THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME The Good Behavior Game Is No Longer Just an Effective Intervention for Students: An Examination of the Reciprocal Effects on Teacher Behaviors SUSAN ELSWICK AND LAURA BAYLOT CASEY, UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS P ositive educational outcomes often include success in reading, math, and writing, which are beneficial skills that will assist students in school and beyond. However, in education it is important that the classroom focus not only on subject and content-specific learning, but also on behavior and societal expectations for following rules. When rules are not followed, students are not able to attain the needed educational goals set forth by federal and state education departments. Consistently not following rules leads to behavioral excesses, such as off task behaviors, talking out, and out of seat behavior. Often these excesses are a direct result of inappropriate or ineffective classroom management techniques. Wentzel (1993) noted that maladaptive behaviors must be assessed and corrected as quickly as possible to prevent the loss of academic skuls and future need for academic remediation. Heightened behavioral concerns in the classroom are directly and positively correlated with a high frequency of office referrals and school suspensions. A high frequency of office referrals and school suspensions decrease the amount of time the student has within an environment conducive to learning (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). In an effort to combat the troubles caused by behavioral excesses, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 1997) federal legislation requires school districts to assist students who display problematic behaviors that could potentially negatively impact their own learning, as well as other learners within the class. IDEA noted that school districts should have interventions, strategies, and supports that are positive in nature to address the problematic behaviors often seen within classrooms across the nation. Due to the extant literature linking poor classroom management to increased problematic behaviors, teachers' over-reliance on office referrals, and a decrease in levels of academic achievement (Bradshaw et al., 2010), the IDEA legislation of 2007 was directly aimed at enhancing proactive classrooms by creating an envirorunent conducive to learning and nonconducive to inappropriate behaviors. Teachers' Classroom Needs In a 2006 study in an elementary school setting, teachers reported that disruptive classroom behaviors were the largest problem within the school and classroom, and their lack of knowledge and training on how to decrease these disruptive classroom behaviors were preventing academic achievement for all learners (Walter, Gouze, & Lim, 2006). Teachers in the Walter et al. study also mentioned that a lack of time to implement classroom interventions potentially added to the increase in maladaptive classroom behaviors exhibited by students. Based on these findings, it seems that teachers are requesting more effective classroom interventions that do not consume too much instructional time. In response to this need, a number of notable classroom interventions designed to decrease negative behavior have been proposed and studied. These interventions include such practices as token economies, response cost lotteries, and mystery motivators. Few interventions, however, have been researched as much, as often, and across as many diverse settings as the Good Behavior Game (GBG; Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969). Good Behavior Game The purpose of the Good Behavior Game is to decrease maladaptive and disruptive classroom behaviors (e.g., talking out, roaming or out of seat, disrespectful behaviors) through assisting students with adapting to school rules, understanding the consequences of inappropriate behavior, and helping students understand the impact of their behavior on the classroom envirorunent. The GBG also assists students with learning seK-regulatory skills that will benefit them in all settings. The GBG is an easy-to- implement, class-wide intervention that works on the concept of group reinforcement contingency. Students work together to obtain the reward, and in the process learn to self- regulate due to social/peer reinforcement and interaction. One way that the GBG differs from many reinforcement-based programs is that the negative behaviors are "tracked" in the GBG instead of positive behaviors, and the goal is to have the fewest number of points at the end of the day. The teacher explains the game to the students, sets rules and guidelines for the game, divides the classroom into two teams, and allows students to choose an appropriate reward for wirming the game. Teachers can establish some form of reinforcer for the daily winning team, but also build in an additional reward for the weekly winner (the team with the fewest points for the week); this portion of the GBG only takes about 36 BEYOND BEHAVIOR
Transcript
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
The Good Behavior Game Is No Longer Just an Effective Intervention forStudents: An Examination of the Reciprocal Effects on Teacher Behaviors
SUSAN ELSWICK AND LAURA BAYLOT CASEY, UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS
Positive educational outcomesoften include success inreading, math, and writing,
which are beneficial skills that willassist students in school and beyond.However, in education it is importantthat the classroom focus not only onsubject and content-specific learning,but also on behavior and societalexpectations for following rules.When rules are not followed,students are not able to attain theneeded educational goals set forth byfederal and state educationdepartments. Consistently notfollowing rules leads to behavioralexcesses, such as off task behaviors,talking out, and out of seat behavior.Often these excesses are a directresult of inappropriate or ineffectiveclassroom management techniques.
