The effects of the Good Behavior Game (GBG) individualized across type and frequency of behavior were examined in three classes of severely behaviorally disordered students using a reversal design. The findings showed that the individualized GBG was effective in simultaneously decreasing a variety of inappropriate behaviors exhibited by the three classes, including inappropriate verbalizations, touching, negative comments, cursing, and drumming. Teacher and student satisfaction data indicated that both groups had positive reactions to the individualized GBG. Reasons for the success of the technique are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberto, P. A. , & Troutman, A. C. (1986). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
2.
Axelrod, S. (1973). Comparison of individual and group contingencies in two special classes. Behavior Therapy, 4, 83-90.
3.
Baer, D. M. , Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. F. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.
4.
Barrish, H. H. , Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a class-room. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119-124.
5.
Billingsley, F. , White, D. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
6.
Epstein, M. H. , Repp, A. C., & Cullinan, D. (1978). Decreasing obscene language of behaviorally disordered children through the use of a DRL schedule. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 419-423.
7.
Gamble, A. , & Strain. P. S. (1979). The effects of dependent and interdependent group contingencies on socially appropriate responses in classes for emotionally handicapped children. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 253-260.
8.
Greenwood, C. R. , & Hops, H. (1981). Group-oriented contingencies and peer behavior change. In P. Strain (Ed.), The utilization of classroom peers as behavior change agents (pp. 189-259). New York: Plenum.
9.
Greenwood, C. R. , Hops, H., Delquardi, J., & Guild, J. (1974). Group contingencies for group consequences in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 413-425.
10.
Hamblin, R. I. , Hathaway, C., & Wodarski, J. (1974). Group contingencies, peer tutoring, and accelerating academic achievement. In E. E. Ramp & B. L. Hopkins (Eds.), A new direction for education: Behavior analysis (pp. 41-53). Lawrence: University of Kansas.
11.
Harris, V. W. , & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Use and analysis of the "Good Behavior Game" to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 405-417.
12.
Hayes, L. A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 628-648.
13.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 4, 427-452.
14.
Litow, L. , & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347.
15.
Medland, M. B. , & Stacknick, T. J. (1972). Good behavior game: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 45-51.
16.
Nelson, C. M. (1981). Classroom management. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 663-687). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
Peterson, L. , Homer, A. L., & Wonderlich, S. A. (1982). The integrity of independent variables in behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 477-492.
18.
Raschke, D. (1981). Designing reinforcement surveys: Let the student choose the reward. Teaching Exceptional Children, 12, 92-97.
19.
Rosenbaum, M. S. , & Drabman, R. S. (1979). Self-control training in the classroom: A review and critique. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 477-492
20.
Salend, S. J. (1983). Guidelines for explaining target behaviors to students. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 18, 88-93.
21.
Salend, S. J. (1984). Therapy outcome research: Threats to treatment integrity. Behavior Modification, 8, 211-222.
Salend, S. J. , & Gordon, B. (1987). A group-oriented timeout ribbon procedure. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 131-137.
24.
Salend, S. J. , & Kovalich, B. (1981). A group response-cost system mediated by free tokens: An alternative to token reinforcement. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 184-187.
25.
Salend, S. J. , & Washin, B. (in press). The effects of team-assisted individualization on the academic, behavioral and social skills of handicapped adjudicated youth. Exceptional Children.
26.
Schmidt, G. W. , & Ulrich, R. E. (1969). Effects of group contingent events upon classroom noise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 171-179.
27.
Slavin, R. E. , Madden, N. A., & Leavey, M. (1984). Effects of cooperative learning and individualized instruction on mainstreamed students. Exceptional Children, 50, 434-443.
28.
Sulzbacher, S. I. , & Houser, J. E. (1968). A tactic to eliminate disruptive behaviors in the classroom: Group contingent consequences. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 88-90.
29.
Switzer, B. , Deal, T. E., & Bailey, J. S. (1972). The reduction of stealing in second graders using a group contingency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 267-272.
30.
Wilson, S. H. , & Williams, R. L. (1973). The effects of group contingencies on first graders' academic and social behaviors. Journal of School Psychology, 11, 110-117.
31.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case of subjective or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.
