A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of the Good Behavior Game

Abstract

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is widely recognized as an evidence-based intervention that reinforces prosocial behaviors and discourages disruptive behaviors among students in the classroom setting. The current meta-analysis synthesized randomized controlled trials of the GBG to examine its impact on proximal student outcomes across seven studies representing 4,700 children. Although recent reviews focusing on single-case studies of the GBG have reported moderate to large treatment effects, our results were quite modest in comparison (hedges’ g = 0.09-0.32). Treatment effect sizes also varied according to outcome and sex. The GBG significantly outperformed the comparison conditions for peer-rated conduct problems and shy/withdrawn behavior as well as teacher-rated conduct problems for which a greater effect was found for girls relative to boys. Moreover, the treatment effect in favor of the GBG for reading comprehension was specific to boys and not girls. No significant differences were found between the GBG and comparison conditions for inattention and teacher-rated shy/withdrawn behavior. These results suggest that the GBG may not be as impactful as originally reported and the intended population and treatment targets should be considered before its implementation in the classroom.

Improving Reciprocal Conversation and Social Preference of Children With Autism

“…As a secondary effect of the interdependent group contingency, Smith et al (2019) found reduced social withdrawal of target children as rated by their peers in four studies. Similarly, all children with ASD in this study increased their selections of the peer option over the alone option after the interdependent group contingency was introduced.…”

“…Besides its direct effects on the target behavior, the interdependent group contingency is also known to produce collateral benefits. In a meta-analysis by Smith et al (2019), they found reduced shyness and social withdrawal of children as rated by their peers in four studies. Smith et al hypothesized that the reduced social withdrawal might be due, in part, to the social interaction and cooperation among children as promoted by the group contingency.…”

“…Despite the large sample size in the four studies reviewed by Smith et al (2019), none of them reported the inclusion of children with ASD or related developmental disabilities. Thus, it is unclear if any children with ASD participated in these studies and, if so, to what extent their social preference changed.…”

“…The second purpose of the study was to examine if children’s preference for their peers was affected by the interdependent group contingency. Instead of using peer rating as reported in Smith et al (2019), we directly measured the preference by asking our participants to select whether they would like to spend some time with their peers (i.e., peer option) or by themselves (i.e., alone option). We further arranged the rewards that specifically required interactions between the children to foster the pairing process.…”

Playing the long game: A multivariate multilevel non-linear growth curve model of long-term effects in a randomized trial of the Good Behavior Game

“…A fifteenth RCT based in the United States reports on the impact of the GBG in the context of an afterschool program ( Smith et al, 2018 ). Collectively, these trials have provided robust evidence that the intervention leads to statistically significant changes in a range of salient outcomes, including conduct problems and peer relations, with intent-to-treat (ITT) effect sizes typically in the g = 0.10–0.20 range ( Smith et al, 2021 ). This evidence is broadly consistent with intervention effect sizes reported in meta-analyses of a range of universal behavior management approaches ( Korpershoek et al, 2016 ) and school-based preventive interventions more generally ( Tanner-Smith, Durlak, & Marx, 2018 ).…”