Why Is the Good Behavior Game Used for Bad Behavior? Recommendations for Using It for Promoting Good Behavior

Abstract

Although the good behavior game (GBG) has a long empirical record for effectively decreasing inappropriate student behavior, there are fewer studies that have targeted improving appropriate behavior. This article describes why and how the GBG can be used by teachers across grade levels and situations to increase student appropriate behavior and benefit teachers.

Keywords

at-risk populations change behavior(s)support planning practices efficacy/effectiveness

The good behavior game (GBG; Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969) is a type of group-oriented contingency. A group-oriented contingency is one where the presentation or loss of a reinforcer is contingent on whether an individual student within a group, a portion of students within a group, or all the students in a group perform certain identified behaviors. Some people incorrectly refer to it as a “group contingency,” but Litow and Pumroy (1975) pointed out that individuals within a group, and not the group itself, perform behaviors, hence the term “group-oriented.” Group-oriented contingencies can be effective in preventing or reducing disruptive behavior as well as increasing academic engagement in students with or at risk of emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD; Maag, 2018). Moreover, a study by Ramirez, Hawkins, Collins, Ritter, and Haydon (2019) demonstrated that decreases in the off-task behavior of elementary students were shown across instructional settings when generalization strategies were part of the intervention.

There are three types of group-oriented contingencies described in the literature: dependent, independent, and interdependent. Dependent group-oriented contingencies are those under which consequences for a group of students depends on the performance of one member or perhaps a small subset of the group. This approach is often called the “hero procedure” because it is hoped that peers will view the student who earned the class reinforcer as the hero (Maag, 2018). Independent group-oriented contingencies are those in which individual students can earn a reinforcer regardless of the performance of the group. Interdependent group-oriented contingencies are those in which the performance of all group members must meet some criterion, such as finishing a writing assignment, before any group member receives the reinforcer.

Benefits of the GBG

The GBG has been the most commonly used interdependent group-oriented contingency that was first developed and researched by Barrish and colleagues (1969). It is one of several empirically validated games described by Lastrapes (2016) to facilitate effective instruction. The GBG can be fun to play for both students and teachers because it is a “game.” General education teachers can benefit greatly from the GBG because most instruction in this setting uses whole group or small group formats. These teachers, upon implementing the GBG, can expect to see substantial decreases in undesirable behaviors such as talking to peers and walking around the room during instructional activities. They might also see increases in active versus passive student engagement in the content delivered (Bowman-Perrott, Burke, Zaini, Zhang, & Vannest, 2016). Furthermore, there are numerous ways it can be modified based on different types of lessons, activities, settings, and students’ ages (Maag, 2018). Consequently, teachers can use their creativity to develop unique and novel applications of the GBG. Special education teachers and school psychologists can also play an important role by providing general education teachers with collaborative assistance in implementation of the GBG and its variations.

Research Supporting the GBG

In Barrish and colleagues’ (1969) original study, a fourth-grade class of 24 students was divided into two teams (i.e., rows and seats of the center row) with the target behaviors being “out of seat” and “talking-out without permission.” The game took place during a math period. A large poster board contained 11 rules, including students not being allowed to leave their seats, move their desks, or speak to their neighbors. Another poster board was labeled “Winners” and divided into two sections, designating “Team One” and “Team Two” and containing each team member’s name. Every time one of the team members broke a rule of the game by engaging in a target behavior, a tally mark was made next to his or her name. During the first session of the game, the teacher told students that the team with the fewest marks, or 10 or less, would win. She enthusiastically hoped both teams would win. The teacher set the criterion at five marks for the remaining sessions. The team with the fewest marks would get to wear victory tags, put a star next to each member’s name on the poster, have 30 min of time working on a special project at the end of the day, and a bonus of four extra minutes of recess if the group had less than 20 marks for the week. This game substantially and consistently reduced disruptive out-of-seat and talking-out behavior for all students.

Subsequent to the initial inquiry, there have been many individual studies and at least five systematic reviews that have corroborated the GBG as a research-based practice (e.g., Bowman-Perrott et al., 2016). However, less research exists on using the GBG to increase positive social behaviors rather than simply focusing on decreasing inappropriate behaviors.