Wentzel (1993) noted thatmaladaptive behaviors must beassessed and corrected as quickly aspossible to prevent the loss ofacademic skuls and future need foracademic remediation. Heightenedbehavioral concerns in the classroomare directly and positively correlatedwith a high frequency of officereferrals and school suspensions. Ahigh frequency of office referrals andschool suspensions decrease theamount of time the student has withinan environment conducive to learning(Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010). Inan effort to combat the troubles causedby behavioral excesses, theIndividuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA; 1997) federallegislation requires school districts toassist students who displayproblematic behaviors that couldpotentially negatively impact theirown learning, as well as other learnerswithin the class. IDEA noted thatschool districts should have
interventions, strategies, and supportsthat are positive in nature to addressthe problematic behaviors often seenwithin classrooms across the nation.Due to the extant literature linkingpoor classroom management toincreased problematic behaviors,teachers' over-reliance on officereferrals, and a decrease in levels ofacademic achievement (Bradshaw etal., 2010), the IDEA legislation of 2007was directly aimed at enhancingproactive classrooms by creating anenvirorunent conducive to learningand nonconducive to inappropriatebehaviors.
Teachers' Classroom Needs
In a 2006 study in an elementaryschool setting, teachers reported thatdisruptive classroom behaviors werethe largest problem within the schooland classroom, and their lack ofknowledge and training on how todecrease these disruptive classroombehaviors were preventing academicachievement for all learners (Walter,Gouze, & Lim, 2006). Teachers in theWalter et al. study also mentionedthat a lack of time to implementclassroom interventions potentiallyadded to the increase in maladaptiveclassroom behaviors exhibited bystudents. Based on these findings, itseems that teachers are requestingmore effective classroominterventions that do not consume toomuch instructional time. In responseto this need, a number of notableclassroom interventions designed todecrease negative behavior have beenproposed and studied. Theseinterventions include such practicesas token economies, response costlotteries, and mystery motivators.Few interventions, however, have
been researched as much, as often,and across as many diverse settingsas the Good Behavior Game (GBG;Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969).
Good Behavior Game
The purpose of the Good BehaviorGame is to decrease maladaptive anddisruptive classroom behaviors (e.g.,talking out, roaming or out of seat,disrespectful behaviors) throughassisting students with adapting toschool rules, understanding theconsequences of inappropriatebehavior, and helping studentsunderstand the impact of their behavioron the classroom envirorunent. TheGBG also assists students with learningseK-regulatory skills that will benefitthem in all settings.
The GBG is an easy-to-implement, class-wide interventionthat works on the concept of groupreinforcement contingency. Studentswork together to obtain the reward,and in the process learn to self-regulate due to social/peerreinforcement and interaction. Oneway that the GBG differs from manyreinforcement-based programs is thatthe negative behaviors are "tracked"in the GBG instead of positivebehaviors, and the goal is to have thefewest number of points at the end ofthe day. The teacher explains thegame to the students, sets rules andguidelines for the game, divides theclassroom into two teams, and allowsstudents to choose an appropriatereward for wirming the game.Teachers can establish some form ofreinforcer for the daily winning team,but also build in an additional rewardfor the weekly winner (the team withthe fewest points for the week); thisportion of the GBG only takes about
36 BEYOND BEHAVIOR
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
15-30 minutes. At this stage, theteacher defines the negativebehaviors, or rule violations, that willearn a team a "check mark." Intypical applications of the GBG, theteacher explains that the winningteam is the team with the fewestpoints at the end of the session, butalso that if both teams stay under apreset criterion, then both teams earnthe reinforcer (e.g., if both teamsreceive less than five check marks,then both teams win).
The GBG is then initiated at atime when the teacher typicallynotices a high frequency ofmaladaptive classroom behaviors.The GBG typically lasts 30 minutesper session. The teacher simplymonitors the students' behaviorswhile continuing to teach. Theteacher does not stop the lesson toredirect unwanted behavior. Instead,the teacher makes a tally mark on theScoreboard as a visual reminder eachtime a rule is violated. If any studentdisplays a negative behavior (ruleviolation), he or she "earns" a pointfor their team.
Research to Support GBGThe Good Behavior Game has
been utilized across many classroomsettings, with numerous age groups,and with differing student strengthsand needs. For example the GBG hasbeen replicated in a preschool setting(Sweizy, Matson, & Box, 1992), inupper elementary classes (Barrishet al., 1969; Johnson, Turner, &Konarski, 1978; Maloney & Hopkins,1973; Warner, Miller, & Cohen, 1977),first- and second-grade classrooms(Bostow & Geiger, 1976; Larinie &McCurdy, 2007), with adolescentswith emotional and behavioraldisorders (FBD) (Salend, Reynolds, &Coyle, 1989), and with studentsidentified as having developmentaland intellectual disabilities (Phillips& Christie, 1986). All of thepreviously mentioned replicationstudies of the GBG indicate that it isan effective classroom managementtechnique for decreasing unwantedclassroom behaviors. Not only is it
important for an intervention to workacross settings fo showgeneralizability, it is also importantfor the intervention to work acrossand within diverse populations.Many researchers in many areas, bothwithin and outside of the UnitedStates, have utilized the GBG inreplication studies. The GBG wasreplicated in Germany (Huber, 1979),the Sudan (Saigh & Umar, 1983), andwithin both rural and urban settingsacross the United States (Darveaux,1984; Salend et al., 1989) with muchsuccess. All of these studiesreplicated the positive effects of theGBG, which increases the likelihoodthat the GBG will work in almost anysetting, with any age group, and withany population. However, the impactof the GBG on teacher behavior—thereciprocal effects of the GBG—haveyet to be studied extensively.
