Using the Caught Being Good Game in the Community: Increasing Prosocial Behaviors Among Children at Risk of Adverse Childhood Experiences

Abstract

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been associated with numerous negative outcomes, including negative health outcomes, poor psychological well-being, future substance abuse, and other antisocial behaviors. However, social support may act as a buffer against these negative outcomes. Group contingencies provide one way to simultaneously encourage social inclusion and prosocial behaviors. The Caught Being Good Game (CBGG) is a reinforcement-based behavioral intervention, similar to the Good Behavior Game, commonly used in classrooms to target disruptive behaviors or lack of academic engagement. The current study explored the use of the CBGG for increasing three types of prosocial behavior of children with suspected experiences of ACEs attending afterschool services in Dublin, Ireland. The CBGG was played with the whole group during activity time in the center. Intervention effects were assessed using a withdrawal design. Visual and statistical analyses deemed the CBGG an effective method for targeting encouragement, peer cooperation, and leader cooperation of the whole group and one 9-year-old girl who was chosen as a target for the intervention. The group leader rated the CBGG somewhat favorably while the children themselves rated the CBGG highly. Future research should seek to further explore leaders’ assessments of social validity and introduce methods for adult leaders to be involved in data collection.

Keywords

afterschool program interdependent group contingency prosocial behavior adverse childhood experiences

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are traumatic events experienced by children and may include experiences, such as abuse, neglect, or household dysfunction (Boullier & Blair, 2018). They are highly prevalent (Bellis et al., 2016) and frequently have long-term effects. For example, individuals who experience ACEs are at higher risk of negative outcomes in adulthood, including mental health difficulties (Von Cheong et al., 2017), poor physical health (Hughes et al., 2017), and substance misuse (Bellis et al., 2016). A variety of factors are associated with an increased risk of experiencing ACEs during childhood, including belonging to an ethnic minority group, low socioeconomic status, and family unemployment (Merrick et al., 2018).

Researchers have highlighted the importance of considering ACEs when working with relevant populations (Goddard, 2021). ACEs can affect health and functioning across several important domains. There is increasing evidence that ACEs negatively affect socioemotional development (Ray et al., 2020), with studies demonstrating that adults who experienced ACEs demonstrate lower social well-being (Mosley-Johnson et al., 2019) and higher levels of antisocial behaviors (ASBs) (Hunt et al., 2017). Furthermore, recent research has demonstrated that social support, in the form of positive peer-to-peer, parent–child or student–teacher relationships, can buffer against the effects of ACEs (Vinh et al., 2024) and negative outcomes, such as substance use (McCollum et al., 2024); therefore, focusing on the development of social skills is one important avenue for supporting children who experience ACEs.

Prosocial behaviors (PSBs), which can be defined as behavior engaged in with the intention of benefiting others, even if this may at times come with a personal cost (Dunfield & Kuhlmeier, 2013), have been associated with a wide range of both psychological and personal benefits (Nelson et al., 2016), including improved peer relationships (Lee, 2016), less prejudice (Morselli & Passini, 2015), greater academic achievement (Lum et al., 2017), more inclusive attitudes (Cigala et al., 2015), and lower levels of aggression (Coyne et al., 2018). Interactions with diverse populations are important in developing PSBs of children (Spivak et al., 2015). Moreover, providing social opportunities for ethnically diverse groups has been suggested to reduce stigma and exclusion (McKeown & Taylor, 2018), for example, facilitating social interactions between White Irish Traveller children and children from other non-Traveller ethnic backgrounds (Dupont, 2017).

Group Contingency Interventions

Interventions focusing on promoting social interactions and social support play an important role in reducing the effects of traumatic experiences (Wagner et al., 2016). Previous research has identified a number of key methodologies as effective in decreasing the risk of the development of ASBs and encouraging PSBs in children (Aljadeff-Abergel & Ayvazo, 2020), including, for example, the promotion of positive peer relationships (Pilling et al., 2013) or behavior management interventions (e.g., Wiskow et al., 2021). The use of reinforcement or punishment to target children’s behavior may be referred to as a contingency. A “contingency” in the case of behavior analysis describes the potential for a future consequence based on reaching a certain criterion. Group contingency interventions involve delivering a common consequence to a group of participants based on the behavior of one or more individuals in the group (Little et al., 2015). More specifically, an interdependent group contingency is a type of group contingency in which the delivery of a reward is based on the behavior of the whole group (Barrish et al., 1969; Lum et al., 2019). Interdependent group contingencies provide an effective, evidence-based method for managing group behavior, whether for decreasing disruptive behaviors (Maggin et al., 2017; Maggin, Johnson, et al., 2012) or for increasing positive behaviors (e.g., teamworking; Sewell, 2020). Research on interdependent group contingencies has previously demonstrated success with at-risk adolescents (e.g., Costello & Smyth, 2017) and has demonstrated success with decreasing ASBs and increasing PSBs. However, a recent systematic review highlighted the scarcity of group contingency literature focusing on PSBs rather than ASBs (Brennan et al., 2024). The effects of group contingencies for targeting ASBs and PSBs has been demonstrated with whole groups (Groves & Austin, 2019), target individuals within a group (Aljadeff-Abergel & Ayvazo, 2020) and a combination of whole group and target individuals (Maggin, Fallon, et al., 2012). Group contingencies, therefore, provide adult leaders with the opportunity to simultaneously target whole group and individual behavior depending on the needs of the children they are working with (Little et al., 2015). When considering a group as a single case, there may be individuals within that group whose behavior deviates from the group (Donaldson et al., 2017). Therefore, when exploring the effect, it can be useful to explore the effect of a group contingency intervention on the whole group and targeted individuals.

