The Good Behaviour Game is a universal intervention for classes of primary school children, aiming to encourage prosocial behaviour and reduce disruptive behaviour. It is delivered by teachers to classes of approximately 15 to 30 children for the duration of the school year.
The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
6 to 8 years old
Group
Child outcomes:
UK available
UK tested
The Good Behaviour Game is a universal intervention for classes of primary school children intended to encourage prosocial behaviour and reduce disruptive behaviour.
The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) incorporates classroom rules which encourage good behaviour and discourage aggressive or disruptive behaviour, and is played during normal lesson time. Throughout the course of the school year the game is played for increasing durations, from an initial 10 minutes three times a week to a maximum of three hours per game, and in varied settings, for example in the hallway, and by the end of the year is played with no warning and at different times, encouraging children to extend the GBG behaviours outside of specified GBG time.
To play the GBG, children are separated into teams and the team names are written on a board. If a member of the team displays a prespecified inappropriate or disruptive behaviour, for example noncompliance or getting out of the seat without permission during the game period, a mark is drawn next to their team name. A team wins the game if they have no more than four marks by the end of the game period, and are rewarded; in earlier stages of GBG implementation the reward is something tangible like a sticker, and at later times the reward is an activity like extra break time. The teams who win the most games across a week are given additional rewards at the end of the week. The limit of four marks stays consistent as the length of the game increases.
The GBG is also intended to counter shy behaviour; children identified as shy by the teacher are given socially integrating roles within their team, such as the Team Leader position. Team Leaders distribute prizes, put the star on the scoreboard for their team and assist the teacher in any reward activities.
4 to 11 years old.
All children in a primary school class.
Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
Science-based assumption
Transition into early adolescence can be challenging, with some teenagers engaging in tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drug use.
Science-based assumption
Strong self-management skills and mastery of adult expectations in the primary school social field will protect children from misusing tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs as they enter adolescence and young adulthood.
Science-based assumption
All children in a primary school class.
Intervention
This intervention uses interdependent group contingencies, clear classroom expectations, teacher and student self-monitoring, and positive reinforcement to teach students self-management skills and reduce aggressive and disruptive behaviour.
Short-term
Children behave better in their classroom.
Medium-term
Children learn more at school, and demonstrate more prosocial behaviour.
Long-term
Children engage in less antisocial and risky behaviour, including substance misuse.
Primary school age children.
The Good Behaviour Game is delivered across the school year, in sessions increasing in duration from 10 minutes to three hours each by one practitioner, to entire classes of children. The Good Behaviour Game is delivered alongside normal school activities and as such does not require additional time.
Teachers play the GBG in the classroom, by assigning teams and putting marks against team names on a board when team members display prespecified unwanted behaviours during the game time. Teams with four or fewer marks receive a reward. Children identified as shy are given positions of responsibility in the team, for example being designated Team Leader. The game is played for increasing durations and in more varied settings as the intervention progresses, and by the end of the intervention period can be played unannounced.
The practitioner who delivers this intervention is a teacher.
The practitioners have two days of intervention training followed by a one-and-a-half day readiness visit by a Good Behaviour Game trainer. Booster training of practitioners is recommended.
It is recommended that practitioners are supervised by one host-agency supervisor, with 62 hours of intervention training. Host agency supervisors are coached by the intervention developers.
Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:
Contact person: Gail Chan
Organisation: American Institutes for Research
Email address: gchan@air.org
Website: https://goodbehaviorgame.air.org/
*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.
The Good Behaviour Game’s most rigorous evidence comes from three RCTs which were conducted in the United States, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
The first study is a rigorously conducted RCT with evidence of long-term outcomes, which identified statistically significant reductions consistent with Foundations’ Level 3 threshold in antisocial behaviour, suicide ideation, suicide attempts, lifetime alcohol abuse/dependence, lifetime drug abuse/dependence (males only), and lifetime tobacco usage (males only) at 14-year follow up, and reductions in aggressive and shy behaviour after one year of intervention exposure.
The second study is an RCT which identified statistically significant reductions consistent with Foundations’ Level 2+ threshold in the growth of tobacco and alcohol use.
The third study is a rigorously conducted RCT from the UK which showed no significant effects.