Promoting Positive Behavior in the GBG

Almost all of the studies examining the effectiveness of the GBG used some variation of the original Barrish et al.’s (1969) approach of decreasing negative behavior, with only a few studies focusing on increasing appropriate behaviors (Maag, 2018). The remainder of this article addresses that smaller body of inquiry by providing a rationale for emphasizing and measuring positive student behavior and steps on how to implement the GBG to this end. Furthermore, more emphasis on using the GBG positively is needed given the acceptance and widespread application of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in schools. In a PBIS model, the GBG represents a Tier 1 intervention because it focuses at the classwide or groupwide level in providing prosocial support and opportunity to all students in the classroom.

This article turns now to a short discussion of the underlying principles of how the GBG works (see Table 1 for definitions of key terms). This information is important in understanding how to turn the game from decreasing inappropriate behaviors to increasing desirable behaviors. A brief summary of the few studies using the GBG for positive behavior is described, but in sufficient detail, so that teachers could use these descriptions to implement the techniques in their classrooms. Then, each step for implementing the GBG for positive behavior will be described and examples will be presented. The article ends by describing how the GBG can also benefit teacher behavior. It is important to understand that PBIS represents the behavioral component of multitiered systems of support. That framework is based on a universal supports paradigm that addresses struggling students regardless of the presence or absence of a disability (Shogren, Wehmeyer, & Lane, 2016). Therefore, the GBG is appropriate regardless of whether challenging behaviors are being displayed by students who have been verified under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to have EBD or an identified student with a learning disability who is misbehaving, or simply those at-risk. However, in their meta-analysis, Bowman-Perrott et al. (2016) found the GBG to be more effective for students with or at risk of EBD than students neither identified with nor at risk of EBD.

Table 1.

Key Terms and Their Definitions.

Key terms	Definitions
Behavior-specific praise statements	Statements related to specific student performance (e.g., “Nice job writing 10 answers to the addition problems”)
Contingency	Circumstances under which reinforcement or punishment is presented only after a target behavior is performed
Group-oriented contingency	Condition where the presentation or loss of a reinforcer is contingent on whether an individual student within a group, a portion of students within a group, or all the students in a group perform the certain identified behavior
Interdependent group-oriented contingency	A contingency in which the performance of all group members must meet some criterion before any group member receives reinforcement
Positive reinforcement	Any stimulus presented after a behavior occurs that increases the future occurrence of that behavior
Punishment	Any stimulus that is presented or removed after a behavior occurs that decreases or eliminates that behavior
Response cost	A form of punishment in which the loss of reinforcers is contingent upon an individual’s performance. A fine would be an example
Self-efficacy	Individual perceptions about one’s capabilities to accomplish tasks and reach goals

Underlying Principles of the GBG

The overall foundation of the GBG is based on Skinner’s operant model of behavior which, at a very basic level, refers to a process in which consequences presented immediately after a behavior is performed either increase (reinforce) or decrease (punish) its future occurrence. The GBG actually operates on both principles of reinforcement and punishment.

The Game’s Use of Reinforcement

The GBG typically does not use positive reinforcement, which would increase appropriate behavior, but instead uses differential reinforcement which in this case refers to as reinforcing the absence or lower levels of the targeted inappropriate behaviors such as talking to others or walking around the room. For example, in the original Barrish et al. (1969) study, students were reinforced if they only displayed the behaviors of talking to others or walking around 10 or fewer times for the first session and five or fewer times for subsequent sessions. One problem with this approach is that certain students could refrain from engaging in the target behaviors, but engage in other inappropriate behaviors such as poking a peer or throwing an object and still help their team win the game. In fact, it could be argued that those other inappropriate behaviors may have actually been positively reinforced because students performing them received the reward as long as the class was below a certain level for the targeted behaviors.

