1129993

research-article2022
BMOXXX10.1177/01454455221129993Behavior ModificationBohan and Smyth

Article
Behavior Modification

The Effect of Schedule

2023, Vol. 47(3) 644­–669
© The Author(s) 2022

Thinning on Student Article reuse guidelines:

https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455221129993
Behavior During the sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01454455221129993
Caught Being Good Game journals.sagepub.com/home/bmo

Clare Bohan1 and Sinéad Smyth1

Abstract
The Caught Being Good Game (CBGG) is a classroom management
intervention which is described as a variation of the classic Good Behavior
Game (GBG). It is based on the principle of positive reinforcement, such
that teams of students can earn points for following the class rules during
the game. Points are awarded by the teacher at different intervals during the
game and these intervals were the focus of the current study. We aimed
to determine if the CBGG is effective with an initially dense schedule of
reinforcement which is progressively thinned. The efficacy of the CBGG in
targeting academic engagement and disruptive behavior was demonstrated
for one primary school class and for two target students in that class. The
game remained effective when the reinforcement schedule was thinned
from 2 minutes, up to 5 minutes. This has potential implications for teacher
time saving while playing the game.

Keywords
academic engagement, Caught Being Good Game, classroom management,
disruptive behavior, positive behavior intervention

1
Dublin City University, Ireland

Corresponding Author:
Clare Bohan, School of Psychology, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Email: [email protected]
Bohan and Smyth 645

Introduction
Behavioral classroom management approaches often incorporate the princi-
ple of positive reinforcement which serves as a key mechanism in promoting
future engagement in desirable behavior. Positive reinforcement is a common
feature in praise interventions (Moore et al., 2019), token economies (Maggin
et al., 2011) and group contingency interventions (Maggin et al., 2012, 2017).
The Good Behavior Game (GBG; Barrish et al., 1969) is one such group
contingency intervention which has been effective in promoting academic
engagement and reducing disruptive behavior in classrooms (e.g., Tanol
et al., 2010; Wright & McCurdy, 2012). In this game-based intervention, stu-
dents are placed on teams, and teams on which a member breaks a class rule
receive a mark. Teams remaining under a certain criterion of marks at the end
of the game are eligible for a reward. Thus, the game functions as an interde-
pendent group contingency: the same contingencies are in place for all stu-
dents, however it is the performance of the group that determines whether a
reward is obtained (Litow & Pumroy, 1975). Although positive reinforce-
ment is incorporated in the GBG, the behavioral principles underlying the
intervention have been interpreted in different ways. For example, some note
that the GBG incorporates positive punishment on a fixed ratio (FR 1; Wright
& McCurdy, 2012), such that every time a class rule is violated, a mark is
given to a team, serving as a punisher. It has also been recognised however,
that a teacher likely does not actually observe every single incident of misbe-
havior which occurs during a class (Wright & McCurdy, 2012), thereby creat-
ing a variable ratio (VR) schedule of punishment (Joslyn & Vollmer, 2020).
The GBG has also been described as incorporating positive reinforcement in
the form of differential reinforcement of low rates of disruptive behavior
(DRL; Mitchell et al., 2015; Wright & McCurdy, 2012), such that students
are rewarded for displaying low rates of disruption across the game period.
Recent developments in GBG literature have seen a surge in research on a
positive version of the GBG, often termed the Caught Being Good Game
(CBGG) by researchers (e.g., Bohan et al., 2021; Wahl et al., 2016; Wright &
McCurdy, 2012). This game omits the fixed or variable ratio of punishment
and instead, provides teams of students with points (i.e., positive reinforce-
ment) at different intervals throughout the class. This procedure has been
termed differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), such that rein-
forcement is delivered at intervals when behavior other than disruption is
displayed by teams of students (Wright & McCurdy, 2012). Teams are then
eligible for a prize if they surpass a criterion of points at the end of the game.
It has been suggested that the type of reinforcement applied during the CBGG
is a fixed or variable momentary DRO schedule, depending on how exactly
646 Behavior Modification 47(3)

points are awarded (FM-DRO/VM-DRO; Wright & McCurdy, 2012). Other

researchers have used a fixed whole interval DRO schedule (e.g., Groves &
Austin, 2020). This is a schedule whereby reinforcement is contingent on the
absence of problem behavior during a whole preceding interval. Both types
of schedule have been effective during the CBGG. The CBGG has been
effective in targeting academic engagement and disruption across primary
(e.g., Bohan & Smyth, 2022; Groves & Austin, 2020; Wahl et al., 2016;
Wright & McCurdy, 2012) and secondary school classrooms (e.g., Bohan
et al., 2021; Ford et al., 2022), while maintaining similar effectiveness to the
GBG in comparison studies (Wahl et al., 2016; Wright & McCurdy, 2012).
Previous studies on the CBGG have set schedules of reinforcement for the
duration of the study without changing the schedule over time. For example,
Wright and McCurdy (2012) used a VI 4 min momentary DRO schedule for
behavior checks and this was not changed/lengthened throughout the CBGG
phases despite behavior improving across the classes. Other studies have used
even denser schedules. For example, when examining the efficacy of the
CBGG with a high school class, Ford et al., (2022) prompted the teacher every
2 minutes to scan the classroom. The teacher was encouraged to scan the room
between 0 and 30 seconds after the prompt to ensure there was some variabil-
ity in the schedule, however the schedule remained dense throughout the
study. Bohan and Smyth (2022) recently implemented the CBGG with a mid-
dle primary school class in an Irish primary school, setting quite dense inter-
vals of 2 minutes between points. The game was effective in targeting
academic engagement and disruption across the whole class as well as with
two individual target students. The decision making process behind these
interval lengths is often not described, however it is likely that researchers
take teacher considerations into account where possible. For example, Bohan
et al. (2021) describe the researcher and teacher deciding upon a 5 minute
interval for CBGG implementation to allow for minimal distraction for the
teacher. Indeed, similar patterns are observed in the GBG literature where
many studies have examined the intervention, yet few manipulated the sched-
ule of punishment in place during the game. One exception is a recent study
by Wiskow et al. (2021) where a “modified” GBG was compared to the tradi-
tional GBG and the CBGG. The modified GBG involved a variable interval
schedule of punishment whereby the intervention agent would conduct a
behavior check and give marks to teams where a member was breaking a class
rule at that time. This random and variable interval was between 1 and 4 min-
utes throughout the study, with no period of systematic interval lengthening.
Schedule thinning has been applied systematically in the past to fade out
interventions and to make them less time intensive for the intervention
agent. Benefits of decreasing intervention intensity include enhancing the
Bohan and Smyth 647

