An Evaluation of Interdependent and Independent Group Contingencies during the Good Behavior Game
Groves, Emily A.; Austin, Jennifer L. (2017). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, v50 n3 p552-566 Sum 2017. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1147515
-
examining4Students, gradeNot reported
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.
-
Male: 100% -
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
The study took place in one classroom in a specialist school in South Wales, United Kingdom. The school served children with severe emotional and behavior disorders with histories of aggression, property destruction, and excessive classroom disruption.
Study sample
Participants included four focal students from one classroom within one school. The teacher nominated the four students (Rhys, David, Owen, and Thomas) to include in the study based on their high levels of problem behaviors. All four students were male, had severe emotional and behavioral disorders, and were 9 or 10 years old. The authors did not provide further characteristics of the students.
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. This study implemented two versions of Good Behavior Game: group and individual. For the group Good Behavior Game sessions, teachers divided students into two teams based on their seating arrangement, with two focal students on each team for the purposes of collecting study data. Students received points and prizes based on the behavior of all students in their group. For the individual Good Behavior Game sessions, individual students were on their own team and awarded points and prizes based on their own behavior. Before Good Behavior Game sessions, the teacher explained the game and reminded students of three rules: requesting attention appropriately, staying in one’s seat, and staying on task. The teacher displayed the rules on a poster at the front of the classroom. The teacher also drew a mystery number from a bowl that determined the number of good behaviors each team (or individual) had to display to win a reward. The teacher recorded a point on the board at the front of the class every 2 minutes if all children on the team had followed the rules during the 2-minute interval. At the end of each session, the teacher added the points and revealed the mystery number. The teams (or individual students) who received points equal or more than the mystery number would receive a reward, such as a piece of fruit or time to play games, use an iPad, or play outdoors. Teachers conducted the sessions three or four times a week during normal class activities in which they expected students to work independently, such as literacy-based work. Lessons were usually 1 hour in duration, and students played Good Behavior Game during the independent work portion of the lesson, which usually lasted 20 to 30 minutes.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single case designs. During the baseline sessions of each alternating treatment design, the teacher used business-as-usual classroom management procedures, such as reminding students to raise their hands before speaking. All children in the class also participated in a school-wide points system. If children earned a certain number of points by the end of the week, they could participate in preferred activities on Friday afternoons. The baseline sessions were conducted three to four times a week during activities in which students were expected to work independently, such as literacy-based work. Lessons were usually 1 hour in duration, and the baseline observation sessions typically lasted 9 to 12 minutes.
Support for implementation
The researcher provided the teacher with a two-hour training, including a description of the game, a step-by-step handout, a model of the game, and a chance to practice through role-playing. The teacher also watched a video of the game being played in other classrooms and took part in a discussion.
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).