The one study to date that hasexamined the effects of the GBG onteacher behavior was reported byLannie and McCurdy (2007), wholooked at the effects of the GBG onstudent and teachers' behavior in anurban school district. The studyreplicated the positive effects of theGI3G on increasing student on taskbehavior while decreasing themaladaptive behaviors that weretargeted, but demonstrated that therewas very little impact on teacherbehavior (e.g., praise statements tostudents with the implementation ofthe GBG).
Thus, the literature is sparse interms of evidence-basedinterventions to address maladaptiveclassroom behaviors of students thatalso have a direct and reciprocaleffect on teacher behavior (either inreducing teachers' negativestatements or increasing teacherpraise). This reciprocal effect isimportant as research indicates thatteacher disapproval statements forinappropriate social behaviors occurat a much higher rate than teacherpraise statements for appropriatesocial behavior in grades 1 through 12(e.g., Beaman & Wheldall, 2000;Merrett & Wheldall, 1990; White,
1975). Previous research has alsoshown that inappropriate teacherresponses to student maladaptivebehavior can actually becounterproductive and detrimental tothe outcomes desired (Kodak,Miltenberger, & Romaniuk, 2003).
Purpose of Current StudyThe primary purpose of this GBG
replication and extension was toinvestigate the reciprocal effect thatan increase in student appropriatebehavior has on the teacher'sbehavior. This study is unique in thefollowing ways: (a) the primary focuswas teacher-related variablesresulting from student appropriatebehavior; (b) treatment integrity wasemphasized and monitoredpreintervention, during baseline, andduring intervention via directobservation and checklist; (c) teacherdata were collected during eachinterval of the partial intervalobservations; and (d) the teamsconsisted of student versus teacher,with students earning points back fordisplaying unprompted appropriatebehaviors observed by the teacher.
The rationale for emphasizingtreatment integrity in the form ofpretraining the teacher to a set levelof competency, creation of a GBGmanual, and providing scriptedinstructions during the classintroduction to the GBG was derivedfrom the research of Lane, Beebe-Frankenberger, Lambros, and Pierson(2001), who noted "Failure toimplement an intervention asdesigned may compromiseintervention outcomes, thus,threatening the internal and externalvalidity of a stiady" (p. 371). Thus,without high levels of treatmentintegrity, it would not be possible todraw adequate conclusions about thedirect relationship among theintervention, the change in thestudent behavior, and, ultimately, thereciprocal effect on the teacherbehavior.
In addition to treatment integrity,treatment acceptability was alsoassessed, due to the fact that the more
FALL 2 0 1 1 37
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
acceptable an intervention isperceived, the more likely theintervention is to be carried outcorrectly (Lane et al., 2001).
Method
Participants and SettingParticipants in this study
included one first grade teacher (Ms.T) in a general education, inclusiveclassroom in an urban public schooldistrict with 20 first-grade students.The classroom was considered aninclusive classroom with a severalstudents identified withexceptionalities. These included fourstudents identified as gifted, twostudents with Learning Disabilities(LD), one student receiving speechand language services, and onestudent diagnosed with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder(ADHD).
Criteria for selection of the classincluded: (a) multiple referrals to theschool social worker to assist increating Behavior Intervention Plans(BIPs) for at least one identifiedstudent, and (b) student officereferrals for exhibiting behavioralexcesses that were decreasing theeffective educational outcomes for theindividual student as well as otherlearners within the classroom. TheGBG was implemented the same timeeach day during classroom instructionin Reading, followed by anindependent work activity related tothe topic.
ConsentTeacher and participant
permission was obtained prior toconducting the research. Parent orguardian permission was alsoobtained for each student in theclassroom. In addition, permissionfrom the school's director, the teacherand personnel, as well as the directorof the Mental Health Center for theschool district were also obtainedprior to the implementation of theresearch study. The study receivedapproval from The InstitutionalReview Board (IRB).