ease of management of reinforcement delivery for the intervention agent and

making the intervention more naturalistic and therefore potentially more
generalizable (LeBlanc et al., 2002). In the classroom management litera-
ture, particularly that focused on the popular GBG/CBGG, interventions are
often put in place and kept in place throughout a study without allowing for
a period of schedule thinning or intervention fading. This means that teach-
ers or other intervention agents are potentially implementing an intervention
at a level much more intense than needed, which depletes valuable resources.
One exception was a study by Conklin et al. (2017), which evaluated
Class-Wide Function-related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT), a package
intervention which incorporates a group contingency game very similar to
the CBGG. In this study, the authors did incorporate a schedule thinning
procedure whereby the teacher began by awarding points to teams every 1 to
2 minutes and thinned the schedule to every 3 to 5 minutes over time as stu-
dents became more proficient at prosocial skills taught as part of the inter-
vention. The authors did not go into detail on the schedule thinning
procedures, nor did they specify at what point schedule thinning occurred so
that effectiveness of the procedure can be analysed. Naylor et al. (2018)
conducted a similar study on the CW-FIT, in which they stated schedule
thinning was incorporated into the group contingency procedure. Similarly
to Conklin et al. (2017), they did not outline at what stage they began to thin
the schedule, simply that they began with a dense schedule (1–2 minutes)
and progressed to a leaner schedule (1–4 minutes). Similarly, within the
GBG research, to our knowledge, there is no example of the schedule of
punishment being thinned over time in response to improvements in behav-
ior. A potential reason for this, is that the schedule of punishment is thinned
naturally as disruptive behaviour decreases during the GBG. Less disruptive
behavior means there are less opportunities for the intervention agent to
administer marks. This again highlights the fundamental differences between
the principles underlying the GBG and CBGG because such natural sched-
ule thinning cannot take place during the CBGG but must instead be planned
and implemented.
No study on the CBGG has explicitly examined the effect of changing the
schedule of reinforcement over time despite recent calls for evaluations of
procedural variations of the game (Joslyn et al., 2019). An application of a
schedule thinning procedure during the CBGG has the potential to occupy a
distinct and important gap in the literature and has the capacity to assist in
understanding the mechanisms surrounding the effectiveness of the CBGG as
a distinct intervention. It can be distinguished from the traditional GBG in
this context given that the schedule of reinforcement has the potential for
manipulation during the CBGG in a way that cannot be established in the
648 Behavior Modification 47(3)

GBG. Published studies on similar game-based interventions have changed

the schedule of reinforcement over time (e.g., Conklin et al., 2017; Naylor
et al., 2018), however detailed accounts of the timing of the schedule changes
are not provided. Providing a detailed account of the steps taken during the
schedule thinning procedure is important to inform practice, as behavior ana-
lytic applications should be technological, that is, the techniques applied in a
study should be identified and described completely (Baer et al., 1968). There
is therefore scope to examine the CBGG, beginning with a dense schedule of
reinforcement and progressing to a thinner schedule over time.

The Current Study

The current study aimed to address the aforementioned gap in the literature by
evaluating the CBGG in an Irish primary school class, progressively thinning
the schedule of opportunities for reinforcement. To maximise our understand-
ing of the game’s effects, data were collected on the whole class, and also on
two teacher-selected target students. This allowed for the potential identifica-
tion of non-responders to the intervention (Bohan & Smyth, 2022; Donaldson
et al., 2017). Furthermore, the study aimed to assert whether the part-taking
teacher and students found the CBGG to be socially valid and acceptable, an
important consideration in any behavior analytic research (Wolf, 1978).

Method
Participants and Setting
Participants were recruited from a primary school in a densely populated,
urban area of Dublin, Ireland. Twenty-six students (15 female, 11 male) in a
senior infants class took part. Senior infants is the second year of formal
schooling in the Irish school system and is approximately equivalent to
Kindergarten in the USA school system. The class teacher, Ms. Leonard
(pseudonym), was a 48-year-old female with 12 years of teaching experience.
She responded to a recruitment call for teachers who were willing to try a
new classroom management intervention and did not have previous experi-
ence with implementing the CBGG. Ms. Leonard read about the study and
signed a consent form before the study commenced. Ms. Leonard chose two
students for individual behavior monitoring based on her evaluation of class
behavior, such that she was asked to choose students for whom she had spe-
cific concerns regarding their behavior. Ellie was a 5-year-old female student
and Katie was a 6-year-old female student (pseudonyms). Parents of all par-
ticipating students completed consent forms and students completed assent
Bohan and Smyth 649

forms before the study commenced. The study obtained full ethical approval
from the relevant university’s research ethics committee.

Materials
The teacher was provided with a laminated copy of the game rules and five
scoreboards, one for each table in the classroom. The scoreboards were
colored penguins with spaces for points to be colored on when adminis-
tered. Each penguin was color-coded to correspond with a table, as each of
the five tables in the room had an assigned color. The teacher was given an
Octopus watch (version 1) which was pre-programmed to vibrate and
remind her to scan the classroom intermittently, depending on the current
schedule. The Octopus watch could be pre-programmed to vibrate at regu-
lar intervals. Ms. Leonard chose the prize for the CBGG based on what she
had used with students before. Prizes used were stamps and stickers, which
were cost effective and appeared desirable to the students based on the
teacher’s evaluation. The teacher stuck a checklist to the wall which out-
lined the steps of the game. Observers used the same checklist to carry out
treatment integrity checks. Data were collected by observers with paper and
pen and interval changes were signalled via earphones plugged in to a smart
phone.

Dependent Variables
Data were collected on academically engaged behavior (AEB) and disrup-
tive behavior (DB). AEB was defined as a student giving their attention to
the academic task ongoing, which included writing, coloring, reading aloud
or to oneself, conversing with a peer about the task (where this has been
permitted by the teacher), eye contact was oriented toward the task or
teacher or the student was using the class sharpener or walking in the direc-
tion of the sharpener at the time of recording. A student was not considered
to be engaged if engaging in any of the outlined disruptive behaviors. DB
was measured across the three categories of verbal disruption (VD), out-of-
seat behavior (OOS), and motor disruption (MD). VD occurred when a
student engaged in any vocalization not authorized by the teacher and unre-
lated to the work ongoing in the classroom. This included singing, whis-
tling, humming, and shouting out. OOS was defined as a student leaving
their seat and moving more than 1 metre from their chair, with the excep-
tion of a student leaving their chair, walking directly to the class pencil
sharpener and back to their chair. MD occurred when a student was playing
with an object in a manner incompatible with the academic task, turning in
650 Behavior Modification 47(3)

one’s chair away from the task for >3 seconds, leaving one’s head on the
desk, swinging on two legs of the chair or physically interacting with a peer
in a manner which is incompatible with the academic task. The three sub-
categories of DB were combined as one composite DB variable for the
purposes of analysis.

Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement

Data were collected up to four times per week in the classroom during the last
period of the school day. Data collection sessions lasted 20 minutes and dur-
ing this period, the class engaged in a mathematics lesson. The session
involved the teacher explaining a concept on the board for 4 to 5 minutes
followed by independent seatwork for 15 to 20 minutes. Data were collected
via momentary time sampling (AEB) and partial interval recording (DB), in
10 second intervals with 5 seconds between intervals to record. DB was a
discrete and countable behaviour, however given the large number of chil-
dren in the class, and observer resources, partial interval recording was
deemed appropriate. Momentary time sampling was selected for AEB as this
was not a discrete behavior, and again resources were not sufficient to con-
tinuously monitor the behaviour (LeBlanc et al., 2016). Students who were
not designated target students, were observed one at a time in a fixed order in
order to obtain a measure of class-wide behavior. In every second interval,
one of two target students was observed. This meant that in a 20 minute
observation session, there were 80 intervals. Each target student would be
observed for 20 intervals each and a general member of the class in the
remaining 40 intervals.
Second observers were trained undergraduate and postgraduate psychol-
ogy students who volunteered to assist with data collection for the purposes
of collecting interobserver agreement (IOA) data. IOA data were collected on
38.46% of observation sessions overall and during at least 20% of baseline
and intervention phases, as per What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) recom-
mendations (WWC, 2020). It was collected at least once per phase for each
outcome. IOA was collected on 38.46% of occasions for the whole class,
33.3% of occasions for Ellie and 37.5% of occasions for Katie. IOA for stu-
dent behavior was calculated using interval-by-interval agreement (Cooper
et al., 2020) and dividing the number of agreements by the total number of
observation intervals and multiplying by 100 to obtain a percentage. Although
calculating the rate of agreement for observations conducted using discon-
tinuous methods may yield inflated levels of interobserver agreement (e.g.,
Rapp et al., 2011), the data collection methods were deemed appropriate
Bohan and Smyth 651

based on resources and recommendations in the literature (LeBlanc et al.,

2016). Mean IOA for AEB for the whole class was 87.4% (range = 70.3%–
97.5%), for Ellie was 84.6% (range = 80%–90%) and for Katie was 83.1%
(range = 75.3%–95.5%). Mean IOA for DB for the whole class was 92.75%
(range = 88.3%–95%), for Ellie was 90.3% (range = 85%–94.1%) and for
Katie was 89.7% (range = 80%–97.9%).

Experimental Design
An ABAB reversal design was used to evaluate the CBGG across the class
and individual target students taking part (A = baseline, B = CBGG). Across
the second CBGG phase, schedule thinning was introduced, whereby the
schedule of reinforcement was thinned from 2 minutes, to 3 minutes, to 4 min-
utes to 5 minutes over a series of observation sessions. Phase change deci-
sions were determined a priori based on the teacher’s schedule and timeframe
in which the study was to be conducted, however some flexibility allowed for
decisions to be made based on the classwide behavior.

Procedure
Baseline. During baseline, the teacher proceeded with planned educational
tasks with no intervention in place. There was no specific contingency in
place for rewarding positive behavior during educational tasks and disruptive
behavior was addressed with verbal warnings. During the last day of baseline
data collection, the teacher was asked to covertly assign team points, without
letting the students know about it to allow her to get used to the watch vibra-
tions, practice the game procedures privately and to assist with setting a
points criterion for intervention phases.

Teacher training. Teacher training took place during one session after school
the day before baseline data collection finished. Ms. Leonard was shown the
behavioral data for her class and for the individual target students within the
class. She was then talked through the CBGG procedures with the aid of a
PowerPoint presentation. There was an opportunity to ask questions and Ms.
Leonard assisted with choosing an appropriate reinforcer to use during the
game (i.e., stamps and stickers, as outlined earlier). Ms. Leonard was intro-
duced to the concept of schedule thinning. She was trained in implementation
of the CBGG with 2 minute intervals between behavior checks. She was told
that short meetings introducing her to thinned schedules would take place
before each schedule change.
652 Behavior Modification 47(3)

Intervention: Caught being good game. The CBGG was introduced to the
class during the first session following completion of baseline data collec-
tion. The class was divided into five teams which were color coded based
on their table, that is, the Red team, the Blue team, etc. The teacher told the
children about the game, introducing it as the “Penguin game,” to tie in
with the fact that the scoreboards were created with a penguin theme. Stu-
dents were told that during the game there would be 10 chances to earn a
point for following the class rules. These rules were as follows: Look at and
Listen to your teacher; Hands up and wait for your teacher; Do your best
at your work; Respect your friends & let them do their work; Stay in your
seat. During the initial 2 minute version of the CBGG, the game would take
place for 20 minutes.
Ms. Leonard announced that the game had started after explaining how the
game was played and reviewing the class rules. When prompted to scan the
room and award points if appropriate, Ms. Leonard would do so on the cor-
responding penguin scoreboard for each team, by coloring in 1 of 10 buttons
on the penguins’ torso. The goal for the 2 minute version of the game was
7 points (out of a possible 10). This criterion was calculated by taking the
average amount of points earned by each team during the last day of baseline
and adding 10%. Similar protocols have been followed in previous research
(e.g., Bohan & Smyth, 2022; Ford et al., 2022).
Prizes were awarded daily immediately after the game had ended.
Teams meeting or exceeding the 7-point goal were eligible to receive the
prize. The prize was a choice between one of two stamps, or a sticker. The
stamps were brightly colored markers which would make different shaped
and colored stamps, for example, a red apple, an orange star. The choice
given daily was varied in that the teacher chose 2 different markers from a
set of 10. The team with the most points got to choose their stamp or
sticker first.