The Good Behavior Game (GBG; Barrish et al., 1969), a popular interdependent group contingency, involves splitting a group into smaller teams, positively punishing undesirable behaviors through the allocation of fouls and rewarding teams for remaining under a certain criterion of fouls at the end of the game (Bohan & Smyth, 2022; Wahl et al., 2016). Aligned with a shift toward the use of more positive forms of behavior support (LaVigna & Willis, 2012) and concerns surrounding the use of punishment (Cooper et al., 2020), the GBG has been amended in recent years to replace the use of positive punishment with positive reinforcement. The Caught Being Good Game (CBGG; Wright & McCurdy, 2012) follows a similar procedure to the GBG but instead of allocating fouls for negative behaviors, teams are instead awarded points for positive behaviors. These teams are then rewarded for reaching or exceeding the points criterion.

Group Contingencies in Afterschool Settings

Although game-based group contingency interventions, such as the GBG or CBGG, are commonly used in educational settings (Maggin et al., 2017; Maggin, Johnson, et al., 2012), research exploring the effect of these types of interventions in community-based settings is more limited. Little is known about the use of group contingency interventions in afterschool centers. In the only known group contingency intervention set in an afterschool setting, Smith and colleagues (2018) investigated the use of the PAX GBG in an afterschool program to improve the program quality and children’s PSB with a randomized control trial. The PAX GBG, a commercialized version of the GBG developed by the PAXIS Institute (Embry, 2003), focuses on the use of shared norms and praise. The typical version of the GBG was used, that is, the use of positive punishment in the short-term contingency and differential reinforcement of low rates of a target behavior (DRL) in the long-term contingency. Although successful in targeting children’s behavior, the behavior change was measured by comparing scores on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman et al., 2003) pre- and post- intervention, rather than measuring behavior continuously throughout the intervention through observational methods, as common in single-case experimental designs. Single-case research designs enable us to explore the effectiveness of a group contingency using a different approach, using a different design, different outcome measures, and exploring different patterns in behavior change. It is important, therefore, to explore the effectiveness of behavioral interventions using both methods.

The Current Study

Afterschool services have been recognized as a promising setting for addressing issues relating to ASBs, and group contingencies, such as the CBGG, have been identified as a suitable method for increasing PSBs. To our knowledge, however, no previous research has been conducted exploring the application of the CBGG in an afterschool program. We sought to address this gap by exploring the use of the CBGG to increase PSBs (and therefore perceived social support) among a group of ethnically diverse children in need of support attending charity-run afterschool services. This research therefore sought to address a number of research questions: (a) Is the CBGG effective in increasing three types of PSB of a 9-year-old girl referred to a community-based afterschool program? (b) Is the CBGG effective in increasing three types of PSB of a whole group of 9- and 10-year-old children referred to a community-based afterschool program?

Method

Participants and Setting

Prior to recruitment, all procedures were reviewed by the Dublin City University’s Research Ethics Committee, and full ethical approval was granted. The intervention took place in a community-based afterschool program provided by a charity in an urban area of Dublin, Ireland. The children attending the afterschool center were all referred to the program (by social workers, school principals, or parents) due to their experience of ACEs or their risk of experiencing ACEs. Specific data relating to the experience of ACEs were not collected due to the highly sensitive nature of the data. However, reasons for referral included, but were not limited to, experiencing poverty, parental addiction, and living in single-parent families as a result of bereavement, the imprisonment of a primary caregiver, or divorce. Children attending the center were organized into two groups, a younger and an older group, based on their academic year in school. The center ran from 3 to 6 p.m., Monday to Thursday each week. The daily schedule in the center consisted of key activities, including homework time, dinner time, activity time, and free time. Following a phone call from the project coordinator, the leader of the younger group of children within this center volunteered to host the research and facilitate participant recruitment.

The leader of the group was a 35-year-old female who had been working as a youth activity worker in the center for two years. The leader was a qualified Early Educator with five years of previous experience working with similar populations. The leader had not previously used a group behavior management strategy like the CBGG before, although other strategies were occasionally implemented in the center to manage behavior, including the use of reward systems. Specifically, the center operated a “star” system in which children could receive a maximum of five stars a day—one for attendance, one for finishing their homework, one for trying their dinner, one for participating in the daily activity, and one for showing kindness to others. The children’s stars were totaled monthly and used to determine which children could attend the monthly center trip. Existing behavior management strategies are commonly in place during the exploration of the effect of newly introduced positive behavior interventions (e.g., school rules and consequences).

All 14 children in the participating group were invited to take part in the research. Parental consent and child assent were received for 12 children (seven boys, five girls) with a mean age of 9.58 (range 9–10) years. These participants were of White Irish descent (N = 5) or White Irish Traveller descent (N = 7). White Irish Travellers are recognized as a distinct ethnic group in Ireland. White Irish Travellers, who are traditionally nomadic (Gilbert et al., 2017) have been under-researched as a group (Condon et al., 2019). However, two of the 12 participants were identified by the group leader as target participants, meaning that their behavior was measured on an individual basis alongside measurement of the group behavior. One target participant was moved to the “whole group” after the initial baseline phase due to low attendance. The remaining target participant, Lauren (pseudonym), was a 9-year-old female of White Irish descent who was identified as requiring additional social and behavioral support. Lauren was chosen as a target participant by the project coordinator because she “tends to undermine leaders and rules’’ and “can be unkind at times to other children within the group.” The “whole group” participants consisted of the remaining 10 children (11 children once the second target participant was moved to the whole group).

The intervention took place during regular activity time in the center. Each day, the adult leader chose from a variety of activities, including sports games, arts and crafts, mental health workshops, and board game sessions. The location of the intervention varied across, but not within, sessions depending on the activities undertaken on a given day. Rooms used included the homework room with small tables and chairs, a large sports hall, and a large room with long tables and chairs, a seating area, and a pool table. The changing activities and locations added variety that is infrequently seen in the CBGG literature (cf., Barrish et al., 1969; Donaldson et al., 2017) and were more ecologically valid than data collection in a single location across a single activity. All children in the group played the CBGG as part of their activities in the center; however, data were only collected from consenting participants. Attendance was collected by the project coordinator. Attendance of consenting participants was taken for the whole group in 73.97% of observation sessions. Attendance was below 50% in 29.63% of these sessions. These sessions are highlighted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Effect of the Caught Being Good Game (CBGG) on Whole Group Prosocial Behaviors.