MaterialsMaterials needed to conduct this
GBG replication and extension and toensure a high level of treatmentfidelity included the following items,all of which were included in fheGBG manual for the teacher toreference if needed: (a) preparing forthe GBG tips, (b) daily point sheetsfor teacher completion following thecompletion of each game, (c) weeklypoint sheets for cumulative points(see Figure 1) (d) posted game rulesand expectations on poster boardvisible to the entire classroom, (e) atimer, (f) a treatment integritychecklist {Figure 2), and (g) selectedreinforcers identified by the studentsweekly, listed on an approved rewardlist provided to each teacher {Figure 3).
Target BehaviorsStudent behaviors. The target
behaviors for students wereidentified as talk outs, out of seat anddisrespectful behaviors. Talk out wasdefined as talking without teacherpermission (e.g., talking that is not inresponse to a question posed by theteacher, talking that did not precederaising hand and obtaining teacherpermission to talk). It did not includeresponses made during choralresponding or direct questioning bythe teacher. Out of seat behavior wasdefined as leaving seat withoutteacher permission, and this did notinclude simply standing up or gettingup briefly to collect needed materials.Disrespectful behavior was definedas peer-to-peer frustration oraggression (verbal or physical). Thisincluded making inappropriatecomments to each other, yelling,hitting, name-calling, grunting,talking under breath about otherstudents, and isolating others due totheir behaviors during the GBGintervention. Disrespectful behaviorsdid not include accidental physicalcontact or interactions of studentsduring the GBG intervention.
Teacher behaviors. The first targetbehavior was behavior-specific praisestatements. The behavior-specificpraise statement was counted as
occurring only if it included all threeof the following componenfs:(a) teacher gained student attention,(b) teacher identified the appropriatestudent behavior displayed, and(c) teacher used a praise statementincluding the identified appropriatebehavior. For example an appropriatebehavior-specific praise statementwould be, "Jill, I like how you raisedyour hand to answer the question!Thank you!" The second targetbehavior was a disapproval statement.A disapproval statement was anyverbal statement to the student thatdid not include behavior-specificpraise and was in the form of areprimand or a verbal warning aboutpossible redirection. For example,"Max, if you bother Mary one moretime you are going to the office."
Data CollectionA frequency count recording
procedure was used to gather data.The researcher observed the roomduring each GBG session, and made ahash mark every time an occurrenceof any student or teacher targetbehavior was observed within theone-minute interval. The observationperiod was thirty minutes induration, and one-minute intervalswere noted on the data sheet to makedata collection less cumbersome.
Research DesignThis study used an A-B design
(see Riley-Tillman & Burns, 2009).This design was selected because thedesired outcome was to evaluatechanges from baseline to interventionusing a design that would be easilyreplicated in the classroom setting.The design allowed for the visualcomparison of level, variability, andtrend in data points both across andbetween sessions and from thebaseline to the intervention phase.
Reinforcer AssessmentA reinforcer survey with teacher
approved select items was distributedto all students prior to theimplementation of the study.Directions were provided for each
38 B EYOND B EHAVIOR
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
Figure 1 WEEKLY POINT SHEET
GBG Total Daily Points Earned/ Weekly
Week 1
TeamStudentsTeacher
Monday Tuesday
(S) Total:(T) Total:
Week 2TeamStudentsTeacher
Monday Tuesday
(S) Total:(T) Total:
Week 3
TeamStudentsTeacher
Monday Tuesday
(S) Total:(T) Total:
Week 4TeamStudentsTeacher
Monday Tuesday
(S) Total:(T) Total:
Week 5TeamStudentsTeacher
Monday Tuesday
(S) Total:(T) Tot(:il:
Wednesday
Wednesday
Wednesday
Wednesday
Wednesday
Points
Thursday
Thursday
Thursday
Thursday
Thursday
Friday
Friday
Friday
Friday
Friday
FALL 2 0 1 1 39
T H E GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
Figure 2 OBSERVER TREATMENT INTEGRITI' CHECKLIST
Treatment Integrity Checklist for GBG
1 ) Score Board/ Chalkboard set up to collect points.
2) Game Rules reviewed. Teacher makes a point to remind students of poster board"rule reminders" for the GBG.
3) Announcement made that game is beginning. Teacher reminds students of alreadydetermined reinforcer (picked week before). Teacher will start timer. Timer will go offevery 15 minutes to indicate a condition change.
4) Teacher scans room for rules violations. Points lost are noted on the board for eachbehavior violation noted.
5) Teacher scans room for positive behaviors, teacher will praise these noticed
behaviors, and then add a point to the student team for exhibiting positive behaviors.
6) Game will last 30 minutes.
7) End of game will be announced to students after timer goes off.
8) Total points will be noted on data sheet and chalkboard.
