Weis, Robert; Osborne, Karen J.; Dean, Emily L. (2015). Journal of Applied School Psychology, v31 n3 p199-218. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1071231
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Achievement |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 1-3;
|
188.97 |
186.12 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 1-2 ;
|
192.11 |
188.31 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 7% | |
| Other or unknown | 10% | |
| White | 82% |
| Hispanic | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 98% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in six school districts within one county in the Midwest region of the United States. The county included suburban, urban, and rural areas.
A total of 949 students in grades 1 to 3 were included in the study. The 949 students were in 49 classrooms. Fifty percent of the students were female. Approximately 82 percent were White, 7 percent were Black, 1 percent was Asian American, and 10 percent did not report race. Two percent reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.
The intervention was the PAX version of the Good Behavior Game (GBG). PAX GBG is an elementary-school classroom intervention designed to increase on-task behavior and self-regulation and reduce disruptive behavior in children. Teachers implemented the whole-class intervention daily for a school year. Teachers divided students in each classroom into at least two teams, then announced that the game was beginning before returning to classroom instruction. During regular classroom instruction, teachers assessed student behavior and gave marks to teams whose students were not following classroom rules. Teachers then named the team with the lowest marks, or the team with the fewest violations, as the winner and provided a prize or privilege, such as starting recess early or having access to certain toys. PAX GBG includes "kernels," which are evidence-based behavioral strategies to increase students' self-regulation. These include activities to establish the classroom rules, new terminology to denote rule following ("pax") or rule breaking ("spleems"), notes of praise to individual students for following the rules ("tootles"), use of prompts to indicate the beginning of GBG play (such as a harmonica playing), and use of transition cues (such as a PAX quiet signal) to facilitate classroom transitions. PAX GBG incorporates parent activities to help continue to build the self-regulation skills at home.
The comparison group classrooms received business-as-usual instruction that did not include GBG.
The PAX version provides a detailed user manual that guides implementing the intervention; offers onsite training to teachers; and has additional materials like posters, timers, and reinforcers that assist with implementation. All teachers in the intervention group completed a 1-day onsite training workshop conducted by the developer of PAX GBG and a booster session. A peer mentor provided additional assistance to teachers in implementation. A psychologist who was not affiliated with the developer monitored the fidelity of PAX GBG implementation and assessed implementation, student outcomes, and teacher satisfaction on a biannual basis.
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