Smith, E. P., Osgood, D. W., Oh, Y., & Caldwell, L. C. (2018). Prevention Science, 19(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0820-2.
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-adapted Promising Practices Rating Scale: Level of Engagement Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.07 |
2.92 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-adapted Promising Practices Rating Scale: Supportive Relations with Peers Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.13 |
3.02 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-adapted Caregiver Interaction Survey: Permissiveness Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.15 |
2.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-adapted Promising Practices Rating Scale: Supportive Relations with Adults Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.91 |
2.81 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-adapted Promising Practices Rating Scale: Appropriate Program Structure Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.21 |
3.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Youth Program Quality Assessment: Conflict Resolution Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.70 |
2.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-adapted Promising Practices Rating Scale: Chaos Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.44 |
1.55 |
No |
-- | |
|
Youth Program Quality Assessment: Choice Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.72 |
3.63 |
No |
-- | |
|
Youth Program Quality Assessment: Staff Engagement Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.56 |
3.52 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-adapted Caregiver Interaction Survey: Harshness Subscale, based on researcher observation of classes |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.34 |
1.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 29% | |
| Other or unknown | 23% | |
| White | 48% |
| Hispanic | 7% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 93% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in 73 afterschool programs in central and southeastern Pennsylvania. The afterschool programs included students in grades 2 through 5 and were located in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
The researchers randomly assigned 37 afterschool programs to the intervention group and 39 sites to the comparison group. A total of 73 of these 76 programs participated in the study. In the afterschool programs, students were in grades 2 through 5. Approximately 50 percent of the students were female. Forty-eight percent were White, 29 percent were Black, and 23 percent were classified as another race or did not report their race. Seven percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Students in afterschool programs played the Paxis Institute's Good Behavior Game (PAX GBG) over a 20- to 24- week period. The GBG is a classroom behavior-focused management intervention that promotes students collaborating together to create a positive learning environment. Students and staff collaborated on assigning students to teams of four to five students, and these teams varied throughout the study. At the beginning of the game, students and staff created a shared set of verbal and visual cues to remind students to behave appropriately. Teams were rewarded when they demonstrated appropriate behaviors, such as following directions and working quietly when asked to do so. At the end of the game, teams with three or fewer misbehaviors received a reward. Programs were asked to play PAX GBG every day, with the amount of time spent playing ranging from one minute to up to thirty minutes, increasing as students became more familiar with the game.
Students in the comparison group participated in afterschool programs but did not play PAX GBG.
Afterschool program staff implementing PAX GBG received 3 to 4 hours of training in 4 training sessions. The trainings included both lectures and interactive activities that provided opportunities for applied learning and planning time. Afterschool staff also had access to a coach that observed implementation and provided technical assistance weekly across up to 24 weeks of implementation.
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