Mitchell, Rachel R.; Tingstrom, Daniel H.; Dufrene, Brad A.; Ford, W. Blake; Sterling, Heather E. (2015). School Psychology Review, v44 n2 p191-207. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141382
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.
| Black | 91% | |
| Other or unknown | 2% | |
| Two or more races | 5% | |
| White | 2% |
| Hispanic | 2% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 98% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 89% | |
| No FRPL | 11% |
The study took place in two general education classrooms in one high school in the southeastern United States.
This review focuses on the reversal-withdrawal single case designs for two classrooms, "Classroom A" and "Classroom C." Participants included 44 students in grades 9–12. Most students in the sample were Black (91%), 7% were biracial or had no race provided, and 2% were White. Two percent were Hispanic or Latino. About 52% of students were male, and across the entire school, 89% of students were eligible for 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, the teachers introduced Good Behavior Game as a team competition and used a script to outline expectations and the rules of the game. During each session, teachers added a checkmark to the team’s name on a board at the front of the class each time a student engaged in disruptive behavior, such as leaving their seat without permission or being off task. To win the competition, teams had to have fewer checkmarks than the criterion set before the game. Winning teams received extra credit points, homework passes, free time, food, or school supplies. The 20-minute sessions took place during algebra and Spanish classes two to three times a week for an unspecified number of weeks.
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.
The researchers trained teachers during their planning periods by describing how to introduce the Good Behavior Game with a script, modeling the steps, and by providing teachers a chance to practice. Researchers also gave teachers feedback on their practice sessions.
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