The Effects of the Good Behavior Game With General-Education High School Students

Reducing Disruptive and Distracting Behaviors in the Classroom: Assessing the Evidence Base

OBJECTIVE

Disruptive and distracting behaviors in the classroom, from off-task to aggressive behaviors, negatively affect academic engagement and achievement and can lead to more serious problems, including mental health conditions and substance use disorders. The goals of this systematic review were to assess the level of evidence, using established rating criteria, for interventions aimed at preventing or reducing disruptive and distracting classroom behaviors; identify program components common to multiple interventions; synthesize the evidence in regard to students from different racial-ethnic groups; and conduct an economic analysis of these interventions.

METHODS

A search of major databases, gray literature, and evidence base registries was conducted to identify studies published between 2008 and 2022. The authors rated interventions as having high, moderate, or low levels of evidence of effectiveness on the basis of the number and rigor of studies with positive outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 27 interventions identified across 65 studies (N=73 articles), six interventions received a high or moderate evidence rating. The Good Behavior Game was the most frequently studied intervention. Many interventions shared similar program components, including behavioral management, classroom management, emotional-cognitive processes, and skills acquisition. Most articles (86%) were focused on elementary school students. The four interventions rated as having high evidence of effectiveness also showed generally positive outcomes in studies conducted in school settings with racial-ethnic diversity. No studies met the criteria for inclusion in an economic analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

With greater use and more research, interventions focusing on reducing disruptive and distracting behaviors have the potential to promote student well-being and prevent mental health conditions.

Investigation of Two Preliminary Analysis-Altering Elements: Ordinate Scaling and DPPXYR

The purpose of this pre-registered study (Peltier & McKenna) was to conceptually replicate if the truncation of the ordinate and DPPXYR increased analysts' estimation of a functional relation and magnitude of treatment effect. Visual analysts (n = 27) evaluated eight data sets reporting null (n = 2), small (n = 2), moderate (n = 2), and large (n = 2) effects. Each data set was graphed six times with manipulations of the ordinate and DPPXYR, resulting in 48 ABAB graphs. We estimated two separate three-level mixed effect models with variations nested in datasets and nested in participants to evaluate the impact of graph characteristics for (1) confidence in determining a functional relation and (2) the estimated magnitude of the treatment effect. We included ordinate scaling and DPPXYR at level 1 and graph effect size at level 2, including all interactions. Overall, graph manipulation consistently did not impact confidence in a functional relation. Results suggest mixed findings for graph manipulation on the estimated magnitude of the treatment effect. Findings will be couched in current literature and recommendations for graph construction and future research will be discussed.

Effects of the Good Behavior Game on Students’ Academic Engagement in Remote Classrooms During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This multiple-baseline design study examined the effects of the Good Behavior Game (GBG) on class-wide academic engagement in online general education classrooms. Teachers in three third- through fifth-grade classrooms implemented the GBG remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Treatment integrity was supported using aspects of implementation planning and by providing emailed performance feedback. Teachers’ perceived usability and students’ perceived acceptability of the GBG were assessed. Visual analysis results indicated two clear demonstrations of an effect, but experimental control was limited by smaller and delayed effects in one classroom. Statistical analyses of the data suggest that implementing the GBG was associated with moderate to strong, statistically significant improvements in students’ academic engagement in all three classrooms. Teachers reported that the GBG was usable in their online classrooms, and students reported finding the intervention acceptable to participate in remotely. These results provide initial support for further examining the effectiveness and social validity of using the GBG to improve elementary students’ academic engagement during remote instruction.

The Effect of Schedule Thinning on Student Behavior During the Caught Being Good Game

The Caught Being Good Game (CBGG) is a classroom management intervention which is described as a variation of the classic Good Behavior Game (GBG). It is based on the principle of positive reinforcement, such that teams of students can earn points for following the class rules during the game. Points are awarded by the teacher at different intervals during the game and these intervals were the focus of the current study. We aimed to determine if the CBGG is effective with an initially dense schedule of reinforcement which is progressively thinned. The efficacy of the CBGG in targeting academic engagement and disruptive behavior was demonstrated for one primary school class and for two target students in that class. The game remained effective when the reinforcement schedule was thinned from 2 minutes, up to 5 minutes. This has potential implications for teacher time saving while playing the game.

