The Good Behavior Game: A classroom-behavior intervention effective across cultures

Abstract

Few classroom behavioral interventions have been thoroughly studied using culturally and linguistically diverse populations, international student populations, or those from diverse socio-economic backgrounds. Yet, having such tools for school psychologists and teachers is critical for behavior management in the classroom. One important exception is the Good Behavior Game, which has been extensively studied both in the United States and international settings. Because this intervention is based on well-tested principles of behavior theory, it has proven to be a useful tool across cultural, linguistic, socio-economic traditions, with long lasting positive longitudinal behavior change. This article presents a review of the literature on the Good Behavior Game as it applies to international and diverse student populations.

Keywords

Classroom intervention diverse classrooms good behavior game international student populations problem behavior

A classroom behavior intervention effective across cultures

The importance of having classroom management tools that are effective across cultural and linguistic traditions cannot be overstated. The existence of aggressive and inappropriate behaviors in schools is a universally noted phenomenon that has been witnessed in far reaching regions (Malete, 2007). Recent studies have noted changes in social skills and development as well as the incorporation of recent technologies (e.g. cyberbullying) into aberrant behavioral repertoires world-wide (Larsen & Samdal, 2011; Sakellariou, Carroll, & Houghton, 2012). As noted by Lee, Oakland, and Ahn (2010), it is necessary to make an effort to understand at the international level factors that contribute to differences in temperament and behavior globally, as well as developing and implementing effective treatments. The challenges of natural disaster, political shifts, or sudden and dramatic changes socially and economically can all lead to periodic increases in behavioral problems in schools (Widyatmoko, Tan, Seyle, Mayawati, & Silver, 2011). The global implementation of empirical research studies and the subsequent dissemination of outcomes amongst professionals working in schools is an important first step to solutions that can be implemented nationally (Mcloughlin, Zhou, & Clark, 2005). The Good Behavior Game (GBG) has been tested internationally with culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse student populations and has demonstrated a consistent pattern of experimental success (Gu, Lai, & Ye, 2011; Thuen & Bru, 2009; Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, & Wilczynski, 2006). This classroom management tool has been tested in dozens of studies in the United States of America (USA), across a variety of settings that included cohorts of culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse students and those with disabilities. In addition, it has been tested internationally in Germany (Huber, 1979), Sudan (Saigh & Umar, 1983), Belgium (Leflot, van Lier, Onghena, & Colpin, 2010), The Netherlands (van Lier, van der Sar, Muthen, & Crijnen, 2004), The United Kingdom (Phillips & Christie, 1986), Spain (Coronado-Hijón, 2009; Ruiz-Olivares, Pino, & Herruzo, 2010), Chile (Pérez, Rodríguez, De la Barra, & Fernández, 2005; Pérez, Rodríguez, Fernández, & de la Barra, 2005), British Columbia (Kosiec, Czernicki, & McLaughlin, 1986) and Quebec (Dion, Roux, Landry, Fuchs, Wehby, & Dupéré, 2011). All of the research using the GBG indicates that it is an effective tool for behavior change in the classroom.

Further, there is evidence longitudinally that students who participated in the GBG in elementary school experienced reduction in their externalizing behaviors (Pérez, Rodríguez, De la Barra, & Fernández, 2005; Pérez, Rodríguez, Fernández, & de la Barra, 2005; Petras et al., 2008; van Lier et al., 2004; Witvliet, van Lier, Cuijpers, & Koot 2009), mental health issues (Huizink, van Lier, & Crijnen, 2009; Wilcox et al., 2008), attention problems (Dion et al., 2011), and show improved outcomes in academic performance (Bradshaw, Zmuda, Kellam, & Ialongo, 2009) as adolescents and adults. These behavioral changes are in evidence across nations, cultures, and languages, indicating that the GBG is an internationally effective tool for school psychologists to use in improving classroom management.

History

As noted by Tingstrom et al. (2006), GBG was first introduced in 1969 as a behavioral intervention employing interdependent contingency management in a group situation. In interdependent contingency management, all participants have access to the same reinforcement based on the collective behavior of the group. Thus, even if one participant does not reach the criterion individually, he/she would have access to the reinforcement providing that the group met the criterion. A typical use of the GBG includes a classroom situation in which identified inappropriate behaviors (e.g. out of seat behavior, talking out of turn, etc.) are monitored. As long as the set criterion is achieved, (e.g. no more than five incidents of the targeted behavior) the entire classroom is rewarded (e.g. extra minutes of recess).