The Game’s Use of Punishment

The GBG also could work on the principle of punishment to decrease inappropriate behaviors. The specific type of punishment would be a response cost or what is commonly referred to as a fine similar to receiving a speeding ticket because it would “cost” you something you find reinforcing—money! For example, if teachers gave each team a certain number of points at the beginning of the game and then systematically took them away for performing the inappropriate target behaviors, then there potentially would not be enough points remaining for students to earn the reward. Another example would be if teachers gave each group points for engaging in the inappropriate behaviors and after receiving a certain number of points, the reward would be lost. In this case, the tallying of points is presenting something that the students would presumably find unpleasant—points indicating the loss of a reward. Regardless of whether viewing the GBG technique as reinforcement or punishment, the goal is usually to decrease inappropriate behavior.

Reinforcing Positive Behavior: A Brief Summary of Game Research

Four studies are highlighted that have examined using the GBG game to improve appropriate behaviors. Each of those studies is described, but in a way practitioners can use the summaries as guidance for implementing the GBG for positive behavior in various ways. On a positive note, all four studies found increases in participating students’ targeted behaviors.

Galbraith and Normand (2017) used a positive version of the GBG to increase the number of steps students took throughout a 15-min school recess. Students were divided into two groups, and each group was given a belt to wear with a different colored flag. One of the experimenters had a MotivAider^® programmed to vibrate randomly, but with a 3-min maximum. When the device vibrated, the experimenter would tell students not to forget that the team that moves the most will win a “Step it Up Champ” badge distributed immediately after returning to class. These badges, in turn, could be exchanged for lottery tickets for a weekly schoolwide drawing to win such items as crayons, snap bracelets, stickers, or coloring pages.

Wahl, Hawkins, Haydon, Marsicano, and Morrison (2016) used a version of the Caught Being Good Game (CBGG) to increase active or passive student engagement during an instructional activity. Active engagement included students writing, reading aloud, or talking to the teacher or peer about the assigned task. Passive engagement involved reading a book or looking at the board. Four classrooms at an elementary school participated in the study. Each teacher introduced the intervention as a game using a script to describe the rules, procedures of the game, and teams. The teacher then set a timer to vibrate at random intervals around an average of 5 min. Each team earned a point if every member displayed on-task behavior when the teacher was cued by the vibration to scan the room. The teacher made a tally mark privately on a data sheet. At the end of the session, the teacher chose a slip of paper indicating the number of points needed for the class to earn a reward and then pulled another slip of paper with a specific reward written on it out of an envelope and read it to the class. An advantage of this arrangement was that the contingencies were indistinguishable. That is, students did not know how many points they needed. However, a disadvantage of the intervention design was that students did not have any visual representation of their progress because the number of points being tallied was not made public. Students were also unaware of when the teacher was cued.

Wright and McCurdy (2011) used the CBGG in two classrooms (kindergarten and fourth grade) in a school that had been implementing PBIS for several years. Like the Wahl et al. (2016) study, both active (e.g., writing answers) and passive engagement (e.g., looking at the work or teacher) were targeted during an instructional activity. Random audio tones around an average of 4 min were used to cue the teacher to scan the room for all members engaging in one of the task engagement behaviors. Each group had daily and weekly scoreboards posted with its team name in clear view on which the teacher wrote the point tally. Points were exchanged for a reinforcer, including erasers, candy, and pencils, if team members met an unknown criterion.

The fourth study, conducted by Tanol, Johnson, McComas, and Cote (2010), compared two versions of the GBG: one for responding to student rule violations and another one for following rules. There were two rules stated as directions to students: “We will stay in our square” (e.g., sitting with feet crossed, not leaving the seated position without permission) and “[W]e will have eyes on teacher” (e.g., head facing teacher, academically engaged peer given permission to talk by the teacher, looking at an instruction tool used by the teacher). The first GBG version was the one developed by Barrish et al. (1969) that was described previously. The GBG reinforcement used a blank poster with slots to hold stars that each team could earn. The teacher looked for team members who were following the rules, provided verbal praise, and placed star on the poster. The teams that had a predetermined number of stars earned a small edible reward. The GBG reinforcement was slightly more effective in reducing rule violations than the traditional response cost GBG.

