The effects of a group-oriented contingency—the Good Behavior Game—on the disruptive behavior of children with developmental disabilities
Patterson, K. B. (2003). (Publication No. 3097200) [Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
-
examining6Students, gradesK-4
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2022
- 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
-
Race Black 83% White 17% -
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 self-contained special education classroom in one elementary school in an urban area of the United States.
Study sample
Participants include six students in one classroom that served students in Kindergarten through grade 4 with developmental disabilities. The classroom served students in Kindergarten through grade 4 with developmental disabilities. Most of the students were Black (83%) and 17% were White. All of the students were male and had serious problem behaviors. No other sample characteristics were given.
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 split the class into two teams. Each day, the teacher reminded students of the Good Behavior Game rules, which required students to stay in their seats, remain quiet during assignments, refrain from disturbing others, and raise their hands to ask permission to talk or leave their seats. The teacher then gave teams a tally mark on the board each time they violated one of the rules. At the end of each session, students who were on teams that broke the rules five or less times received a victory tag and star sticker, were allowed to receive lunch five minutes early, had extra recess time, and were allowed to participate in a student activity of their own choice for the last 30 minutes of the school day, such as playing games or listening to music. The teacher led the Good Behavior Game for 30 minutes each day during math period, while students worked independently on math concepts that were introduced during the first 50 minutes of class. This review was not included in the 2023 Good Behavior Game intervention report because it was published outside of the eligible time frame specified in the Systematic Review Protocol for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Interventions.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case designs, the teacher provided typical math instruction.
Support for implementation
The study does not describe implementation support provided to the teacher.
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).