Materials

Materials needed to run the CBGG included three copies of the game rules on laminated A3 paper (297 × 420 mm²) to be posted on the wall, a daily scoreboard on a laminated A3 sheet to be posted on the wall, a vibrating smartwatch for the group leader (in this case, a Fitbit Charge 4), and reinforcers. Reinforcers or prizes were chosen based on the results of a child preference assessment. In keeping with previous research (Bohan et al., 2022; Stratton et al., 2018), children rated a list of prizes, as recommended by the group leader, from 1 (most preferred option) to 7 (least preferred option). The items with the lowest combined score across all participants were considered the most highly rated and were employed as reinforcers. This assessment identified small treats, small toys, mini teddies, and squishy toys as highly rated reinforcers. The group leader was given an 11-step procedural checklist each day to assist them in running the intervention (see online supplemental materials). This checklist included items such as “Remind the group how many points they need to get the prize” and “Announce the game has started.” Data collectors (the first author and undergraduate psychology students trained as second observers) collected data using pen and paper. A vibrating timer app for Android/Apple (Tabata Timer: Interval Timer Workout Timer HIIT; Sharafan, 2018) signaled the intervals to the data collectors through headphones attached to a smartphone.

Dependent Measures

Dependent variables selected for this study included the PSBs encouragement, peer cooperation, and leader cooperation. Existing literature on the use of group contingencies and PSBs (Brennan et al., 2024), pre-baseline observations, and consultation with the group leader about behaviors of concern informed selection of the target behaviors.

Encouragement was defined as behaviors which involve the interpersonal communication of a positive message aimed at providing support or motivation to the recipient. Examples of behaviors classified as encouraging behaviors include verbal positive words of encouragement for a peer, (e.g., “You can do it!”), complimentary behaviors, praise or tootling, and nonverbal positive communication (e.g., a thumbs up, a high five, clapping, or a pat on the back).

Peer cooperation was defined as when a child engaged in joint work or a joint task with a peer for at least 3 s. This included behaviors such as helping with a task, sharing their resources, working together to clean up their workspace, sharing stationery, working together in a sports game, or working together toward a common goal.

Leader cooperation specifically included behaviors in which a child demonstrated they were cooperating with adult leaders. This included behaviors, such as following leaders’ instructions within 3 s, willingly helping the leader or offering to help the leader, listening to the leader when they are explaining an activity and waiting appropriately, speaking to the leader at an appropriate volume, and using manners when talking to the leader, for example, saying “please” and “thank you.”

Data Collection

Observation Methods

Data were collected up to four times a week by the primary researcher (first author). Data collection sessions were 30-min long. Data were collected using partial interval recording as an estimation of the rate of the target behaviors. Partial interval recording is commonly used to measure similar behaviors, such as cooperation (e.g., Aljadeff-Abergel & Ayvazo, 2020) and positive social interactions (e.g., Stremel et al., 2022). Intervals were 10-s long with a 5-s break between each interval. An individual-fixed method was used, meaning a different student was observed every 15 s in a predetermined order (Briesch et al., 2015). Lauren was observed every four intervals (i.e., in 25% of the overall intervals; Lauren, Whole Group Participant 1, Whole Group Participant 2, Whole Group Participant 3, Lauren, etc.). Originally, when two target participants were being observed, the group was only observed for a total of 50% of the overall intervals, with the second target participant also being observed in 25% of the overall intervals (i.e., Lauren, Whole Group Participant 1, Target Participant 2, Whole Group Participant 2, Lauren etc.). Once the second target participant was moved to the whole group, the data collection schedule was adapted and the whole group was observed in 75% of the intervals.

Interobserver Agreement

A second observer independently collected data with the primary researcher in 30% of the observations. For the whole group, interobserver agreement (IOA) data were collected in 35% of total observations, in at least 20% of the observations in each phase (baseline 37%, CBGG 33%). Regarding Lauren’s observations, IOA data were collected in 30% of the total observations, 31% of baseline observations, and 30% of CBGG observations. IOA was calculated using interval-by-interval agreement. The total number of agreements were divided by the overall number of intervals and multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. Second observers who collected data for IOA purposes were undergraduate psychology students trained in observational data collection methods and the operational definitions prior to the commencement of data collection.

For the whole group, mean IOA was 97.56% for encouragement (range: 93.33%–100%), 95.38% for peer cooperation (range: 90%–100%), and 94.23% for leader cooperation (range: 85%–100%). For Lauren, mean IOA was 99.52% for encouragement (range: 96.67%–100%), 94.29% for peer cooperation (range: 90%–100%), and 96.67% for leader cooperation (range: 90%–100%).

Treatment Integrity

The group leader was asked to follow the 11-step procedural checklist during the CBGG. As a measurement of treatment integrity, the primary researcher completed the checklist while the CBGG was being played. Mean treatment integrity was 86.87% (SD = 9.47, range = 72.72%–100%). The most commonly missed steps were Steps 5 and 7 (see online supplemental materials).

Social Validity

Upon completion of data collection, social validity measures were collected from both the child participants and the group leader. The child participants completed a modified version of the Children’s Intervention Rating Profile (CIRP; Mitchell et al., 2015; Witt & Elliott, 1985), an 8-item social validity measure with items such as “Do you think the game was fair?” Modifications were similar to those made in other CBGG research, including changing the response categories from a Likert scale to “yes” or “no” responses and changing mentions of “teacher” to “group leader” and mentions of classrooms to “during activity time.” The last two items on the measure were changed from positive wording to negative wording to assist with clarity and understanding. The highest rating on the modified CIRP was a score of 8, which represented eight positive endorsements (i.e., a “yes” answer on Items 1–6 and “no” on Items 7 and 8).