Effects of a modular teacher coaching program on child attention problems and disruptive behavior and on teachers’ self-efficacy and stress

Symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity and oppositional defiant disorder are associated with a multitude of psychosocial developmental risks, e.g. academic underachievement. Various cognitive behavioral interventions have proven to be effective in reducing problem behavior in school settings. Drawing on this previous work and on our parent-focused preventive and therapeutic programs, we developed the school-based coaching for elementary school teachers of children with attention deficits or disruptive behavior problems (SCEP). Based on functional behavior assessment, SCEP addresses teachers of children with severe externalizing behavior problems in an individualized modular manner. It consists of a one-day training course and fortnightly one-to-one or team-coaching sessions. We analyzed the effects of SCEP in a within-subject control group design ( N = 60), with student attention problems and rule-breaking behavior during class as the primary outcome measure. SCEP was found to reduce problem behavior during lessons, with small to medium effect sizes ( d = 0.42–0.6). After the intervention, teachers reported changes in their use of praise and felt more confident managing the class ( d = 0.58). The results of SCEP are discussed in light of multi-tiered preventive approaches that suggest extensive individualized interventions based on functional behavior analysis for children with severe problem behavior.

[The prevention of externalizing disturbances]

The prevention of externalizing disturbances Abstract. Objectives: Externalizing disturbances (attention deficit-hyperactivity disorders, oppositional defiant disorders, conduct disorders) in children and adolescents have a high prevalence, are stable over time, and precipitate a high individual and economic burden. Method: This review article presents the state of research based on selected current meta-analyzes and systematic reviews. Additionally, evidenced-based German-language prevention programs are discussed. Results: As in treatment, a multimodal approach to prevention is recommended which aims at reducing externalizing symptoms in specific settings. Interventions that focus on the specific environment in the family and the (pre-)school are preferable. Child-focused interventions are especially important in the context of peer-related problematic behavior because parent-based or teacher-based interventions may be less able to affect peer interactions. Conclusions: Comprehensive parent-based and (pre-)school-based preventive interventions of externalizing disturbances should be implemented. These should also include child-based approaches and additional parent-based group interventions. The effects of these interventions should be tested in large-scale studies.

Effects of Daily and Reduced Frequency Implementation of the Good Behavior Game in Kindergarten Classrooms

An effective group contingency, the Good Behavior Game (GBG), has been implemented successfully with a wide range of age groups. However, improvements in student behavior are often not observed when the GBG is abruptly terminated, and research has yet to evaluate the effects of the GBG when the frequency of implementation is reduced. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effect of the GBG, implemented daily initially then on a less frequent schedule. The study utilized a multiple baseline design across three kindergarten classrooms to evaluate the effectiveness and maintenance of the GBG at reducing classwide and target student disruptive behavior (DB) and increasing classwide and target student academic engagement. Reduced Frequency data were collected while withholding implementation of the GBG. The results indicate that the GBG was highly effective in improving classwide behavior, which was maintained throughout the final Reduced Frequency phase in which the GBG was reduced in frequency, and moderately effective in improving target student behavior during both phases.

Reducing adolescent cell phone usage using an interdependent group contingency

The purpose of this study was to test the effects of an interdependent group contingency on cell phone usage in an alternative high school classroom. We used an ABAB reversal design to test the effects of the contingency on the cell phone usage of the entire class and an individual student. Results showed a reduction in the cell phone use of the class and the individual when the group contingency was in effect, demonstrating a functional relation between the contingency and student cell phone usage. These findings suggest that group contingencies may be efficacious for teachers to use within their classrooms to curb cell phone usage. Further study of this intervention is warranted to determine its generality.

An Application of the Group-Oriented Concurrent-Chains Arrangement

Group contingencies are a set of behavior management procedures used to improve the behavior of several students simultaneously. Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of each group contingency in managing academic and challenging behaviors, the decision to select one group contingency over another may be difficult for teachers, especially if similar efficacy is found. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of three group contingencies on disruptive behavior with 13 typically developing eighth-grade students. Results showed that all three group contingencies reduced levels of disruptive behavior from baseline levels. We then assessed the students' individual preferences for the group contingencies using a group-oriented concurrent-chains procedure. Most students showed preference for one of the group contingencies, and most preferred the independent group contingency. These results demonstrated that the group-oriented concurrent-chains procedure was an effective and efficient method of identifying individual preferences for behavior-change procedures in a classroom setting.

