Dadakhodjaeva, K., Radley, K. C., Tingstrom, D. H., Dufrene, B. A., & Dart, E. H. (2019). Behavior Modification, 44(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519826528.
Reviewed: January 2023
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.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Good Behavior Game Intervention Report (516 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 98% | |
| Two or more races | 2% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 95% | |
| No FRPL | 5% |
The study took place in three kindergarten classrooms in one school in the southeastern United States.
Participants included 59 students in three kindergarten classrooms in one school. A teacher and a teacher's aide were present in all three classrooms. All three classrooms were referred for participation in the study by school administration for high levels of disruptive behavior. Most students in the sample were Black (98%) and 2% were described as biracial. Three percent of students had an individualized education program, and 44% were male. Among all students in the school, 95% received free or reduced-price lunch.
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 introduced Good Behavior Game, reviewed rules for behavior, and divided each classroom into two teams. Teachers recorded each time a student misbehaved with a checkmark on a white-board visible to all students. Students received a reward for the day if their team did not exceed the checkmark threshold for their classroom. The threshold was set for each classroom during a baseline period and ranged from eight to 10 checkmarks. Students who earned a reward could choose an item from a treasure box, such as candy, erasers, stickers, or pencils. Students typically played Good Behavior Game once each day for 10 minutes.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline phases of the single case designs, the teachers managed their classroom in their typical manner, which included using Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS).
The researcher trained the students' regular classroom teachers on Good Behavior Game procedures. Training included a discussion of the Good Behavior Game script, modeling the intervention steps, role-playing, and providing the teacher with performance feedback. The role-play component continued until each teacher demonstrated all intervention steps correctly.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube