Study: 90522

Single Study Review

Review Details

Reviewed: April 2023

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (findings for Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG))

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.

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 (SHPSCS): Emotion Regulation	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,139 students	4.10	3.98	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Emotion Regulation	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,007 students	3.31	3.07	No	--
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale (SHPSCS): Emotion Regulation	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 416 students	3.80	3.63	No	--
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale (SHPSCS): Emotion Regulation	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 382 students	3.83	3.73	No	--
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale (SHPSCS): Emotion Regulation	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Full sample; 3,035 students	4.06	4.05	No	--

Student Behavior outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Researcher-developed total problem behavior score	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,055 students	0.16	0.21	No	--
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale: Social Competence subscale	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,140 students	4.10	3.92	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Readiness to Learn	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,130 students	4.33	4.17	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Authority Acceptance	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 3,142 students	4.79	4.79	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Readiness to Learn	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 413 students	3.84	3.53	Yes	10
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale: Social Competence subscale	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 416 students	3.77	3.50	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Social Competence	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,007 students	3.41	3.16	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Readiness to Learn	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 380 students	3.87	3.63	Yes	7
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale: Social Competence subscale	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 382 students	3.82	3.64	No	--
Researcher-developed total problem behavior score	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 420 students	0.17	0.20	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Academic Engagement	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,007 students	3.82	3.62	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Positive Peer Relationships	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,007 students	4.07	3.80	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Agressive-Disruptive Behavior	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,007 students	2.94	3.06	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Inattention/Hyperactivity	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	High-risk students; 1,007 students	3.30	3.36	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Readiness to Learn	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Full sample; 3,020 students	4.28	4.21	No	--
Researcher-developed total problem behavior score	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Full sample; 2,984 students	0.16	0.16	No	--
Social Health Profile Social Competence Scale: Social Competence subscale	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Full sample; 3,034 students	4.05	4.02	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Authority Acceptance	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 416 students	4.57	4.61	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Authority Acceptance	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Full sample; 3,036 students	4.79	4.78	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Authority Acceptance	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 382 students	4.61	4.62	No	--
Researcher-developed total problem behavior score	Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Good Behavior Game	0 Days	Students receiving special education services; 384 students	0.17	0.17	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.

Male: 50%
Other or unknown: 50%
Urban

Race
Asian		1%
Black		92%
Other or unknown		4%
White		3%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		3%
Not Hispanic or Latino		96%
Other or unknown		1%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		88%
No FRPL		12%

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.

Study sample

The researchers randomly assigned nine schools to an intervention group that combined Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies with Good Behavior Game (PATHS to GBG), nine schools to an intervention group that used PAX Good Behavior Game (GBG) alone, and nine schools to the comparison group. The primary contrast of interest for this review was PATHS to GBG versus the comparison group. A total of 3,142 students in grades kindergarten through five were included in the main analytic sample for the primary contrast of interest. The elementary school students were taught by 215 teachers in 18 schools. Approximately 50% of the students were male, 88% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 10% received special education services. Ninety-two percent were Black, 3% were White, 1% were Asian, and 4% did not report race. Three percent were Hispanic or Latino, 96% were non-Hispanic or Latino, and 1% did not report ethnicity.

Intervention Group

Teachers used PATHS to GBG, a program that aimed to promote student social and emotional competencies and lessen aggressive, disruptive, and off-task student behavior via a streamlined integration of two approaches: the Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) socioemotional curriculum and the GBG team-based classroom management strategy. Specifically, each PATHS to GBG teacher in this study was assigned to implement PATHS lessons twice a week and GBG several times per school day with their whole classroom. Approximately 40% of the PATHS curriculum focused on understanding and expressing emotions, 30% focused on competencies associated with positive social behaviors, and 30% focused on self-control and other competencies involved in social problem-solving. To implement GBG 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 PATHS to GBG for one school year. These teachers delivered 72% of the PATHS lessons and played GBG 154 times for a total of 1,583 minutes, on average.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual K–5 instruction. The review also describes supplemental findings that compare PATHS to GBG to PAX GBG alone. 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 two full-day trainings (one day for PATHS and one day for GBG) over the summer and two half-day boosters (one for PATHS and one for GBG) 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.

Hart, Shelley R.; Domitrovich, Celene; Embry, Dennis D.; Becker, Kimberly; Lawson, April; Ialongo, Nicholas. (2021). The Effects of Two Elementary School-Based Universal Preventive Interventions on Special Education Students' Socioemotional Outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, v42 n1 p31-43.
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.
Domitrovich, C., Bradshaw, C., Berg, J., Pas, E., Becker, K., Musci, R., Embry, D., & Ialongo, N. (2016). How do school-based prevention programs impact teachers? Findings from a randomized trial of an integrated classroom management and social-emotional program. Prevention Science, 17(3), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0618-z.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Combination of Two School-Based Universal Preventive Interventions [Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG)]