The group leader completed the Behavior Intervention Rating Scale (BIRS; Elliott & Treuting, 1991). The BIRS is a social validity measure consisting of 24 positively phrased items, for example, “I would suggest the use of this intervention to other leaders.” The measure contains the 15 Intervention Rating Profile Items measuring acceptability of the intervention (IRP-15; Martens et al., 1985) as well as additional items measuring efficiency (n = 2) and effectiveness (n = 7). Modifications to the BIRS included changing the wording of items to reflect the use of the intervention with a group rather than an individual, adapting word tense to reflect present or past usage, and changing mentions of the setting to reflect the afterschool setting. Leaders rated each item on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more favorable attitudes toward the CBGG. The highest possible rating on the BIRS was a score of 144. The BIRS has been established as reliable (Elliott & Treuting, 1991) with an overall Cronbach’s alpha of .97 and acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values for each of the subscales: .97 for acceptability, .92 for effectiveness, and .87 for efficiency.

Procedure

Design

A withdrawal design (Kazdin, 2020), with ABAB phases (A = baseline, B = CBGG) was used, to explore the effect of the CBGG.

Group Leader Training

The primary researcher conducted a 45-min training session with the group leader prior to the commencement of data collection. The training, with guided by a Google Slides presentation, covered the procedures of the intervention, implementation of baseline and CBGG phases, setup of the FitBit, timeline for data collection, and IOA collection. The leader was provided with an opportunity to ask any questions at the end of the session.

Pre-Baseline Observations

Prior to the commencement of data collection, the primary researcher visited the afterschool center during activity time. The children were observed, and notes were taken about behaviors that could be deemed problematic as well as positive behaviors that could be targeted for increase. The pre-baseline observations were discussed with the group leader and used to determine the dependent variables to target with the intervention.

Baseline Phase

During baseline phases, the group leader used her usual disciplinary processes while data collection was ongoing. Usual disciplinary processes included verbal warnings, issuing a “yellow card” (a positive punishment procedure used in the center) and sending children to the project coordinator’s office. On the last day of baseline data collection, the group leader practiced the procedures followed for the CBGG, she wore the FitBit, and awarded points privately based on the 5-min interval schedule. These processes were unknown to the children and followed to familiarize the leader with the procedures of the CBGG.

Intervention Phase: CBGG

After the initial baseline phase, the group leader and the primary researcher set group rules to be used during the CBGG. The group rules were aligned with the target behaviors—(a) I will cooperate with my leaders and peers, (b) I will help my leaders and peers, (c) I will encourage my peers to try their best, and (d) I will speak nicely with and about others. Following baseline, the group leader described the CBGG to the children. The leader explained all the game rules to the children and provided them with the opportunity to ask any questions they might have. The group leader decided to divide the children into two teams based on their gender (males and females) due to variability in attendance.

The game ran for 30 min. The adult leader was required to follow the 11-step procedural checklist (see online supplemental materials). Steps on the checklist included, for example, “Review the rules with the kids” and “Announce the game as started.” Daily points criteria ranged between 3% and 5% (50%–83% of total possible points). The initial points criterion was set to three, which was half of the overall available points to be earned. The criterion was increased the subsequent day when all teams successfully met the criteria. The criterion was decreased following a day that no teams met the criteria. The teams earned a point if all members of the team were following the game rules while the leader performed a “behavior check.” The leader was prompted to carry out this behavior check by a silent vibrating alarm on the FitBit six times throughout the 30 min, once every 5 min. The teams could choose a small prize if they earned or exceeded the points criteria.

After the initial CBGG phase, the group leader indicated concern about a sudden increase in disruptive behavior outside of game time. Therefore, to increase the generalizability of the positive behaviors seen during the CBGG, a bonus point was introduced at the beginning of the second CBGG phase. The group could receive a bonus point for demonstrating good behavior outside of the game time (i.e., outside of activity time). All members of the group must have been deemed to demonstrate “good behavior” for the team to earn the bonus point. If a team met the leader’s behavioral expectations outside of the game time, they were awarded a bonus point. The bonus point, if achieved, was added to a team’s points tally at the beginning of the next game session. However, there was no additional reward for the bonus point. The procedures of the CBGG remained the same but the total possible number of points and the point criteria increased.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed visually using the guidelines provided by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC, 2022) for single-case research designs. Evaluation involved examining the number of phases and points in each phase, an assessment of trend, level, immediacy of effect, overlap, consistency of data, and variability between and across phases.

Tarlow’s (2016, 2017) method for calculating effect size was used to supplement the visual analysis. This involves assessing and, if necessary, correcting for baseline trend before calculating Tau (Kendall, 1962). Tau scores can range from 0 to 1 and may be positive or negative depending on the direction of the change in behaviors (i.e., when aiming to increase target behaviors, a large positive score is desirable). When interpreting Tau, a score of .2 indicates a small effect, .2–.6 indicates a moderate effect, .6–.8 indicates a large effect, and a score of .8+ indicates a very large effect (Vannest & Ninci, 2015).

Percentage of non-overlapping data (PND; Scruggs et al., 1987) was also calculated to supplement the visual analysis and as an assessment for risk of bias, a standard required by WWC (2022) single-case design standards Version 5. PND was calculated by dividing the number of non-overlapping data points over the total number of data points. PND was used to assess the overlap between baseline and intervention phase with those interventions with smaller PND considered more effective. When interpreting PND, a score of >70% suggests an effective intervention, a score of 50%–70% suggests questionable effectiveness, and or scores of <50% suggest no observed intervention effect (Parker et al., 2011).

Results

Whole Group Behaviors

Encouragement

Figure 1 demonstrates the effect of the CBGG on whole group encouragement. During the initial baseline phase, encouragement was low and relatively stable for the whole group (M = 0.17%, SD = 0.53%, range = 0%–1.67%). Upon introduction of the CBGG, encouragement for the group increased immediately and substantially (M = 11.6%, SD = 3.5%, range = 7.8%–18.9%). During the withdrawal to baseline, encouragement was again low, decreasing immediately and substantially and remaining relatively stable throughout the phase (M = 1.48%, SD = 1.4%, range = 0%–3.3%). Once again, when the CBGG was reintroduced, encouragement for the group increased immediately and substantially and remained relatively stable throughout (M = 9.3%, SD = 1.1%, range = 7.8%–11.1%).

Peer Cooperation

Figure 1 demonstrates the effect of the CBGG on whole group peer cooperation. In the first baseline phase, peer cooperation was low (M = 4.2%, SD = 3.3%, range = 0%–8.33%). Once the CBGG was introduced, peer cooperation increased immediately and substantially (M = 38.9%, SD = 12.9%, range = 15.6%–63.3%). Although peer cooperation was variable in this phase, no data points overlapped with the baseline phase. When withdrawing to baseline, peer cooperation was again low, decreasing immediately and substantially (M = 7.3%, SD = 2.3%, range = 4.4%–10%). Upon reintroduction of the CBGG, peer cooperation again increased immediately and substantially (M = 38.9%, SD = 3.2%, range = 33.3%–43.3%).

Leader Cooperation

The effect of the CBGG on whole group leader cooperation is evident in Figure 1. Leader cooperation was low in the initial baseline phase (M = 7.8%, SD = 3.2%, range = 3.3%–11.7%). Upon introduction of the CBGG, leader cooperation immediately and substantially increased (M = 32.4%, SD = 5.8%, range = 24.4%–44.4%). Although there was high variability across this CBGG phase, there was no overlap with baseline phases (PND = 100%). When the CBGG was withdrawn, leader cooperation once again returned to low levels, decreasing immediately and substantially (M = 6.5%, SD = 2.0%, range = 4.4%–10%). Again, once the CBGG was reintroduced, leader cooperation increased immediately and substantially (M = 34.4%, SD = 2.7%, range = 30%–37.8%) and remained relatively stable.

Lauren’s Behaviors

Encouragement

Figure 2 depicts the effect of the CBGG on Lauren’s encouragement. In the initial baseline phase, Lauren demonstrated no encouragement throughout the phase (M = 0%, SD = 0%). The introduction of the CBGG brought about immediate and substantial change in encouragement (M = 18%, SD = 5.6%, range = 13.3%–26.7%). Although encouragement was variable in the first CBGG phase, it did not overlap with baseline encouragement (PND = 100%). In the second baseline phase, encouragement returned to baseline levels, decreasing immediately and substantially (M = 0.8%, SD = 1.5%, range = 0%–3.3%). Once again, when reintroduced, the CBGG brought an immediate and substantial change to Lauren’s encouragement (M = 18%, SD = 3.8%, range = 13.3%–23.3%).

Figure 2.

Effect of the Caught Being Good Game (CBGG) on Lauren’s Prosocial Behaviors.

Peer Cooperation

The effect of the CBGG on Lauren’s peer cooperation is demonstrated in Figure 2. Lauren’s baseline peer cooperation was low with little variability (M = 1.3%, SD = 3.0%, range = 0%–6.67%). When the CBGG was initially introduced, Lauren’s peer cooperation increased substantially and immediately (M = 44%, SD = 13.2%, range = 26.7%–56.7%). Although peer cooperation was variable in this phase, no data points overlapped with baseline data (PND = 100%). When withdrawn to baseline, peer cooperation decreased immediately and substantially (M = 9.6%, SD = 3.8%, range = 6.7%–16.7%). Upon reintroduction of the CBGG, peer cooperation once again increased immediately and substantially (M = 33.3%, SD = 5.3%, range = 26.7%–40%).

Leader Cooperation

Figure 2 depicts the effect of the CBGG on Lauren’s leader cooperation. In the initial baseline phase, Lauren’s leader cooperation was low (M = 7.3%, SD = 4.3%, range = 0%–10%). On introduction of the CBGG, leader cooperation increased immediately and substantially (M = 30.7%, SD = 8.0%, range = 20%–40%). Although these data were variable, they did not overlap with baseline phases (PND = 100%). When the CBGG was withdrawn, leader cooperation decreased immediately and substantially (M = 9.6%, SD = 4.9%, range = 3.3%–16.7%). When the CBGG was reintroduced, once more leader cooperation increased immediately and substantially (M = 46.7%, SD = 2.4%, range = 43.4%–50%).

Effect Size

Tau scores were calculated for all phase changes (see Table 1). Effect sizes were large to very large across each phase change (>0.6).

Table 1.

Tau Effect Sizes for Whole Group Behavior and Lauren’s Behavior.

Phase change	Whole group behavior			Lauren’s behavior
Phase change	Enc	Pco-op	Lco-op	Enc	Pco-op	Lco-op
Baseline 1—CBGG 1	.799	.725a	.739	.857	.801	.772
Baseline 2—CBGG 2	.728a	.724a	.735	.810	.751	.740

Note. Enc = Encouragement, Pco-op = Peer cooperation, Lco-op = Leader cooperation, CBGG = Caught Being Good Game.

Baseline corrected Tau.

Social Validity

Leader Rating

The group leader completed the BIRS (Elliott & Treuting, 1991) on the last day of data collection. The leader gave the CBGG an overall total score of 94 out of a possible 144 (M = 3.9, range 2–6). For acceptability, the leader rated the intervention a score of 68 out of 90 (M = 4.5, range 3–6). The leader rated the effectiveness 20 out of 42 (M = 2.9, range 2–4). The leader rated time to effect a score of 6 out of 12 (M = 3, range 3–3). The leader provided additional written feedback in which she stated, “I feel as though the children’s behaviors slightly changed and improved depending sometimes on the activity that was planned.”

Child Ratings

Five children in the whole group completed the CIRP (Witt & Elliott, 1985) following completion of data collection. The mean score across the children was 7.2 (range 6–8) out of the highest possible score of 8. All children marked that they liked the game, that they liked participating in the game, that they thought other children would enjoy the game, and that they liked the rewards used. One child provided written feedback stating that they “love playing Caught Being Good.”

Discussion

This study is the first known investigation of the use of CBGG within an afterschool program supporting ethnically diverse children in need of support due to experiences of ACEs. This research aimed to explore the effect of the CBGG as a positive behavioral support for increasing encouragement, peer cooperation, and leader cooperation of the children. Individual behavior was monitored alongside whole group behavior to assess whether Lauren, an individual considered to typically display high levels of disruptive behavior, responded differently to the intervention than the group. Teams of children took part in the CBGG using a withdrawal design to assess differences in behavior across baseline and intervention phases. All three PSBs (encouragement, peer cooperation, and leader cooperation), increased immediately and substantially for both Lauren and the whole group when the CBGG was introduced.

