Good Behavior Game
Study: Rebok et al. (1996)

Summary

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a universal classroom behavior management strategy that helps students develop key skills including teamwork and self-monitoring and regulation. GBG provides teachers with additional skills in classroom behavior management which have, in prior trials, resulted in fewer negative interactions, reductions in aggressive, disruptive behavior, and an increase in time spent on-task. GBG is built on four core elements integrating (1) classroom rules, (2) team membership, (3) monitoring of behavior, and (4) positive reinforcement. Teachers use the GBG with their class while students are engaged in teacher-selected instructional tasks. During GBG, teams are provided with clear expectations, and they work together to meet those expectations during the 10-45 minute time period over which the game is played. At the end of the game, each team that is able to successfully meet expectations is declared a winner and receives positive reinforcement for their success. During the game, students learn teamwork; they receive positive reinforcement for promoting and following classroom rules; and they practice monitoring and regulating their own behavior.

Target Grades:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Target Populations:
  • Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
  • Other: All students in a classroom
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Physical Aggression
  • Verbal Threats
  • Disruptive Behavior
  • Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
  • Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
Where to Obtain:
American Institutes for Research
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street Washington, DC 20007
866.835.8686
http://goodbehaviorgame.air.org/
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Free

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is free to implement and to use in the classroom.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
Training Requirements:
24 Hours of Group-Based Training; 20-30 hours of on-site coaching

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is free to implement and to use in the classroom. American Institutes for Research provides training and support to ensure GBG is implemented with fidelity. Training and support options are customized to fit local needs, and sample services and pricing information are described below: Ongoing Training and Support Initial GBG training: on-site: 2 days group-based, 2 trainers for up to 40 people ; Trainer: $2,900/day plus travel expenses Booster training: on-site :1 day group-based, 2 trainers for up to 40 people; Trainer: $2,9000/day plus travel expenses Initial local GBG coach training: on-site : 2 days plus attendance at the initial GBG training, 1 trainer for up to 15 people; Trainer: $2,900/day plus travel expenses Coaching conversations via phone, online conferencing: Varies based on site needs; Varies by site School visits: local GBG coach and AIR trainer: Varies based on site needs; Varies by site Materials Classroom teacher; Includes manual, posters (3), student booklets, desk cards, timer, stamp set, data forms; $350 Local GBG Coach : Manual and training materials; $200 Training License: License for training and materials use; $5,000/year GBG research suggests that successful implementation is dependent on GBG coaches who collaborate with teachers on site. Coaches are provided by district or state partners. Training consists of 24 hours of group-based training. The first 16 hours are designed to prepare teachers and coaches to implement GBG with fidelity. The training is highly interactive and focuses on the core elements and key implementation principles of GBG. During this training, teacher develop basic mastery of GBG content and can begin to play GBG with fidelity immediately following training with support from GBG coaches. The 8-hour booster session is essential to help generalize the positive behaviors teachers see during GBG to other times of day. Teachers develop deep mastery of GBG content and begin to make the transition to self-directed implementation of GBG without the support of their coaches. The booster session not only allows teachers to continue implementing GBG with fidelity but also to sustain effective practices beyond the initial implementation year. Teachers also receive one-on-one coaching visits throughout the first year of implementation. In the first semester, coaches visit each classroom every other week. As the year progresses, the coach visit schedule is customized to align with teacher need. Coaches work with teachers to plan for successful implementation, observe implementation and provide feedback, facilitate analysis of GBG data, and help teachers problem solve and adapt practices to individual classroom needs.


AIR’s training materials have been field-tested with teachers in both Houston and Nebraska to ensure acceptability and feasibility. Each training delivery includes the collection of evaluation feedback, and materials are revised as needed in an iterative process. In addition, AIR works with each partner to customize and adapt materials to specific local needs. Because the training is highly interactive, ample space is provided in each location to discuss contextual needs, questions, and concerns.