Implementation Steps Using the GBG for Good Behavior

There are so many advantages to using the GBG, some of which were described earlier. However, not only does it focus on specific student behaviors, but it can improve the number and quality of student interactions with each other. It also promotes intragroup cooperation with the fun of intergroup competition. The type of activities and settings in which the GBG can be used are almost limitless. It can be used out on the playground during recess (e.g., Galbraith & Normand, 2017) and during any type of classroom activity, whether it requires active responding or passive responding (Wahl et al., 2016). Furthermore, variations of the GBG have been used with children in prekindergarten through 12th grade (e.g., Bowman-Perrott et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the preponderance of GBG research and implementation practices focus on decreasing negative behavior. Therefore, a seven-step process for implementing the GBG to increase the number and types of appropriate behaviors students display is described. These steps were culled from previous research and writings on the GBG (e.g., Maag, 2018). Figure 1 shows a typical arrangement of how the GBG can appear in a classroom, whereas Figure 2 shows a sample script that provides context for the illustrations in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Room setup for the good behavior game.

Figure 2.

Sample script for introducing the good behavior game to students.

Step 1: Decide Length of Time for the Game

Typically, the GBG is used for one class period at a time and no longer than 60 min. However, to set up students for success, the first few sessions should not be longer than 15 to 20 min. Once established, the GBG can be used for a variety of activities that last different amounts of time. For example, it could be used for very short durations such as transitions that require students to move from one place to another such as learning centers—especially when the goal is to have students move to the next station without talking or touching each other. It also works well during activities that last a little longer such as cooperative learning activities in which teachers want students to interact with each other, but not be distracted by talking with members of other adjoining groups. Finally, it can be helpful during independent practice sessions, which typically vary in length and involve written work in which teachers want students to be writing answers and raising their hands to ask questions, and not walking around the class or talking to peers.

Step 2: Determine the Type and Length of Cuing Devices

The GBG works best when there are audible “tones” that cue students that the teacher is scanning the room to see whether everyone is performing at least one of the appropriate behaviors. It helps to have students involved in choosing which type of sound they would like to hear because it improves their buy-in and may make the game more fun. In involving students in the decision-making process, know that some tones are more appropriate than others. For example, the sound of a bell, glass, pulse, or chord would be novel and appropriate, but would not be so disturbing as to distract students from engaging in the very behaviors teachers want them to perform. That might not be the case if the tone was an elephant trumpeting. This type of tone could lead to students laughing and most likely talking to peers about it or trying to imitate the tone themselves, which would result in them being off-task.

In terms of the length of time between tones, research and application of self-monitoring attention provides some guidelines (Maag, 2018). A 15-min session would require tones to randomly sound between 10 and 90 s with a typical average length of 45 s. Extrapolating from there, a 30-min session would have tones sounding between 20 and 180 s with an average of 90 s. Consequently, a 50- to 60-min activity or class lesson would have tones sounding between 40 s and 6 min with about a 3- to 5-min overall average. It is very important that the tones sound randomly. The tones serve as a type of conditioned reinforcer because they result in tokens being written on a board such as tally marks or marbles being placed in a jar, both of which may be exchanged for a class reward. The randomness of the tones results in students engaging either in high rates or long durations of the behaviors so they do not miss the opportunity to earn tokens as signified by the sounding of the tones.

Also, for the first three to five administrations of the game, there should be a limited hold of 3 s after a tone is sounded to ensure several intervals of students being able to earn points which, in turn, sets them up for success and increases the likelihood of their buy-in. For example, the teacher may initially tell students that when the tone sounds, they have 3 s to begin one of the expected behaviors. Teachers should not use the 3 s for more than a few sessions; otherwise, that practice may undo the randomness of the tones, which is an important reason the GBG succeeds.

Step 3: Write the Behaviors on a Poster Board

Typically, research on the CBGG, such as the studies by Wahl et al. (2016) and Wright and McCurdy (2011), has separately implemented the traditional GBG and then compared its differential effectiveness to alternatives. That is to say, they had either a positive behavior GBG or a negative behavior GBG but not both at the same time. However, it is a fairly easy task to incorporate both approaches. Therefore, on a large poster board, such as that shown in Figure 1, a line should be drawn down the middle. On the top right, a “+3” is written with the desired positive behaviors, such as writing answers, eyes on materials or teacher, hands and feet to self, appearing below. On the left side of the board, a “–1” should be written with the undesirable behaviors underneath, such as talking or walking without permission. This approach combines positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviors and a response cost (i.e., punishment) for negative behaviors. It is important that more points are awarded for positive behavior to set up students for success such as using the limited hold described in Step 2.

