Good Behavior Game (OJJDP Model Program Guide)

Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

PREVENTION

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

RESIDENTIAL

REENTRY

MPG HOME SEARCH HOME SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM TYPES RATING SYSTEM REFERENCES NOMINATE PROGRAMS RELATED LINKS RESOURCES DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE

Good Behavior Game

Intervention:

Good Behavior Game (GBG) is designed to improve aggressive/disruptive classroom behavior and prevent later criminality. GBG attempts to reduce a child’s externalizing behavior while promoting prosocial behavior by encouraging positive interactions with peers. GBG also concentrates on improving teachers’ ability to define tasks, set rules, and discipline students. It is implemented when children are in early elementary grades to provide them with the skills they need to respond to later, possibly negative, life experiences and societal influences.

The program is universal and can be applied to general populations of early elementary school children, although the GBG intervention appears to have the greatest effect for boys who are rated as highly aggressive and disruptive by their teachers at the start of the program.

GBG is a classroom management strategy in which students are assigned to work in teams, and each individual is responsible to the rest of his or her team for its success. It is understood that the entire team will be rewarded if they are found to comply with classroom rules.

Before the game begins, teachers clearly specify those disruptive behaviors (e.g., verbal and physical disruptions, noncompliance) that, if displayed, will result in a team’s receiving a checkmark on the board. Team members are encouraged to support each other’s efforts at appropriate behavior. By the end of the game, teams that have not exceeded the maximum number of marks are rewarded, while teams that exceed this standard receive no rewards.

GBG is implemented in three phases. In the introduction phase, children and teachers are familiarized with the GBG intermittently and for short periods. In the expansion phase, the duration of the GBG, the settings in which the GBG is played, and the behaviors targeted by the GBG are expanded. In the generalization phase, compliance with classroom rules outside GBG periods is encouraged by explaining to children that the GBG rules are applicable even when the game is not played. Eventually, the teacher begins the game with no warning and at different periods during the day, so students are always monitoring their behavior and conforming to expectations.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
Kellam and colleagues (1994) evaluated the effects of the Good Behavior Game (GBG) on students at a 6-year follow-up period. The researchers began the initial evaluation of GBG in the 1985–86 school year by selecting five urban areas within Baltimore City, Md.; matching sets of schools in each area; and randomly assigning which type of intervention would be tested in which elementary schools from these areas. Students entering first grade were then assigned to classrooms within these schools in a balanced manner, and then classrooms were randomly assigned to intervention conditions. The three conditions were 1) GBG, 2) the Mastery Learning (ML) program (designed to improve poor reading achievement), and 3) an external control condition with no experimental intervention. Control classrooms were assigned both in the same school where the GBG was being used and in other schools.

This multilevel design originally included 19 schools, 41 classrooms, and 1,196 students within five urban areas. The initial sample of students was 49 percent male, and 65 percent African American, 31 percent white, and 4 percent other ethnic groups. Children ranged in age from 5.0 to 9.7 years, with an average age of 6.6 years. There were no significant differences between the intervention groups on baseline characteristics of teacher ratings of aggressive, disruptive behavior, fall-of-first-grade achievement, or free/reduced-price lunch. However, there were significant differences between GBG students and internal control students on measures of depressive symptoms.

The final sample at the 6-year follow-up included 693 students who were in the same intervention condition for 2 years. There were 153 students from eight classrooms who received the GBG intervention and 86 students from six classrooms who were in the GBG internal control condition (students who were in the same school but did not receive the GBG intervention). The sample of the external control condition included 157 students from 11 classrooms. Finally, there were 163 students from nine classrooms who received the ML condition and 134 students from seven classrooms who were in the ML internal control condition (students from the same school who did not receive the ML intervention). No information was provided on the comparability of the intervention groups included in the follow-up sample. Most of the students lost to follow-up had moved out of the system. A small number of others refused to participate in the study.

The primary outcome measures were the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation—Revised, which measured aggressive behavior, and the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, which identified conduct disorder. Latent growth modeling and hierarchical logistic regression models were used to adjust for variations at baseline.

Kellam, Reid, and Balster (2008), in addition to looking at outcomes at a 6-year follow-up period, examined the cumulative impacts of the GBG on students at ages 19–21. Their study looked at 238 GBG–assigned children compared with 169 internal controls. A 90-minute telephone interview was carried out with each student who participated in the study. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview—University of Michigan version was the instrument used to determine lifetime, past-year, and past-month occurrence of the following outcomes: major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, drug abuse/dependence disorders and alcohol abuse/dependence disorders, and antisocial personality disorder.

Study 2
Witvliet and colleagues (2009) used a randomized control trial to evaluate the GBG on children’s externalizing behavior development. Study participants included 825 kindergarten children from 47 classrooms in 30 elementary schools in two urban areas and one rural area in the Netherlands. Intervention began in first grade for 425 children in the GBG group and 220 children in the comparison group. The average age of study participants was 6 years at the end of kindergarten. Of the children, 56 percent were from a Dutch/white background, 10 percent were Moroccan, 10 percent were Turkish, 6 percent were Surinamese, 5 percent were from the Netherlands Antilles, and 13 percent were from other ethnic backgrounds. Also, 36 percent were from low socioeconomic-status (SES) families. The groups were not significantly different on baseline characteristics, except that control students had lower SES scores. However, 113 students dropped out of the student cohort between first and second grade because of grade retention or because they moved to another school. These students were not significantly different from the students who remained in the study, except that they were significantly more likely to come from low–SES families.

