Immediate and Distal Effects of the Good Behavior Game
Donaldson, Jeanne M.; Wiskow, Katie M.; Soto, Paul L. (2015). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, v48 n3 p685-689 Sep 2015. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1073404
-
examining16Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Good Behavior Game)
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 38%
Male: 63% -
Rural
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one kindergarten classroom in one rural elementary school in west Texas.
Study sample
This review focuses on the reversal-withdrawal single case design for one kindergarten classroom, "Class 1." Participants included 16 students and one teacher within one kindergarten classroom. About 63% of the students in the class were male. The study did not report other demographic information.
Intervention Group
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, the researcher implemented Good Behavior Game once per day for 1 to 5 days a week, while the teacher led a literacy lesson, math lesson, or an activity center. The duration of sessions averaged 13 to 24 minutes. The researcher started each session by dividing the students into two teams and asking them to repeat the rules: sit on the carpet or at their seats, get permission to speak, and keep hands and feet to themselves. Each time a student displayed a disruptive behavior, the researcher provided a corrective statement and gave the team a tally mark. Teams with five or fewer tally marks each day earned a prize, such as stickers, temporary tattoos, or lip balm, immediately following the game.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teacher led a literacy lesson, math lesson, or an activity center. Sessions took place once per day for 1–5 days a week, and lasted an average of 13–24 minutes. Students were expected to sit on the carpet or at their seats, get permission to speak, and keep hands and feet to themselves. The teacher would sometimes remind students of classroom rules before or during activities, and responded to disruptive behavior as they usually would, by either ignoring the behavior, delivering a corrective statement, or providing some other statement. The attention provided for disruption was brief and did not delay instruction.
Support for implementation
The study manuscript does not mention training or support provided to classroom teachers for implementation. Researchers implemented the Good Behavior Game throughout the study, while the teachers continued to provide instruction as usual.
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).