Another type of modification would be for the teacher to cover the left side of the board so only the positive behaviors were displayed. Several sessions of the game would involve only positive behaviors. Either way, groups can accumulate tokens before any might be removed. Otherwise, beginning the game with a group earning negative points might squelch the fun and, potentially, students’ motivation and buy-in for participating.

Step 4: Decide How Points Will Be Displayed

Points are usually tallied on a separate poster board or existing classroom chalk or white board with a vertical line drawn in the middle with the two team names written at the top of each side. However, more visually appealing presentations of behavior management techniques can boost student interest (Maag, 2018). Therefore, instead of listing points on a poster, teachers could use two clear jars set on a table with the names of each group written by them and marbles as “points” to be placed in each jar such as appears in Figure 1. Some older students may find this display “childish,” and in that case, the more traditional tally marks on a poster board could be used. Other creative ways to display points for older students are available. For example, instead of jars, there could be two football helmets, with stickers placed on them—a practice commonly used by college and university football programs. Another approach would be to add the name of songs to each group’s song list poster. Group members could decide in advance what songs they would like displayed. Regardless of whatever method is being used, points should be displayed in a prominent place so that students have a visual representation of their progress.

Step 5: Display a Mystery Motivator Envelope in a Prominent Place

Over 25 years ago, Rhode, Jenson, and Reavis (1992) described how the mystery motivator envelope works. In the case of the GBG, an envelope that is decorated in a visually appealing way with a large question mark (?) in the middle and the words “mystery motivator” written on it should be displayed next to the poster board listing the required behaviors. Inside the envelope is a card that has a number written on one side and a privilege or activity appearing on the other side. If the number of points on the board or marbles in the jar after the game is over meet or exceed the number written on the card, students earn the reward appearing on the other side. The teacher can select either the activities or privileges that groups could earn or have a time where each group could come up with objects or activities that members would like to earn. Some examples may be having a popcorn party for 10 min, watching a video, playing a card game, or constructing an object with Legos or K’NEX pieces. Obviously, some activities or privileges may be different for students in lower versus higher grades. The main consideration is that the reward is something all students in the classroom can do either collectively, in small groups, or individually.

Step 6: Determine a Criterion for Reinforcement

A criterion for reinforcement must be established regardless of when the privilege or activity would be available, be it, for example, at the end of the activity, school day, or week. The number of tones sounded should be totaled for the length of time the game will be in effect and multiplied by three, which is the number of points earned per tone, if everyone in the group is engaging in one of the appropriate behaviors. This process results in the total number of points on a board or marbles in a jar a group that could be earned if students were performing the appropriate behaviors every time a tone sounded. For example, a 30-min session in which 20 tones sounded would result in 60 points. The first criterion could then be 50% of that number (i.e., 30) to set up students for success. The criterion can be gradually increased until the desired level of appropriate behavior has been reached.

Step 7: Instruct Students How the Game Works

Teachers should develop a script describing how the game works. Scripts can vary depending on the age, activity, or variation of the GBG for which the game will be in effect. However, there is certain information that any script should include and presented with an enthusiastic and positive attitude. A sample script is shown in Figure 2. This script only addresses how to describe the game to students, but each previous step should be used for setting up the game and its actual implementation.

Advantages of Using the GBG for Teachers

Most discussions of the GBG, whether the positive or negative version, focus on how it helps improve students’ behaviors either by decreasing disruption or by increasing active participation. However, there are several advantages that teachers themselves can experience besides improved student behavior. Three in particular stand out. First, it improves teachers’ sense of self-efficacy engaging students in school work, behavior management, and managing symptoms of burnout (Breeman et al., 2016). Second, three separate studies corroborated that during the game, teachers’ behavior-specific praise statements to students increased, whereas their reprimands decreased (Donaldson, Matter, & Wiskow, 2018; Elswick & Casey, 2011; Rubow, Vollmer, & Joslyn, 2018). Third, it is easy to implement because it represents a low-intensity intervention (Mooney & Ryan, 2018). Low-intensity interventions are those that are simple, clear, and easy to implement—simply stated, those that have high social validity (Lane, Menzies, Ennis, & Oakes, 2018). Social validity simply addresses whether teachers find interventions in real-life settings to be acceptable in terms of their goals, methods, personnel, outcomes, and ease of integration into current classroom environments and responsibilities (Schwartz & Baer, 1991).