Targeting PSBs With the CBGG

Although the CBGG has been established as an effective method for increasing academic engagement (Bohan et al., 2022) and decreasing classroom disruptive behaviors (Bohan & Smyth, 2022), its role for targeting social behaviors is more limited. Previous literature has targeted behaviors similar to encouragement, such as positive peer/social interaction (Groves & Austin, 2019; Sewell, 2020) or supporting peers (Sewell, 2020). Encouragement, as defined in this study, has combined complimentary and supportive behaviors in both verbal and nonverbal forms. Similarly, behaviors such as cooperation (Aljadeff-Abergel & Ayvazo, 2020) and working as a team (Sewell, 2020) have previously been explored. However, these behaviors have predominantly focused on engagement in academic tasks (e.g., Aljadeff-Abergel & Ayvazo, 2020) or just peer-to-peer cooperation (e.g., Sewell, 2020). This research is the first known study to explore the effect of a group contingency intervention on both peer cooperation and leader cooperation separately and the first known to explore encouragement as we have defined it.

As in previous studies (e.g., Groves & Austin, 2019; Sewell, 2020), the CBGG was effective at increasing all three PSBs of the group and Lauren. For the whole group, Tau calculations considered the CBGG to have a large effect on the three target behaviors. For Lauren, the CBGG had a large to very large effect on all three of the target behaviors, all of which were a concern prior to the commencement of data collection. Importantly, the results of this study suggest that the CBGG is an effective method for managing PSB in an afterschool center providing services for children at risk of experiencing ACEs, something which has not previously been explored.

Encouraging PSBs in Children at Risk of Experiencing Adverse Childhood Experiences

The children recruited to participate in this study had been referred to the afterschool center due to having experienced or suspected experiences of ACEs. Previous research has suggested that social support, whether provided by other adults or by peers, can act as a buffer against the negative outcomes of ACEs (Vinh et al., 2024). Therefore, increasing PSB and social behavior of these potentially vulnerable children should be prioritized. In addition, encouraging social interaction between children of varying ethnic groups is one way by which inclusion (McKeown & Taylor, 2018) and PSB (Lee, 2016) can be encouraged. This study included seven White Irish Traveller children and five White Irish children. The changes in behavior recorded when we played the game indicate that the CBGG was successful in increasing social interaction between these groups. This study did not collect data on experiences of ACEs due to the highly sensitive nature of this data. However, future research may wish to collect ACEs data in these settings to enhance the understanding of the demographic profile of potentially vulnerable children and its potential impact on behavior. It may be of interest to explore the influence of children’s prior exposure to behaviors such as cooperation and encouragement on the CBGG’s effect on these behaviors.

Social Validity

Child social validity measures suggested the child participants in this study enjoyed the CBGG and thought that other children would also. This finding is consistent with previous literature (e.g., Bohan et al., 2021, 2022) which suggests that the CBGG is a behavior intervention which children consider to be acceptable and enjoyable. However, we must highlight that we did not collect any social validity data from Lauren.

Social validity measures revealed that the adult leader implementing the CBGG thought that the intervention was acceptable and somewhat effective overall. Previous studies assessing the CBGG have gathered mixed responses from adult leaders running the game with some considering the CBGG socially valid (e.g., Bohan et al., 2021; Bohan & Smyth, 2023) and others considering it ineffective (e.g., Bohan et al., 2022). In the current study, despite study outcomes demonstrating the opposite, the leader considered the CBGG somewhat ineffective. Leaders’ perceptions of behavior change may not be aligned with the effect of an intervention given that adult leaders may be considering overall group behavior rather than the specific behaviors targeted by the intervention. Measuring social validity more often or involving the group leader in the measurement of behavior may provide ways by which adult leaders can independently explore the effect of an intervention. Future research should seek to explore the use and feasibility of adult leader behavior monitoring, for example, using daily direct behavior ratings (DBR; Chafouleas et al., 2009). Moreover, investigation into the reasons adult leaders may not consider behavioral interventions socially valid is needed.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The current study makes a significant contribution to the literature through the focus on positive supports for developing PSBs in a diverse population, including an ethnic minority, suspected to have experienced ACEs. Furthermore, it is only the second known study to have explored the use of game-based group contingencies in an afterschool setting (see Smith et al., 2018) and the first to have used solely positive contingencies. The findings must be considered in light of a number of limitations. The specific participant pool from which we sampled may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research may seek to explore the use of the CBGG across other age groups in a similar setting to further validate these findings. Further exploration of the effect of the CBGG across a variety of activities may be useful. Ideally, the effects of the CBGG would be explored without any other behavior management strategies in place (i.e., the star system). However, in practice, it is common for ongoing strategies to run in parallel with the introduction of new behavior management interventions (e.g., Bohan & Smyth, 2022).

Every effort was made to follow the guidelines outlined by the WWC for single-case research design. Data collection commenced in October 2022, prior to the publication of the WWC (2022) Design Standards Version 5 in December. The latest published guidelines (WWC, 2022) changed the recommendations for initial baseline data collection. Both the whole group and Lauren’s data would have met WWC (2020) Design Standards without reservations under Version 4.1 guidelines. However, the new recommendations for six initial baseline data points (WWC Version 5; 2022) mean that Lauren’s PSBs met the Design Standards with reservations. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the lack of social validity for Lauren as a limitation of the study, particularly given that the inclusion of a target participant was designed to give greater insight into how their behavior might differ from or align with the whole group data. It is important to note that although partial interval recording was considered the most appropriate measurement for estimating the rate of the three target behaviors, this method is not without limitation. Partial interval recording, like most observational methods, may be subject to over- or under-estimation of a behavior. However, interrater reliability is used to reduce this bias. IOA in this study met WWC (2022) Standards.

