WWC review of this study

Immediate and Distal Effects of the Good Behavior Game

Donaldson, Jeanne M.; Wiskow, Katie M.; Soto, Paul L. (2015). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, v48 n3 p685-689 Sep 2015. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1073404

  • Single Case Design
    , grade

Reviewed: March 2023

Meets WWC standards without reservations

To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Good Behavior Game Intervention Report (516 KB)

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

  • Female: 38%
    Male: 63%

  • Rural
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

  • Race
    Other or unknown
  • Ethnicity
    Other or unknown    
  • Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
    Other or unknown    


The study took place in one kindergarten classroom in one rural elementary school in west Texas.

Study sample

This review focuses on the reversal-withdrawal single case design for one kindergarten classroom, "Class 1." Participants included 16 students and one teacher within one kindergarten classroom. About 63% of the students in the class were male. The study did not report 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, the researcher implemented Good Behavior Game once per day for 1 to 5 days a week, while the teacher led a literacy lesson, math lesson, or an activity center. The duration of sessions averaged 13 to 24 minutes. The researcher started each session by dividing the students into two teams and asking them to repeat the rules: sit on the carpet or at their seats, get permission to speak, and keep hands and feet to themselves. Each time a student displayed a disruptive behavior, the researcher provided a corrective statement and gave the team a tally mark. Teams with five or fewer tally marks each day earned a prize, such as stickers, temporary tattoos, or lip balm, immediately following the game.

Comparison Group

There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teacher led a literacy lesson, math lesson, or an activity center. Sessions took place once per day for 1–5 days a week, and lasted an average of 13–24 minutes. Students were expected to sit on the carpet or at their seats, get permission to speak, and keep hands and feet to themselves. The teacher would sometimes remind students of classroom rules before or during activities, and responded to disruptive behavior as they usually would, by either ignoring the behavior, delivering a corrective statement, or providing some other statement. The attention provided for disruption was brief and did not delay instruction.

Support for implementation

The study manuscript does not mention training or support provided to classroom teachers for implementation. Researchers implemented the Good Behavior Game throughout the study, while the teachers continued to provide instruction as usual.


Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

back to top