An evaluation of the Good Behavior Game in a high school special education setting
Johnson, M.D. (2015). (Publication No. 3714080) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of South Dakota]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
-
examining1Student, 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% -
Urban
-
- 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
Midwest
-
Race White 100% -
Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch No FRPL 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one public high school in a midwestern city in a classroom offering Tier 2 services for students with emotional and behavioral problems.
Study sample
This review focuses on the reversal-withdrawal single case design for one focal student, "Student #1," in one classroom. The student had an emotional and behavioral disorder and exhibited attention problems, behavioral concerns, and difficulties in academics. The student was male, White, 16 years old, and came from a middle to upper-class socioeconomic background.
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. Students in the study classroom received Good Behavior Game over a 6-week period, with each session taking place during a 30-minute lesson when the teacher asked students to write in their journals, discuss the topic with others, listen to their teacher introduce a lesson, and then participate in an assignment. The classroom teacher divided the classroom into two teams based on which students worked best together. The teacher then explained Good Behavior Game and the expected behaviors of students. The teacher observed each team during 3-minute intervals and recorded whether they were on task on a whiteboard in front of the classroom. The entire group had to appear on task to receive a plus (+) sign on the whiteboard; the teacher recorded a minus (–) sign if any member of the group appeared off task. Following each 30-minute session, the team received a reward if they met the expectation for on-task behavior. Rewards included iPod use, computer time, or free time.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teacher used normal classroom procedures and activities, including a token economy system for good behavior that started being implemented at the beginning of the school year and remained active throughout all phases of the study. A paraprofessional administered the token economy system.
Support for implementation
The researcher trained the special education teacher assigned to the study classroom on the implementation of Good Behavior Game and how to measure on-task behavior. An independent observer digitally recorded a sample of classroom sessions to ensure intervention procedures were implemented as intended.
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).