Donaldson, J. M., Fisher, A. B., & Kahng, S. (2017). Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000016.
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.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in one large, urban, public school in Maryland. Students were from two Kindergarten classrooms and one first grade classroom.
This review focuses on the reversal-withdrawal single case designs for 11 focal students who teachers identified based on their disruptive behavior. The students were from two Kindergarten classrooms and one grade 1 classroom. About 64% of the study participants were female. The study did not report other demographic information.
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, Good Behavior Game sessions took place during whole-group instruction focused on math, reading, and other literacy skills, while students sat on a large carpet. The researcher implemented Good Behavior Game during the first several sessions and the teacher delivered the whole-group instruction. After observing the first several sessions, the teacher then implemented the game while delivering the whole-group instruction. Before each session began, the teacher or researcher would divide the class into teams and review the rules of the game and criterion for winning. During the session, the teacher would record a tally on the board at the front of the classroom each time a team member engaged in disruptive behavior and would verbally state the rule the student broke. The teacher counted the tallies at the end of the game and rewarded the winning team(s). All teams could win if they did not exceed the maximum number of tallies. If all teams exceeded the maximum, then the team with the fewest tallies would win. Winning teams earned two points in the existing classroom token system and received a special cheer. Students could exchange points for access to special toys; lunch with the teacher; high fives or hugs; or prizes such as stickers, pencils, or gold medals. One to three sessions were conducted each day, 2 to 3 days per week. Sessions varied in length, depending on the duration of whole-group instruction, but averaged about 12 minutes each.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. Baseline and withdrawal sessions of the single case designs took place during whole group instruction focused on math, reading, and other literacy skills, while students were sitting on a large carpet. Teachers instructed class as they normally would and enforced existing classroom rules, such as requiring students to sit on their designated spot on the carpet, raise their hands before talking or getting up, and to pay attention. Teachers did not go over classroom rules at the beginning of sessions, but they did remind students of the rules if violations occurred during the session. During the baseline sessions, the researchers observed and recorded data. One to three sessions were conducted each day, two to three days per week, and lasted an average of 12 minutes.
The researcher modeled the Good Behavior Game during the first several sessions so teachers could implement it properly. The study manuscript does not describe other training or supports that teachers may have received.
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