Joslyn, P. Raymond, Vollmer, Timothy R. (2020). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis v53 n1 p465-474. . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1240426
Reviewed: March 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.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Good Behavior Game Intervention Report (454 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 82% | |
| No FRPL | 18% |
The study took place in one public alternative school in Florida that offered services for children who engage in severe problem behavior.
This review focuses on the reversal-withdrawal single case design for one classroom, "Classroom 1." Six to eight students were in the class throughout the study, though the class size fluctuated throughout sessions due to student absences and placement changes. Across the entire school, all students had severe behavioral problems, and 82% of students received free or reduced-price lunch. The study provided no additional student characteristics.
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, the teacher divided the class into two teams and listed them on a board at the front of the room along with Good Behavior Game rules. Before the game started, the teacher reviewed the rules, which required students to raise their hands and receive permission before talking or leaving their seats. When students broke a rule, the teacher reminded the class of the rule and added a tally mark next to the team’s name. At the end of the session, the team with fewer tally marks won the game; both teams could win if they both met a criterion that was at least an 80% reduction in the average frequency of disruptive behavior observed during baseline sessions. Winning teams earned a choice of snacks such as chips, fruit, crackers, or fruit snacks. Sessions took place one to five times a week for about 30 minutes during usual classroom instruction.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. In the baseline and withdrawal phases of the single case design, the teacher used standard class rules, which required students to raise their hands to speak or leave their seats. The teacher sporadically reprimanded students when they did not follow rules.
The researcher provided a training session that lasted for 20 minutes and included a description of Good Behavior Game procedures and instructions, as well as the calculation of point thresholds. The researcher also modeled the Good Behavior Game by showing the teachers what to do when a rule was broken. After each Good Behavior Game session, the researcher provided feedback on the teacher's 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