Study: 89999

Good Behavior Game Intervention Report - Study Review Protocol

Review Details

Reviewed: April 2023

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Good Behavior Game Intervention Report - Study Review Protocol

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.

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.

Findings

Intrapersonal Competencies outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale: Emotion Regulation Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,502 students	4.08	3.97	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale: Emotion Regulation Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 424 students	3.77	3.70	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Emotion Regulation	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,114 students	3.12	3.07	No	--

Student Behavior outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Total disruptive behavior score, based on researcher observation of classes	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,421 students	0.16	0.21	No	--
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale: Social Competence Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,502 students	4.06	3.90	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised: Readiness to Learn Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,492 students	4.26	4.16	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised: Authority Acceptance Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,504 students	4.80	4.81	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale: Social Competence Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 424 students	3.66	3.55	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised: Readiness to Learn Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 423 students	3.67	3.58	No	--
Total disruptive behavior score, based on researcher observation of classes	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 436 students	0.17	0.19	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised: Authority Acceptance Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 424 students	4.61	4.65	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Inattention/Hyperactivity	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,114 students	3.42	3.36	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Academic Engagement	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,114 students	3.63	3.62	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Aggressive-Disruptive Behavior	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,114 students	3.03	3.06	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Positive Peer Relationships	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,114 students	3.78	3.80	No	--

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%
Urban

Race
Asian		1%
Black		88%
Other or unknown		6%
White		5%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		4%
Not Hispanic or Latino		95%
Other or unknown		1%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		86%
No FRPL		14%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in 27 elementary schools in one large urban school district in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The contrast of interest for this review took place in 18 of the participating schools.

Study sample

The researchers randomly assigned nine schools to the Good Behavior Game (GBG) intervention group, nine schools to an intervention group that combined GBG with Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS), and nine schools to the comparison group. The contrast of interest for this review was GBG alone versus the comparison group. A total of 3,504 students in kindergarten through grade 5 were included in the main analytic sample for the contrast of interest. The elementary school students were taught by 234 teachers in 18 schools. Approximately 51% of the students were male, 86% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 9% received special education services. Eighty-eight percent were Black, 5% were White, 1% were Asian, and 6% did not report race. Four percent were Hispanic or Latino, 95% were non-Hispanic or Latino, and 1% did not report ethnicity.

Intervention Group

Teachers used GBG, a team-based classroom management strategy through which they sought to lessen aggressive, disruptive, and off-task student behavior and promote positive student behavior. Specifically, each GBG teacher in this study was assigned to implement a product called PAX GBG with their whole classroom several times per school day. In each classroom, the teacher divided the students into teams that were evenly matched with respect to behavior and collaborated with the students to create a set of classroom rules. All teams that incurred three or fewer classroom rule violations by the end of the game period won the game and received a reward. Rewards typically had intrinsic value rather than being physical objects. Teachers implemented PAX GBG for one school year and played PAX GBG in their classrooms 150 times for a total of 1,432 minutes, on average.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual K–5 instruction. Comparison teachers may have participated in other business-as-usual training and professional development offered by their schools or school district.

Support for implementation

Teachers in the intervention group were provided one full-day training over the summer and a half-day booster three months later. They were offered weekly face-to-face coaching during the school year (over 31 weeks) that featured check-ins, modeling, needs assessments, performance feedback, and technical assistance.

Additional Sources

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

Bradshaw, C. P., Shukla, K. D., Pas, E. T., Berg, J. K., & Ialongo, N. S. (2020). Using complier average causal effect estimation to examine student outcomes of the PAX Good Behavior Game when integrated with the PATHS curriculum. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 47(6), 972–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01034-1

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Combination of Two School-Based Universal Preventive Interventions [Good Behavior Game]