The GBG has been used in dozens of research articles and has been modified many times to accommodate different situations. In many applications of the GBG, a classroom was divided into two teams and each team received a mark on the board when the teacher observed a targeted undesired behavior (Tingstrom et al., 2006). The team with the fewest rule violations received the reinforcement, or if neither team received more than five rule violation marks, they both qualified. Since that time, the GBG has been used in single-case research studies using well designed behavioral research methodology, involving phase changes, multiple baseline methods, changing criterion designs, and combined approaches (Tingstrom et al., 2006).

In the Tingstrom et al. (2006) review of research using the GBG from 1969–2002, the authors reported that the GBG had been used successfully in its original form and in numerous modifications. Reducing disruptive behavior as well as increasing pro-social behavior, such as improving oral hygiene and increasing academic behavior, have been common applications of the GBG. Typically, the GBG is used in a classroom setting with children in grades 1–6, but it has also been employed with preschoolers, kindergarteners, and adolescents.

Research is currently beginning to investigate the GBG and its effect on teacher behavior, including the monitoring of positive, neutral, and negative teacher responses to child behavior (Lannie & McCurdy, 2007). Additionally, a version of GBG in which positive rather than negative behaviors are monitored and rewarded shows promise as an additional and preferred iteration of this technique (Tanol, Johnson, McComas, & Cote, 2010). The GBG has been endorsed as a best practice technique (Osher, Baer, Sprague, & Doyle, 2010; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). Embry (2002) has noted that the GBG has been successfully replicated in 20 independent studies. Embry has also referred to the GBG as a ‘behavioral vaccine’ because of its ability to have positive effects beyond the original target behaviors to other related anti-social behaviors over significant periods of time. Although this body of research represents a solid, defensible argument for the GBG as an effective intervention in classrooms, the more convincing evidence is that which represents the application of the GBG across diverse student populations.

GBG applied internationally

Some of the earliest evidence of the use of GBG with international populations was a study conducted by Huber in 1979. In this study using fourth grade German students in a summer remedial class, the researcher demonstrated a significant reduction in high frequency disruptive behavior including aggressive behavior, talking back, and out of seat behavior. This early study emphasized the GBG temporary behavior change effects and also its application with an international population of students. Later research by Phillips and Christie (1986) demonstrated significant decrease in off-task behavior for adolescent students using the GBG in the United Kingdom. Additionally, a study with fourth and sixth grade students in British Columbia, Canada, produced a significant reduction in inappropriate verbalizations in both classrooms (Kosiec et al., 1986). These studies highlight the use of the GBG as an effective behavioral intervention with several international populations.

The influence of the GBG was investigated longitudinally in a series of studies conducted in Rotterdam, The Netherlands (van Lier et al., 2004). Students from 31 first- and second-grade classrooms were randomly assigned to control (N = 295) or GBG treatment (N = 371) condition. Treatment was delivered in second and third grades and the students were followed longitudinally. In the first publication with this cohort, researchers reported that Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity (ADH) symptoms were significantly reduced in the treatment compared to the control condition. Additionally, a predicted trajectory was estimated for students displaying ADH symptoms from first to third grade. These students were divided into three classes for analysis (Class 1 had high trajectory of ADH symptoms, Class 2 had intermediate trajectory, Class 3 had low trajectory). Intermediate trajectory (Class 2) students who received GBG treatment showed ADH symptoms below their anticipated trajectory as compared to the control group. Oppositional-defiant (OD) behaviors were also measured and trajectories estimated for the students in the same way. The GBG treatment demonstrated a significant preventative effect in the development of OD behaviors for students in the high and intermediate trajectory classes (van Lier et al., 2004). The van Lier et al. (2004) study is particularly important because of meeting the evidence based practice standard of randomly assigning a relatively large number of subjects to control and active treatment groups; its replication with another culture, and its demonstrated effectiveness over time.

In a subsequent publication, the Netherlands researchers reported on assessment of peer nominations of antisocial behavior and peer rejection during the four-year period of the initial research with the same population. Children who were projected to display antisocial behavior but received the GBG treatment showed large reductions in antisocial behavior and an associated decrease in peer rejection when compared to children in the control condition (van Lier, Vuijk, & Crijnen, 2005). This indicates that the GBG is an effective preventative measure to reduce antisocial behavior and peer rejection.

Huizink et al. (2009) investigated the same population longitudinally to determine if participation in the GBG for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity (ADH) in third grade mediated onset of smoking at ages 10 and 11 years, as research indicates that ADH is predictive of early onset smoking. These researchers found that participants in the GBG treatment condition in second and third grade reported lower early onset tobacco use. It is interesting to note, that when parental prenatal smoking was controlled for, this effect was still evident.

In 2009, Witvliet and colleagues examined gender differences and the link between positive peer relations and externalizing problems in 825 Kindergarten students from 30 elementary schools in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. They found that students in the GBG treatment condition had lower levels of externalizing behavior and higher scores on positive peer relations as opposed to students in the control condition who showed no difference from baseline levels on both measures. They further found that reduced externalizing behavior is partially mediated by improvements in peer acceptance, but this result was found only in boys. This extensive and longitudinal research conducted in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, indicated that the GBG is an effective tool to reduce undesired classroom behavior, as well as an effective prevention program to reduce early onset smoking, antisocial behavior, and peer rejection with international student populations.

Another Western European study conducted in Belgium used the GBG with 570 elementary students throughout second and third grade (Leflot et al., 2010). These students lived in rural to moderately urban areas and were primarily Flemish speaking. The version of the GBG used in this study was the Dutch version, which reinforces pro-social behavior by praising children who follow rules and removing cards for rule breakers, but giving no further attention to the antisocial behavior. Teachers in the intervention condition reported lower use of negative remarks, increased on-task behavior, and decreased talking out behavior.

These researchers further demonstrated that improved classroom behavior mediates development of hyperactive and oppositional behavior (Leflot et al., 2010). At the end of third grade, the GBG treatment had a marginally significant impact on slowing the growth of hyperactive and oppositional behavior compared to the control condition. The GBG also contributed to a reduction in teachers’ negative remarks and an increase in positive remarks. An interesting claim made by the researchers of this study is that teachers’ classroom management strategies are a crucial part in the development of hyperactive and oppositional behavior. That is, if teachers give attention to undesired behavior they reinforce it, making it likely to become a behavioral pattern over time. Thus the Dutch version of the GBG, which focuses on positive behaviors, may have the added advantage of reinforcing positive patters of behaviors in students.

Also in 2010, Ruiz-Olivares and colleagues combined the GBG with another intervention, Say-Do-Report (S-D-R) Correspondence Training (Ruiz-Olivares et al., 2010). This intervention was conducted with 15 elementary students in a rural public school in Southwestern Andalusia (Spain) to reduce disruptive behavior. At the beginning of each game, the teacher would prompt the students through reporting what their behavior would look like during that time (i.e. ‘Team 1, are you going to get up?’, ‘No, we are not going to get up’, ‘Team 1, are you going to shout?’, ‘No, we are not going to shout’, etc.). This process was repeated for all target behaviors across all three teams. The students were also instructed that to win, each team was to receive no more than four marks on the board for disruptive behavior per game. At the end of each game, the teacher prompted the students through reporting the behavior they had displayed during the game (i.e. ‘Team 1, have you gotten up?’ ‘Yes/no, we have/have not gotten up’, ‘Team 1, have you shouted?’, ‘Yes/no, we have/have not shouted’, etc.). Again, this was repeated for all target behaviors across all three teams. The results of this study indicated that this GBG/S-D-R intervention package was effective in significantly reducing the amount of disruptive behavior in this class. Furthermore, this reduction was maintained one year after the intervention package was withdrawn. The authors of this study suggest that the addition of the S-D-R Correspondence Training may have led to the enhanced maintenance of appropriate behavior over an extended period of time.

The results of another study conducted in Spain indicated that when the GBG is implemented in a secondary education classroom in which the majority of students display disruptive behavior, significant improvements in behavior were observed (Coronado-Hijón, 2009). Coronado-Hijón further describes many advantages of the GBG intervention, such as the relative ease of implementation for teachers as well as students, cost-effectiveness, and adaptability to a variety of specific groups.