Improved Self-Efficacy

One of the main reasons for teacher burnout and leaving the teaching profession is dealing with students’ challenging behaviors. Teachers have consistently listed behavior management as the most needed topic for in-service training (e.g., Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education, 2006). Not coincidentally, burnout, particularly from an inability to managing students’ challenging behaviors, has a negative impact on teachers’ self-efficacy (Herman, Hickmon-Rosa, & Reinke, 2018). Self-efficacy refers to teachers’ perceptions about their capabilities to accomplish tasks and reach goals (Cayirdag, 2016). Teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to expect that their future actions will be effective. The GBG is a way to boost self-efficacy because it is a highly effective behavior management intervention. It creates an affirmative cycle because teachers with high self-efficacy, in turn, engage in more positive behavior management (e.g., Reinke, Herman, & Stormont, 2013).

Improved Use of Behavior-Specific Praise

Teacher praise has a relatively long history of being a research-based practice for encouraging students to engage in academic and appropriate social behaviors (e.g., Sweigart, Collins, Evanovich, & Cook, 2016). However, teachers’ use of praise for students with challenging behaviors who will sometimes display appropriate behavior is often lacking. In fact, teachers are more likely to reprimand these students than praise them (Van Acker, Grant, & Henry, 1996). The reason for this phenomenon is because many teachers expect students to behave well and ignore them when they do so, but react to them, typically with reprimands of other mild forms of punishment, when they behave poorly (Maag, 2018). Even when teachers do use praise, it is typically general (e.g., nice job) rather than behavior-specific (e.g., I like the way you wrote all the answers on your math worksheet). Many different approaches have been used to increase teachers’ use of behavior-specific praise such as giving them performance feedback. However, one of the advantages of the GBG is that simply by using it teacher-specific praise frequencies and rates increase because specific behaviors are selected and visually appear for everyone to see.

GBG Is Low Intensity and High Social Validity

There has been recent and increased attention on researchers providing teachers with low-intensive strategies for enhancing student success both academically and behaviorally (e.g., Lane et al., 2018). Low-intensity interventions are those that are simple, clear, and easy to implement—simply stated, those that have high social validity. Several approaches have been advocated in a recent special issue focusing on low-intensity interventions in Beyond Behavior such as teachers using behavior-specific praise, high-probability request sequences/behavioral momentum, precorrection, active supervision, and instructional choice (Lane et al., 2018; Mooney & Ryan, 2018). However, the GBG may also be considered a low-intensity intervention, although it requires a little more work than the previous techniques in terms of time, materials, and structure. Nevertheless, it addresses an entire classroom of students rather than other low-intensity interventions that are typically delivered individually and repeatedly. In fact, Embry (2002) coined the phrase “behavioral vaccine” for the GBG because it was a simple action that yielded large results.

Conclusion

The GBG has traditionally been used to decrease inappropriate behaviors, with a few applications targeting the increase of positive behaviors. An advantage of the GBG is that it can be modified in a variety of ways to promote appropriate student behavior, especially during activities or lessons with less structure in which students are the most rambunctious and less likely to following teacher directions consistently. It can be implemented solely to reinforce appropriate behavior or incorporate a response cost for negative behaviors. The implementation steps presented in the article are easy to follow and can be modified in a variety of ways depending on the situation, setting, and age of the students targeted. Regardless of these variables, teachers should be enthusiastic, present the game as a fun competition between groups, and set up groups for success to ensure buy-in and increased motivation. Besides improving student behavior, teachers can also experience benefits from using the GBG such as increased self-efficacy and use of behavior-specific praise statements. It is truly an approach that both students and teachers can find enjoyable as well as experience behavioral success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

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. doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119

*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 Support, 18, 180–190. doi:10.1177/1098300715592355

Breeman

L. D.

van Lier

P. A. C.

Wubbels

Verhulst

F. C.

van der Ende

Maras

. . . Tick

N. T.

(2016). Effects of the good behavior game on the behavioral, emotional, and social problems of children with psychiatric disorders in special education settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 156–167. doi:10.1177/1098300715593466

Cayirdag

(2016). Creativity fostering teaching: Impact of creative self-efficacy and teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences, 17, 1959–1975. doi:10.12738/estp.2017.6.0437

Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2006, August). Report on the teacher needs survey. Washington, DC: Center for Psychology in Schools and Education, American Psychological Association.