Total steps completed% of steps completed
Notes:
X= occurrence
student to rank order their choices forrewards. The reinforcer with the moststudent votes was chosen for thatgiven week.
ProceduresBaseline. During baseline, the
teacher continued her regularacademic day and students continuedto have access to built-in reinforcersalready established in the classroom.Data collected during baselineconsisted of teacher variables andstudent variables.
Teacher training. The teacher wastrained during a brief planning
session over a one-week period priorto the implementation of the GBG.Each training session lasted until theteacher reached 100% integrity onproviding the scripted instructionsand successfully demonstrated herabuify to follow the daily teacherscript at 100% fidelity. During theinitial phase of the training the teacherwas supplied with a GBG TeacherManual that included all neededprocedural and protocol materials.The training session included directinstruction on background about theGBG, purpose, previous research, anda discussion about the GBG
implementation and protocol. Thediscussion of the implementation offhe GBG consisted of didactic trainingcovering all of the steps necessary for ahigh level of procedural integrity.Following the review of the teacherscript for accurate implementation,the teacher was instructed onprocedural issues and data collectionduring the game. Procedural issueswere directly taught and the teacherthen role-played with the primaryresearcher until 100% integrity wasreached according to the daily GBGimplementation script. If at any pointthe students questioned any portion of
40 BEYOND BEHAVIOR
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
Figure 3 LIST OF SAMPLE REWARDS
List of Sample Rewards
Re>vards to be earned:The teacher can adapt this reward list as needed in order to make sure that the reward is successful
and accessible within the classroom.
Social Re>vardso Verbal praiseo A hand clapo Nodo Winko 1:1 time with teacher for 5-10 minuteso Tap on shouldero Visual praise (sign)
Recognitiono Trophyo Certificateo Ribbono Tokeno Stickero Photo recognitiono Note from teachero Phone call, e-mail, letter from teacher
Privilegeso Leadership activitieso Teacher helpero Reading or helping in another classo "No Homework" passo Peer/social timeo Free timeo Extra computer, art, reading timeo Sensory box (each student gets to
decorate and have access to a sensorybox filled with liked items)
o Student teaches classo Eat lunch with teacher or administrator
Class w i d e rewardso Extra recesso Student choice rewardso Popcorn partyo Pizza partyo Eat lunch outsideo Reading outsideo Extra PE or recess time
o Dancing to musico Classroom game or activityo Movie in classo Field tripo Book read aloud by teachero "Spotlight" time (ail students get to
perform their favorite activity in frontof classmates)
School Supplieso Pencilso Pencil topperso Eraserso Papero Crayons or markerso Scissorso Bookmarkso Stencilso Coloring bookso Certificate to school bookstore
Toys and Trinketso Stickerso Temporary tattooso Silly banas or braceletso Marbleso Ballso Bubbleso Balloonso Capsules that turn into objects when
placed in watero Silly Puttyo Play-Doh
Token economy systemo A book store gift certificateo Movie pass or rentalo Puzzleo Booko Stuffed animalo Free time
F A L L 2 0 1 1 4 1
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
the GBG intervention, the teacher wastrained to refer to the teacher script inorder to maintain the treatmentintegrity of the study.
Preintervention GBG instructiontraining and student readiness.Following the teacher training, whichrequired the teacher to read the scriptwith 100% accuracy, the teacherreviewed the GBG teacher script withthe students. This review includeddirect instruction of the rules, howthe teams were divided, and how toearn points. The teacher wasinstructed to say the following andwas observed to assess her ability toread the script with 100% accuracyduring the preinterventioninstruction session:
Class, today we are going to discuss agame that I think would be fun to play.The game will help us all with beingbetter listeners, help us with followingdirections, and help us with being kindto each other and you can win a rewardat the end of each week. The way thegame works is as follows: in theafternoon at 1:00 during our afternoonwork, we will play a game of teacherversus students for 30 minutes everyday. A timer will be used for the 30-minute game. You (the class) will startoff with 0 points and I (teacher) willstart off with 0 points each day. If Inotice any of the following: Talking outbehaviors, out of seat behaviors, ordisrespectful behavior towards peersor others during the 30-minute gameby any student, the teacher will earn apoint. If any student responds nega-tively to a lost point (tantrum, yelling,or getting upset with a peer) then anadditional point will be added to theteacher's points. The class can earnpoints by displaying positive behaviorsthat can include using manners, listen-ing appropriately, sitting appropriate-ly, raising hand before talking orgetting out of their seat, showingrespect, and good citizenship. We willkeep a daily log of the winning teamand post it daily. Whichever team hasthe most points at the end of the weekwill win a reward. Every Friday thewinning team (you or I) wiU receive thereward. On the following Monday theclass will choose another reward forthe week, the game starts over for the
week, and all points return to 0(teacher and student).