Another series of studies examined the effect of the GBG on the development of disruptive behavior in early elementary school children in public schools in Santiago, Chile (Pérez, Rodríguez, De la Barra, et al., 2005; Pérez, Rodríguez, Fernández, et al., 2005). In the first study, Pérez, Rodríguez, De la Barra, et al. examined the use of the GBG intervention among a group of students throughout their first and second grade years. At the end of their second grade year, students who had previously been identified as consistently displaying aggressive and disruptive behavior significantly decreased their levels of these challenging behaviors. Students who had not previously displayed challenging behaviors maintained appropriate behavior through the end of their second grade year. In a second quasi-experimental longitudinal design conducted by the same group of researchers (Pérez, Rodríguez, Fernández et al.), a group of third-grade students who received the GBG intervention during first and second grades was compared to an equivalent control group of children who had not previously received the intervention. The results of the longitudinal study indicated that when they were observed in third grade, students who had previously participated in the GBG displayed decreased levels of aggression, disobedient behavior, cognitive deficiencies, and emotional immaturity. Pérez and colleagues suggested that aside from the immediate positive behavioral effects, the GBG intervention was additionally related to preventative and protective factors in the development of problematic behavior.

In addition to addressing behavioral concerns, other researchers have used the GBG in conjunction with academic interventions (Dion et al., 2011). Dion and colleagues investigated the use of the intervention GBG aimed at improving attention in conjunction with academic peer tutoring for reading (i.e. First-grade Reading Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies). Students and teachers from 58 first-grade classrooms in 30 French-speaking schools in some of Montreal’s most impoverished neighborhoods participated in this study. Schools were assigned to one of three groups: A control group, a peer tutoring group, and a peer tutoring plus GBG group. The results of this study indicated that the GBG significantly improved student attention during the peer tutoring activities for regular students (effect size 0.81) and for identified inattentive students (effect size 1.22). However, it should be noted that students with higher levels of inattention did not also show an improvement in reading skills when provided with both peer tutoring and GBG interventions. The authors suggested that students with attention problems may display additional characteristics that contribute to academic difficulties, such as a more limited vocabulary and working memory deficits that must also be addressed in order to effectively improve academic performance.

Although Australian published research on the GBG is limited, Bayer et al. (2009) conducted an investigation into existing research that used randomized, controlled trials to determine which interventions would best be used with Australian children from age 0–8 years. They found the GBG to be one of the most empirically supported programs for behavioral problems and support its use in Australian schools. Similarly, Australian researchers Hromek and Roffey (2009) also support the use of GBG in the classroom, as games are powerful tools to promote social and emotional learning. These authors maintain that games teach children cooperation, communication, community, and working for a common goal. Additionally, these skills are both useful and necessary to some degree across all cultural and linguistic traditions.

Because of its success in changing behavior in North America and Western Europe, it is not surprising that the GBG has been proven effective in developed countries. Even more compelling for the argument of cross-cultural effectiveness of the GBG is research conducted in developing countries. In 1983, Saigh and Umar used the traditional form of the GBG in a typical second grade classroom in the El-Gazera district of Sudan. During instruction in Arabic, the teacher implemented the GBG by dividing the classroom into two teams and marking on a poster when behavioral infractions including verbal disruption, physical disruption, or seat leaving occurred. Because of the limited resources of this school, cost-effective reinforcers were selected from a preference assessment. These included virtually cost-free items such as a victory tags, free time, or a star placed by the student’s name on a winner’s chart. Weekly, the winning team members received a signed letter commending excellent behavior in the classroom.

Results from this study indicated that the GBG had a significant impact on reducing disruptive behaviors in the classroom (Saigh & Umar, 1983). When questioned about its social validity, teachers, students, and parents reported that they liked the game and found it to be a valuable behavior change tool. In addition to the cross-cultural effectiveness of the GBG, there are also several other valuable reasons for its use. First, the GBG provided a more humane and preferred alternative to more punitive traditional discipline in the classroom, which had involved scolding and spanking. Second, these findings demonstrate the GBG’s effectiveness in a developing country where teachers and administrators have little training in behavior theory. Third, this study illustrates that the GBG can be implemented and show impressive results in a school that has limited financial resources. Finally, it is important to note that in developing countries, educators, parents, and students have typically not been exposed to behavior theory or behavior modification. Additionally, in this study, 80% of the parents of child participants were illiterate. This study indicated that the effectiveness of the GBG is not dependent upon prior education or socio-economic status and the body of research internationally indicates that the GBG is effective across or cultural linguistic traditions.

Diverse populations within USA

In the USA, the GBG has been investigated in urban settings with English as Second Language (ESL) and socio-economically disadvantaged students. Babyak, Luze, and Kamp (2010) used a variation of the GBG called the Good Student Game with ESL and free and reduced lunch student populations. In this iteration of the GBG, students rather than teachers were responsible for monitoring prosocial behaviors for the group and recording compliance or noncompliance at set intervals. Teachers also provided feedback when prosocial behavior occurred, but disruptive or undesired behavior was ignored. Teachers played this game two to three times during periods in which the most off-task behaviors occurred. If there were students who tended to sabotage the game, teachers required these students to work independently and self-monitor their behavior. These researchers saw in-seat behavior and quiet working behavior increase from 56% to 88% across three classrooms. Similarly, McGoey, Schneider, Rezzentano, Prodan, and Tankersly (2010) used the GBG in three general education Kindergarten classrooms whose students lived in low socioeconomic (SES) areas in Northeast Ohio. Students in two of the three classrooms showed moderate improvement in disruptive classroom behaviors.

Longitudinal studies in the Baltimore, Maryland City Public School System have followed African American, urban, socioeconomically disadvantaged students for three generations (Kellam, Reid, & Balster, 2008). This project sought to decrease aggressive and disruptive behavior in first and second grade classrooms with the use of the GBG while improving student’s positive social integration into school. In the first cohort of this project, teachers implemented the GBG in its traditional form (Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Brown, & Ialongo, 1998). That is, the class was divided into teams and classroom rules were posted. The teacher announced that the game was to be played and check marks were placed next to the team name on a large poster in front of the room whenever the teacher observed a rule infraction. Teams with the fewest checkmarks were rewarded at the end of the week. This game was initially played for ten minutes, three times per week, with time expanded gradually to include the entire school day. The GBG intervention resulted in reduced aggressive and disruptive behaviors in the target students.

In addition to the immediate decrease in aggressive and disruptive behaviors, the Maryland researchers observed other positive influences of the GBG longitudinally within the same population. Kellam et al. (2008) reported a significant reduction in drug and alcohol abuse, smoking, and antisocial personality problems for boys at the age of 18 and 19 who had participated in the GBG study in first and second grade. The GBG had the strongest effect for highest risk youth. This study showed the importance of the GBG as a first grade, universal intervention on later drug and alcohol use, smoking, and antisocial personality problems for urban, primarily African American males from a socioeconomically disadvantaged area in Baltimore, MD. Because disruptive and aggressive behavior often predicts drug and alcohol abuse (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004), it is critical to treat preventatively with a universal intervention like the GBG.

Petras et al. (2008) also looked at antisocial personality disorder and violent criminal behavior in these cohorts of students from Baltimore. They found that aggressive and disruptive students who were randomly assigned to the GBG condition in first and second grades were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) or display violent criminal behavior as adolescents. Researchers concluded that the GBG is an effective preventive measure for later difficulties, and is effective for use with minority populations.

Practice cautions

Although the majority of research supports the use of the GBG across diverse cultural and linguistic traditions, there are certain cautions with the use of the GBG. Because of the nature of the interdependent contingency, a classroom full of children can lose access to rewards dependent on the behavior of an individual child. This peer influence has the potential to become bullying or harassment of children who misbehave (Tingstrom et al., 2006). The benefits of the reinforcer for an individual child may also be outweighed by the temptation to sabotage the entire class. This problem was first encountered in the original research by Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969), and was solved by dropping two sabotaging students from the game and not counting their marks against their teams. Recent research has addressed these problems by offering independent contingencies for particular children and providing corrective feedback. However, a caution is issued that the nature of group pressure is one of the important components in the program’s effectiveness. Finally, recent research on pro-social behavior in schools has led investigators to manipulate the GBG to reward positive behavior rather than punish undesired behavior. This technique would diminish the attention afforded undesired behavior, thereby potentially reducing negative attention on misbehaviors. Using the GBG in this way appears not only to be as effective as the original GBG, but also to be the preferred method for teacher participants (Tanol et al., 2010).

Conclusion

Because of their expertise in behavioral theory and their expanding role as behavioral consultants, school psychologists are well suited to assist classroom teachers in customizing and implementing the Good Behavior Game for a variety of disruptive behaviors both inside and outside of the classroom (McCurdy, Lannie, & Barnabas, 2009). Knowledge of the critical components of the GBG will assist school psychologists in designing interventions that address specific needs and preferences of classroom teachers, as well as identifying those students who may need more intensive intervention (see Babyak et al., 2000; Embry, 2002). For example, the GBG can be used to address disruptive behaviors, effectively reducing these behaviors in the classroom. Additionally, the nature of recording rule infractions allows the teacher to identify those students who are not responding to this universal intervention and may require secondary or tertiary services. Further, for teachers interested in increasing pro-social behavior in the classroom, the GBG can be customized to reward such behavior (Tanol et al., 2010) as well as to identify those students who might have a skill deficit in this area and require more intensive intervention. Because the GBG is based on well-understood rules of behavior theory, its effectiveness is not moderated by diversity in the classroom, but rather by proper selection of reinforcements and attention to treatment fidelity. School psychologists who understand GBG possess a powerful instrument to promote behavior change in schools.

