Study: 89991

Good Behavior Game Intervention Report - Study Review Protocol

Review Details

Reviewed: January 2023

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Good Behavior Game Intervention Report - Study Review Protocol

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.

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.

Findings

General Literacy Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Hodder Group Reading Test	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 2,504 students	32.49	33.05	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Hodder Group Reading Test	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Male, at risk of conduct problems; 255 students	29.46	29.22	No	--
Hodder Group Reading Test	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	1 Year	Full sample, 1-year follow-up; 2,333 students	N/A	N/A	No	--

Student Behavior outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Checklist: Concentration Problems Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 2,469 students	2.55	2.50	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Checklist: Disruptive Behavior Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 2,469 students	1.74	1.65	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Checklist: Prosocial Behavior Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 2,469 students	4.81	4.93	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Checklist: Disruptive Behavior Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Male, at risk of conduct problems; 268 students	2.72	2.95	No	--
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Checklist: Concentration Problems Subscale, based on teacher report	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Male, at risk of conduct problems; 268 students	3.42	3.75	No	--

Teacher Practice outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Ohio State Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale: Classroom Management Subscale	Good Behavior Game vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 230 teachers	8.18	8.09	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

27% English language learners
Female: 47%
Male: 53%
Urban
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
International

Race
Other or unknown		34%
White		67%

Ethnicity
Not Hispanic or Latino		67%
Other or unknown		34%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)		25%
No FRPL		75%

Study Details

Setting

The study was conducted in 77 public primary schools across three regions of the United Kingdom: Greater Manchester, West and South Yorkshire, and the East Midlands.

Study sample

A total of 2,504 students in Year 3 and Year 4 classes (ages 7 to 8) were included in the study. The students were taught by 230 teachers. Approximately 47 percent of the students were female, 27 percent were English learners, 21 percent qualified for special education services, and 25 percent qualified for free or reduced price lunch. Sixty-seven percent of students were White and 34 percent were ethnic minority students. The researchers randomly assigned 38 schools to the intervention group and 39 schools to the comparison group.

Intervention Group

The intervention consisted of playing the Good Behavior Game (GBG). The GBG is an intervention used to manage students’ behavior in the classroom. The intervention has several core components, including (1) establishing classroom rules, (2) team membership, (3) monitoring student behavior, and (4) implementing positive reinforcement. Teachers divide students into deliberately heterogeneous teams of seven students, who follow four rules: (1) we will work quietly, (2) we will be polite to others, (3) we will get out of our seats with permission, and (4) we will follow directions. Teachers monitor student behavior and record any violations of those rules. Teams win the GBG by having four or fewer violations by the end of the game. When they win the GBG they receive rewards that can either be small, tangible prizes or intangible rewards such as free time. Over the course of the intervention, which was implemented in classrooms for 2 years, teachers increased the frequency and duration of the game from 10 minutes 3 times per week to up to 30 minutes each day. Teachers in the intervention condition reported varying levels of intensity of the implementation.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction. The researchers found that teachers in comparison schools were using many GBG-like practices, including monitoring of student behavior and use of rewards for positive student behavior.

Support for implementation

Teachers who implemented the GBG condition participated in 2 days of training at the beginning of each of the 2 school years and received an additional day of refresher training several months later. Every month, GBG coaches visited classrooms to support teachers' implementation.

Additional Sources

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

Ashworth, E., Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N., & Hennessey, A. (2020). Game on—Complier average causal effect estimation reveals sleeper effects on academic attainment in a randomized trial of the Good Behavior Game. Prevention Science, 21(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01074-6
Ashworth, Emma; Humphrey, Neil; Hennessey, Alexandra. (2020). Game Over? No Main or Subgroup Effects of the Good Behavior Game in a Randomized Trial in English Primary Schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v13 n2 p298-321.

Good Behaviour Game: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary.