Behavior Intervention Rating Scale (BIRS; Elliot and Von Brock Treuting, 1991)
1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Slightly Disagree 4=Slightly Agree 5=Agree 6=Strongly Agree
This was an acceptable intervention for the students’ problem behavior(s). 1 2 3 4 5 6
Most teachers would find this intervention appropriate for behavior problems in addition to the one(s) described.
1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention proved effective in changing the students’ problem behavior(s). 1 2 3 4 5 6
I would suggest the use of this intervention to other teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The students’ behavior problem(s) were severe enough to warrant use of this intervention. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Most teachers would find this intervention suitable for the behavior problem(s) described. 1 2 3 4 5 6
I would be willing to use this in the classroom setting again. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention would not result in negative side-effects for students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention would be appropriate intervention for a variety of students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention is consistent with those I have used I have used in classroom settings. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention was a fair way to handle the students’ problem behavior(s). 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention is reasonable for the behavior problem(s) described. 1 2 3 4 5 6
I like the procedures used in the intervention. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention was a good way to handle these students’ behavior problem(s). 1 2 3 4 5 6
Overall, the intervention was beneficial for the students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention quickly improved the students’ behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention will produce a lasting improvement in the students’ behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention improved the students’ behavior to the point that it is not noticeably deviate from other students’ behavior.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Soon after using the intervention, the teacher noticed a positive change in the problem behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 6
The students’ behavior will remain at an improved level even after the intervention is discontinued.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Using the intervention should not only improve the students’ behavior in the classroom, but also in other settings (e.g., other classrooms, home).
1 2 3 4 5 6
When comparing these students with well-behaved peers before and after the use of the intervention, the students’ and the peer’s behaviors are more alike after using the intervention.
1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention produced enough improvement in the students’ behavior so the behavior no longer is a problem in the classroom.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Other behaviors related to the problem behavior(s) were also improved by the intervention. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Adapted from Elliott, S., & Von Brock Treuting, M. (1991). The behavior intervention rating scale: Development and validation of a
APPENDIX J – Children’s Intervention Rating Profile Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly Agree I liked the intervention 1 2 3 4 5 6 I think other students would like
the intervention
1 2 3 4 5 6
I liked the rewards used in the intervention 1 2 3 4 5 6 The intervention helped me do better in school 1 2 3 4 5 6 The intervention was fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 The intervention did not cause problems for me
1 2 3 4 5 6
The intervention did not cause problems for others
1 2 3 4 5 6
Adapted from Witt, J. C., & Elliot, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances
APPENDIX K – Observation Sheet
Teacher Initials: ______ Date: __________ Observer: ___________ IOA: _________
AEB: ____/120 = ____% DB: ____/120 = ____% OTB: ____/120 = ____% Taken and adapted from Ford, B.W. (2015). Reducing disruptive behavior in high school: The good behavior game. (Unpublished
masters thesis). University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS.
Interval AEB DB OTB Interval AEB DB OTB Interval AEB DB OTB
1.1 7.5 14.3 1.2 7.6 14.4 1.3 8.1 14.5 1.4 8.2 14.6 1.5 8.3 15.1 1.6 8.4 15.2 2.1 8.5 15.3 2.2 8.6 15.4 2.3 9.1 15.5 2.4 9.2 15.6 2.5 9.3 16.1 2.6 9.4 16.2 3.1 9.5 16.3 3.2 9.6 16.4 3.3 10.1 16.5 3.4 10.2 16.6 3.5 10.3 17.1 3.6 10.4 17.2 4.1 10.5 17.3 4.2 10.6 17.4 4.3 11.1 17.5 4.4 11.2 17.6 4.5 11.3 18.1 4.6 11.4 18.2 5.1 11.5 18.3 5.2 11.6 18.4 5.3 12.1 18.5 5.4 12.2 18.6 5.5 12.3 19.1 5.6 12.4 19.2 6.1 12.5 19.3 6.2 12.6 19.4 6.3 13.1 19.5 6.4 13.2 19.6 6.5 13.3 20.1 6.6 13.4 20.2 7.1 13.5 20.3 7.2 13.6 20.4 7.3 14.1 20.5 7.4 14.2 20.6
APPENDIX L – Baseline Integrity Checklist
Teacher Name: ______________ Observer: _______________
Date: _______________ IOA: _________________
Steps Yes No
1. Teacher divides class into teams 2. Teacher reviews the rules 3. Teacher awards points 4. Teacher provides rewards
Steps completed
APPENDIX M – Procedural Integrity for Teacher Training Checklist
Steps Yes No
1. The trainer explains the rules and procedures of the intervention to the teacher
2. The trainer reviews the teacher script with the teacher
3. The trainer helps the teacher develop and set up a Class Dojo account 4. The trainer role-plays the intervention with the teacher, allowing the
teacher to act as a student in the classroom.