Access to Technical Support:
AIR hosts several online spaces that allow teacher to receive ongoing support from peers.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • BI ONLY: A classroom of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
10
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
3
Minimum Number of Weeks:
36
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a universal classroom behavior management strategy that helps students develop key skills including teamwork and self-monitoring and regulation. GBG provides teachers with additional skills in classroom behavior management which have, in prior trials, resulted in fewer negative interactions, reductions in aggressive, disruptive behavior, and an increase in time spent on-task. GBG is built on four core elements integrating (1) classroom rules, (2) team membership, (3) monitoring of behavior, and (4) positive reinforcement. Teachers use the GBG with their class while students are engaged in teacher-selected instructional tasks. During GBG, teams are provided with clear expectations, and they work together to meet those expectations during the 10-45 minute time period over which the game is played. At the end of the game, each team that is able to successfully meet expectations is declared a winner and receives positive reinforcement for their success. During the game, students learn teamwork; they receive positive reinforcement for promoting and following classroom rules; and they practice monitoring and regulating their own behavior.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
not selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
not selected Any student at risk for academic failure
selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
selected Other
If other, please describe:
All students in a classroom

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

selected Physical Aggression
selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
selected Disruptive Behavior
selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street Washington, DC 20007
Phone Number
866.835.8686
Website
http://goodbehaviorgame.air.org/

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is free to implement and to use in the classroom.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not selected Individual students
not selected Small group of students
selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

  

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
10
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
36
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?
No

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?
1

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
At-cost

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
24 Hours of Group-Based Training; 20-30 hours of on-site coaching

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is free to implement and to use in the classroom. American Institutes for Research provides training and support to ensure GBG is implemented with fidelity. Training and support options are customized to fit local needs, and sample services and pricing information are described below: Ongoing Training and Support Initial GBG training: on-site: 2 days group-based, 2 trainers for up to 40 people ; Trainer: $2,900/day plus travel expenses Booster training: on-site :1 day group-based, 2 trainers for up to 40 people; Trainer: $2,9000/day plus travel expenses Initial local GBG coach training: on-site : 2 days plus attendance at the initial GBG training, 1 trainer for up to 15 people; Trainer: $2,900/day plus travel expenses Coaching conversations via phone, online conferencing: Varies based on site needs; Varies by site School visits: local GBG coach and AIR trainer: Varies based on site needs; Varies by site Materials Classroom teacher; Includes manual, posters (3), student booklets, desk cards, timer, stamp set, data forms; $350 Local GBG Coach : Manual and training materials; $200 Training License: License for training and materials use; $5,000/year GBG research suggests that successful implementation is dependent on GBG coaches who collaborate with teachers on site. Coaches are provided by district or state partners. Training consists of 24 hours of group-based training. The first 16 hours are designed to prepare teachers and coaches to implement GBG with fidelity. The training is highly interactive and focuses on the core elements and key implementation principles of GBG. During this training, teacher develop basic mastery of GBG content and can begin to play GBG with fidelity immediately following training with support from GBG coaches. The 8-hour booster session is essential to help generalize the positive behaviors teachers see during GBG to other times of day. Teachers develop deep mastery of GBG content and begin to make the transition to self-directed implementation of GBG without the support of their coaches. The booster session not only allows teachers to continue implementing GBG with fidelity but also to sustain effective practices beyond the initial implementation year. Teachers also receive one-on-one coaching visits throughout the first year of implementation. In the first semester, coaches visit each classroom every other week. As the year progresses, the coach visit schedule is customized to align with teacher need. Coaches work with teachers to plan for successful implementation, observe implementation and provide feedback, facilitate analysis of GBG data, and help teachers problem solve and adapt practices to individual classroom needs.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
not selected Reading Specialist
not selected Math Specialist
not selected EL Specialist
not selected Interventionist
not selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
not selected Paraprofessional
selected Other

If other, please describe:

Professional teachers
Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
AIR’s training materials have been field-tested with teachers in both Houston and Nebraska to ensure acceptability and feasibility. Each training delivery includes the collection of evaluation feedback, and materials are revised as needed in an iterative process. In addition, AIR works with each partner to customize and adapt materials to specific local needs. Because the training is highly interactive, ample space is provided in each location to discuss contextual needs, questions, and concerns.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

AIR hosts several online spaces that allow teacher to receive ongoing support from peers.

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., Laudolff, J., Turkkan, J. S., Ford, C., & Wheeler, L. (1993). The short-term impact of two classroom-based preventive interventions on aggressive and shy behaviors and poor achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 317-345.

Rebok, G., W., Hawkins, W. E., Krener, P., Mayer, L. S., & Kellam, S. G. (1996). Effect of concentration problems on the malleability of children’s aggressive and shy behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 193-203.

Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). The course and malleability of aggressive behavior from early first grade into middle school: Results of a developmental epidemiologically-based preventive trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259-281.

