in the northeastern United States.
Participants included 45 students, including six focal students with the lowest writing test scores, in two classrooms taught by two teachers in grades 1 and 2. The study included a series of reversal-withdrawal single case designs to study the effectiveness of Good Behavior Game on classroom and student outcomes. There are separate single case designs for each classroom and for each of the focal students. Three of the six focal students were male and four were Black, one was White, and one was Hispanic or Latino. None of the six focal students received special education services. Across the two classrooms, 60% of students were male and 9% received special education services. Sixty percent were Black, 13% were White, 2% were Asian, and 24% did not report race. Sixteen percent were Hispanic or Latino. All students in the school were eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program due to the district's status as a high-needs district, and 60% of the students in the school were classified as economically disadvantaged and received some form of family aid.
The Good Behavior Game is a classroom management strategy that promotes students collaborating together to create a positive learning environment. Students are placed into teams and are rewarded for demonstrating appropriate behaviors and not violating classroom rules. In this study, teachers created teams consisting of five or six students each, based on seating arrangements. At the beginning of each session, teachers reviewed the expected behaviors and rules of the game, which included staying seated and quietly focusing on writing tasks. All sessions lasted 15 minutes and took place during writing practice while students responded to a writing prompt. As the students wrote, the teachers walked around the room, praised students, and awarded points if students stayed seated and focused on writing. At the end of the session, the team with the most points received a prize selected by the teacher, such as stickers or candy.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case designs, the teachers instructed their classrooms in the typical manner without using a formal behavior system. Each session lasted 15 minutes and took place during writing practice. There were a total of 17 or 18 baseline-reversal sessions across classes.
Researchers provided comprehensive Good Behavior Game training to teachers, which included modeling, role-play, rehearsal, and feedback.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube