Meredith Murphy, J., Hawkins, Renee O., Nabors, Laura. (2020). Contemporary School Psychology v24 n2 p228-238. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1251543
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 | 68% | |
| Other or unknown | 23% | |
| White | 9% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in three classrooms in one state-chartered alternative school in the midwestern United States. The school served students identified as needing intensive behavior and mental health supports.
Participants included 22 students in kindergarten through grade 6 in three classrooms. Each classroom had one teacher and one teacher assistant. Across the three classrooms, all students had an individualized education program, and most (77%) were male. Sixty-eight percent of students were Black, 9% were White, and 23% did not report race.
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 used 10-minute scripted lessons over a 1-week period to teach students social skills, including following directions the first time they were given, raising one’s hand to ask and answer questions, and ignoring distractions. Descriptions of the social skills were printed on posters and placed on the walls of the classroom. When they completed the social skill lessons, teachers randomly grouped students into teams, reviewed Good Behavior Game rules, and explained how students could earn points and rewards. Each session lasted 45 minutes; every 5 minutes teachers would provide behavior-specific praise to students using the targeted skills and award points on a chart displayed at the front of the classroom. When the game ended, teams that scored more points than a pre-set criterion received a reward. The criterion increased throughout the study.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline phases of the single case design, teachers addressed disruptive behaviors using their typical classroom management strategies, which included reminding students of expected behavior and offering appropriate behavior alternatives. Baseline sessions occurred during 45-minute class periods.
The researcher provided training to teachers, which included a description of Good Behavior Game rules, procedures, and scoring. Researchers also provided tips for introducing social skills to students and a script to use during sessions. Teachers had opportunities to practice implementation and researchers provided them with 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