Tanol, Gizem; Johnson, LeAnne; McComas, Jennifer; Cote, Erin (2010). Journal of School Psychology, v48 n5 p337-355 Oct 2010. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ895127
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.
| Native American | 100% |
| Hispanic | 6% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 93% | |
| No FRPL | 7% |
The study took place in two Kindergarten classrooms in one public school serving students in pre-Kindergarten through grade 9, in a large metropolitan city.
This review focuses on the reversal-withdrawal single case designs for four focal students (Walter, John, Russell, and Viktor) and their two Kindergarten teachers. All four students were male, Native American, and referred to the study by their teachers because of high rates of disruptive behavior. One student was diagnosed with an emotional behavioral disorder and received special education services to address behavior problems. The three other students were at risk for being classified with emotional behavioral disorders. About 93% of students in the school 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, teachers used two variations of Good Behavior Game, such that they always used verbal praise to reinforce good behavior, but acknowledged rule violations in only some of the sessions. The researchers randomly assigned which version of Good Behavior Game to use in each phase. The teachers divided their students into teams of five or six students, with the four focal students in the study distributed across the teams. At the beginning of each session, the teacher reviewed the classroom rules, which included staying seated and paying attention to the teacher, and stated the criteria for teams to win a reward at the end of the game. The teacher also displayed a poster displayed that stated the rules. During sessions that included acknowledgement of rule violations, all teams began with four stars on their team poster, and teachers removed stars as rule violations occurred; they also stated the problem behavior to the team and praised the other teams. At the end of the session, students on teams with one or more stars remaining on their team poster received a small reward. During the other sessions, all teams started with a blank team poster, and students earned a star and praise for following the rules. Teams violating the rules did not receive attention and did not earn a star. At the end of each session, the teams with at least three or more stars received a small reward. Teams also received a prize (such as a pencil, eraser, or winner medal) each week when they met the daily criterion for two or more days. All sessions took place during instruction periods when students were seated on a carpet and working with their teachers to identify letters, practice counting, or discuss the daily schedule.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. Before the study, teachers worked with the researcher to identify classroom rules that were important to their behavior management needs. Teachers reviewed the rules with students and instructed their classrooms in their typical manner.
The study author trained the teachers on Good Behavior Game procedures and provided resources required for implementation, such as timers and posters that displayed the rules. Teachers were also trained how to identify target behaviors, praise rule following, and redirect rule violations. The study author also provided performance feedback to teachers during the Good Behavior Game phases.
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