Poduska, J., Kellam, S., Wang, W., Brown, C. H., Ialongo, N., & Toyinbo, P. (2008). Impact of the good behavior game, a universal classroom-based behavior intervention, on young adult service use for problems with emotions, behaviors, or drugs or alcohol. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, 29-44.

Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165-185.

Kellam, S.G., Hendricks, C.B., Poduska J.M.,Ialongo, N.S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P, Hanno, P., Ford C., Windham, A., Wilcox, H.C. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95S, S5-S28. PMCID18343607

Petras, H., Kellam, S.G., Brown, C.H., Muthén, B.O., Ialongo, N.S., Poduska, J.M. (2008). Developmental epidemiological courses leading to antisocial personality disorder and violent and criminal behavior: Effects by young adulthood of a universal preventive intervention in first- and second-grade classrooms. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95S, S45-S59. PMCID18243581

Study Information

Study Citations

Rebok, G. W., Hawkins, W. E., Krener, P., Mayer, L. S. & Kellam, S. G. (1996). Effect of concentration problems on the malleability of children’s aggressive and shy behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35() 193-203.

Participants Empty Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
The study used data from an epidemiologically defined study of students in the Baltimore City Public School System who participated in a randomized field trial as first and second graders. In this trial, two universal preventive interventions were tested with two subsequent cohorts of first-grade students entering first grade in 1985 and 1986. Two classroom-based interventions were tested separately. First, five urban areas in Baltimore were identified for the study. Within each urban area, three or four schools were matched with regard to census tract, school level, and first- and second- grade data. A total of 19 schools were randomly assigned to serve as 1) schools in which the Good Behavior Game (GBG) would be tested independently of Mastery Learning (ML) (six schools), 2) schools in which ML would be tested independently of GBG (seven schools), or 3) schools that would serve as external control schools in which neither of these interventions would take place (six schools). Second, children were assigned to classrooms within each school by the school administrator, who used an alphabetized list to sequentially assign children to classrooms. The third stage of the design involved random assignment of first-grade classrooms and teachers to an intervention condition within each school after baseline assignments but before the intervention began. This led to the creation of intervention classrooms and control classrooms (which were called internal GBG or ML controls) in each participating school. In this submission, we focus on students in the GBG condition and their internal control counterparts. Students enrolled in ML classrooms are not included.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
First grade students were rated by their teachers using “Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R). TOCA-R measures each child’s adequacy of performance on the core social tasks of the classrooms. The three central domains on which teachers rate each child’s performance over the previous three weeks are aggressive behavior, disruptive behavior, shy behavior, and concentration problems. The items were rated using a 6-point frequency-based scale, with items ranging from “almost never” to “almost always.” Positive items were reversed to allow a consistent level of adaptation among items. After reversal, 1 reflected adaptation and 6 reflected maladaptation for all items.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
  • identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?
%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:
  • emotional disability label,
  • placed in an alternative school/classroom,
  • non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
  • designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
The Good Behavior Game is a classroom team-based behavior management strategy that promotes good behavior by rewarding teams that follow productive standards of student behavior. After baseline measurement of behavior, children were assigned to one of three heterogeneous teams in each classroom and points were given to the team for precisely defined misbehavior. The teacher determined team divisions and team membership, making sure that teams equally contained aggressive/disruptive children and social isolates. The goal of the strategy was to encourage students to manage their own behavior and the behavior of their teammates during group activities driven by mutual self-interest. While the GBG was in progress in the classroom, the teacher assigned a checkmark on the blackboard next to the name of a team whenever one of its members displayed one of the specified inappropriate or disruptive behaviors. A team could win the game if the total number of team checkmarks did not exceed four at the end of the game period. During the first weeks of the intervention, the GBG was played three times each week for a period of 10 minutes. Over successive weeks duration of the game increased approximately 10 minutes per game period every 3 weeks, up to a maximum of 3 hours.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
Teachers in the first-grade classrooms in the comparison condition continued their usual instructional and behavior management practices throughout the year.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):
A second intervention, Mastery Learning (ML), was tested independently of GBG in seven schools. ML and GBG were not compared with each other and were only compared with their internal control (control classrooms within the schools in which the program was in place), and external control (control classrooms from the six schools in which neither intervention was implemented).

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1 238 169 Invalid
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 184 121 0.12
American Indian 5 3 0.00
Asian/Pacific Islander 0 1 1.40
Hispanic 0 1 1.40
White 49 42 0.26
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 121 90 0.25
No Subsidized Lunch 117 79 0.07

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 16 9 0.10
Not Identified With a Disability 222 160 Invalid

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 119 88 0.20
Male 119 81 0.07

Mean Effect Size

0.16

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Design Half Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
Dolan et al. (1993): Within each of the five urban areas, the three or four most similar schools were identified for random assignment to three intervention conditions: one to GBB, one to ML, and the other one or two schools to an external control condition with no experimental intervention activities. First-grade classrooms within the intervention schools were assigned to the interventions at random. In addition, the school principals agreed to assign randomly the entering first-grade children to classroom membership to obtain balanced distributions for gender, preschool and kindergarten (K-level) experience, K-level conduct grades, and K-level achievement test scores. Therefore, both classrooms and students were randomly assigned to intervention status. Rebok et al. (1996): From a total of 19 schools, the three or four most similar schools were identified within each of the five urban areas for random assignment to three intervention conditions: one school to GRB, one to ML, and one to an external control condition with no experimental intervention. To avoid confounding of intervention status with school effects, we divided classrooms in GBG and ML intervention school into two types: those that received the intervention and those that served as internal control classes. Individual first-grade classrooms were randomly assigned to intervention or internal control within the intervention schools. Before beginning the intervention work, the school principals randomly assigned the entering first-grade children to classrooms. Randomizing backed up by corrections in assignments as needed produced very similar classrooms of children, at least at the beginning of the year. Gender, preschool and kindergarten level, and conduct grades were assessed to ensure good balance.

What was the unit of assignment?
Teachers
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Empty Bobble

How was the program delivered?
not selected Individually
not selected Small Group
selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
34.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
95.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The interventionists were professional teachers who taught in first or second grade classrooms. Teachers varied in terms of their academic background, credentials, certificates, and years of teaching. Teachers received 40 hours of training and support during the year.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Due to the age of the initial trials, fidelity of treatment information was not collected or published. Implementation data focused only on duration of games, number of games played, and other logistical information. Since the initial trials, fidelity measures have been developed and validated in other trials, such as the fidelity checklist, a five-point scale rating the quality and occurrence of implementation behaviors (α = .80); however, the original trial predates the development of these tools.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Fidelity of treatment information was not obtained

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
Fidelity of treatment information was not obtained from the GBG or control classrooms.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Dash

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
not selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
California Achievement Test-Reading. Reading achievement was assessed by the total reading score from the California Achievement Test (CAT, Forms E and F). However, achievement is not the target outcome of GBG, so the variable has been excluded for this reporting. The peer-rated shy behavior was also excluded from reporting because the three items (is too shy, plays alone, has few friends) do not function well as a single measure, even though the internal consistency of the construct is 0.74, higher than the recommended threshold.
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods were used to test the effects of the GBG intervention on its proximal behavior targets within gender. Boys and girls were tested separately because the temporal regression of spring values on fall values differs significantly in slope for almost all of the key variables. Pooling the genders sharply violates the assumptions of analysis of covariance. GBG was compared separately to each of its controls because the control groups were not considered to be poolable. The differences between the control groups, which in some cases were quite large, were not allowed to confound the comparison of the intervention with each control.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
5
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., Laudolff, J., Turkkan, J. S., Ford, C., & Wheeler, L. (1993). The Short-Term Impact of Two Classroom-Based Preventive Interventions on Aggressive and Shy Behaviors and Poor Achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 317-345.

Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). The Course and Malleability of Aggressive Behavior from Early First Grade into Middle School: Results of a Developmental Epidemiologically-Based Preventive Trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259-281.

Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The Effect of the Level of Aggression in the First Grade Classroom on the Course and Malleability of Aggressive Behavior into Middle School. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165-185.

Kellam, S.G., Hendricks, C.B., Poduska J.M.,Ialongo, N.S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P, Hanno, P., Ford C., Windham, A., Wilcox, H.C. (2008). Effects of a Universal Classroom Behavior Management Program in First and Second Grades on Young Adult Behavioral, Psychiatric, and Social Outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95S, S5-S28. PMCID18343607

Petras, H., Kellam, S.G., Brown, C.H., Muthén, B.O., Ialongo, N.S., Poduska, J.M. (2008). Developmental Epidemiological Courses Leading to Antisocial Personality Disorder and Violent and Criminal Behavior: Effects by Young Adulthood of a Universal Preventive Intervention in First- and Second-Grade classrooms. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95S, S45-S59. PMCID18243581

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.