Schedule thinning. In the second CBGG phase, the schedule of reinforcement

was thinned over time. The intervention was applied at an intensive level to
begin with, with 2 minutes between reinforcement opportunities. It was
decided to increase the time between behavior checks in 1 minute increments.
Although this is a large percentage change in the schedule (an increase of 50%
initially from 2 to 3 minutes, 33.33% increase from 3 to 4 minutes, and 25%
increase from 4 to 5 minutes), it is still a short time frame and was deemed
easy to understand and to remember for the teacher implementing the inter-
vention. The terminal goal was 5 minutes. Table 1 summarizes the phases,
maximum points available in each phase, and points criterion for each phase.
Bohan and Smyth 653

Table 1. Description of Intervention Phases Across the Study.

Phasea Length of interval Maximum points available Criterion

B1 2 minutes 10 7
B2 2 minutes 10 7
B2 3 minutes 7 5
B2 4 minutes 5 3
B2 5 minutes 4 3
a
B1 and B2 refer to the intervention phases, with 2 minute intervals between opportunities
for points. In phase B2, the schedule is thinned as outlined in the table.

Treatment Integrity
Ms. Leonard stuck a treatment integrity checklist to her classroom wall to
serve as a prompt to complete each step of the CBGG. Treatment integrity
data was collected during 100% of intervention data collection sessions.
If treatment integrity dropped below 80% for more than 1 day in a row,
this was brought to the teacher’s attention via email or in person and she
was encouraged to use her checklist and complete each step. Overall
mean treatment integrity across all intervention phases was 76.1%
(range = 45.5%–100%).

Social Validity
Following the final day of data collection, the teacher and students completed
social validity measures. Ms. Leonard completed the Behavior Intervention
Rating Scale (BIRS; Elliott & Von Brock Treuting, 1991) and students com-
pleted a modified version of the Children’s Intervention Rating Profile
(CIRP; Mitchell et al., 2015; Witt & Elliott, 1985). The BIRS was modified
to refer to the intervention in the past tense and to refer to “students”. Ms.
Leonard was asked to answer the BIRS questions with reference to the CBGG
generally. A number of additional, open-ended questions were added as fol-
lows: “Did you have a preference for any particular version of the CBGG (2,
3, 4 or 5 minutes between points)?”; “Did you think any particular version
was more/less effective than another?”; “Did you think any particular ver-
sion was easier/more desirable to implement than others?”; “Do you have
any further comments/feedback on the CBGG?.”
The modified CIRP is a social validity measure with eight items such as
“Did you like participating in the game?,” to which students answered “yes”
654 Behavior Modification 47(3)

or “no.” The measure was similar to that used in recent studies on the GBG
and CBGG by Mitchell et al. (2015) and Bohan et al. (2021), however more
substantial modifications were made for use in this study to make it suitable
for the senior infants population. This included the rephrasing of some ques-
tions and including smiley faces and thumbs up/down as options to indicate
approval/disapproval. The highest rating a student could give the game was
eight. If a student responded negatively to a question, the researcher would
ask them why and write down their responses.

Data Analysis
Initially, the study design was evaluated taking guidance from the WWC
design standards (WWC, 2020). Graphed data was analyzed visually, con-
sidering level, trend and variability in the data, as well as immediacy of
effect and rate of overlap between phases. Effect sizes were calculated
using Tarlow’s recommendations for calculation of Tau and Tau calcula-
tor (Tarlow, 2016, 2017). Tau effect sizes were calculated for the first four
phases and weighted mean effect sizes were subsequently calculated for
each participant and outcome. Tau values were not calculated for the
schedule thinning phases (i.e., the CBGG with intervals of more than 2
minutes) as data variability across these phases was expected to be low
and therefore it was deemed not appropriate. Vannest and Ninci (2015)
suggest interpreting Tau values of .20 as a small effect, .20 to .60 as a
moderate effect, .60 to .80 as a large effect, and .80+ as a very large
effect.

Results
WWC Design Standards
The study design was in line with the WWC design standards as far as pos-
sible (WWC, 2020). The CBGG (i.e., the independent variable) was system-
atically manipulated throughout the study. IOA data were collected at least
20% of the time overall and in each condition, and at least once per phase for
each outcome. There were at least three attempts to demonstrate intervention
effects. The WWC (2020) asserts that phases should have a minimum of three
data points to meet the design standards with reservations and more than five
per phase to meet the standards fully. Our first two phases had 4 data points
per phase, therefore we consider the study design to meet the WWC stan-
dards with reservations.
Bohan and Smyth 655

Visual Analyses
Class-wide effects. Data on class-wide AEB and DB across phases are pre-
sented in Figure 1. During the first baseline phase, AEB occurred during a
mean of 66.5% of intervals (range = 53.3%–80%). AEB was highly variable
during this phase. Class-wide DB occurred at a high, stable rate (M = 34.4%,
range = 27.5%–50%), with one data point noticeably exceeding the
other three (data point 3; see Figure 1). When the CBGG was introduced,
AEB increased immediately and stabilised across the phase (M = 88.8%,
range = 84.9%–92.5%). There was no overlap between this intervention
phase and the preceding baseline phase. DB reduced immediately upon
introduction of the CBGG (M = 12.6%, range = 7.5%–16.7%). This reflects a
large reduction and there was no overlap here with the initial baseline phase.
The CBGG was withdrawn in the following phase and AEB decreased
immediately and substantially (M = 67.8%, range = 62.5%–76.3%). There
was no overlap between this phase and the intervention phase which pre-
ceded it. AEB remained low and quite stable across the phase with no obvi-
ous trend in the data. There was an immediate and moderate increase in DB
(M = 27.7%, range = 21.1%–37.5%). There was a steady increase across most
of the phase and no overlap with the previous intervention phase. When
the CBGG was reinstated, AEB increased substantially (M = 87.8%,
range = 81.6%–97.4%). There was no overlap with the previous withdrawal
phase. There was an immediate decrease in DB (M = 15.3%, range = 2.6%–
28.95%). There was one data point here where DB occurred at a rate similar
to baseline phases (data point 16; see Figure 1). It was evident that a high rate
of verbal disruption took place during that observation session.
When the schedule was thinned to 3 minutes, AEB remained high
(M = 88.5%, range = 80.6%–97.5%), particularly across the first two data
points. There was a decrease during the third data point under this modifica-
tion, however AEB did not decrease enough to overlap with either of the
baseline phases. DB remained low when this adaptation was made (M = 7.8%,
range = 2.5%–12.5%). With 4 minutes between opportunities to earn a point,
AEB remained high and stable (M = 86.8%, range = 82.5%–92.5%), and DB
remained low and stable (M = 11.6%, range = 9.8%–15%). Finally, as the
schedule was thinned to 5 minutes, the CBGG was implemented across two
sessions. AEB remained high during the first data point in this phase, how-
ever decreased during the second data point (M = 84.6%, range = 79.2%–
90%). Treatment integrity was low at data point 26 (45.5%) and it was the
only intervention data point across all phases to overlap with any baseline
data point. DB occurred at a low rate and was stable when the CBGG was
played with 5 minutes intervals (M = 11.7%, range = 6.7%–16.7%).
656 Behavior Modification 47(3)

Figure 1. Percentage of intervals with academically engaged behavior (AEB) and

disruptive behavior (DB) across study phases for Ms. Leonard’s class group.
Note. The arrows specify points where the schedule is modified.

Target Students. Data on AEB and DB for Ellie and Katie are presented in
Figures 2 and 3.

Ellie. At baseline, Ellie’s rate of AEB followed a similar pattern to

the whole class in that it was variable and generally low (M = 66.3%,
range = 60%–80%). Ellie’s overall rate of DB was high at baseline (M = 35%,
range = 25%–40%) and very similar to the whole class DB. When the CBGG
was introduced, Ellie’s AEB increased immediately and substantially and was
sustained across three data points. AEB decreased again towards the end of
the phase (M = 82.6%, range = 72.2%–94.4%), in contrast to the whole class
AEB which remained high. The final data point in this phase overlapped with
one data point in the baseline phase. There was an immediate decrease in DB
initially however data were variable and the second data point in this phase
overlapped with the baseline phase, before DB decreased again (M = 20.5%,
range = 11.11%–30%). Ellie’s DB was higher than that of the whole class
during this phase.
Bohan and Smyth 657

Figure 2. Percentage of intervals with academically engaged behavior (AEB) and

disruptive behavior (DB) across study phases for Ellie.
Note. The arrows specify points where the schedule is modified.

During the first withdrawal phase, Ellie’s AEB was highly variable and
was not similar to the class, but despite this variability, her AEB was higher
than the whole class on average (M = 75.3%, range = 60%–85%). The overall
level of AEB remained lower than during the previous intervention phase,
however there was a high degree of overlap. Despite an initial decrease in DB
when the game was withdrawn, Ellie’s DB increased sharply toward the mid-
dle of phase, before dropping again (M = 29.7%, range = 15%–55%). Data
were variable throughout this phase, however mean DB was similar to that of
the class. When the CBGG was reintroduced, there was an increase in Ellie’s
AEB (M = 92.4%, range = 85%–95%). Again, her level of AEB was higher
than that of the class and just one of the four data points in this phase over-
lapped with the preceding baseline phase. DB stabilised during this phase
and returned to levels more similar to the previous intervention phase
(M = 16.5%, range = 10%–21.1%).
With the initial adaptation to the reinforcement schedule (3 minutes), Ellie’s
AEB occurred during a mean of 86.3% of intervals (range = 80%–90%), which
658 Behavior Modification 47(3)

demonstrates a slight decrease in level when compared to the previous 2 min-

ute schedule. Behavior was similar to the whole class here. DB remained low
and stable (M = 10.4%, range = 10%–11.1%). With 4 minutes between rein-
forcement opportunities, AEB was high across the two sessions for which
Ellie was present (M = 92.5%, range = 90%–95%) and DB remained low
(M = 10%). With the schedule thinned to 5 minutes, AEB was variable, occur-
ring during a mean of 82.1% of intervals (range = 70.8%–93.3%). The low rate
of AEB during the final data point corresponds with low AEB across the class
and low treatment integrity by the teacher. DB was initially low but increased
to a very high level (M = 20%, range = 6.7%–33.3%). This coincided with a
low level of treatment integrity during the final data point.

Katie. Katie’s rate of AEB was variable across the initial baseline phase,
with a decreasing trend across the final three data points (M = 55.8%,
range = 35%–80%). Her mean level of AEB was much lower than that of the
whole class. DB was very high during this phase and always occurred at a
higher rate than the class as a whole (M = 52.9%, range = 40%–66.7%). An
immediate and large increase in AEB occurred when the CBGG was intro-
duced (M = 92.4%, range = 88.9%–94.4%), such that Katie’s AEB was higher
than the whole class mean for this phase. Katie’s DB decreased immediately
and substantially (M = 5.8%, range = 5.6%–6.3%) and was lower than that of
the whole class. There was no overlap with the initial baseline phase. It must
be noted here that at the beginning of this CBGG phase, Katie moved seats
to the other side of her table. When the game was introduced, this move was
requested by her classmate who she spoke to a lot (at another close by table).
Katie agreed to it, agreeing that it would help her earn more points. Ms. Leon-
ard allowed this seat change upon the students’ request. Although this change
of seats serves as a confounding variable, it came about as a direct result of
the game being introduced, at the request of the students. During the rest of
this phase, when the CBGG was introduced, Katie would move her chair to
the other side of her table without asking.
When the CBGG was withdrawn, a request was put to Ms. Leonard by the
researcher to keep Katie in her “CBGG seat” during observations to see if
behavior would revert to levels similar to the initial baseline phase. Ms.
Leonard agreed to this request. During this withdrawal phase, Katie’s AEB
immediately decreased and remained low across the first three data points
before increasing toward the end of the phase (M = 74.2%, range = 61.1%–
90%). During the fourth data point in this phase (data point 12, Figure 2), a
new seating plan was put in place for all students and everyone was moved to
a different seat. Katie’s increase in AEB during this phase coincided with the
seating plan change. Katie’s DB increased in this withdrawal phase, with an
Bohan and Smyth 659

Figure 3. Percentage of intervals with academically engaged behavior (AEB) and

disruptive behavior (DB) across study phases for Katie.
Note. The arrows specify points where the schedule is modified.

increasing trend overall (M = 32.8%, range = 15%–45%). No DB data points

in this phase overlapped with the preceding CBGG phase. When the CBGG
was reintroduced, Katie’s AEB was initially similar to the withdrawal phase,
before decreasing substantially for two data points, and increasing again dur-
ing the final data point (M = 84.2%, range = 72.5%–94.7%). Despite the insta-
bility, the overall level of AEB was higher than during the preceding
withdrawal phase and the overall level was similar to that of the whole class.
DB was variable in this phase, remaining higher than the whole class on aver-
age. There was a lot of overlap with the preceding withdrawal phase
(M = 23.5%, range = 5%–42.1%).
The schedule thinning procedure saw Katie’s AEB remain relatively high
and stable. With a 3 minute schedule, AEB occurred at a mean rate of 93%
(range = 88.9–95%). DB was initially quite low when this adaptation was
made, with an upward trend across the three data points (M = 10.6%,
range = 5%–16.7%). The seating plan changed again, coinciding with the
introduction of the 4 minute schedule. AEB remained high and occurred at a
mean rate of 91.54% (range = 84.6%–95%). DB remained low and followed
660 Behavior Modification 47(3)

Table 2. Tau Effect Sizes Across Phase Changes for the Whole Class and Target
Students.

Outcome Tau A1–B1 Tau A2–B2a Weighted mean Tau

Whole Class
Disruptive behavior −0.77 −0.531 −0.67
Academically engaged behavior 0.756 0.762 0.76
Ellie
Disruptive behavior −0.674 −0.46 −0.58
Academically engaged behavior 0.674 0.712 0.7
Katie
Disruptive behavior −0.775 −0.241 −0.57
Academically engaged behavior 0.756 0.463 0.63
a
B2 refers to the second CBGG phases with 2 minutes intervals between points only. Tau
values do not take the schedule thinning procedure into account.

a decreasing trend across the phase (M = 6.8%, range = 0%–15.4%). Katie

was only present for one of the two observations as the schedule was thinned
to 5 minutes, and AEB occurred during 73.3% of intervals. This reflects a
moderate decrease when compared with the 4 minute schedule. DB was high
during this data point (40%; data point 25).

Effect Sizes
Table 2 provides an overview of the Tau effect sizes. The weighted mean Tau
values were large for whole class AEB and DB, for Ellie’s AEB and for
Katie’s DB. Effect sizes for Ellie’s DB and Katie’s DB were deemed
moderate.

Social Validity
Teacher social validity. Teacher feedback collected via self-report on the BIRS
(Elliott & Von Brock Treuting, 1991) was positive. Ms. Leonard scored the
game 90 out of a possible 90 on the acceptability subscale, responding with
“strongly agree” to all statements. On the effectiveness subscale, she scored
the game 35 out of a possible 42. The mean rating on this scale was 5
(range = 4–6). The teacher’s rating on the efficiency subscale was 11 out of a
possible total of 12. The mean rating on this scale was 5.5 (range = 5–6).
Ms. Leonard was asked to provide additional comments on the schedule
thinning element of the game and some general comments. When asked
whether she had a preference for any particular version (2, 3, 4, or 5 minutes
Bohan and Smyth 661

between points), she stated that the 2 to 3 minutes intervals were “intense.”
When asked about her perceptions of effectiveness across the different time
intervals, she responded as follows: “Shorter intervals kept children’s atten-
tion on whether they were getting rewards in the beginning but for the long
term use [of] 5 min intervals is more manageable.” She also stated that the
5 minute version of the game was “easier to implement.” When asked for
additional general comments, Ms. Leonard stated that while the CBGG
worked well, sometimes she found it difficult to be consistent with the time-
table (i.e., endeavoring to do mathematics class at the same time every day).

Student social validity. Nineteen students completed the modified CIRP

(Mitchell et al., 2015; Witt & Elliott, 1985). The mean rating across the sur-
vey was 7.3 (range = 5–8), indicating a positive perception of the game over-
all. In additional comments, one student stated there were things his friends
didn’t like about the game, like “when they lose and don't get stamps.”
Another student stated that there were things they did not like about the game
and when asked why, responded stating “When friends distracted me.” One
student who thought the game was not fair expanded, stating that he was “out
of his seat only for a minute” and that could have cost his team a point.

Discussion
The current study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the CBGG with a
lower primary school (senior infant) population and to investigate whether
the effectiveness of the game could be sustained when the schedule of rein-
forcement was thinned. Individual and group behavior was monitored to
assert whether students displaying particularly high levels of disruptive
behavior responded differently to the game compared to the whole class
group. The results of the current study support the efficacy of the CBGG in
increasing AEB and decreasing DB in a mainstream, senior infants class. The
CBGG with 2 minute intervals between reinforcement opportunities pro-
duced significant increases in AEB and decreases in DB across the class
across two intervention phases, and the schedule thinning procedure demon-
strated that the game could remain effective with longer intervals between
reinforcement opportunities. The CBGG was also effective in targeting AEB
and DB in two individual target students, although effects were not as strong
as for the whole class.
When observing the whole class data, it is evident that the CBGG was
effective, producing large weighted mean effect sizes on AEB (0.76) and DB
(−0.67). These findings align with previous research which demonstrated the
efficacy of the CBGG with young primary school students. For example,
662 Behavior Modification 47(3)

Tanol et al. (2010) investigated the CBGG with individual students across
two kindergarten classes, finding that it led to reductions in rule violations. In
that study, the teachers were responsible for determining the rate of reinforce-
ment and were not prompted to carry out “behavior checks” at fixed intervals
making the schedule of reinforcement variable across the 10 minute game
session. The present study manipulated the rate of reinforcement delivered by
the teacher by establishing schedules. Lynne et al. (2017) also demonstrated
that the CBGG could be an effective intervention with a young primary
school aged population (a first grade class), but again, the rate of reinforce-
ment appeared to be determined by the teacher. The current study saw the
CBGG applied with more structure, similarly to how it was applied in studies
by Wright and McCurdy (2012) and Wahl et al. (2016). Wright and McCurdy
(2012) demonstrated the efficacy of the CBGG with a kindergarten class on
a VI4min schedule and Wahl et al. (2016) produced similar results in four
young primary school classes on a VI5min schedule. Although similar, the
present study focused on establishing control over behavior with a dense
fixed schedule in the initial phases, before thinning the procedure gradually.
Wright and McCurdy only implemented the CBGG in one study phase
(ABAC design) and Wahl et al., did not incorporate a withdrawal phase. The
present study addressed these shortcomings with three attempts to demon-
strate an intervention effect (WWC, 2020) before introducing a thinning
procedure.
In general, the target students’ levels of AEB and DB increased and
decreased respectively when the CBGG was in place compared to baseline/
withdrawal phases, but improvements were not as potent as across the whole
class group. The CBGG produced large weighted mean effect sizes for AEB
and moderate weighted mean effect sizes for DB across both students. The
CBGG produced very similar effects on the target students’ DB and the game
produced a slightly larger effect on AEB for Ellie compared to Katie. As
noted in the results section, Katie’s initial improvements in behavior must be
analysed considering the identified confounds related to the seating plan. It
was clear that the game appeared most effective for Katie when considering
the transition from phase A1 to B1 (i.e., coinciding with the change in seats),
rather than between phase A2 and B2. The results demonstrate how individ-
ual student behavior can be sensitive to small changes in the environment
such as the seating plan, whereas the whole class behavior can remain quite
stable under these changes.
The findings from the two individual students lend support to the idea that
although an intervention may appear to be highly effective across a whole
class group, individual students may not respond as positively. For example,
during the initial baseline phase, Ellie’s DB was similar to that of the whole
Bohan and Smyth 663

class, however across the whole class, there was a mean decrease of 21.77%
when the CBGG was introduced, compared to a smaller, 14.48% decrease for
Ellie. Previous studies have similarly identified non-responders to the GBG
and CBGG. Donaldson et al. (2017) collected data on 12 individual students
as part of an evaluation of the GBG with individuals and found that 3 of the
12 students did not respond positively to the GBG. They could therefore be
potentially classified as “non-responders” and be referred for more intensive
behavioral support. In another study, Bohan and Smyth (2022) found that
individual target students responded well to the CBGG and that at times the
game brought their behavior more in line with the behavior of the class group.
During some sessions however, one target student in that study engaged with
high levels of DB and low levels of AEB even when the intervention was in
place. In the present study, neither target student was a total non-responder
and both benefited in some way from the CBGG.
Results from the schedule thinning phase support the idea that schedule
thinning is a potential solution to lessening the workload for the teacher dur-
ing CBGG implementation, such that over time, teachers may be able to sys-
tematically decrease the amount of behavior checks conducted during the
game. Although the CBGG has been applied with variable schedules (Wahl
et al., 2016; Wright & McCurdy, 2012), dense schedules (Ford et al., 2022),
and teacher determined schedules (Tanol et al., 2010), no previous study had
looked at beginning with a dense schedule and thinning it over time. Other
research has demonstrated the efficacy of schedule thinning during DRO pro-
cedures for other behaviors (e.g., Bergstrom et al., 2011). Future research
should perhaps consider examining within session schedule thinning. This
would involve the teacher playing the game with a dense schedule initially
(e.g., 2 minute intervals) and progressing to larger intervals within the same
session/day. This may be a potential solution for teachers who are concerned
with behavior reverting quickly to baseline levels when the game is with-
drawn (e.g., Donaldson et al., 2015).

Limitations
The results of the current study must be considered in light of a number of
limitations. The change in seating plan on occasion throughout the study
(individual student changes and whole class changes) was a confounding
variable which could not be avoided and which may be considered a limita-
tion. Importantly however, seating plan changes are a regular occurrence in
school classrooms, with teachers often changing their seating plan monthly,
therefore the changes reflect real classroom practices. Another limitation was
that treatment integrity, although relatively high on average, was low on
664 Behavior Modification 47(3)

occasion throughout the study, particularly during the very last data point.
This limits conclusions which can be drawn for the CBGG with 5 minute
intervals between reinforcement opportunities. Another limitation relates to
the method of choosing the target students. The students were chosen based
on teacher evaluation of the class. A more systematic method, such as collect-
ing baseline data on all students, may ensure that students are chosen more
objectively for individual monitoring. Finally, a schedule thinning procedure
was used here and started with 2 minute intervals between opportunities for
points and progressed to 5 minute intervals. It is possible that the class may
have responded well to a thin schedule of reinforcement in the first instance.
Future research could perhaps be more objective in choosing a starting point
for intervals by probing the game with differing interval lengths or calculat-
ing the mean inter-response time between incidences of DB of students
engaging in the most disruptive behavior. Furthermore, the schedules used
here were similar to those used in other studies and therefore a greater contri-
bution to knowledge may be made by thinning schedules even further.
Nevertheless, the current study is the first to examine schedule thinning dur-
ing the CBGG, and has demonstrated that the game can be effective with
successively thinner schedules of reinforcement over time. This paves the
way for much further research with varying schedules lengths.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

The current study provides further evidence for the use of the CBGG in pri-
mary school classrooms, particularly with younger classes. It is also one of few
studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the CBGG in an Irish primary school
setting, building upon other work in Irish (Bohan & Smyth, 2022; Bohan et al.,
2021, 2022) and international settings (Groves & Austin, 2020; Wahl et al.,
2016; Wright & McCurdy, 2012). Although the evidence is preliminary, taken
with other evidence, Irish teachers, and other teachers in lower primary school
contexts, may consider this game for use in their classrooms. The study has
demonstrated the game’s efficacy across a whole class group but has also dem-
onstrated that not all individual students respond in the same way to the CBGG.
This suggests that teachers should be mindful of (a) students who do not
respond as well to class wide interventions and (b) total non-responders. Ellie
and Katie would not be classed as total non-responders in this study and the
CBGG did have some positive effects for each of them respectively, however,
future research may investigate ways to intervene when individuals do not
respond as well as the whole group. The evidence here for schedule thinning as
part of the CBGG is promising and provides a starting point for further research
on the concept. Future research may evaluate whether the CBGG is effective
Bohan and Smyth 665

initially with a dense schedule, and then prolong the game with a thinned
schedule during the same session. This may provide a solution for teachers who
are concerned that disruptive behavior becomes an issue immediately after
game cessation. It may also be a worthwhile avenue to examine if the CBGG
can be effective with even thinner schedules of reinforcement beyond the
5 minutes examined in the current study.

Conclusion
Overall, the current study has provided further good quality evidence for the
CBGG with a lower primary population. The concept of schedule thinning as
part of the CBGG has been introduced, and this serves as a useful starting
point for further examination in different contexts. Individual students
responded well but differently to the whole class during this iteration of the
CBGG. Therefore, the benefits of collecting data on individual students as
well as the whole class group cannot be ignored in research on group-based
interventions, such as group contingencies.

Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dublin City University undergradu-
ate and postgraduate psychology students for their help in collecting data for this
project.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was conducted as part of the
first author’s PhD thesis submitted at Dublin City University, under the supervision of
the second (coordinating) author. The research was partially funded by a Career
Enhancement grant awarded to the second author. The first author received funding in
the form of tuition fees from the School of Psychology in Dublin City University. The
authors have no other funding source or conflicts of interest to declare. This study was
conducted in accordance with full ethical approval granted by Dublin City University’s
research ethics committee.

ORCID iDs
Clare Bohan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2783-5633
Sinéad Smyth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8736-0505
666 Behavior Modification 47(3)

Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied
behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & 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(2), 119–124. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119
Bergstrom, R., Tarbox, J., & Gutshall, K. A. (2011). Behavioral intervention for
domestic pet mistreatment in a young child with autism. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 218–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.04.002
Bohan, C., McDowell, C., & Smyth, S. (2022). Does the immediacy of feedback mat-
ter in game-based classroom management? Analysis of the caught being good
game with adolescent students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 24(3),
208–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007211068534
Bohan, C., & Smyth, S. (2022). The caught being good game in a middle primary
school class. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(3), 283–297. https://
doi.org/10.1037/bar0000241
Bohan, C., Smyth, S., & McDowell, C. (2021). An evaluation of the caught being
good game with an adolescent student population. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 23(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720928455
Conklin, C. G., Kamps, D., & Wills, H. (2017). The effects of Class-Wide Function-
Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) on students’ prosocial classroom behav-
iors. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10864-016-9252-5
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis.
Pearson.
Donaldson, J., Fisher, A. B., & Kahng, S. (2017). Effects of the Good Behavior Game
on individual student behavior. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(3),
207–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000016
Donaldson, J. M., Wiskow, K. M., & Soto, P. L. (2015). Immediate and distal effects
of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(3), 685–
689. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.229
Elliott, S. N., & Von Brock Treuting, M. (1991). The behavior intervention rating
scale: Development and validation of a pretreatment acceptability and effec-
tiveness measure. Journal of School Psychology, 29(1), 43–51. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0022-4405(91)90014-I
Ford, W. B., Radley, K. C., Tingstrom, D. H., Dart, E. H., & Dufrene, B. (2022).
Evaluation of the good behavior game using ClassDojo in secondary class-
rooms. School Psychology Review, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X
.2022.2067736
Bohan and Smyth 667

Ford, W. B. (2017). Evaluation of a positive version of the Good Behavior Game

utilizing ClassDojo technology in secondary classrooms [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern Mississippi]. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1046
Groves, E. A., & Austin, J. L. (2020). Examining adaptations of the Good Behavior
Game: A comparison of known and unknown criteria for winning. School
Psychology Review, 49(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X
.2020.1716635
Joslyn, P. R., Donaldson, J. M., Austin, J. L., & Vollmer, T. R. (2019). The Good
Behavior Game: A brief review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(3),
811–815. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.572
Joslyn, P. R., & Vollmer, T. R. (2020). Efficacy of teacher-implemented Good
Behavior Game despite low treatment integrity. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 53(1), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.614
LeBlanc, L. A., Hagopian, L. P., Maglieri, K. A., & Poling, A. (2002). Decreasing the
intensity of reinforcement-based interventions for reducing behavior: Conceptual
issues and a proposed model for clinical practice. The Behavior Analyst Today,
3(3), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099991
LeBlanc, L. A., Raetz, P. B., Sellers, T. P., & Carr, J. E. (2016). A proposed model for
selecting measurement procedures for the assessment and treatment of problem
behavior. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(1), 77–83.
Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented con-
tingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(3), 341–347. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341
Lynne, S., Radley, K. C., Dart, E. H., Tingstrom, D. H., Barry, C. T., & Lum, J. D. K.
(2017). Use of a technology-enhanced version of the good behavior game in an
elementary school setting. Psychology in the Schools, 54(9), 1049–1063. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pits.22043
Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Goddard, K. M., & Johnson, A. H. (2011). A sys-
tematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for stu-
dents with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 529–554.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.05.001
Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M.
(2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency inter-
ventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology,
50(5), 625–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.06.001
Maggin, D. M., Pustejovsky, J. E., & Johnson, A. H. (2017). A meta-analysis of
school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging
behavior: An update. Remedial and Special Education, 38(6), 353–370. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0741932517716900
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. https://doi.org/10.17105/
spr-14-0063.1
Moore, T. C., Maggin, D. M., Thompson, K. M., Gordon, J. R., Daniels, S., & Lang,
L. (2019). Evidence review for teacher praise to improve students’ classroom
668 Behavior Modification 47(3)

behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/

10.1177/1098300718766657
Naylor, A. S., Kamps, D., & Wills, H. (2018). The effects of the CW-FIT group con-
tingency on class-wide and individual behavior in an urban first grade classroom.
Education and Treatment of Children, 41(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/
etc.2018.0000
Rapp, J. T., Carroll, R. A., Stangeland, L., Swanson, G., & Higgins, W. J. (2011). A
comparison of reliability measures for continuous and discontinuous recording
methods: Inflated agreement scores with partial interval recording and momen-
tary time sampling for duration events. Behavior Modification, 35(4), 389–402.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511405512
Tanol, G., Johnson, L., McComas, J., & Cote, E. (2010). Responding to rule viola-
tions or rule following: A comparison of two versions of the Good Behavior
Game with kindergarten students. Journal of School Psychology, 48(5), 337–355.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001
Tarlow, K. R. (2016). Baseline corrected Tau calculator. http://www.ktarlow.com/
stats/tau
Tarlow, K. R. (2017). An improved rank correlation effect size statistic for single-
case designs: Baseline corrected Tau. Behavior Modification, 41(4), 427–467.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516676750
Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case
research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(4), 403–411. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038
Wahl, E., Hawkins, R. O., Haydon, T., Marsicano, R., & Morrison, J. Q. (2016).
Comparing versions of the Good Behavior Game: Can a positive spin enhance
effectiveness? Behavior Modification, 40(4), 493–517. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0145445516644220
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What works Clearinghouse™ standards hand-
book (version 4.1). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-Standards-
Handbook-v4-1-508.pdf
Wiskow, K. M., Urban-Wilson, A., Ishaya, U., DaSilva, A., Nieto, P., Silva, E., &
Lopez, J. (2021). A comparison of variations of the Good Behavior Game on dis-
ruptive and social behaviors in elementary school classrooms. Behavior Analysis:
Research and Practice, 21(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000208
Witt, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention
strategies. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (pp.
251–288). Erlbaum.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how
applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 11(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203
Wright, R. A., & McCurdy, B. L. (2012). Class-wide positive behavior support and
group contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the Good Behavior
Game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(3), 173–180. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1098300711421008
Bohan and Smyth 669

Author Biographies
Clare Bohan Clare Bohan is currently the Literacy Co-ordinator with the Childhood
Development Initiative in Dublin 24. She completed her PhD under the supervision of
Dr Sinéad Smyth in the School of Psychology, Dublin City University. Her research
interests include behavioural interventions in classroom settings and the research-
practice gap in education. This research was conducted as part of Dr Bohan’s PhD
research.
Sinéad Smyth Sinéad Smyth is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology
at Dublin City University, Ireland. Dr Smyth’s research focuses on behavioural inter-
ventions for education and health with a particular interest in inclusion.