Following the GBG introduction,the teacher reviewed the rules bystating them directly, and thenhaving the students use choralresponding to ensure understanding.The instructions for teaching the ruleswere as follows and were readverbatim:
Now let's talk about the rules of thegame. Rule 1 is: We will raise our handsbefore talking. Rule 2 is: We will askpermission to get out of our seats byraising our hands, obtaining teacherattention, and getting teacher approvalbefore moving. Rule 3 is: We will treateach other with respect (keep hands, feet,and unkind words and actions to our-selves). By appropriate demonstrationof these rules, you will earn points foryour team. If you do not follow theserules, I will get a point. Now that weall understand the rules and how weearn and lose points, let's start off bycreating some poster boards withthese three rules so we can post themin the room.
Intervention. The GBG started thesame way each day as the teacherfollowed a treatment integritychecklist (see Appendix B). Thechecklist consisted of the following:(a) creating a Scoreboard on thechalkboard to record points for eachteam, (b) reviewing the game rulesand reminding students of theposter board "rule reminders,"(c) announcing that the game isbeginning and reminding studentsof already determined reinforcer(picked the week before),(d) teacher starting timer,(e) teacher scanning room for rulesviolations (points lost are noted onthe board for each behaviorviolation and added to the teachercolumn), (e) teacher scanning roomfor positive behaviors and adding apoint to the student team forexhibiting positive behaviors,(f) teacher concluding game after30 minutes, (g) teacher announcingend of game to students aftertimer goes off, (h) recording
total points on data sheet andchalkboard or Scoreboard, and(i) announcing winner and settingdaily goals. Each of these items onthe script served as the treatmentintegrity checklist for GBGimplementation.
Treatment IntegrityTreatment integrity is defined as
the extent to which an interventionor treatment is implemented asplanned, designed, or intended withaccuracy and consistency (Peterson,Homer, & Wonderlich, 1982).Procedural integrity was enhancedby providing the teacher with ateacher script to utilize during thestudent readiness training session.During the GBG game initiation,procedural integrity was monitoredby observing the teacher during theinitial training phase with thestudents. Results showed that theteacher was successful at providingthe scripted instructions with 100%accuracy.
the degree to which two or moreindependent observers report thesame values for the same identifiedand measured event (Cooper, Heron,& Heward, 2007) was assessed byusing the frequency within intervalIOA formula ([No. of intervals with100% / total No. of intervals] X 100%).IOA was collected for both targetbehaviors of the teacher and thestudents. Table 1 presents theinterobserver agreement results foreach target behavior.
Treatment AcceptabilityTreatment acceptability was
defined by Kazdin (1980) asjudgments about treatmentprocedures by nonprofessionals,laypersons, clients, and other potentialconsumers of treatment. Both teacherand student acceptability of the GBGwere measured. Teacher acceptabilitywas measured pre- andpostintervention, and student
42 BEYOND BEHAVIOR
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
Table 1 . INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT FOR TARGET BEHAVIORS
Target behaviorTeacher praise statementsTeacher disapprovalstatementsStudent talk outStudent out of seatStudent disrespectful
Range90 - 99.66%
99.66 - 99.66%
99.66 - 100%100 - 100%
99.66 - 100%
Mean94.44%96.66%
98.88%100%98.88%
acceptability was measured uponcompletion of the GBG.
Teacher. A researcher-createdsurvey was adapted from theIntervention Rating Profile-15 (IRP-15) created by Martens, Witt, Elliotand Darveaux (1985). The survey had11 items that used a Likert scalesystem (Strongly Disagree = 1,Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4,and Strongly Agree = 5). A higherscore on the survey indicated positiveteacher perception, with an overallpossible score of 55.
Student. The students weresupplied with a Likert scale surveyadapted from the Children'sIntervention Rating Profile (CIRP)created by Turco and Elliot (1986).The survey had 7 items that used aLikert scale system of (StronglyDisagree = 1, Disagree = 2,Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, and StronglyAgree = 5). Higher scores on thesurvey indicated the student'spositive perception and acceptabilityof the GBG intervention within theclassroom, with an overall possiblescore of 35.
Results
Teacher DataDuring baseline, Ms. T's
frequency of praise statements wasvariable (M = 3.5; range of 1 to 9) anddisapproval statements were on anascending trend (M = 13.2; range of 6to 16). Implementation of the GBGresulted in praise statementsincreasing (M = 7.85; range of 4 tolO)and disapproval statementsdecreasing (M = 1.5; range of 0 to 3).
Figure 4 displays teacher disapprovalstatements and praise statementsacross baseline and interventionphases.
