Classwide Intervention to Manage Disruptive Behavior in the Kindergarten Classroom

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 20 October 2014, At: 23:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied School PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wapp20

Classwide Intervention to ManageDisruptive Behavior in the KindergartenClassroomKara E. McGoey a , Dana L. Schneider a , Kristin M. Rezzetano a ,Tana Prodan b & Melody Tankersley ba Duquesne University , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USAb Kent State University , Kent, Ohio, USAPublished online: 21 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Kara E. McGoey , Dana L. Schneider , Kristin M. Rezzetano , Tana Prodan &Melody Tankersley (2010) Classwide Intervention to Manage Disruptive Behavior in the KindergartenClassroom, Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26:3, 247-261, DOI: 10.1080/15377903.2010.495916

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2010.495916

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wapp20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15377903.2010.495916

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2010.495916

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26:247–261, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1537-7903 print / 1537-7911 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15377903.2010.495916

Classwide Intervention to Manage DisruptiveBehavior in the Kindergarten Classroom

KARA E. McGOEY, DANA L. SCHNEIDER,and KRISTIN M. REZZETANO

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

TANA PRODAN and MELODY TANKERSLEYKent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

The authors present an investigation of a classwide interventionto reduce disruptive behavior in a kindergarten classroom. Partic-ipants included children in 3 kindergarten classrooms and theirteachers in an at-risk school district in Northeast Ohio. On the basisof student behaviors and teacher goals, the authors chose the GoodBehavior Game plus Plus Merit. A total of 3 teachers implementedthe Good Behavior Game Plus Merit in the classroom. The authorsused a single-subject reversal design (ABAB) to test experimentalcontrol. They collected direct observations of student behavior dur-ing each phase of the intervention. Results indicated a decrease innegative, disruptive behavior during intervention. Last, the authorsdiscuss the implications for implementing this intervention in thekindergarten classroom.

KEYWORDS Kindergarten, disruptive behavior, intervention,good behavior game, early childhood

A young child exhibiting disruptive, overactive, impulsive, and inattentivebehaviors is at risk for a number of difficulties in the school environment.As students transition into formal schooling, those with behavioral problemsmay experience difficulty because of the increased expectations for both

Received 11/24/2009; revised 02/25/2010; accepted 04/13/2010.The authors thank the teachers and parents at West Park School in Ravenna, Ohio, for

their participation in this project.Address correspondence to Kara E. McGoey, Department of Counseling, Psychology, and

Special Education, 209A Canevin Hall, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282. E-mail:[email protected]

247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4

248 K. E. McGoey et al.

behavioral control and academic performance (Bellanti & Bierman, 2000).Vitaro, Brendgen, Larose, and Tremblay (2005) found hyperactive and inat-tentive behaviors during kindergarten to be more predictive of high schoolnoncompletion compared with aggressive and oppositional behaviors. More-over, general disruptiveness has been shown to predict early school with-draw (Vitaro, Larocque, Janosz, & Tremblay, 2001). In addition to havingacademic problems, students with inattentive behaviors are also at risk forsocial-emotional difficulties. Bellanti and Bierman found that inattentive chil-dren lacked prosocial skills and had increased rates of disruptive and aggres-sive behaviors, resulting in dislike by peers. These behaviors put inattentivechildren at risk for social maladjustment and poor peer relationships in ele-mentary school (Bellanti & Bierman).

When a classroom has a number of students exhibiting disruptive be-havior, teachers may feel unequipped to manage the behavioral difficulties ofseveral children at once. Consequently, the classroom environment and aca-demic productivity of students suffers. Thus, early, preventative, class-wideinterventions to manage the disruptive behaviors are imperative. Class-wideinterventions that make use of group contingencies allow teachers to ad-dress the behavior issues of several students at once (Stage & Quiroz, 1997).These intervention techniques allow teachers to clearly indicate group con-sequences that are dependent on group behavior (Rathvon, 2008). Skinner,Skinner, and Sterling-Turner (2002) identified three types of group contin-gencies: independent, interdependent, and dependent. Independent groupcontingencies offer the same reinforcement to a group, but reinforcementis contingent only on an individual’s behavior. In dependent group contin-gency systems, reinforcement for the group is contingent upon the behaviorof a few target students. Last, reinforcement of the group in interdependentcontingences is based on the entire group’s behavior (Skinner et al., 2002).

Specific interventions using group contingencies as the basic techniqueoften result in quick and effective improvements in behavior (Rathvon, 2008).A meta-analysis by Stage and Quiroz (1997) indicated the efficacy of groupcontingencies, evidenced by an effect size larger than all other interventiontechniques studied, such as token economies, response cost, peer man-agement, and differential reinforcement (Stage & Quiroz). When used withschool-age populations, group contingencies have resulted in increased re-ports of peers’ positive behavior (Skinner, Cashwell, & Skinner, 2000), in-creased on-task behavior during instruction (Heering & Wilder, 2006), anddecreased disruptive behavior (Kelshaw-Levering, Sterling-Turner, Henry, &Skinner, 2000). Interdependent group contingencies used with preschool stu-dents have led to considerable reductions in disruptive behaviors, althoughlittle evidence exists to further support the use of group contingencies withyoung children (Murphy, Theodore, Aloiso, Alric-Edwards, & Hughes, 2007).

Developed by Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969), the Good Be-havior Game (GBG) has been shown through systematic replication and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4

Classwide Intervention to Manage Behavior 249

extension to be effective in producing decreased levels of inappropriatesocial behavior by using peers as the change agents (Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, & Wilczynski, 2006). The GBG is a team-based behavioral manage-ment technique that reinforces students for managing their own behavior andthe behavior of their peers. The effectiveness of the GBG has been attributedto several of its components, including immediacy of feedback on behavior,reinforcement based on group behavior, detailed criteria for target behavior,and positive pressure from peers (Rathvon, 2008). Through this encourage-ment and reinforcement, students develop self- and mutual-regulatory skillsneeded to interact appropriately (Tingstrom et al., 2006).

The GBG is based on team competitiveness, and it promotes appropri-ate behavior by rewarding teams that do not exceed criteria for inappropriatebehavior. Consequently, students typically encourage and teach their teammembers how to engage in appropriate behaviors and how to avoid los-ing the game. In their review of the extant literature studying the GBG,Tingstrom et al. (2006) noted several strengths of this intervention. The GBGallows students the opportunity to win the competition in many ways. Stu-dents are typically rewarded when their team does not pass an allowednumber of behavioral infractions in a given time period. However, studentsmay also win the competition if they surpass the allowed number of be-havioral infractions if their team’s overall performance is superior to anotherteam’s performance. Thus, student motivation may remain high throughoutthe course of the game. For teachers, the GBG offers the advantages of usingaccessible reinforcement found in the school environment (e.g., extra com-puter or recess time, special game time, popcorn party, extra gym time), andit can be easily altered to meet the needs of the teacher and students.

The results of a systematic review of the research on the GBG indicatedthat this peer-mediated intervention is highly effective for changing students’disruptive behavior (e.g., talking out, being out of one’s seat) and academicperformance (e.g., task completion, accuracy), as well as teachers’ ratings ofstudents’ aggressive and shy behaviors (Tankersley, 1995).

Recent research with first- and second-grade students has shown theshort- and long-term benefits of the GBG (Kellam et al., 2008; Lannie &McCurdy, 2007). Research studies with first-grade students have shown thatthe immediate effects of the GBG include increased on-task behavior and de-creased disruptive and shy behaviors (Dolan et al., 1993; Lannie & McCurdy,2007). In addition, research has shown that students who were in the GBGgroup were observed to concurrently associate with more positive peers, andthey experienced reduced rates of peer rejection following implementationof the GBG (van Lier, Vuijk, & Crijnen, 2005). Long-term effects of the GBGinclude reduced rates of drug and alcohol abuse/dependence disorders, reg-ular smoking, and antisocial personality disorder (Kellam et al., 2008).

Despite its considerable support for use with elementary school–agechildren (Tingstrom et al., 2006), few studies have investigated the use of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


GBG with very young children. An extensive review of the literature relatedto the GBG revealed only one such investigation. Swiezy, Matson, and Box(1992) used the GBG with a group of four preschool students to increasecompliance. The children were paired into two teams, and points weregiven when the pair of children simultaneously behaved appropriately orcooperated with each other. Results indicated large increases in compliancefor both pairs of preschool students and generalizability across therapistsimplementing the intervention. Although this research supports the use ofthe GBG with young children, few children were studied and the interventionwas implemented in a church, rather than in a public school. More researchis needed to test the value of using the GBG with preschool and kindergartenstudent populations.

The Good Behavior Game Plus Merit (GBG-PM) is a variation of theGBG that provides teams the opportunity to earn bonus points for meetingclassroom behavior goals. This modification reduces losses earned from neg-ative behavior (Rathvon, 2008). Darveaux’s (1984) investigation of GBG-PMwith two second-grade boys showed that the intervention was effective indecreasing disruptive behaviors and increasing assignment completion. Theresearchers chose the GBG-PM in lieu of the traditional GBG because ofthe added positive component of earning bonus points for positive behaviorthat has been shown to be more acceptable to teachers and students (Elliott,1988).

The simple and game-like nature of the GBG-PM intervention suggeststhat it would be an appealing approach to behavior management amongeducators of young children. However, little research has examined theeffectiveness of the GBG or the GBG-PM for children in preschool andkindergarten. The present study aimed to extend the limited research thatsupports the use of the GBG with young children, using a variation of theprocedure. Specifically, this study attempted to examine the effects of theGBG-PM intervention in reducing the disruptive behavior of kindergartenchildren. We hypothesized that disruptive behavior in the classroom woulddecrease with the implementation of the GBG-PM. In addition, we hypoth-esized that teacher acceptability would be high, given that the proceduresassociated with the GBG-PM were developed on the basis of the existingclassroom rules and teaching style.

METHOD

Participants

The participants consisted of three kindergarten classrooms within the samepublic school. The school is located in Northeast Ohio and consists of house-holds of low to middle socioeconomic status. Each classroom had 18 stu-dents each; thus, a total of 54 children received the intervention. A general

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


education teacher was assigned to each classroom. All three teachers werefemale, White, had a bachelor’s degree in education, and had 5 to 10 yearsof teaching experience. The students in Classrooms A and B attended school2.5 days per week, whereas the students in Classroom C attended school allday for 5 days per week. Each teacher stated concerns about the disruptivebehavior of a number of students in her class, which included inattention,hyperactivity, disruption, and impulsivity.

Although the teacher implemented the intervention with the whole class,a group of 5 children in each classroom were chosen for progress monitoring.The 4 target children were chosen on the basis of the teachers’ recommenda-tion that the children exhibited significant disruptive behavior and influencedthe behavior of the entire class. In addition, teacher ratings on the hyperactiv-ity, attention problems, or aggression subscales of the Behavior AssessmentSystem for Children (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) indicated that the targetparticipants’ behavior was viewed as being at the clinically at-risk range (i.e.,t score ≥60). Specific demographic data for target children are not availableat request of the participating school district. Children were not selected onthe basis of special class, gender, or ethnic group. Through interviews withteachers, we operationally defined the severity, intensity, and duration of tar-get behaviors for the classrooms and identified classwide goals for improve-ment. The rules of each classroom were changed to match the classwidegoals and were represented in the observational categories. To representthe behavior of the nonreferred children, we also collected data on onenon-target child chosen randomly during each progress-monitoring session.

Experimental Design

We used a single-subject, ABAB experimental design to test the effects ofthe interventions relative to baseline. The phases were as follows: baseline(A), intervention (B), baseline (A), and intervention (B). Each phase lastedapproximately 1–3 weeks depending on the stability and trend of the data.

BASELINE 1

In this phase, the typical routine of the classroom was maintained, andteachers used already existing behavior management strategies. Teachers andinvestigators met to collaboratively design the intervention and determinegoals for the classroom.

INTERVENTION 1

The teacher implemented the GBG-PM in each classroom, which was dividedinto teams. When any student broke a rule or goal (e.g., be respectful ofothers, listen the first time, keep eyes on the teacher), his or her team lost asticker from his or her team’s poster. Bonus points that served to counteract

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


rule infractions were awarded to students who were also praised for behavingappropriately. After five students were praised on a team, one of the stickerswas returned to the poster. At the end of the day, the team with the moststickers received a reward (e.g., candy, gum, stickers, free time, extra recess,pizza), chosen by the teacher.

BASELINE 2

In this phase, we discontinued the intervention and instructed teachers touse all behavior management strategies that they had previously used in theclassroom. Also, we discouraged teachers from using techniques from theGBG-PM procedures.

INTERVENTION 2

The GBG-PM was once again implemented in the classroom. Teachers fol-lowed the same procedure as in the first phase of intervention.

Dependent Measures

DIRECT OBSERVATION

Four trained graduate and undergraduate students observed target childrenthroughout the study. All four observers were trained in the method ofdata collection and the definition of target behaviors for each classroom.Two of the four observers were blinded to the study design. Each observerreached a training criterion of 95% agreement on the code with the firstauthor before conducting observations. We adapted the Social Behavior Ob-servation System of the Early Screening Procedure (Walker, Severson, & Feil,1995) to assess each child’s behavior in the classroom setting. We coded thebehavioral observations according to the following antisocial behavior cat-egories: negative social engagement, off-task, disobeying established rules,and engaging in a tantrum (see Table 1 for complete definitions of targetedantisocial behaviors).

The observers coded target children’s behaviors using a partial intervalrecording system three times per week during both baseline and interventionphases. An interval time sampling procedure was used to capture an esti-mate of the child’s behavior. The observers recorded the frequency of eachoccurrence of antisocial behavior over 15-s intervals during 20- to 30-min ob-servation periods. During each observation period, 5 children in each class-room (4 target children, 1 random peer) were observed. One target child wasobserved for each of the first four intervals. The order in which target chil-dren were observed remained consistent throughout the study. A different

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE 1 Operational Definitions for the Direct Observations of Behavior

Negative behaviorcategory Definition

Negative socialinteraction

A negative reciprocal social exchange (either verbal or physical). Areciprocal exchange of social signals (e.g., voice, gaze, touch)between two or more people is considered negative if both partiesengage in negative behavior or react in a negative manner (i.e., bydefinition, one child’s “negative” behavior is only considerednegative when it is reciprocated by another child’s “negative”behavior). Negative social interaction is characterized by the childsaying something to another person in a derogatory (e.g., “You’restupid”), uncomplimentary (e.g., “Your painting is yucky”), ordisruptive manner (e.g., yelling “Stop it” or sticking out tongue).

Physical aggression (e.g., hitting, kicking, or pushing).Off-task The child looks away from the activity or teacher for at least 3 s. The

child looks away from the activity and does not follow theteachers’ direction or command within 3 s.

Tantrumming The child is yelling (i.e., vocalizations above normal conversationalvolume), kicking the floor or other inanimate items, pouting,and/or sulking (e.g., placing his or her head down on the desk)after a negative social interaction.

Disobeyingestablished rules

Any deviation from the rules established by the classroom teacherbefore the observation.

random peer was observed during the fifth interval of every observationsession. The rest of the observation continued in the same repeating order.

Data Analysis

The percentage of antisocial behavior occurring during each observation wascalculated for each classroom by collapsing data for the target children andrandom peers. The mean percentage of antisocial behavior across categorieswas graphed over time. Visual analysis of data was used to analyze theeffect of the intervention on the occurrence of antisocial behavior in eachclassroom. Analysis included an examination of changes in mean, level, trendand the immediacy of change in behavior.

Interobserver Agreement

Observers were trained to a level of 95% interobserver agreement beforeinitiating baseline observations. Interobserver agreement was based on thepercentage of agreement (i.e., the number of agreements divided by thenumber of agreements plus the number of disagreements, multiplied by 100).Interobserver agreement calculations were performed for each category andrepresent occurrence and nonoccurrence agreement. The average proportion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


of interobserver agreement during baseline and intervention phases was96.1% and ranged from 80.3% to 100%.

Teacher Acceptability

At the conclusion of the study, the Behavior Intervention RatingScale–Teacher Version (Elliott & Treuting, 1991) was given to the partic-ipating teachers to determine their acceptability of the intervention. TheLikert-type scale asks 24 positively phrased questions about the effectivenessand teacher’s impression of the intervention. Responses ranged from 1 (lowagreement) to 6 (strong agreement). Following the intervention, the meanscore of teachers’ responses was 3.4 (indicated moderate agreement), witha range from 1 to 6. These results indicate that, overall, the teachers foundthe intervention acceptable. Teachers continued to use the intervention afterthe research study concluded.

RESULTS

Classroom A

During Baseline 1, data were collected for 2 weeks, antisocial behaviorsin Classroom A were recorded for approximately 34% of the intervals, withranges from 16% to 58%. However, visual inspection of the data indicates theoccurrence of antisocial behaviors was inconsistent throughout the baselinephases (see Figure 1). After the intervention was implemented for 8 weeks,(i.e., Intervention 1), there was a marked decrease in antisocial behaviors,resulting in a mean occurrence of 13% and a range in behavior from 6%to 23%. To test the experimental effects of the intervention, the interventionwas withdrawn for 3 weeks once a reduction in antisocial behaviors occurred(Baseline 2). This resulted in an immediate increase in antisocial behaviors.During this phase, the average percentage of antisocial behaviors observedin the interval was 25%, ranging from 11% to 33%. When the intervention(i.e., Intervention 2) was reinstated, antisocial behaviors decreased to a meanof 10%, with a range of 6% to 18%. During the maintenance phase, antisocialbehaviors for students in Classroom A were observed, on average, in 8% ofthe intervals. The percentage of antisocial behaviors during the maintenancephase ranged from 4% to 16% of the intervals. As illustrated in Figure 1,antisocial behaviors reinstated, antisocial behaviors decreased to a mean of10%, with a range of 6% to 18%. During the maintenance phase, antisocialbehaviors for students in Classroom A were observed, on average, in 8% ofthe intervals. The percentage of antisocial behaviors during the maintenancephase ranged from 4% to 16% of the intervals. As illustrated in Figure 1,antisocial behaviors were more stable during the intervention and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 1 Mean percentage of negative behaviors observed during each observation periodthroughout all four phases of intervention, as well as during the maintenance phase forClassroom A.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


maintenance phases when compared with the baseline phases. However,trend analysis revealed an overall descent in the frequency of antisocialbehaviors across all four phases of the intervention.

Classroom B

During Baseline 1, which lasted for 3 weeks, the antisocial behaviors ob-served occurred during approximately 21% of the intervals (range = 4% to38%), but decreased to a mean of 11% (range = 0% to 23%) during theIntervention 1 phase (7 weeks in duration; see Figure 1). Upon return tobaseline for 2 weeks (i.e., Baseline 2) antisocial behaviors continued to de-crease to 7% of the intervals, on average (range of 3% to 11%), and droppedto a mean of 4% (range of 0% to 8%) after the intervention was reinstated(i.e., Intervention 2). Within phase variability occurred during the Baseline1, Intervention 1, and Baseline 2 phases. Upon return to intervention (i.e.,Intervention 2), variability was reduced and the occurrence of behaviorsremained consistently low. Trend analysis indicated an overall decreasingtrend in antisocial behaviors across all four phases.

Classroom C

For Classroom C, antisocial behavior was coded, on average, in 31% of theintervals during the three weeks of Baseline 1, with a range of 25% to 35%.The occurrence of antisocial behavior was reduced to a mean of 18% of theintervals (range = 4% to 34%) during Intervention 1 (7 weeks in duration;see Figure 1). Upon return to baseline (i.e., Baseline 2; 2 weeks in length)antisocial behaviors increased to a mean of 28% (range = 22% to 35%), anddropped to a mean of 13% (range = 5% to 23%) after the intervention wasreinstated (i.e., Intervention 2). Variability was evident in all four phases. Anoverall decreasing trend was indicated by trend analysis; however, duringthe final intervention phase, the last two data points were higher than thefirst three.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that the GBG-PM was effective in reducingthe disruptive behavior in two kindergarten classes. The GBG is a team-based behavioral management technique that was set up to reinforce theteams that did not exceed the criteria of inappropriate behaviors (Rathvon,2008). In collaboration with three classroom teachers, researchers determinedwhich antisocial behaviors would be targeted, which ranged from off-task to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


tantrum behaviors. The GBG-PM is an interdependent group contingency,meaning that the students’ success depended on the behavior of their entiregroup. Therefore, this intervention included an element of positive peer pres-sure. Using the GBG-PM, the students had a chance to redeem themselvesif they acted appropriately.

Results of trend analysis showed a decreasing trend for disruptive behav-iors across all classrooms. In Classrooms A and C, the disruptive behavior re-turned when the intervention was withdrawn and baseline was reinstated. InClassroom B, the class maintained low levels of disruptive behavior through-out the return to baseline and reinstatement of the intervention. We hypoth-esized that the teacher in Classroom B incorporated some of the strategiesinvolved in the GBG-PM into her basic classroom management repertoire.For example, the observers noted that the teacher in Classroom B contin-ued to verbally praise and reprimand immediately after a behavior duringthe withdrawal phase even though she did not use these techniques beforeimplementing GBG-PM. When the withdrawal phase was implemented, theteacher was encouraged to return to the behavior management techniquesused before the study. Thus, even without the use of the official game pro-cedures, the students still received a more stringent classroom managementprocedure. In addition, these teacher behaviors were not noted during thefirst baseline phase.

The intervention had limited treatment efficacy in Classroom B; how-ever, once an outlier was controlled for, the intervention showed modesteffectiveness. Classroom A also had modest treatment effectiveness. Overall,the GBG-PM was shown to have moderate potential for managing disruptivebehaviors.

The results of this study add to the support for the use of the GBGin reducing disruptive behavior in the classroom environment (Tankersley,1995; Tingstrom et al., 2006). The present study also extends the literaturein that it is the first to derive support for the use of this intervention with thekindergarten population. Corroborating the results of Swiezy et al. (1992),Dolan et al. (1993), and Lannie and McCurdy (2007), this study was successfulin adapting the procedures of the GBG to be developmentally appropriateto the early childhood classroom.

Furthermore, results from the follow-up phase in Classroom A suggestthat these effects may generalize over time. This supports previous researchthat has identified long-term effects of the GBG in reducing challengingbehaviors and improving outcomes for students (Dolan et al., 1993; Kellamet al., 2008; van Leir et al., 2005). Similar to other research examining teacherattitudes toward the GBG (e.g., Barrish et al., 1969), this research found thatthe GBG-PM is moderately acceptable to teachers. The acceptability datamay have been influenced by the administrative pressure that we observedon the teachers to manage the behaviors in the classroom. In addition,this study extends the literature by providing evidence for the use of merit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


within the GBG procedures. Given that positive procedures are seen as moreacceptable than reductive procedures to teachers (Elliott, 1988), the additionof the merit may have improved the acceptability and thus, the results.

Limitations

Although results of the study revealed reductions in disruptive behaviorsfor students in all three classrooms during implementation of the GBG-PM,several limitations must be considered in light of the reported findings. Forinstance, the results are limited in that baseline data in Classroom A ended ona downward, or improving, trend. The intervention was implemented despitethis trend given the applied nature of the study, the teacher’s insistence onimplementing the intervention, and the overall inability of the classroomto effectively learn. In addition, when the intervention was first withdrawn,disruptive behaviors continued to decrease in 1 of the 3 classrooms. Wehypothesized that the teacher continued to praise and reprimand the studentsverbally without the use of the GBG-PM. The verbal cues may have beenenough to maintain the behavior. Because the behavioral coding system didnot include observation of teacher and classroom factors, it was not possibleto determine what factors, if any, contributed to the continued decline ofdisruptive behaviors in this classroom.

Methodological limitations should also be noted. The observational datawere collapsed across all categories of antisocial behaviors targeted; thus, re-sults are not reflective of a decrease in any specific behavior. Future researchshould examine changes in specific antisocial behaviors as well as positivebehavior change. The study was also limited in that we did not collect postin-tervention data from the Behavior Assessment System for Children becausewe used this scale for inclusionary criteria only. Future research should makeuse of behavioral rating scale data before and after intervention to provideadditional evidence of behavior change. Last, this study is limited by thelack of formal intervention integrity data. Observers reported that the teach-ers implemented the intervention with integrity and consistency throughoutthe intervention phases; however, no formal data were collected on integrity.

Limitations to the study’s design highlight directions for future researchusing the GBG-PM with young children. Because this study was the first toexamine the use of a variation of the GBG in a kindergarten setting, addi-tional research is needed to determine the differential effects of the GBGand GBG-PM in classrooms with varied student populations, resources, andteacher characteristics. Kindergarten and preschool classrooms are environ-mentally and philosophically different from elementary school classrooms.Thus, it is necessary to determine what modifications may be necessary toenhance the effect of the GBG-PM in these classrooms and extend applica-bility across this age range.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


Implications for Practice

The GBG-PM is a simple, economically sound intervention that can be im-plemented with young children at the kindergarten level. The GBG-PM isa quick intervention, and in this study, was used in both half- and full-day programs. It makes use of reinforcers that can easily be obtained by theteacher or are inherent in the classroom environment. In addition, the proce-dures often match the teacher’s already established classroom managementstyle and classroom rules. The consultant (e.g., school psychologist) simplytightens the management procedures and rules already established in theclassroom. This allows for easy implementation and adaptation to providea structured approach that guides the teacher in a consistent, systematic,and clear implementation of the management strategies. School psycholo-gists should recommend the GBG-PM in classrooms in which there are anumber of children with behavior problems and positive peer role models.Research on the GBG (e.g., Darveaux, 1984) has been shown to improve awide range of disruptive behaviors, including off-task and aggressive behav-iors. However, the GBG-PM requires positive peer pressure, so an importantelement of this intervention is having peers in each group who can havea positive effect on the group. School psychologists can expect to spendmore time during the beginning of the intervention because they will haveto consult with the teacher to identify inappropriate behaviors, rules of thegame (e.g., when students will be punished and rewarded), and rewards.The amount of time will vary on the basis of the severity and frequency ofinappropriate behaviors. Once the intervention is implemented, school psy-chologists can expect to spend 1–2 hr per week consulting with the teacher.More time will be required during the follow-up if modifications to the in-tervention and fading of procedures to maintain behavior are needed (e.g.,rule adjustments).

Implications for Research

The research supporting the use of the GBG has been conducted ratherextensively over the past 4 decades; however, only one study to date hasexamined the use of the GBG-PM, and none has studied its use with youngchildren. This research adds to the existing body of empirical support for theGBG and GBG-PM by examining the effectiveness of a variation of the in-tervention when used with kindergarten children. This is significant becausemuch of the research surrounding this intervention has been implementedin elementary to middle school classrooms. Similar to many studies in thisarea, the present study made use of single-subject design to examine the ef-fect of the intervention. Although this method is commonly used (Tingstromet al., 2006), it is possible that large-scale studies would better indicate how

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


this intervention would generalize to the larger population of kindergartenstudents. Future research is needed to note the contribution of specific com-ponents of the GBG and GBG-PM in order to determine which componentsare necessary for success in the classroom.

REFERENCES

Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M. S., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effectsof individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior ina classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.

Bellanti, C. J., & Bierman, K. L. (2000). Disentangling the impact of low cognitiveability and inattention on social behavior and peer relationships. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 29, 66–75.

Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. (1992). Meta-analysis for single case research. In T.R. Kra-tochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single case research design and analysis: Newdirections for psychology and education (pp. 187–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Darveaux, D. X. (1984). The good behavior game plus merit: Controlling disruptivebehavior and improving student motivation. Psychological Interventions, 18,510–514.

Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer,L. S., et al. (1993). The short-term impact of two classroom-based preventiveinterventions on aggressive and shy behaviors and poor achievement. Journalof Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 317–345.

Elliott, S. N. (1988). Acceptability of behavioral treatments: Review of variables thatinfluence treatment selection. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,19, 68–80.

Elliot, S. N., & Treuting, M. V. (1991). The Behavior Intervention Rating Scale: Devel-opment and validation of a pretreatment acceptability and effectiveness mea-sure. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 43–51.

Heering, P. W., & Wilder, D. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingenciesto increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Educationand Treatment of Children, 29, 459–468.

Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N. S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P.,et al. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management programin first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and socialoutcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, S5–S28.

Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000).Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with atwist. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 523–533.

Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urbanclassroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior.Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 85–98.

Murphy, K. A., Theodore, L. A., Aloiso, D., Alric-Edwards, J. M., & Hughes, T. (2007).Interdependent group contingency and mystery motivators to reduce preschooldisruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 53–63.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4


Rathvon, N. (2008). Effective school interventions: Evidence-based strategies for im-proving student outcomes (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus R. W. (1992). Behavior Assessment System for Children.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Skinner, C. H., Cashwell, T. H., & Skinner, A. L. (2000). Increasing tootling: Theeffects of a peer-monitored group contingency program on students’ reports ofpeers’ prosocial behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 263–270.

Skinner, C. H., Skinner, A. L., & Sterling-Turner, H. E. (2002). Best practices incontingency management: Application of individual and group contingenciesin educational settings. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in schoolpsychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 817–830). Bethesda, MD: National Association ofSchool Psychologists.

Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decreasedisruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School PsychologyReview, 26, 333–368.

Swiezy, N. B., Matson, J. L., & Box, P. (1992). The good behavior game: A tokenreinforcement system for preschoolers. Child and Family Behavior Therapy,14(3), 21–32.

Tankersley, M. (1995). A group-oriented contingency management program. Pre-venting School Failure, 40, 19–24.

Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The goodbehavior game: 1969–2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225–253.

van Lier, P. A. C., Vuijk, P., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2005). Understanding mechanismsof change in the development of antisocial behavior: The impact of a universalintervention. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 521–535.

Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Larose, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten disruptivebehaviors, protective factors, and educational achievement by early adulthood.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 617–629.

Vitaro, F., Larocque, D., Janosz, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Negative social expe-riences and dropping out of school. Educational Psychology, 21, 401–415.

Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G. (1995). Early Screening Project.Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 2

3:07

20

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Classwide Intervention to Manage Disruptive Behavior in the Kindergarten Classroom