*Donaldson

J. M.

Matter

A. L.

Wiskow

K. M.

(2018). Feasibility of and teacher preference for student-led implementation of the good behavior game in early elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 118–129. doi:10.1002/jaba.432

*Elswick

Casey

L. B.

(2011). The good behavior game is no longer just an effective intervention for students: An examination of the reciprocal effects on teacher behaviors. Beyond Behavior, 21, 36–46.

Embry

D. D.

(2002). The good behavior game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 273–297.

*Galbraith

L. A.

Normand

M. P.

(2017). Step it up! Using the good behavior game to increase physical activity with elementary school students at recess. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 856–860. doi:10.1002/jaba.402

10.

Herman

K. C.

Hickmon-Rosa

J. E.

Reinke

W. M.

(2018). Empirically derived profiles of teacher stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and copying and associated student outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20, 90–100. doi:10.1177/1098300717732066

11.

Lane

K. L.

Menzies

H. M.

Ennis

R. P.

Oakes

W. P.

(2018). Effective low-intensity strategies to enhance school success: What every educator needs to know. Beyond Behavior, 27, 128–133. doi:10.1177/1074295618799044

12.

Lastrapes

R. E.

(2016). Let us play: Using research-based games to facilitate effective instruction. Beyond Behavior, 25, 27–33. doi:10.1177/107429561602500305

13.

Litow

Pumroy

D. K.

(1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347. doi:10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341

14.

*Maag

J. W.

(2018). Behavior management: From theoretical implications to practical applications (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

15.

Mooney

Ryan

J. B.

(2018). Supporting professionals in becoming skilled classroom managers of behavior. Beyond Behavior, 27(3), 127. doi:10.1177/1074295618804525

16.

Ramirez

L. H.

Hawkins

R. O.

Collins

T. A.

Ritter

Haydon

(2019). Generalizing the effects of group contingencies across instructional settings for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. School Psychology Review, 48, 98–112. doi:10.17105/SPR-2017-0122.V48-1

17.

Reinke

W. M.

Herman

K. C.

Stormont

(2013). Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 39–50. doi:10.1177/1098300712459079

18.

*Rhode

Jenson

W. R.

Reavis

H. K.

(1992). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

19.

Rubow

C. C.

Vollmer

T. R.

Joslyn

P. R.

(2018). Effects of the good behavior game on students and teacher behavior in an alternative school. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 382–392. doi:10.1002/jaba.455

20.

Schwartz

I. S.

Baer

D. M.

(1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189–204.

21.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Lane

K. L.

(2016). Embedding interventions to promote self-determination within multitier systems of supports. Exceptionality, 24, 213–224. doi:10.1080/09362835.2015.1064421

22.

Sweigart

C. A.

Collins

L. W.

Evanovich

L. L.

Cook

S. C.

(2016). Evaluation of the evidence base for performance feedback to improve teacher praise using CEC’s quality indicators. Education and Treatment of Children, 39, 419–444. doi:10.1353/etc.2016.0019

23.

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, 337–355. doi:10.1016/j.jsp. 2010.06.001

24.

Van Acker

Grant

S. H.

Henry

. (1996). Teacher and student behavior as a function of risk for aggression. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 316–334.

25.

*Wahl

Hawkins

R. O.

Haydon

Marsicano

Morrison

J. Q.

(2016). Comparing versions of the good behavior game: Can a positive spin enhance effectiveness? Behavior Modification, 40, 493–517. doi:10.1177/0145445516644220

26.

*Wright

R. A.

McCurdy

B. L.

(2011). 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. doi:10.1177/1098300711421008