Donaldson, Jeanne M.; Matter, Ashley L.; Wiskow, Katie M. (2018). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, v51 n1 p118-129 Win 2018. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1166843
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 four classrooms in one elementary school in rural west Texas.
Participants included 53 students in four classrooms in kindergarten and grade 1 at one school. About 58% of the students were male. 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, researchers, teachers, and other students in the class led Good Behavior Game, which varied by session. During each session, the leader reviewed the rules, presented the reward for the day, and divided the class into two teams. The rules required students to remain seated, raise their hands to speak, and keep their hands and feet to themselves. Each time a rule violation occurred, the leader would place a tally mark on a board at the front of the class and state the rule that was violated. After the session ended, the leader asked teams to count their tallies, and the winning team received a reward. Both teams won if they had fewer than five tallies. Otherwise, the team with the fewest tallies won. Sessions lasted 15 to 25 minutes and were conducted once per day for up to 5 days a week during morning whole-group literacy instruction.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teachers instructed their classrooms in the typical manner without using a formal behavior system. Sometimes the teacher stated classroom rules that required students to sit on the carpet with their legs crossed, keep their hands in their laps, and raise their hands to speak or leave their seats. Teachers either ignored, reprimanded, or acknowledged disruptive behavior.
All of the teachers had previously implemented Good Behavior Game prior to this study, so they did not require additional training. Researchers trained student leaders from the classroom by modeling the Good Behavior Game and providing brief instruction. During the first few student-led phases, a researcher sat next to the student leader and prompted any missed rule violations.
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