The effectiveness of the GBG has been amply demonstrated and replicated in multiple settings and with multiple populations. Well-controlled research designs including randomized controlled trials, multiple baselines, and changing criterion designs have been used to thoroughly test the efficacy of the GBG (Tingstrom et al., 2006). Although the GBG is most often used by teachers and school psychologists to decrease undesired behaviors, it has also been used to increase desired positive behavior both inside and outside of the classroom and has even been employed to address academic achievement. Typically, the GBG has been used in classroom setting with elementary-aged children but has also been used across settings, across populations as an intervention, and as a preventative measure for aggressive and addictive behavior (Tingstrom et al.).

More recent research has investigated its use with urban student populations (Babyak et al., 2000; Dion et al., 2011; Kleinman & Saigh, 2011), with kindergarten classrooms (McGoey et al., 2010), with high school students (Kleinman & Saigh), with special education populations (Landrum, Tankersly, & Kauffman, 2003), in cafeteria settings (McCurdy et al., 2009), on longitudinal educational outcomes (Embry, 2002) with mental health issues (Wilcox et al., 2008), and with student attention and academic performance (Dion et al., 2011). The GBG has also been implemented in conjunction with other intervention strategies (i.e. Say-Do-Report Correspondence Training), which successfully resulted in long-term maintenance of appropriate classroom behavior (Ruiz-Olivares et al., 2010). Research is currently beginning to investigate the GBG and its effect on teacher behavior, including the monitoring of positive, neutral, and negative teacher responses to behavior (Lannie & McCurdy, 2007). Additionally, a version of the GBG in which positive rather than negative behaviors are monitored and rewarded shows promise as an additional and preferred iteration of this technique (Tanol et al., 2010). The GBG has been endorsed as a best practice technique (Osher et al., 2010; Simonsen et al., 2008) and universal behavioral vaccine with multiple benefits (Embry, 2002).

Unlike many other behavioral interventions, the GBG has been studied in several developed countries including Belgium, The Netherlands, The United Kingdom, The United States, Germany, Spain, Chile, Mexico and Canada (Coronado-Hijón, 2009; Dion et al., 2011; Kleinman & Saigh, 2011; Leflot et al., 2010; Pérez, Rodríguez, de la Barra, et al., 2005; Pérez, Rodríguez, Fernández, et al., 2005; Ruiz-Olivares et al., 2010; Tingstrom et al., 2006; van Lier et al., 2005). Additionally, it has been investigated using students in a developing country in Africa, whose literacy rate is very low, and whose population has had limited exposure to behavioral theory or behavioral interventions (Saigh & Umar, 1983). The success of the GBG across cultures, languages, socioeconomic status, and education speaks to the utility of this tool as an effective international and multicultural intervention for use in classrooms. The GBG has also been demonstrated as an effective alternative to more punitive approaches for behavior management. Possibly most important, the GBG has also been shown to have lasting positive longitudinal effects for at-risk students years after it has been successfully implemented in classrooms.

Footnotes

Author biographies

Julene Nolan is a doctoral candidate in School Psychology at Minnesota State University in Mankato, Minnesota, USA. Her interests are in behavioral applications of psychology in international locations. She has completed advanced doctoral practicum training at the International School of Curacao, Netherland Antilles, and in Belize, Central America. She is currently engaged in an international doctoral research assistantship working with school children in San Pedro, Belize.

Daniel Houlihan is a Professor and Director of Doctoral Training in School Psychology at Minnesota State University in Mankato, Minnesota, USA. His research interests are in the area of behavioral interventions with children. His most recent publications appear in Behavior Therapy, School Psychology International, and Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities.

Megan Wanzek is a doctoral student in School Psychology at the University of Utah, USA. She worked for two years at the Minnesota Autism Center and has also worked as a school. psychology intern at the Carmen B. Pingree Center for Children with Autism in Salt Lake City, Utah as well as in the Salt Lake City School District. Her research interests include autism, autism assessment: Behavioral interventions. Her most recent publications appear in Behavior Therapy and School Psychology International.