The study coordinator randomly assigned participating classes to one of three conditions: a control condition, a GBG–only condition, or a GBG and parent intervention condition. Intervention began in first grade and continued for 2 years. Since the parenting component began after the 2 years of GBG, the effects are not analyzed in this study and data for the two intervention groups is analyzed together in this study.

Measures of teacher ratings included a) the Problem Behavior at School Interview used to measure externalizing behavior (the sum of the oppositional and conduct problems scales) and prosocial behavior in kindergarten (assessed by four items) and b) the 11-item Social Problems scale of Achenbach’s Teacher’s Report Form. Peer acceptance, the number of mutual friends, and proximity to others were measured through peer nominations. Descriptive statistics and latent growth modeling were used in the analysis of data.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
Aggressive Behavior
Kellam and colleagues (1994) examined the impact of GBG separately by gender, first comparing the total male children and then the total female children who received GBG with the GBG and ML internal controls, external controls, and the ML children. No main effects of GBG were found for males compared with the combined control groups, including ML, for the total population of males. There also were no main effects of the GBG for all females.

The analysis did show that for males with higher levels of aggression at first grade there were increasing and significant effects of the GBG at sixth grade. Thus the effect of the GBG varied as a function of aggression severity. Regression analysis showed that GBG did not appear to protect the children who were not aggressive from the start of the study from becoming aggressive. The boys who improved had exhibited aggressive behavior to benefit from GBG.

Young Adult Outcomes
The 2008 follow-up study by Kellam and colleagues, which looked at the outcomes of students from the original 1994 study, found that young adults who were in GBG first-grade classrooms had significantly lower levels of lifetime drug abuse/dependence disorders compared with those in the control classroom (12 percent for GBG children versus 21 percent for internal controls). This reduction was significant for males, but not for females. There was also a greater effect for males who were rated as highly aggressive, disruptive by teachers in first grade. For those highly aggressive, disruptive males the rate of drug dependence/abuse disorders was 29 percent in the GBG group compared with 83 percent in the internal controls group.

Though there were small intervention effects detected, there were no significant differences between the GBG group and internal controls on measures of antisocial personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder.

Study 2
Externalizing Behavior
Witvliet and colleagues (2009) found reduced rates of externalizing behavior among GBG children, compared with control children. GBG children had a reduced growth in externalizing behavior, which resulted in a significant reduction of externalizing problems at the end of the second grade. The finding on reductions of externalizing behavior was specific for boys, a finding consistent with study 1 results.

Peer Acceptance
The study also found that GBG students were more accepted by peers, had more mutual friends, and showed more proximity to others than control group students did. These results partially mediated the reductions in externalizing behavior induced by the GBG intervention.

Other Information:

Costs: Information on cost is available by contacting the Training and Technical Assistance Provider at the American Institutes for Research (AIR). http://www.air.org/focus-area/education/?id=127

Training requirements/provider certification: AIR works with schools and districts to implement, sustain, and expand the Good Behavior Game. AIR’s multilevel model of training and support includes training for teachers and local GBG Coaches who work directly with teachers. GBG Coaches can receive additional training to become GBG Trainers.

References:

Bradshaw, Catherine P., Jessika H. Zmuda, Sheppard G. Kellam, and Nicholas S. Ialongo. 2009. “Longitudinal Impact of Two Universal Preventive Interventions in First Grade on Educational Outcomes in High School.” Journal of Educational Psychology 101(4):926–37.

Brown, C. Hendricks, Sheppard G. Kellam, Nicholas S. Ialongo, Jeanne M. Poduska, and Carla Ford. 2007. “Prevention of Aggressive Behavior Through Middle School Using a First-Grade Classroom–Based Intervention.” In Ming T. Tsuang, William S. Stone, and Michael J. Lyons (eds.). Recognition and Prevention of Major Mental and Substance Use Disorders. Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., 347–69.

Dolan, Lawrence J., Sheppard G. Kellam, C. Hendricks Brown, Lisa Werthamer, George W. Rebok, Lawrence S. Mayer, Jolene Laudoff, Jaylan Turkkan, Carla Ford, and Leonard Wheeler. 1993. “The Short-Term Impact of Two Classroom-Based Preventive Interventions on Aggressive and Shy Behaviors and Poor Achievement.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 14:317–45.

Ialongo, Nicholas S., Jeanne M. Poduska, Lisa Werthamer, and Sheppard G. Kellam. 2001. “The Distal Impact of Two First Grade Preventive Interventions on Conduct Problems and Disorder in Early Adolescence.” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 9(3):146–60.

Kellam, Sheppard G., and James C. Anthony. 1998. “Targeting Early Antecedents to Prevent Tobacco Smoking: Findings From an Epidemiologically Based Randomized Field Trial.” American Journal of Public Health 88(10):1491–95.