Although the aim of the current research was to explore the effects of the CBGG on a sample of children suspected to have experienced ACEs, no measurement of ACEs was taken. Future research may seek to measure experience of adverse events to assess their impact on behavior. Lastly, though research has suggested that encouraging PSBs provides one way by which ASBs can be prevented, this study did not measure any ASBs. To assess whether the increase in PSBs can in turn decrease ASBs, both PSBs and ASBs should be measured. Future research should explore the use of the CBGG for targeting both PSBs and ASBs in an afterschool program.

Conclusion

The current study addressed several important gaps in the literature surrounding the use of group contingencies to target PSBs. This study is the first known investigation of the CBGG in an afterschool program, exploring the use of the CBGG with an ethnically diverse sample suspected to have experienced ACEs and exploring the use of the CBGG for targeting various forms of encouragement and cooperation. Results indicated that the CBGG was effective in increasing encouragement, peer cooperation, and leader cooperation of this population for both a targeted 9-year-old girl and the whole group. These findings provide additional support for the growing body of evidence supporting the use of reinforcement-based group contingency interventions, such as the CBGG.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pbi-10.1177_10983007251325956 – Supplemental material for Using the Caught Being Good Game in the Community: Increasing Prosocial Behaviors Among Children at Risk of Adverse Childhood Experiences

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pbi-10.1177_10983007251325956 for Using the Caught Being Good Game in the Community: Increasing Prosocial Behaviors Among Children at Risk of Adverse Childhood Experiences by Ciara Brennan, Clare Bohan and Sinéad Smyth in Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This research was completed as part of the first author’s PhD thesis. Ethical approval was sought and obtained from Dublin City University’s Research Ethics Committee.

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 first author was supported by the Dublin City University School of Psychology stipend-only scholarship.

ORCID iDs

Ciara Brennan

Clare Bohan

Sinéad Smyth

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available at

References

Aljadeff-Abergel

Ayvazo

(2020). Teaching social skills in physical education: A self-management package intervention. Education and Treatment of Children, 43(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00012-4

Barrish

H. H.

Saunders

Wolf

M. M.

(1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119

Bellis

M. A.

Ashton

Hughes

Ford

K. J.

Bishop

Paranjothy

(2016). Adverse childhood experiences and their impact on health-harming behaviours in the Welsh adult population. Public Health Wales NHS Trust. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckw167.009

Bohan

McDowell

Smyth

(2022). Does the immediacy of feedback matter 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

Smyth

(2022). The caught being good game in a middle primary school class. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 22, 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000241

Bohan

Smyth

(2023). The effect of schedule thinning on student behavior during the caught being good game. Behavior Modification, 47(3), 644–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455221129993

Bohan

Smyth

McDowell

(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

Boullier

Blair

(2018). Adverse childhood experiences. Paediatrics and Child Health, 28(3), 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2017.12.008

Brennan

Deegan

Bohan

Smyth

(2024). A systematic review and narrative synthesis of single-case group contingency interventions targeting prosocial and antisocial behavior in school children. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007241235865

10.

Briesch

A. M.

Hemphill

E. M.

Volpe

R. J.

Daniels

(2015). An evaluation of observational methods for measuring response to classwide intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000065

11.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Christ

T. J.

(2009). Direct behavior rating (DBR) an emerging method for assessing social behavior within a tiered intervention system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(4), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508409340391

12.

Cigala

Mori

Fangareggi

(2015). Learning others’ point of view: Perspective taking and prosocial behaviour in preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 185(8), 1199–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.987272

13.

Condon

Bedford

Ireland

Kerr

Mytton

Richardson

Jackson

(2019). Engaging gypsy, Roma, and traveller communities in research: Maximizing opportunities and overcoming challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 29(9), 1324–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318813558

14.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.

15.

Costello

K. M.

Smyth

(2017). Group contingencies to increase school and project attendance in at-risk adolescents: A pilot study. Education and Treatment of Children, 40(3), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2017.0016

16.

Coyne

S. M.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Holmgren

H. G.

Davis

E. J.

Collier

K. M.

Memmott-Elison

M. K.

Hawkins

A. J.

(2018). A meta-analysis of prosocial media on prosocial behavior, aggression, and empathic concern: A multidimensional approach. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000412

17.

Donaldson

J. M.

Fisher

A. B.

Kahng

(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

18.

Dunfield

K. A.

Kuhlmeier

V. A.

(2013). Classifying prosocial behavior: Children’s responses to instrumental need, emotional distress, and material desire. Child Development, 84(5), 1766–1776. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12075

19.

Dupont

(2017). An investigation into the effect of vicarious contact on attitudes and intended friendship behaviour towards Irish travellers and perceived group norms about cross-group friendships among settled Irish children in the Republic of Ireland (Doctoral dissertation). Cardiff University, Cardiff.

20.

Elliott

S. N.

Treuting

M. V. B.

(1991). The behavior intervention rating scale: Development and validation of a pretreatment acceptability and effectiveness measure. Journal of School Psychology, 29(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(91)90014-i

21.

Embry

D. D.

(2003). The PAX Good Behavior Game: Schoolwide implementation guide. Hazelden Publishing.

22.

Gilbert

Carmi

Ennis

Wilson

J. F.

Cavalleri

G. L.

(2017). Genomic insights into the population structure and history of the Irish travellers. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42187

23.

Goddard

(2021). Adverse childhood experiences and trauma-informed care. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 35(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2020.09.001

24.

Goodman

Meltzer

Bailey

(2003). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. International Review of Psychiatry, 15(1–2), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954026021000046137

25.

Groves

E. A.

Austin

J. L.

(2019). Does the Good Behavior Game evoke negative peer pressure? Analyses in primary and secondary classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.513

26.

Hughes

Bellis

M. A.

Hardcastle

K. A.

Sethi

Butchart

Mikton

. . .Dunne

M. P.

(2017). The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health, 2(8), e356–e366. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(17)30118-4

27.

Hunt

T. K.

Slack

K. S.

Berger

L. M.

(2017). Adverse childhood experiences and behavioral problems in middle childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.005

28.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2020). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-029

29.

Kendall

M. G.

(1962). Rank correlation methods (3rd ed.). Hafner.