William R. Jenson is a Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Dr Jenson’s research interests are in the areas of behavioral interventions for tough kids, parent training, generalization of treatment effects: Autism. He is an author of The Tough Kid Book series and the Superheroes Social Skills program. Dr Jenson has served as an Associate Editor for School Psychology International.

References

Babyak

A. E.

Luze

G. J.

Kamps

D. M.

(2000) The Good Student Game: Behavior management for diverse classrooms. Interventions in the School and Clinic 35: 216–223. doi: 10.1177/105345120003500403.

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(2): 119–124. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119.

Bayer, J., Hiscock, H., Scalzo, K., Mathers, M., McDonald, M., Morris, A., Birdseye, J., & Wake, M. (2009). Systematic review of preventive interventions for children’s mental health: What would work in Australian contexts? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 695–710. doi: 10.1080/00048670903001893.

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(4): 926–937. doi: 10.1037/a0016586.

Coronado-Hijón, A., (2009). Assessment of an educational behavioral management program [Abstract]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(2), 805. Retrieved from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.org/revista/new/english/index.php?n=18.

Dion

Roux

Landry

Fuchs

Wehby

Dupéré

(2011) Improving attention and preventing reading difficulties among low-income first-graders: A randomized study. Prevention Science 12(1): 70–79. doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0182-5.

Embry

D. D.

(2002) The Good Behavior Game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 5(4): 273–297. doi: 10.1023/A:1020977107086.

Lai

(2011) A cross-cultural study of student problem behaviors in middle schools. School Psychology International 32(1): 20–34. doi: 10.1177/0143034310396830.

Hromek, R., & Roffey, S. (2009). Promoting social and emotional learning with games. Simulation and Gaming. doi: 10.1177/1046878109333793.

10.

Huber

(1979) The value of a behavior modification programme, administered in a fourth grade class of a remedial school. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie 28: 73–79.

11.

Hromek

Roffey

(2009) Promoting social and emotional learning with games: ‘It’s fun and we learn things’. Simulation and Games 40: 626–644. doi: 10.1177/1046878109333793.

12.

Huizink

A. C.

van Lier

P. A. C.

Crijnen

A. A. M.

(2009) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms mediate early-onset smoking. European Addiction Research 15(1): 1–9. doi: 10.1159/000173003.

13.

Kellam

S. G.

Hendricks Brown

Poduska

J. M.

Ialongo

N. S.

Wang

Toyinbo

(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 95(1): S5–S28. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.004.

14.

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: Erratum. Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 165–185. Retrieved from https://journals-cambridge-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid= 0D6AF0982B6A8D52682F9E7688845617.journals?fromPage=online&aid=43541.

15.

Kellam

S. G.

Reid

Balster

R. L.

(2008) Effects of a universal classroom behavior program in first and second grades on young adult problem outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95(1): S1–S4. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.006.

16.

Kleinman

K. E.

Saigh

P. A.

(2011) The effects of the good behavior game on the conduct of regular education New York City high school students. Behavior Modification 35(1): 95–105. doi: 10.1177/0145445510392213.

17.

Kosiec

L. E.

Czernicki

M. R.

McLaughlin

T. F.

(1986) The Good Behavior Game: A replication with consumer satisfaction in two regular elementary school classrooms. Techniques 2: 15–23.

18.

Landrum, T., Tankersly, M., Kauffman, J. (2003). What is special about special education for children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 37, 148–156. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login.aspx? direct=true&db=aph&AN=11343865 &site=ehost-live.

19.

Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban classroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 85–98. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy. mnsu.edu/docview/202677401?accountid=12259.

20.

Larsen, T., & Samdal, O. (2011). The importance of teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy in developing their pupils’ social and emotional learning: A Norwegian study of teachers’ reactions to the Second Step Program. School Psychology International, published online. doi: 10.1177/0143034311412848.

21.

Lee

D. H.

Oakland

Ahn

(2010) Temperament styles of children in South Korea and the United States. School Psychology International 31(1): 77–94. doi: 10.1177/0143034309341621.

22.

Leflot

van Lier

P. A. C.

Onghena

Colpin

(2010) The role of teacher behavior management in the development of disruptive behaviors: An intervention study with the good behavior game. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An Official Publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology 38(6): 869–882. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9411-4.

23.

Malete

(2007) Aggressive and antisocial behaviors among secondary school students in Botswana. School Psychology International 28(1): 90–109. doi: 10.1177/0143034307075683.

24.

McCurdy

B. L.

Lannie

A. L.

Barnabas

(2009) Reducing disruptive behavior in an urban school cafeteria: An extension of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of School Psychology 47(1): 39–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.003.

