Ford, W. B., Radley, K. C., Tingstrom, D. H., & Dufrene, B. A. (2020). Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(3),181–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719890059.
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.
| Black | 81% | |
| Other or unknown | 1% | |
| White | 18% |
| Hispanic | 1% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 99% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 92% | |
| No FRPL | 8% |
The study took place in three classrooms in two high schools in two small urban cities in the southeastern United States. The subject areas in the three classrooms were English language arts and world history.
Participants included 74 students in three high school classrooms taught by three teachers at two schools in grades 9–11. Most students in the sample were Black (81%), 18% were White, and 1% did not report race. One percent were Hispanic or Latino. Across both schools, 92% of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. School administrators or the School-Wide Positive Behavior Intervention and Support consultant referred all three classrooms to the study for having high levels of disruptive behavior, elevated levels of discipline referrals, and low levels of academic achievement. None of the students received special education services.
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, all students in each classroom were on one Good Behavior Game team and worked together to receive a reward for the day if the class met the established threshold. The teacher explained the rules and informed the students that when a rule violation occurred, they would make a mark on the board. If the class met the threshold, they could vote on the reward they would receive, such as snacks, candy, and “no homework” passes. Each classroom played Good Behavior Game once each day during normal class activities for 11 days. Each session lasted at least 20 minutes.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teachers instructed their classroom in their typical manner and managed behavior using business-as-usual practices. The sessions (lasting 20 minutes each) were conducted once per day for 10 or 11 days depending on the classroom.
The researchers trained teachers to use a script and protocol. Teachers practiced the intervention using role playing until they could consistently implement it. After the training, a six-item procedural integrity checklist was used to ensure that teachers were trained consistently.
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