Decreasing Inappropriate Use of Mobile Devices in Urban High School Classrooms: Comparing an Antecedent Intervention With and Without the Good Behavior Game

As the capabilities of portable technology continue to advance and become more accessible, educators express concern about the impact of the inappropriate use of mobile devices on academic engagement and learning. An alternating treatments design was used to compare the effectiveness of an antecedent (Clear Box) intervention and an interdependent group contingency (Clear Box + Good Behavior Game [GBG]) intervention to typical classroom management techniques (Control) in increasing the academic engagement and decreasing mobile device use of high school students during instruction. The results indicate an increase in academic engagement and a decrease in the inappropriate presence of mobile devices in both classrooms with the implementation of the Clear Box + GBG, as compared with the Clear Box and Control conditions. In addition, teacher and student social validity data suggested that teachers and students viewed the Clear Box + GBG intervention favorably. Discussion focuses on contributions to the current literature, implications for practice, and suggestions for future areas of research.

School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review

This Campbell systematic review examines the impact of interventions to reduce exclusion from school. School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom (in-school) or on school premises (out-of-school). In some extreme cases the student is not allowed to come back to the same school (expulsion). The review summarises findings from 37 reports covering nine different types of intervention. Most studies were from the USA, and the remainder from the UK. Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included. The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear. School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion. Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution. There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour. Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.

Plain language summary

Interventions can reduce school exclusion but the effect is temporary: Some interventions - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - appear to have significant effects on exclusion.The review in brief: Interventions to reduce school exclusion are intended to mitigate the adverse effects of this school sanction. Some approaches, namely those involving enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers, have a temporary effect in reducing exclusion. More evaluations are needed to identify the most effective types of intervention; and whether similar effects are also found in different countries.What is this review about?: School exclusion is associated with undesirable effects on developmental outcomes. It increases the likelihood of poor academic performance, antisocial behavior, and poor employment prospects. This school sanction disproportionally affects males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those with special educational needs.This review assesses the effectiveness of programmes to reduce the prevalence of exclusion.What are the main findings of this review?: What studies are included? Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included.The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear.School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion.Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/ monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution.There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour.Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.What do the findings of this review mean?: School-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention (6 months on average). Four interventions presented promising and significant results in reducing exclusion, that is, enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers. However, since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest these results should be treated with caution.Most of the studies come from the USA. Evaluations are needed from other countries in which exclusion is common. Further research should take advantage of the possibility of conducting cluster-randomised controlled trials, whilst ensuring that the sample size is sufficiently large.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to December 2015. This Campbell systematic review was published in January 2018.