Consequently, the intervention receives a 3+ (mixed) rating overall. It can be described as evidence-based: it has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT or QED demonstrating a statistically significant positive impact on at least one child outcome, as well as at least one more RCT or QED.
| Identified in search | 12 |
| Studies reviewed | 3 |
| Meeting the L2 threshold | 2 |
| Meeting the L3 threshold | 1 |
| Contributing to the L4 threshold | 0 |
| Ineligible | 9 |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 1,196 first grade children |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors | 47% of the population were in receipt of free or reduced price school lunch |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Study 1a: Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., Laudolff, J., Turkkan, J. S. & Wheeler, C. F. L. (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, 317–345. Study 1b: Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N. S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P. & Wilcox, H. C. (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 (S1), S5–S28. Study 1c: Wilcox, H.C ., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N. S., Wang, W.& 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. 95S, S60–S73. |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | Netherlands |
| Sample characteristics | 666 children aged 7 years old, from 31 classrooms and 13 schools. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities | Not stated |
| Population risk factors | None reported |
| Timing | One-, two-, three-, and four-year follow-ups |
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 2+ |
| Citations | van Lier, P. A., Huizink, A. & Crijnen, A. (2009) Impact of a preventive intervention targeting childhood disruptive behavior problems on tobacco and alcohol initiation from age 10 to 13 years. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 100 (3), 228–233. |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Sample characteristics | 3,084 children in year 3 (aged 7 to 8) in the first year of implementation from 77 schools in Greater Manchester, West and South Yorkshire, and East Midlands |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors |
|
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes | None |
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | NE |
| Citations | Humphrey, N., Hennessey, A., Ashworth, E., Frearson, K., Black, L., Petersen, K., Wo, L., Panayiotou, M., Lendrum, A., Wigelsworth, M., Birchinall, L., Squires, G. & Pampaka, M. (2018) Good Behaviour Game: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. |
The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.
Ashworth, E., Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N. & Hennessey, A. (2020) Game on: Complier average causal effect estimation reveals sleeper effects on academic attainment in a randomized trial of the Good Behavior Game. Prevention Science. 21 (2), 222–233.
Ashworth, E., Humphrey, N. & Hennessey, A. (2020) Game over? No main or subgroup effects of the Good Behavior Game in a randomized trial in English primary schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 13 (2), 298–321.
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.
Chan, G., Foxcroft, D., Coombes, L. & Allen, D. (2012) Improving child behaviour management: An evaluation of the Good Behaviour Game in UK primary schools.
Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., Laudolff, J., Turkkan, J. S., Ford, C. & Wheeler, L. (1993) The short-term impact of two classroom-based preventive interventions on aggressive and shy behaviours and poor achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 14, 317–345.
Furr-Holden, C. D. M., Ialongo, N. S., Anthony, J. C., Petras, H. & Kellam, S. G. (2004) Developmentally inspired drug prevention: Middle school outcomes in a school-based randomized prevention trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 73 (2), 149–158.
Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Mackenzie, A. C., Brown, C. H., Ompad, D. C., Or, F. & Windham, A. (2014) The impact of the Good Behavior Game, a universal classroom-based preventive intervention in first and second grades, on high-risk sexual behaviors and drug abuse and dependence disorders into young adulthood. Prevention Science. 15 (1), 6–18.
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.
Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A., Onghena, P. & Colpin, H. (2013) The role of children’s on-task behavior in the prevention of aggressive behavior development and peer rejection: A randomized controlled study of the Good Behavior Game in Belgian elementary classrooms. Journal of School Psychology. 51 (2), 187–199.
Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A., Onghena, P. & Colpin, H. (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. 38 (6), 869–882.
Mihalic, S., Huizinga, D. & Ladika, A. (2011) An evaluation of the Good Behavior Game intervention.
Mitchell, R. R., Tingstrom, D. H., Dufrene, B. A., Ford, W. B. & Sterling, H. E. (2015) The effects of the Good Behavior Game with general-education high school students. School Psychology Review. 44 (2), 191–207.
Petras, H., 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 (S1), S45–S59.
Poduska, J. M., Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Brown, C. H., Ialongo, N. S. & Toyinbo, P. (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 (S1), S29–S44.
van Lier, P. A., Muthén, B. O., van der Sar, R. M. & Crijnen, A. A. (2004) Preventing disruptive behavior in elementary schoolchildren: Impact of a universal classroom-based intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 72 (3), 467–478.
Vuijk, P., van Lier, P. A., Crijnen, A. & Huizink, A. (2007) Testing pathways towards anxiety and depression: Testing sex-specific pathways from peer victimization to anxiety and depression in early adolescents through a randomized intervention trial. Journal of Affective Disorders. 100 (1–3), 221–6.
Vuijk, P., Van Lier, P. A., Huizink, A. C., Verhulst, F. C. & Crijnen, A. A. (2006) Prenatal smoking predicts non‐responsiveness to an intervention targeting attention‐deficit/hyperactivity symptoms in elementary schoolchildren. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 47 (9), 891–901.
Wang, Y., Browne, D. C., Petras, H., Stuart, E. A., Wagner, F. A., Lambert, S. F. & Ialongo, N. S. (2009) Depressed mood and the effect of two universal first grade preventive interventions on survival to the first tobacco cigarette smoked among urban youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 100 (3), 194–203.
Wilcox, H. C., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N. S., Wang, W. & 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 (S1), S60–S73.
Witvliet, M., van Lier, P. A., Cuijpers, P. & 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.
Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.