Ms. T's Class-Wide Student BehaviorBaseline data prior to the GBG
implementation showed thefrequency of target behaviors wereas follows: ascending trend for talkout (TO) behaviors (M = 21.5; rangeof 3 to 25), variable data for out ofseat (OS) behaviors (M = 14.6;range of 7 to 20), and variable datafor disrespectful (DB) behaviors(M = 3.75; range of 1 to 8)over a thirty minute periodconducted over multiple sessions.After the initiation of the GBG, datashowed the following: descendingvariable data for TO (M = 6.28;range of 3 to 9), descending stabledata for OS (M = 1.00; range of 0to 2), and descending stable trendfor DB (M = 0.14; range of 0 to 1),which suggest that the GBG wassuccessful in decreasingundesirable classroom behaviors(see Figure 5). .
Teacher Treatment AcceptabilityThe scores for the teacher pre-
and postassessment of treatmentacceptability were 40 and 43, out of amaximum of 55, respectively. Furtherreview of these data suggest that theoverall opinion of the teachersurveyed in this study was positive,and that she believed that research isneeded, wanted, and valued, but thattime may be an issue when actuallyimplementing research-basedpractices in the school setting.
Student Treatment AcceptabilityThe overall mean for Ms. T's class
data was 21.55 with a range of 13-27,out of a maximum of 35. The studentresults on the CIRP indicated that thestudents' overall opinion of theintervention was positive and thestudents' overall opinion of playingthe game in the future was alsopositive.
Discussion
The results of this replication andextension verified that the GBGproduces significant improvement inthe behaviors of the students withinthe classroom. The GBG is aneffective tool to implement as ameans of decreasing unwantedclassroom behaviors of students.Although previously researched andpast GBG replications noted thatteacher behavior-specific praisestatements did not increase with theuse of the GBG, in this replicationand extension there was a notedincrease in teacher behavior-specificpraise statements to students withinthe classroom. This improvement inteacher verbalization of behavior-specific praise statements may beattributed to the way the pointsystem for this replication wascalculated. For example, in thisstudy, in order for the students toearn back lost points, the teacher hadto notice an unprompted appropriatebehavior and verbalize that specificbehavior prior to giving the studentsa point. The teacher's initialperception of data collection andresearch use within the classroomwas not overwhelmingly positive,but when supplied with all neededmaterials to conduct the interventionstudy, including direct training andthe GBG Teacher Manual, the teacherwas very receptive, as indicated byher treatment acceptability ratings.The posttest in particular showed anincrease in her belief that researchand data collection is appropriateand needed within the classroomsetting.
FALL 2 0 1 1 4 3
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
Figure 4 TEACHER PRAISE STATEMENTS (PS) AND DISAPPROVAL STATEMENTS ( D S ) DURING BASELINE AND G O O D BEHAVIOR GAME (GBG) PHASES
Ms. T's Statements to Students
Good Behavior Game
Ci ^ \ •^'\ v'b
Sessions
LimitationsWhile this replication was a
success and did show reciprocaleffects of student behavior on teacherbehavior, there were some notedlimitations in this study. It would bebeneficial for future research to use areversal or multiple baseline designto strengthen the argument that afxinctional relationship exists betweenthe independent and dependentvariable. A design option todemonstrate generalization may be amultiple baseline across classrooms.
Another limitation to this studywas the fact that data collection maynot have always been accurate. Forexample, there were times duringdata collection that students didengage in unprompted appropriate
behaviors, but the teacher did not seethese behaviors, note the behaviors, orverbalize specific praise statements.This inability to monitor all behaviorswas evident when the teacher turnedher back, or when she was engaged inverbal instruction or lecture. To combatthe inaccuracies of data collection, infuture studies it may be beneficial forthe researcher to train another staffmember (assistant) to be the datacollector for the teacher during theGBG in order to get a more accuratedepiction of scores during the GBG.
Practical ImplicationsThis GBG replication and
extension is applicable to theclassroom setting due to its ease ofimplementation, minimal effort by
the teacher, rrünimal preparationbefore initiating the intervention, andaccessibility of the intervention for allteachers in all areas of the world.
The GBG is a cost- and time-effective intervention that has beenproven to modify one of the mostconcerning problems for teacherswithin the academic class setting:student displays of inappropriatebehavior. The unexpected positiveeffects of the GBG as a classroomintervention on improving teacherbehavior (behavior-specific praisestatements to students) warrants thecontinued use of such an effectiveclassroom intervention that willincrease successful outcomes for allparticipants, both teachers andstudents.