Kellam, Sheppard G., C. Hendricks Brown, Jeanne M. Poduska, Nicholas S. Ialongo, Wei Wang, Peter Toyinbo, Hanno Petras, Carla Ford, Amy M. Windham, and Holly C. Wilcox. 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(Suppl. 1):S5–28.

Kellam, Sheppard G., Xiange Ling, Rolande Merisca, C. Hendricks Brown, and Nicholas S. Ialongo. 1998. “The Effect of the Level of Aggression in the First Grade Classroom on the Course and Malleability of Aggressive Behavior Into Middle School.” Development and Psychopathology 10:165–85.

Kellam, Sheppard G., George W. Rebok, Nicholas S. Ialongo, and Lawrence S. Mayer. 1994. “The Course and Malleability of Aggressive Behavior From Early First Grade Into Middle School: Results of a Developmental Epidemiologically Based Preventive Trial.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35:259–81.

Kellam, Sheppard G., John B. Reid, and Robert L. Balster (eds.). 2008. “Effects of a Universal Classroom Behavior Program in First and Second Graces on Young Adult Outcomes.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence: An International Journal on Biomedical and Psychosocial Approaches 95(Suppl. 1):S1–101.

Petras, Hanno, Sheppard G. Kellam, C. Hendricks Brown, Bengt O. Muthen, Nicholas S. Ialongo, and Jeanne M. Poduska. 2008. “Developmental Epidemiological Courses Leading to Antisocial Personality Disorder and Violent and Criminal Behavior: Effects of Young Adulthood of a Universal Preventive Intervention in First and Second Grade Classrooms.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95(Suppl. 1):S45–59.

Poduska, Jeanne M., Sheppard G. Kellam, Wei Wang, C. Hendricks Brown, Nicholas S. Ialongo, and Peter Toyinbo. 2008. “Impact of the Good Behavior Game, a Universal Classroom-Based Behavior Intervention, on Young Adult Service Use for Problems With Emotions, Behavior, or Drugs or Alcohol.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95(Suppl. 1):S29–44.

Tingstrom, Daniel H., Heather E. Sterling–Turner, Susan M. Wilczynski. 2006. “The Good Behavior Game: 1969–2002.” Behavior Modification 30(2):225–53.

Wilcox, Holly C., Sheppard G. Kellam, Carla H. Brown, Jeanne M. Poduska, Nicholas S. Ialongo, Wei Wang, and James C. Anthony. 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(Suppl. 1):S60–73.

Witvliet, Miranda, Pol A.C. van Lier, Pim Cuijpers, and Hans M. Koot. 2009. “Testing Links Between Childhood Positive Peer Relations and Externalizing Outcomes Through a Randomized Controlled Study.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(5):905–15.

Program Specification:

New Rating:

Effective

Re-reviewed Date:

June 2011

Program Type:

Academic Skills Enhancement

Classroom Curricula

School/Classroom Environment

Ethnicity:

Other Ethnicity

African American

White

Gender:

Both

Age:

6 - 10

Target Settings:

Rural

Suburban

Urban

Problem Behaviors:

Academic Problems

Aggression/Violence

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Community

Community instability

Economic deprivation / Poverty / Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood

Family

Family history of problem behavior / Parent criminality

Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring

Family transitions

Individual

Antisocial behavior and alienation / Delinquent beliefs / General delinquency involvement / Drug dealing

Early onset of aggression and/or violence

Lack of guilt and empathy

Life stressors

Mental disorder / Mental health problem / Conduct disorder

Poor refusal skills

School

Inadequate school climate / Poorly organized and functioning schools / Negative labeling by teachers

Low academic achievement

Negative attitude toward school / Low bonding / Low school attachment / Commitment to school

Protective

Family

Effective parenting

Opportunities for prosocial family involvement

Rewards for prosocial family involvement

Individual

Healthy / Conventional beliefs and clear standards

High individual expectations

Perception of social support from adults and peers

Positive / Resilient temperament

Positive expectations / Optimism for the future

Self-efficacy

Social competencies and problem solving skills

School

High expectations of students

High quality schools / Clear standards and rules

Opportunities for prosocial school involvement

Rewards for prosocial school involvement

Strong school motivation / Positive attitude toward school

Student bonding (attachment to teachers, belief, commitment)

Additional Information:

OJJDP: Blueprints

HHS: Surgeon General

Status:

Program is in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Delinquency Prevention
Academic Skills Enhancement
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Academic Skills Enhancement
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Delinquency Prevention
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
School/Classroom Environment
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Program Developer:
Sheppard G. Kellam, M.D.
AIR Center for Integrating Education and Preventio
921 East Fort Avenue, Suite 225
Baltimore, MD 21230
Phone: 4103478551
Fax: 4103478559
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here

Training & TA Provider:
Sheppard G. Kellam, M.D.
AIR Center for Integrating Education and Prevention Research in Schools
921 East Fort Avenue, Suite 225
Baltimore, MD 21230
Phone: 4103478551
Fax: 4103478559
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here

Program Locations:
Linda Chinnia, Chief Academic Officer
Baltimore City Public School System
200 E. North Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21202