Does the Good Behavior Game Evoke Negative Peer Pressure? Analyses in Primary and Secondary Classrooms
Groves, Emily A., Austin, Jennifer L. (2019). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis v52 n1 p3-16. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1203158
-
examining13Students, gradeNot reported
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Good Behavior Game)
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet 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: 31%
Male: 69% -
Suburban
-
- 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
International
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in two classrooms in two schools in South Wales, United Kingdom. Both schools served students who were excluded from mainstream education due to severe behavioral problems or disabilities.
Study sample
Participants included 13 students in two classrooms at two schools. Students in one classroom were 9 or 10 years old and students in the other classroom were 15 or 16 years old. All students received special education services in self-contained schools due to severe behavioral problems or disabilities. About 69% of students were male.
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 teacher placed all students on one team in one of the classrooms, and the other classroom had three teams. The teachers introduced Good Behavior Game and explained students could earn points if they followed classroom expectations and rules, which varied by class and included staying on task, staying in one’s seat, being quiet, raising one’s hand to talk, refraining from swearing, and using mobile phones only with permission. Teachers displayed the rules on a classroom poster at the front of the room. In each session, teachers reminded students of expectations and then awarded points to teams for following the rules. At the end of each session, teams that met a point criterion for the session received a reward, such as a snack or extra time to use the computer or play with toys. Each session took place during Welsh Baccalaureate lessons or literacy lessons once a day, three or four times a week, for 45 to 60 minutes.
Comparison Group
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 and responded to problem behaviors as they typically would. One of the classrooms had an existing classroom management system in which students could earn points towards extra free time.
Support for implementation
The researcher trained each teacher in their classroom. The training included a step-by-step description of Good Behavior Game, modeling of the procedures, and a discussion of the most common problem behaviors that occurred in each class. Teachers helped develop the rules for their classrooms.
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).