Joslyn, P. Raymond; Vollmer, Timothy R.; Kronfli, Faris R. (2019). Journal of Behavioral Education, v28 n4 p423-434. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1234607
Reviewed: March 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.
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.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 77% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 14% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 82% | |
| No FRPL | 18% |
The study took place in one Title 1 alternative public high school in Florida offering services for children with histories of delinquency and emotional and behavioral disorders.
This review focuses on the reversal-withdrawal single case design for one high school classroom, "Classroom 2." Five to 10 students were in the class throughout the study, though the class size fluctuated throughout sessions due to student absences, new students entering and exiting the study school, and student suspensions. All students had emotional and behavioral disorders. Among the school population, 82% received free or reduced-price lunch, 84% were male, 77% were Black, 14% were White, 1% was Asian, and 8% did not report race. Five percent of the students in the school were Hispanic or Latino.
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 teacher assigned the entire class to one team because the class was small and students were frequently absent. In each Good Behavior Game session, the researcher stated the rules, which included no talking or leaving one’s seat without permission. Each time a student broke a rule, the researcher recorded tally marks on a board at the front of the classroom and reminded the student of the rules. At the end of each session, students received a reward, such as chips or fruit snacks, if the class had fewer tallies than the criterion set by the researcher before the session. During Good Behavior Game sessions, the teacher provided instruction in world history during the first half of the period, and students independently worked on assignments for the rest of the period. Teachers conducted sessions up to five times a week for about 30 minutes. If more than half of the class was absent during a class period, Good Behavior Game was not implemented.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teacher conducted the class as they normally would, using existing behavior management strategies, including manual restraint in extreme cases, and a point system used to determine student preparedness for returning to their home school. Teachers awarded students points at the end of the class period for engaging in certain behaviors such as respecting others and being on time. The evaluation included sessions only if more than half the class was present during a class period. Researchers were present in the room, but did not implement any procedures with students. Sessions were conducted up to five times a week for approximately 30 minutes.
The researcher implemented Good Behavior Game in the classroom, instead of the teacher. The teacher continued classroom instruction as usual.
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