44 B EYOND B EHAVIOR
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
Figure 5 FREQUENCY OF STUDENT BEHAVIORS DURING BASELINE AND GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME (GBG) PHASES (TO = talk out, OS = out of seat, and
DB = aisrespectful Leliavior)
301 Baseline
Ms. T's Class>vide BehaviorGood Behavior Game
Sessions
REFERENCESBarrish, H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M.
(1969). Good behavior game: Effectsof individual contingencies forgroup consequences on disruptivebehavior in a classroom. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 2,119-124.
Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2000).Teachers' use of approval anddisapproval in the classroom.Educational Psychology, 20, 431^46.
Bostow, D., & Geiger, O. G. (1976). GoodBehavior Game: A replication andsystematic analysis with a secondgrade class. SALT: School Applicationsof Learning Theory, 8,18-27.
Bradshaw, G., Mitchell, M., & Leaf, P.(2010). Examining the effects ofschool-wide positive behavioralinterventions and supports onstudent outcomes: Results from a
Gooper, I. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward,W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NI:Pearson Education, Inc.
Darveaux, D. X. (1984). The GoodBehavior Game plus merit:GontroUing disruptive behavior andimproving student motivation. SchoolPsychology Review, 13, 510-514.
Huber, H. (1979). The value of behaviormodification programme,administered in a fourth grade classof remedial school. Praxis derKinderpsychologie undKinderpsychiatrie, 18, 73-79.
Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA), 20 U.S.G. § 1401-1485.(1997). Internet site: http://www2.
lohnson, M. R., Tumer, P. F., & Konarski, E.A. (1978). The "Good Behavior Game":A systematic replication in two unrulytransitional classrooms. Education andTreatment of Children, 1, 25-33.
Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptabilityof alternative treatments fordeviant child behavior. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 13,259-273.
Kodak, T., Miltenberger, R. G., &Romaruuk, G. (2003). The effects ofdifferential negative reinforcement ofother behavior and non-contingentescape on compliance. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 36(3),379-382.
Lane, K. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M.,Lambros, K. M., & Pierson, M. (2001).
FALL 2 0 1 1 4 5
THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME
Designing effective interventions forchildren at-risk for antisocialbehavior: An integrated model ofcomponents necessary for makingvalid inferences. Psychology in theSchools, 3S(4), 365-379.
Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007).Preventing disruptive behavior in theurban classroom: effects of the goodbehavior game on student andteacher behavior. Education andTreatment of Children, 30(1), 85-98.
Maloney, K. B., & Hopkins, B. L. (1973).The modification of sentencestructure and its relationship tosubjective judgments of creativity inwriting. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 6, 425^33.
Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C, Elliott, S. N., &Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacherjudgments concerning theacceptability of school-basedinterventions. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 16, 191-198.
Merrett, F., & Wheldall, K. (1990). PositiveTeaching in the Primary School.London: Paul Chapman.
Peterson, L., Homer, A., & Wonderlich, S.(1982). The integrity of independent
variables in behavior analysis. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 15, 477-492.
Phillips, G. R., & Christie, F. (1986).Behaviour management in asecondary school classroom: Playingthe game. Maladjustment andTherapeutic Education, 4, 47-53.
Riley-Tillman, T. C, & Bums, M. K. (2009).Evaluating educational interventions:Single-case design for measuring responseto intervention. The Guilford practicalintervention in the schools series.New York: Guilford Press.
Saigh, P. A., & Umar, A. M. (1983). Theeffects of a good behavior game onthe disruptive behavior of Sudaneseelementary school students. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 16, 339-344.
Salend, S. ]., Reynolds, C. ]., & Coyle,E. M. (1989). Individualizing theGood Behavior Game across typeand frequency of behavior withemotionally disturbed adolescents.Behavior Modification, 13, 108-126.
Sweizy, N. B., Matson, J. L., & Box, P.(1992). The good behavior game: Atoken reinforcement system forpreschoolers. Child and FamilyBehavior Therapy, 14, 21-32.
Turco, T. L., & Elliott, S. N. (1986).Students' acceptability ratings ofinterventions for classroommisbehaviors: A study of well-behaving and misbehaving youth.Journal of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 4, 281-289.
Walter, H. J., Gouze, K., & Lim, K. G.(2006). Teachers' beliefs about mentalhealth needs in inner city elementaryschools. Journal of American AcademicChild and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45,61-68.
Warner, S. P., Miller, F. D., & Cohen,M. W. (1977). Relative effectivenessof teacher attention and the "GoodBehavior Game" in modifyingdisruptive classroom behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,10, 7'37-74B.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being goodmake the grade? Social behavior andacademic competence in middleschool. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 85, 357-364.
White, M. A. (1975). Natural rates ofteacher approval and disapproval inthe classroom. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 8, 367-372.
46 B EYOND B EHAVIOR
Copyright of Beyond Behavior is the property of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