30.

LaVigna

G. W.

Willis

T. J.

(2012). The efficacy of positive behavioural support with the most challenging behaviour: The evidence and its implications. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 37(3), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2012.696597

31.

Lee

L. S.

(2016). Peer relations and social adjustment of Latino and Chinese children in head start classrooms. Early Education and Development, 27(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1045230

32.

Little

S. G.

Akin-Little

O’Neill

(2015). Group contingency interventions with children—1980-2010: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39(2), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514554393

33.

Lum

J. D.

Radley

K. C.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Dufrene

B. A.

Olmi

D. J.

Wright

S. J.

(2019). Tootling with a randomized independent group contingency to improve high school classwide behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718792663

34.

Lum

J. D.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Dufrene

B. A.

Radley

K. C.

Lynne

(2017). Effects of Tootling on classwide disruptive and academically engaged behavior of general-education high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 54(4), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22002

35.

Maggin

D. M.

Fallon

L. M.

Sanetti

L. M. H.

Ruberto

L. M.

(2012). Training paraeducators to implement a group contingency protocol: Direct and collateral effects. Behavioral Disorders, 38(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203800103

36.

Maggin

D. M.

Johnson

A. H.

Chafouleas

S. M.

Ruberto

L. M.

Berggren

(2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50(5), 625–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.06.001

37.

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

38.

Martens

B. K.

Witt

J. C.

Elliott

S. N.

Darveaux

D. X.

(1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037//0735-7028.16.2.191

39.

McCollum

D. C.

Teeters

J. B.

Moskal

K. R.

Woodward

M. J.

(2024). Does social support moderate the association between adverse childhood experiences and substance-related problems? Substance Use & Misuse, 59(2), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2023.2269570

40.

McKeown

Taylor

L. K.

(2018). Perceived peer and school norm effects on youth antisocial and prosocial behaviours through intergroup contact in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(3), 652–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12257

41.

Merrick

M. T.

Ford

D. C.

Ports

K. A.

Guinn

A. S.

(2018). Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences from the 2011-2014 behavioral risk factor surveillance system in 23 states. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(11), 1038–1044. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2537

42.

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

43.

Morselli

Passini

(2015). Measuring prosocial attitudes for future generations: The social generativity scale. Journal of Adult Development, 22, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-015-9210-9

44.

Mosley-Johnson

Garacci

Wagner

Mendez

Williams

J. S.

Egede

L. E.

(2019). Assessing the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and social well-being: United States Longitudinal Cohort 1995–2014. Quality of Life Research, 28, 907–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2054-6

45.

Nelson

S. K.

Layous

Cole

S. W.

Lyubomirsky

(2016). Do unto others or treat yourself? The effects of prosocial and self-focused behavior on psychological flourishing. Emotion, 16(6), 850–861. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000178

46.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

Sauber

S. B.

(2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006

47.

Pilling

Gould

Whittington

Taylor

Scott

(2013). Recognition, intervention, and management of antisocial behaviour and conduct disorders in children and young people: Summary of NICE-SCIE guidance. British Medical Journal, 346, Article f1298. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1298

48.

Ray

D. C.

Angus

Robinson

Kram

Tucker

Haas

McClintock

(2020). Relationship between adverse childhood experiences, social-emotional competencies, and problem behaviors among elementary-aged children. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling, 6(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/23727810.2020.1719354

49.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Casto

(1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800206

50.

Sewell

(2020). An adaption of the Good Behaviour Game to promote social skill development at the whole-class level. Educational Psychology in Practice, 36(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2019.1695583

51.

Sharafan

(2018). Tabata Timer: Interval timer workout timer HIIT (Version 3.4) [Mobile app]. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tabata-timer-and-hiit-timer/id664563975

52.

Smith

E. P.

Osgood

D. W.

Caldwell

L. C.

(2018). Promoting afterschool quality and positive youth development: Cluster randomized trial of the Pax Good Behavior Game. Prevention Science, 19, 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0820-2

53.

Spivak

A. L.

White

S. S.

Juvonen

Graham

(2015). Correlates of prosocial behaviors of students in ethnically and racially diverse middle schools. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 61(2), 236–263. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.2.0236

54.

Stratton

K. K.

Gadke

D. L.

Morton

R. C.

(2018). Using the good behavior game with high school special education students: Comparing student-and teacher-selected reinforcers. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 35(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2018.1509920

55.

Stremel

J. M.

Hawkins

R. O.

Collins

T. A.

Nabors

(2022). Positive behavior change: Effects of an intervention package for disruptive behavior in a specialized school setting. Psychology in the Schools, 59(3), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22634

56.

Tarlow

K. R.

(2016). Baseline corrected Tau calculator. http://www.ktarlow.com/stats/tau

57.

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

58.

Vannest

K. J.

Ninci

(2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(4), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038

59.

Vinh

N. A.

Thanh

D. T. M.

Long

P. D.

(2024). Parent, friend and teacher relationships buffer against the effect of adverse childhood experiences and mental disorders among adolescents in urban Vietnam. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 16, 100727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100727

60.

Von Cheong

Sinnott

Dahly

Kearney

P. M.

(2017). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and later-life depression: Perceived social support as a potential protective factor. BMJ Open, 7(9), Article e013228. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013228

61.

Wagner

A. C.

Monson

C. M.

Hart

T. L.

(2016). Understanding social factors in the context of trauma: Implications for measurement and intervention. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(8), 831–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2016.1152341

62.

Wahl

Hawkins

R. O.

Haydon

Marsicano

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

63.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook (Version 4.1). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks

64.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook (Version 5). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/Final_WWC-HandbookVer5_0-0-508.pdf

65.

Wiskow

K. M.

Urban-Wilson

Ishaya

DaSilva

Nieto

Silva

Lopez

(2021). A comparison of variations of the good behavior game on disruptive and social behaviors in elementary school classrooms. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 21(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000208

66.

Witt

J. C.

Elliott

S. N.

(1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In Kratochwill

T. R.

(Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251–288). Lawrence Erlbaum.

67.

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

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB