Coaching Teachers to Implement the Good Behavior Game: A Direct Training Approach

Abstract

Ms. Beck, a second-year general education teacher who teaches in a fifth-grade inclusive classroom, is having difficulty with classroom management. She notices student behavior is particularly challenging during her math lesson each day. Math takes place after lunch and recess. Students reenter the classroom from the playground and have a hard time settling and focusing on instruction. Many students are out of their seats and talking out of turn during her lesson. Earlier in the year, she taught all students the classroom rules and often provides praise when she notices a student following directions. Nonetheless, during her math class, she feels as though she cannot teach all of her content due to the disruptions. She has asked the lead special education teacher, Ms. Losada, to help her by providing coaching support. After preliminary observations and a brief interview to determine more details about Ms. Beck’s classroom concerns, Ms. Losada plans to provide training to Ms. Beck on the Good Behavior Game. Ms. Losada explains that she will help Ms. Beck to generate the few materials needed to implement the game during math each day and schedules the time to meet with Ms. Beck to provide training.

Students may benefit from evidence-based interventions to support their classroom learning (Carmago et al., 2016). Additionally, laws and policies, such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (2006), mandate the implementation of evidence-based practices to improve student outcomes in schools (Kretlow & Bartholomew, 2010). Many educators struggle to implement interventions consistently and as designed due to lack of support, skills, or confidence when the intervention is overly complex (Brock & Carter, 2017; Collier-Meek, Sanetti, & Boyle, 2016; Noell, Witt, Gilberston, Ranier, & Freeland, 1997). Teachers who receive only brief, didactic training miss needed opportunities to practice an intervention and receive feedback (Sugai & Horner, 2006). Practice and feedback can aid in skill acquisition, and rehearsal can build fluency, ultimately leading to generalization and maintenance of intervention behavior over time (Stokes & Baer, 1977).

Results from research suggest that when educators receive adequate training and support in how to implement an intervention, they are more likely to deliver the intervention with high levels of implementation fidelity (Stormont, Reinke, Newcomer, Marchese, & Lewis, 2015). Implementation fidelity is defined as delivering an intervention as designed or intended and includes consideration of how completely an intervention is delivered (Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009). Implementation fidelity can be assessed by direct observation of a teacher’s implementation or by collecting data indirectly (e.g., gathering evidence of implementation, such as behavior charts used for student interventions; Gresham, 1989). Higher levels of implementation fidelity have been linked to better student outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008).

When educators receive adequate training and support, they are more likely to deliver the intervention with high levels of implementation fidelity.

These student outcomes include improvements in both academic achievement and social behavior, as there is evidence of a relationship between the two. Effective teaching practices tend to maximize student engagement and reduce classroom disruptions (Harbour, Evanovich, Sweigart, & Hughes, 2015). Conversely, ineffective teaching may result in less classroom structure, a greater need for disciplinary action, and diminished learning outcomes (Miles & Stipek, 2006; Sutherland, Lewis-Palmer, Stichter, & Morgan, 2008). Students with certain exceptionalities may be at greater risk for diminished outcomes. For example, students with behavioral disorders tend to (a) perform 1 to 2 years below grade level, (b) encounter problems in school at an early age, and (c) struggle to be successful in the classroom throughout their education (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011). It is important for all students, especially those with exceptionalities, that teachers provide strong instruction and behavior management.

Strong instruction and behavior management involve similar instructional approaches (Algozzine et al., 2011). For both, priority is given to evidence-based practice (Simonsen et al., 2014; Spooner, Knight, Browder, & Smith, 2012). One such evidence-based behavior management practice is the Good Behavior Game (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969; Bowman-Perrott, Burke, Zaini, Zhang, & Vannest, 2016). The Good Behavior Game is a classwide intervention in which students are divided into teams and compete to access a reward by displaying appropriate behavior for a prescribed period of time (e.g., 20 minutes; Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014). Implementation of the Good Behavior Game in classrooms has been well researched and is associated with reductions in off-task (Barrish et al., 1969), talking-out (Davies & Witte, 2000), disruptive (Mitchell, Tingstrom, Dufrene, Ford, & Sterling, 2015), and aggressive behavior (Maggin, Fallon, Sanetti, & Roberto, 2012). It has also been linked to increases in instructional material covered (Medland & Stachnik, 1972), work completion (Robertshaw & Hiebert, 1973), and higher scores on standardized tests (Bradshaw, Zmuda, Kellam, & Ialongo, 2009).

Coaching Model

Educators may learn about intervention approaches, such as the Good Behavior Game, via (a) preservice training during teacher preparation programs, (b) in-service training via ongoing professional development sessions, or (c) one-on-one coaching support (Fallon, Kurtz, & Mueller, 2018). One-on-one coaching involves the educator who is going to be implementing the intervention and another school staff member who serves as a coach (e.g., school psychologist, lead special education teacher). The coach provides training and support to the teacher (Gilmour, Wehby, & McGuire, 2017) so that the intervention is delivered with high levels of implementation fidelity (Collier-Meek et al., 2016; Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009). Due to resource constraints in schools (e.g., time, personnel), this support is often limited to a brief verbal or written didactic training session before the intervention is set to begin (Sterling-Turner, Watson, & Moore, 2002). Although common, didactic training is considered an indirect training method. This is because teachers are not offered the opportunity to practice or receive feedback before implementing the intervention in the classroom (Sterling-Turner, Watson, Wildmon, Watkins, & Little, 2001). Although verbal and written instructions are important, indirect training methods may not provide the essential training support teachers need to implement an intervention consistently (Fallon, Kurtz, et al., 2018).

Different strategies have been developed to support educators’ implementation within a coaching model, including strategies that can be used before an intervention begins (e.g., implementation planning; Collier-Meek et al., 2016) and during an intervention (e.g., intervention prompts; Collier-Meek, Fallon, & DeFouw, 2017). Although many implementation supports have been reported in the literature, only two to date have been deemed evidence-based practices according to the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards (Fallon, Collier-Meek, Maggin, Sanetti, & Johnson, 2015). The first is performance feedback, which involves a teacher receiving written, verbal, or graphic feedback to improve the delivery of an intervention when implementation is not going as planned (Gilbertson, Witt, Singletary, & VanDerHeyden, 2007). Although effective, performance feedback is often provided in response to teachers struggling to implement an intervention. In contrast, the second implementation support to be deemed an evidence-based practice to date is a proactive strategy aimed to promote implementation fidelity before it falters: direct training (Fallon, Kurtz, et al., 2018).

Direct Training of Teachers

Direct training, also referred to as behavioral skills training, is provided before the intervention is delivered to support teachers in developing and practicing the skills needed to implement the intervention well in the classroom (Fallon, Sanetti, et al., 2018). First, the intervention should be delineated into a list of discrete steps (Collier-Meek et al., 2016). Once these steps are identified, direct training is structured to provide the opportunity to describe and demonstrate each step before the teacher engages in practice and is offered specific feedback related to performance of the steps (Figure 1; Fallon, Kurtz, et al., 2018).

Figure 1.

Four essential components of direct training

Describe

First, the teacher receives instructions about how to implement each intervention step (Sterling-Turner et al., 2002). This might occur in the teacher’s classroom (Fallon, Sanetti, et al., 2018) or in another location in the building (e.g., Homlitas, Rosales, & Candel, 2014) and may be guided by written or visual materials (e.g., PowerPoint presentation; McKenney, Waldron, & Conroy, 2013). The intervention description may also be supplemented by an explanation of any relevant underlying theory, rationale, or research to justify the practice or approach (Fixsen, Blasé, Metz, & Naoom, 2014). The steps are subsequently explained in the context of an implementation process (Brock & Carter, 2017), and teachers should gain an understanding of how the intervention is intended to affect student outcomes (Sutherland, Conroy, Vo, & Ladwig, 2015).

Ms. Losada has identified an intervention to assist Ms. Beck with the disruptions she is having during math in her fifth-grade inclusion classroom. She prepares a list of intervention steps for the Good Behavior Game (Barrish et al., 1969) and arranges to meet with Ms. Beck after school. When the two teachers meet in Ms. Beck’s classroom, Ms. Losada provides Ms. Beck with the list of intervention steps (Table 1). Ms. Losada indicates that she will first describe each step of the intervention to Ms. Beck while Ms. Beck follows along. Ms. Losada then talks through the process of implementation and describes the logistics of implementing the Good Behavior Game. For instance, she says that Ms. Beck will need to break the class into teams and think of a reward that the winning team will receive each day. She also describes the theory behind the Good Behavior Game, indicating it is a group contingency intervention with a wealth of research support in the classroom management literature (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2016). She talks about how it has been shown to be effective when played for about 20 minutes or so during a particularly challenging time of the day for students of various abilities and ages. She also mentions that, traditionally, teams work to avoid earning points for misbehavior when playing the Good Behavior Game (Barrish et al., 1969), but it can be modified so that teams instead work together to earn points for following classroom expectations (Wright & McCurdy, 2012). Ms. Beck likes this modification. Ms. Losada also suggests modifications to the game to support students with exceptionalities. For instance, she indicates that she will help Ms. Beck to make and post visuals of the expected behavior and train her to use these to remind students of what each behavior looks like (Stephens & Gould, 2012). Ms. Beck can utilize these visuals when providing nonverbal prompts to students throughout the game by pointing to the pictures instead of giving verbal reminders. Ms. Losada then pauses to ask if Ms. Beck has any questions.

Table 1.

List of Good Behavior Game Training Steps

Intervention step		Sample dialogue (for modeling)
Start of the game
Announce game	• Announce the start of the game • Remind students of the game rules	“We’re going to play the Good Behavior Game now. Remember, I’m looking for teams who are displaying expected behaviors. When I see expected behavior, I’ll provide a tally for that team.”
Review expected behavior	• Tell students how to behave during the game, referencing the classroom expectations • Provide examples of the expected behavior	“To earn a tally, everyone on the team should be in their seat, raise their hand before speaking, and remain on task. When you’re on task, you are looking up at me or working hard to complete your work. You’re not standing up, walking around, or talking to your neighbor.”
Review reward	• Explain to the students what reward the winning team will receive • Explain the criteria for winning	“Remember, the winning team will be the team with the most tallies. That winning team will earn 5 minutes of choice time while the rest of us finish today’s independent math work.”
During the game
Provide reminders	• Provide several verbal reminders throughout the game about the expected behavior • Point to the visuals posted of what expected behavior looks like to offer students nonverbal prompts	“I’m looking for students who are raising their hands and staying on task.” Point to visual of student raising hand. Point to visual of student writing quietly.
Praise expected behavior	• When students demonstrate expected behavior, provide specific praise • Provide tallies when expected behaviors are exhibited	“Thank you for raising your hand, Juan Carlos. You earned a tally for Team 3!” “I see several students in Team 1 being focused on their work. Great on-task behavior!”
Respond to inappropriate behavior	• When students exhibit inappropriate behavior, provide brief specific corrections	“Next time, Rachel, make sure to raise your hand before you speak.” “I’m seeing talking at Team 4’s table. Remember, on-task behavior means being focused on your work.”
To end the game
Acknowledge winners	• Announce the game winners • Provide behavior-specific praise to the students	“Team 2 is today’s winner! You received the most tallies during the game today. I particularly liked how this team remained seated and raised their hands before speaking. It helped them to get a lot of work complete. Congratulations to our winners! You may have 5 minutes of choice time now before we transition to our next subject.”
Close game	• Remind students that there will be an opportunity to play the game the next day • Complete fidelity checklist and make note of the points each team earned	“Nice job to all teams. Remember, there’s another opportunity to play and win tomorrow!”

Note. Adapted from Collier-Meek, Fallon, and DeFouw (2017).

Demonstrate

Once the teacher learns about the intervention steps, it is important to model the intervention process by demonstrating each step (DiGennaro-Reed, Codding, Catania, & Maguire, 2010). This can occur outside of the classroom (e.g., Homlitas et al., 2014). Yet, modeling may be more relevant if it occurs inside the classroom—whether students are present (Dufrene et al., 2012) or not (Sterling-Turner et al., 2002). In some research studies, modeling first occurred in a separate setting and was then repeated in the classroom to promote generalization (Fox, Hemmeter, Snyder, Binder, & Clarke, 2011). Often, modeling occurs face-to-face. However, another option is to prerecord a video model and play the video for the teacher at a later time (Fallon, Sanetti, et al., 2018). This may be beneficial to ensure any teacher trained to use the same intervention receives the same modeling (i.e., training standardization). A video model may also provide a flexible and more efficient way to convey the information (e.g., the teacher may watch the video at a time of convenience) and an opportunity for the teacher to watch the modeling demonstration over and over. Finally, with teleconferencing and videoconferencing technology continuing to advance, coaches or trainers might be able to model interventions from a distance to support teachers’ implementation (e.g., Machalicek et al., 2010). That is, teachers can use technology, such as Skype or Google Hangout, to meet with a coach virtually and watch him or her model the intervention. More research on the use of video technology to support teachers’ training and intervention implementation is needed, though.

Ms. Losada goes through the Good Behavior Game intervention once more, this time modeling exactly how she would implement each step with the students in the classroom (see Table 1 for sample dialogue). As she models, she makes the gestures she would while actually implementing the game and points to materials as she would if the students were present. After she models each step for Ms. Beck, she again asks if there are any questions. As they are meeting after school without the students present, Ms. Losada offers to come in to Ms. Beck’s classroom during math class the following day to model the intervention while the students are present, if Ms. Beck would like the support.

Practice

Once the intervention is described and modeled for the teacher, it is time to practice the steps of the intervention. This may occur by the teacher rehearsing each step of the intervention in front of the coach or trainer (Dufrene et al., 2012). Alternatively, the coach may pretend to be a student, and the teacher can role-play each step of the intervention with the coach (Hiralall & Martens, 1998). As with describing and demonstrating, the practice can occur either in the classroom or outside of the classroom. Students may be present or not. Researchers have indicated, however, that practice is particularly effective when there is a predetermined criterion met by the trainee (i.e., the trainee can display a certain percentage of the intervention steps accurately) before the training session ends (Jenkins & DiGennaro Reed, 2016).

After Ms. Losada models the intervention, she asks Ms. Beck to rehearse each step of the intervention while Ms. Losada watches. Ms. Losada remains quiet during Ms. Beck’s rehearsal of each step, taking notes about the steps she implements as planned and the steps she may improve. She uses her notes to deliver feedback. She then asks Ms. Beck to practice the intervention once more, but this time, she offers to play the part of a student and they role-play the steps together. The practice repeats until Ms. Beck implements 14 of the 15 steps accurately.

Feedback

As the teacher practices, the coach or trainer provides feedback. It is important to start with feedback on steps of the intervention that the teacher demonstrated well. Then, the trainer can deliver corrective feedback by describing how and why certain steps could be improved (Fallon, Sanetti, et al., 2018). This feedback is important to provide during training to increase the teacher’s understanding of the intervention and reduce the number of errors likely to occur when the teacher is implementing the intervention independently in the classroom. Some trainers may prefer to interrupt the teacher’s practice to provide feedback (Gilbertson et al., 2007), whereas others may wait until after the teacher rehearses or role-plays the intervention in its entirety (Sutherland et al., 2015).

Ms. Losada provides praise for the steps implemented well (i.e., “When you reviewed the reward, you did a great job explaining the criteria for winning as you told the class that the team with the most points will win. What you could improve is explaining what that team will win. You will want to mention the prize each time you play so that students are motivated to be engaged in the intervention.”). Feedback is delivered after each time Ms. Beck practices.

After their afternoon training session, Ms. Beck requests that Ms. Losada come in and model the intervention in the classroom with her students. Ms. Losada does so the next day. The day after that, Ms. Beck implements the intervention during math independently as Ms. Losada observes with an implementation fidelity checklist (Table 2). Ms. Losada provides feedback to her afterward based on the checklist data. Ms. Beck then continues to implement the intervention independently each day.

Table 2.

Implementation Fidelity Checklist

This checklist may be used for direct observation by a trainer or coach, or for a teacher’s self-report of intervention implementation.

Directions: Place a check for each intervention step implemented.

Components	Intervention steps	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
Start of the game
Announce game	• Announce the start of the game
Announce game	• Remind students of the game rules
Review expected behavior	• Tell students how to behave during the game, referencing the classroom expectations
Review expected behavior	• Provide examples of the expected behavior
Review reward	• Explain to the students what reward the winning team will receive
Review reward	• Explain the criteria for winning
During the game
Provide reminders	• Provide several reminders throughout the game about the expected behavior
Provide reminders	• Point to the visuals posted of what expected behavior looks like to offer students nonverbal prompts
Praise expected behavior	• When students demonstrate expected behavior, provide specific praise
Praise expected behavior	• Provide tallies when expected behaviors are exhibited
Respond to inappropriate behavior	• When students exhibit inappropriate behavior, provide brief specific corrections
To end the game
Acknowledge winners	• Announce the game winners
	• Provide behavior-specific praise to the students
	• Note the team winners and score
Close game	• Remind students that there will be an opportunity to play the game the next day
Close game	• Complete fidelity checklist and make note of the points each team earned

Ms. Beck uses the implementation fidelity checklist to self-report her own implementation and also tracks the number of points each team earns every time the game is played. When Ms. Losada checks in with Ms. Beck at the end of a week, they look at both sets of data together and decide to continue to implement the intervention for a few more weeks before considering if it is appropriate to fade the classroom support. When they meet again, they notice that Ms. Beck is implementing the intervention completely and that the students’ behavior is improving over time. Ms. Beck also reports that she is able to teach more math content since starting to play the Good Behavior Game with her class.

Conclusion

Students of varying needs may require intervention in the classroom to make expected gains. Coaching using direct training is an evidence-based approach for supporting teachers’ implementation of interventions with fidelity. Direct training involves the opportunity to describe and demonstrate the intervention before the teacher practices and receives feedback. This is particularly useful for multistep interventions, such as the Good Behavior Game. When the Good Behavior Game is implemented completely and with high levels of implementation fidelity, it is more likely to promote successful student behavioral and learning outcomes. Direct training has been demonstrated as effective when utilized with special and general education teachers as well as with paraeducators, parents, and other stakeholders (Fallon, Kurtz, et al., 2018). Table 3 includes selected resources for direct training and for the Good Behavior Game. It is evident that direct training is effective as a support package, but more research is needed to assess the differential impact of each of the four direct training components on improving teachers’ implementation fidelity (Brock & Carter, 2017).

Table 3.

Useful Resources

Article	Topic
Collier-Meek, Sanetti, and Boyle (2016)	Reviews the direct training process (as well as implementation planning) in the context of a randomized case study to increase a teacher’s use of best practices in classroom management.
Dufrene and colleagues (2012)	An empirical study in which teachers increased their use of behavior-specific praise after receiving direct training.
Fallon, Kurtz, and Mueller (2018)	A research review that describes the different ways in which direct training can be structured and reviews the evidence-base for the procedure.
Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, and Vega (2014)	A research review of the impact of the Good Behavior Game on challenging behaviors in school settings.
Sterling-Turner, Watson, and Moore (2002)	An empirical study in which teachers demonstrated improved delivery of comprehensive student behavior plans after receiving direct training.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Lindsay M. Fallon

Lindsay M. Fallon, Assistant Professor, Department of Counseling and School Psychology, and Kathryn D. Kurtz, Doctoral Candidate, School Psychology, Department of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA.

References

Algozzine

Wang

Violette

A. S.

(2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 3–16. doi:10.1177/1098300709359084

Barrish

H. H.

Saunders

Wolf

M. M.

(1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.

Bowman-Perrott

Burke

M. D.

Zaini

Zhang

Vannest

(2016). Promoting positive behavior using the Good Behavior Game: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 180–190. doi:10.1177/1098300715592355

Bradshaw

C. P.

Zmuda

J. H.

Kellam

S. G.

Ialongo

N. S.

(2009). Longitudinal impact of two universal preventive interventions in first grade on educational outcomes in high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 926–937. doi:10.1037/a0016586

Brock

M. E.

Carter

E. W.

(2017). A meta-analysis of educator training to improve implementation of interventions for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 131–144. doi:10.1177/0741932516653477

Carmago

S. P.

Rispoli

Ganz

Hong

E. R.

Davis

Mason

(2016). Behaviorally based interventions for teaching social interaction skills to children with ASD in inclusive settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 223–248. doi:10.1007/s10864-015-9240-1

Collier-Meek

M. A.

Fallon

L. M.

DeFouw

E. R.

(2017). Toward feasible implementation support: Emailed prompts to promote teachers’ treatment integrity. School Psychology Review, 46, 379–394. doi:10.17105/SPR-2017-0028.V46-4

Collier-Meek

M. A.

Sanetti

L. M.

Boyle

A. M.

(2016). Providing feasible implementation support: Direct training and implementation planning in consultation. School Psychology Forum: Research and Practice, 10, 106–119.

Davies

Witte

(2000). Self-management and peer-monitoring within a group contingency to decrease uncontrolled verbalizations of children with Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 135–147. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200003)37:2<135::AID-PITS5>3.0.CO;2-U

10.

DiGennaro-Reed

F. D.

Codding

Catania

C. N.

Maguire

(2010). Effects of video modeling on treatment integrity o behavioral interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 291–295. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-291

11.

Dufrene

B. A.

Parker

Menousek

Zhou

Harpole

L. L.

Olmi

D. J.

(2012). Direct behavioral consultation in Head Start to increase teacher use of praise and effective instruction delivery. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22, 159–186. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/10474412.2011.620817

12.

Durlak

J. A.

DuPre

E. P.

(2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.

13.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 114 U.S.C. § 1177 (2015).

14.

Fallon

L. M.

Collier-Meek

M. A.

Maggin

D. M.

Sanetti

L. M.

Johnson

A. H.

(2015). Is performance feedback for educators an evidence-based practice? A systematic review and evaluation based on single-case research. Exceptional Children, 81, 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551738

15.

Fallon

L. M.

Kurtz

K. D.

Mueller

M. R.

(2018). Direct training to improve educators’ treatment integrity: A systematic review of single-case design studies. School Psychology Quarterly, 33, 169–181. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/spq0000210

16.

Fallon

L. M.

Sanetti

L. M. H.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Faggella-Luby

M. N.

Briesch

A. M.

(2018). Direct training to increase agreement between teachers’ and observers’ treatment integrity ratings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43, 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084177387

17.

Fixsen

D. L.

Blase

K. A.

Metz

A. J.

Naoom

S. F.

(2014). Producing high levels of treatment integrity in practice: A focus on preparing practitioners. Hagermoser Sanetti

L. M.

Kratochwill

T. R.

(Eds.), Treatment integrity: A foundation for evidence-based practice in applied psychology (pp. 185–201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/14275-010

18.

Flower

McKenna

J. W.

Bunuan

R. L.

Muething

C. S.

Vega

Jr. (2014). Effects of the Good Behavior Game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 84, 546–571. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3102/0034654314536781

19.

Fox

Hemmeter

Snyder

Binder

D. P.

Clarke

(2011). Coaching early childhood special educators to implement a comprehensive model for promoting young children’s social competence. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121411404440

20.

Gilbertson

Witt

J. C.

Singletary

L. L.

VanDerHeyden

(2007). Supporting teacher use of interventions: Effects of response dependent performance feedback on teacher implementation of a math intervention. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 311–326. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10864-007-9043-0.

21.

Gilmour

A. F.

Wehby

J. H.

McGuire

T. M.

(2017). A preliminary investigation of using school-based coaches to support intervention fidelity of a classwide behavior management program. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1214907

22.

Gresham

F. M.

(1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18, 37–50.

23.

Harbour

K. E.

Evanovich

L. L.

Sweigart

C. A.

Hughes

L. E.

(2015). A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59, 5–13.

24.

Hiralall

A. S.

Martens

B. K.

(1998). Teaching classroom management skills to preschool staff: The effects of scripted instructional sequences on teacher and student behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 94–115.

25.

Homlitas

Rosales

Candel

(2014). A further evaluation of behavioral skills training for implementation of the picture exchange communication system. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 198–203.

26.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2006 & Supp. V. 2011).

27.

Jenkins

S. R.

DiGennaro Reed

F. D.

(2016). A parametric analysis of rehearsal opportunities on procedural integrity. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 36, 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2016.1236057

28.

Kretlow

A. G.

Bartholomew

C. C.

(2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410371643

29.

Machalicek

O’Reilly

M. F.

Rispoli

Davis

Lang

Hetlinger-Franco

Chan

(2010). Training teachers to assess the challenging behaviors of students with autism using video tele-conferencing. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disability, 45, 203–215.

30.

Maggin

D. M.

Fallon

L. M.

Sanetti

L. M. H.

Roberto

L. M.

(2012). Training paraeducators to implement a group contingency protocol: Direct and collateral effects. Behavioral Disorders, 38, 18–37.

31.

McKenney

E. L.

Waldron

Conroy

(2013). The effects of training and performance feedback during behavioral consultation on general education middle school teachers’ integrity to functional analysis procedures. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 23, 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2013.757152

32.

Medland

M. B.

Stachnik

T. J.

(1972). Good-Behavior Game: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 45–51.

33.

Miles

S. B.

Stipek

(2006). Contemporaneous and longitudinal associations between social behavior and literacy achievement in a sample of low-income elementary school children. Child Development, 77, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00859.x

34.

Mitchell

R. R.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Dufrene

B. A.

Ford

W. B.

Sterling

H. E.

(2015). The effects of the Good Behavior Game with general-education high school students. School Psychology Review, 44, 191–207.

35.

Noell

G. H.

Witt

J. C.

Gilbertson

D. N.

Ranier

D. D.

Freeland

J. T.

(1997). Increasing teacher intervention implementation in general education settings through consultation and performance feedback. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088949

36.

Robertshaw

C. S.

Hiebert

H. D.

(1973). The astronaut game: A group contingency applied to a first grade classroom. School Applications of Learning Theory, 6, 28–33.

37.

Sanetti

L. M. H.

Kratochwill

T. R.

(2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38, 445–459.

38.

Simonsen

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

Briere

D. E.

III Freeman

Myers

Scott

T. M.

Sugai

(2014). Multitiered support framework for teachers’ classroom-management practices: Overview and case study of building the triangle for teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713484062

39.

Spooner

Knight

V. F.

Browder

D. M.

Smith

B. R.

(2012). Evidence-based practice for teaching academics to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511421634

40.

Stephens

D. E.

Gould

(2012, November). Tips and tweaks for effective school wide PBIS for students with ASD. Paper presented at the Illinois PBIS Network Summer Leadership Conference, LaGrange Park, IL.

41.

Sterling-Turner

H. E.

Watson

T. S.

Moore

J. W.

(2002). The effects of direct training and treatment integrity on treatment outcomes in school consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 47–77. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1521/scpq.17.1.47.19906

42.

Sterling-Turner

H. E.

Watson

T. S.

Wildmon

Watkins

Little

(2001). Investigating the relationship between training type and treatment integrity. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 56–67. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1521/scpq.16.1.56.19157

43.

Stokes

T. F.

Baer

D. M.

(1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349

44.

Stormont

Reinke

W. M.

Newcomer

Marchese

Lewis

(2015). Coaching teachers’ use of social behavior interventions to improve children’s outcomes: A review of the literature. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17, 69–82. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/1098300714550657

45.

Sugai

Horner

(2006). A promising approach to expanding and sustaining schoolwide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245–259.

46.

Sutherland

K. S.

Conroy

M. A.

Ladig

(2015). Implementation integrity of practice-based coaching: Preliminary results from the BEST in CLASS efficacy trial. School Mental Health, 7, 21–33. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s12310-014-9134-8

47.

Sutherland

K. S.

Lewis-Palmer

Stichter

Morgan

P. L.

(2008). Examining the influence of teacher behavior and classroom context on the behavioral and academic outcomes for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907310372

48.

Wright

R. A.

McCurdy

B. L.

(2012). Class-wide positive behavior support and group contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the good behavior game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 173–180. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/109830071142100