Executive Summary/Abstract

BACKGROUND: Schools are important institutions of formal social control (Maimon, Antonaccio, & French, 2012). They are, apart from families, the primary social system in which individuals are socialised to follow specific codes of conduct. Violating these codes of conduct may result in some form of punishment. School punishment is normally accepted by families and students as a consequence of transgression, and in that sense school isoften the place where children are first introduced to discipline, justice, or injustice (Whitford & Levine-Donnerstein, 2014).A wide range of punishments may be used in schools, from verbal reprimands to more serious actions such as detention, fixed term exclusion or even permanent exclusion from the mainstream education system. It must be said that in some way, these school sanctions resemble the penal system and its array of alternatives to punish those that break the law.School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is defined as a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom or, in more serious cases, on school premises.Based on the previous definition, this review uses school exclusion and school suspension as synonyms, unless the contrary is explicitly stated. Most of the available research has found that exclusion correlates with subsequent negative sequels on developmental outcomes. Exclusion or suspension of students is associated with failure within the academic curriculum, aggravated antisocial behaviour, and an increased likelihood of involvement with punitive social control institutions (i.e., the Juvenile Justice System). In the long-term, opportunities for training and employment seem to be considerably reduced for those who have repeatedly been excluded. In addition to these negative correlated outcomes, previous evidence suggest that the exclusion of students involves a high economic cost for taxpayers and society.Research from the last 20 years has concluded quite consistently that this disciplinary measure disproportionally targets males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those presenting special educational needs. In other words, suspension affects the most vulnerable children in schools.Different programmes have attempted to reduce the prevalence of exclusion. Although some of them have shown promising results, so far, no comprehensive systematic review has examined these programmes' overall effectiveness.OBJECTIVES: The main goal of the present research is to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of different types of school-based interventions aimed at reducing disciplinary school exclusion. Secondary goals include comparing different approaches and identifying those that could potentially demonstrate larger and more significant effects.The research questions underlying this project are as follows: Do school-based programmes reduce the use of exclusionary sanctions in schools?Are some school-based approaches more effective than others in reducing exclusionary sanctions?Do participants' characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools?Do characteristics of the interventions, implementation, and methodology affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools? SEARCH METHODS: The authors conducted a comprehensive search to locate relevant studies reporting on the impact of school-based interventions on exclusion from 1980 onwards. Twenty-seven different databases were consulted, including databases that contained both published and unpublished literature. In addition, we contacted researchers in the field of school-exclusion for further recommendations of relevant studies; we also assessed citation lists from previous systematic and narrative reviews and research reports. Searches were conducted from September 1 to December 1, 2015.SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for manuscripts were defined before we started our searches. To be eligible, studies needed to have: evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions intended to reduce the rates of suspension; seen the interventions as an alternative to exclusion; targeted school-aged children from four to 18 in mainstream schools irrespective of nationality or social background; and reported results of interventions delivered from 1980 onwards. In terms of methodological design, we included randomised controlled trialsonly, with at least one experimental group and onecontrol or placebo group.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Initial searches produced a total of 42,749 references from 27 different electronic databases. After screening the title, abstract and key words, we kept 1,474 relevant hits. 22 additional manuscripts were identified through other sources (e.g., assessment of citation lists, contribution of authors). After removing duplicates, we ended up with a total of 517 manuscripts. Two independent coders evaluated each report, to determine inclusion or exclusion.The second round of evaluation excluded 472 papers, with eight papers awaiting classification, and 37 studies kept for inclusion in meta-analysis. Two independent evaluators assessed all the included manuscripts for risk of quality bias by using EPOC tool.Due to the broad scope of our targeted programmes, meta-analysis was conducted under a random-effect model. We report the impact of the intervention using standardised differences of means, 95% confidence intervals along with the respective forest plots. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression were used for examining the impact of the programme. Funnel plots and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill analysis were used to explore the effect of publication bias.RESULTS: Based on our findings, interventions settled in school can produce a small and significant drop in exclusion rates (SMD=.30; 95% CI .20 to .41; p<.001). This means that those participating in interventions are less likely to be suspended than those allocated to control/placebo groups. These results are based on measures of impact collected immediately during the first six months after treatment (on average). When the impact was tested in the long-term (i.e., 12 or more months after treatment), the effects of the interventions were not sustained. In fact, there was a substantive reduction in the impact of school-based programmes (SMD=.15; 95%CI -.06 to .35), and it was no longer statistically significant.We ran analysis testing the impact of school-based interventions on different types of exclusion. Evidence suggests that interventions are more effective at reducing expulsion and in-school exclusion than out-of-school exclusion. In fact, the impact of intervention in out-of-school exclusion was close to zero and not statistically significant.Nine different types of school-based interventions were identified across the 37 studies included in the review. Four of them presented favourable and significant results in reducing exclusion (i.e., enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers). Since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest that results should be treated with caution.A priori defined moderators (i.e., participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, and quality of the intervention)showed not to be effective at explaining the heterogeneity present in our results. Among three post-hoc moderators, the role of the evaluator was found to be significant: independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.Two researchers independently evaluated the quality of the evidence involved in this review by using the EPOC tool. Most of the studies did not present enough information for the judgement of quality bias.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that school-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention. Some specific types of interventions show more promising and stable results than others, namely those involving mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers. However, based on the number of studies involved in our calculations, we suggest that results must be cautiously interpreted. Implications for policy and practice arising from our results are discussed.