Class-Wide Positive Behavior Support and Group Contingencies: Examining a Positive Variation of the Good Behavior Game
Wright, Robert A.; McCurdy, Barry L. (2012). Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, v14 n3 p173-180. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ968485
-
examining37Students, gradesK-4
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.
-
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
Northeast
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 36% No FRPL 64%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in two general education classrooms within one elementary school in the northeastern United States.
Study sample
Participants included 37 students in kindergarten and grade 4 in two classrooms taught by two teachers. About half (51%) of the students were male, and 36% of the students in the school were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The study did not provide other demographic information.
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, teachers implemented Good Behavior Game daily during a 40-minute language arts period. Each teacher divided their class into four teams, explained the rules of the game, and then signaled the beginning of the game. They used two variations of Good Behavior Game, depending on the session. In some sessions, teachers assigned points to teams when a student demonstrated disruptive behavior, defined as being out of seat, talking without permission, playing with objects, or not following directions. In other sessions, teachers gave teams a point when all team members were on task. The teacher tallied points at the end of the period and recorded them on a chart posted in the classroom. Teams that met a point criterion that was unknown to students received a reward such as candy, pencils, and erasers. Each week, teams also had the opportunity to earn a reward if their points met a weekly criterion.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teachers provided typical language arts instruction.
Support for implementation
A researcher trained the teachers and provided them with a script and manual that included information on Good Behavior Game rules, steps, and examples of target behaviors. During the training, teachers observed a model session and engaged in role-play with feedback until the teacher demonstrated mastery of the game.
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).