Abstract of Distinction: All in the Game? Findings of a Large, Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of the Good Behavior Game in Manchester, UK

Introduction: The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a universal behavior management intervention in which children are rewarded for following four class rules: (1) we will work quietly; (2) we will be polite to others; (3) we will get out of seats with permission; and (4) we will follow directions. It has an extensive evidence base in relation to behavioral outcomes (Flower et al, 2014), but few studies have examined its impact on academic attainment (Weis et al, 2015). Furthermore, the UK evidence base is extremely sparse. We report on a major efficacy trial of the GBG in England that focused on (i) impact on children’s behavioral and academic outcomes; and (ii) impact on boys deemed to be ‘at-risk’ of developing conduct problems.

Methods: 77 schools were randomly allocated to deliver the GBG for two years (n=38) or continue with their usual practice (n=39). Participants were N=3,084 children aged 6-7 at baseline. Behavioral outcomes were assessed using the Teacher Observation of Children’s Adaptation checklist (TOCA-C; Koth, Bradhsaw & Leaf, 2009). Academic attainment was assessed using the Hodder Group Reading Test (HGRT; Vincent & Crumpler, 2007). At-risk status was assessed using the conduct problems subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997). Intention-to-treat (ITT) and subgroup analyses were conducting using two-level (school, child) hierarchical-level models with fixed effects and random intercepts in MLWin. Missing data were addressed via multiple imputation in REALCOM-Impute.

Results: There was no impact of the GBG at the ITT level on children’s reading (effect size, ES = 0.03, p>.05), concentration problems (ES = 0.03, p>.05), disruptive behavior (ES = 0.06, p>.05) or pro-social behavior (ES = -.13, p>.05). Furthermore, there was no differential impact of the GBG for the ‘at-risk boys’ subgroup in relation to reading (ES = 0.05, p>.05). There were, however, marginal non-significant trends indicative of positive intervention effects among this subgroup for both concentration problems (ES = -0.29, p=.06) and disruptive behavior (ES = -0.30, p=.05).

Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that the GBG does not impact upon children’s academic attainment. However, it may produce meaningful changes in behavior among at-risk boys. Thus, it may still be a potentially effective preventive intervention. More broadly, we note that recipients of interventions do not respond in a uniform manner (Farrell et al, 2013), and as such the ITT approach may underestimate impact by failing to appreciate the natural heterogeneity in universal populations (Greenberg & Abenavoli, 2017).