A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Combination of Two School-Based Universal Preventive Interventions [Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG)]
Ialongo, Nicholas S.; Domitrovich, Celene; Embry, Dennis; Greenberg, Mark; Lawson, April; Becker, Kimberly D.; Bradshaw, Catherine (2019). Developmental Psychology, v55 n6 p1313-1325 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1216803
-
examining3,142Students, gradesK-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
4.06 |
4.05 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed total problem behavior score |
Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS) + Good Behavior Game (GBG) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
3.84 |
3.53 |
Yes |
|
||
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
3.87 |
3.63 |
Yes |
|
||
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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;
|
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.
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).