25.

Mcloughlin

C. S.

Zhou

Clark

(2005) Reflections on the development and status of contemporary special education services in China. Psychology in the Schools 42(3): 273– 283. doi: 10.1002/pits.20078.

26.

McGoey

K. E.

Schneider

D. L.

Rezzetano

K. M.

Prodan

Tankersley

(2010) Classwide intervention to manage disruptive behavior in the kindergarten classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology 26(3): 247–261. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2010.495916.

27.

Osher

Bear

G. G.

Sprague

J. R.

Doyle

(2010) How can we improve school discipline? Educational Researcher 39: 48–58. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09357618.

28.

Pérez, V., Rodríguez, J., De la Barra, F., & Fernández, A.M. (2005). Efectividad de una Estrategia Conductual Para el Manejo de la Agresividad en Escolares de Enseñanza Básica (Effectiveness of a behavioral strategy of aggression management in elementary school children). Psykhe, 14(2), 55–62. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718- 22282005000200005&script=sci_arttext.

29.

Pérez, V., Rodríguez, J., Fernández, A. M., & De la Barra, F. (2005). Assessment of the effect of a behavioral intervention on school aggression [Abstract]. Terapia Psicológica, 23(1), 91. Retrieved from http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=78523110. ISSN 0716-6184.

30.

Petras

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 95(1): S45–S59. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.10.015.

31.

Phillips

Christie

(1986) Behaviour management in a secondary school classroom: Playing the game. Maladjustment and Therapeutic Education 4(1): 47–53.

32.

Ruiz-Olivares

Pino

M. J.

Herruzo

(2010) Reduction of disruptive behaviors using an intervention based on the good behavior game and the say-do-report correspondence. Psychology in the Schools 47(10): 1046–1058. doi: 10.1002/pits.20523.

33.

Saigh

P. A.

Umar

A. M.

(1983) The effects of a good behavior game on the disruptive behavior of Sudanese elementary school students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 16(3): 339–344. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1983.16-339.

34.

Sakellarious, T., Carroll, A., & Houghton, S. (2012). Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian primary and high school students. School Psychology International, published online. doi: 10.1177/0143034311430374.

35.

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S. Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351–380. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu /docview/202675482?accountid=12259.

36.

Tanol

Johnson

McComas

Cote

(2010) Responding to rule violations or rule following: A comparison of two versions of the good behavior game with kindergarten students. Journal of School Psychology 48(5): 337–355. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001.

37.

Thuen

Bru

(2009) Are changes in students’ perceptions of the learning environment related to changes in emotional and behavioral problems? School Psychology International 30(2): 115–136. doi: 10.1177/0143034309104153.

38.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Sterling-Turner

H. E.

Wilczynski

S. M.

(2006) The Good Behavior Game: 1969–2002. Behavior Modification 30(2): 225–253. doi: 10.1177/0145445503261165.

39.

Van Lier

P. A. C.

van der Sar

R. M.

Muthen

B. O.

Crijnen

A. A. M.

(2004) Preventing disruptive behavior in elementary schoolchildren: Impact of a universal classroom-based intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72: 467–478. doi: 10.1037/0022- 006X.72.3.467.

40.

Van Lier

P. A. C.

Vuijk

Crijnen

A. A. M.

(2005) Understanding mechanisms of change in the development of antisocial behavior: The impact of a universal intervention. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33: 521–535. doi: 10.1007/s10802-005-6735-7.

41.

Walker

Ramsey

Gresham

F. M.

(2004) Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence based practices, 2nd ed. Belmont: CA, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

42.

Widyatmoko

C. S.

Tan

E. T.

Seyle

D. C.

Mayawati

E. H.

Silver

R. C.

(2011) Coping with natural disasters in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: The psychological state of elementary school children as assessed by their teachers. School Psychology International 32: 484–497. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402919.

43.

Wilcox

H. C.

Kellam

S. G.

Brown

C. H.

Poduska

J. M.

Ialongo

N. S.

Wang

Anthony

J. C.

(2008) The impact of two universal randomized first- and second-grade classroom interventions on young adult suicide ideation and attempts. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95(1): S60–S73. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.005.

44.

Witvliet

van Lier

P. A. C.

Cuijpers

Koot

H. M.

(2009) Testing links between childhood positive peer relations and externalizing outcomes through a randomized controlled intervention study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(5): 905–915. doi: 10.1037/a0014597.