5. The trainer role-plays the intervention with the teacher, allowing the teacher to practice implementing the steps of the game.
6. The trainer provides appropriate feedback contingent upon teacher mistakes during the role-play implementation session
7. The trainer insures the teacher has a full understanding of the intervention components
Steps completed
Percentage of steps completed
Taken and adapted from Ford, W.B. (2014). An analysis of a variation of an interdependent group contingency intervention: The
good behavior game in high school classrooms implementing SW-PBIS. Unpublished masters thesis. The University of Southern
APPENDIX N – Teacher Treatment Integrity Checklist (GBG)
Teacher Name: _______________ Observer: _____________
Date: _______ IOA: _________________
Integrity Steps Yes No N/A
1. Teacher announces the start of the game 2. Teacher divides the class into two teams 3. Teacher displays the teams on Class Dojo 4. Rules poster is posted
5. Teacher reviews rules with the class 6. Criterion level is told to the students
7. Teacher reminds students of how to win the game
8. Teacher gives points contingent upon following the rules 9. Teacher announces when the game has ended
10. Teacher correctly determines the winning team(s) 11. Teacher draws a reward slip and announces the reward to
the students
12. Teacher allows winning team(s) to access the reward Steps completed
Percentage of Steps completed
Taken and adapted from Ford, W.B. (2014). An analysis of a variation of an interdependent group contingency intervention: The
good behavior game in high school classrooms implementing SW-PBIS. Unpublished masters thesis. The University of Southern
APPENDIX O – Teacher Treatment Integrity (Maintenance)
Teacher Name: _____________ Observer: _______________
Date: ____ IOA: ___________________
Steps Yes No
1. Teacher announces the game will not be played and rewards will not be provided
2. Teacher reviews the rules 3. Teacher does not award points
4. Teacher does not divide class into teams 5. Teacher does not provide rewards
Steps completed
REFERENCES
Barnett, D.W., Daly, E. J., III, Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E., Jr. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically-based special service decisions from increasing and decreasing intensity single case designs. Journal of Special Education, 38, 66−79. Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. W. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of
individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in the classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119-124.
Bellini, S., Akullian, J., & Hopf, A. (2007). Increasing social engagement in young children with autism spectrum disorders using video self-modeling. School
Psychology Review, 36, 80-90.
Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., & Squires, J.K. (2007). Assessment and implementation of positive behavior support in preschools. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 27, 174-192.
Bidell, M. P., & Deacon, R. E. (2010). School counselors connecting the dots between disruptive classroom behavior and youth self-concept. Journal of School
Counseling, 8. Retrieved from http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v8n9.pdf
Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M. D., Zaini, S., Zhang, N., & Vannest, K. (2015).
Promoting positive behavior using the good behavior game: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1098300715592355
Briesch, A. M., Hemphill, E. M., Volpe, R. J., & Daniels, B. (2014). An evaluation of observational methods for measuring response to classwide intervention. School
Carr, E. G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J. I., Kemp, D. C, Smith, C. E., & McLaughlin, D. M. (1999). Comprehensive multisituational intervention for problem behavior in the community. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
1, 5-25.
Christ, T. J. & Christ, J. A. (2006). Application of an interdependent group contingency mediated by an automated feedback device: An intervention across three high school classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 78-90.
Cicchetti, D.V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284-290.
ClassDojo (2015). ClassDojo. Retrieved October 10, 2015, from http://www.classdojo.com
Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education (2006, August). Report on the Teacher Needs Survey. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Center for Psychology in the Schools and Education.
Conroy, M. A., & Brown, W. H. (2004). Early identification, prevention, and early intervention with young children at risk for emotional/behavioral disorders: Issues, trends, and a call for action. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 224–236. Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A. L., & Marsh, S. (2008) Classwide
interventions: Effective instruction makes a difference. TEACHING Exceptional
Children, 40, 24 – 31.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Dadakhodjaeva K. (2015). The effects and maintenance of the good behavior game on
classwide and target students’ disruptive behavior and academic engagement in
kindergarten classrooms using SW-PBIS. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of Southern Mississippi. Hattiesburg, MS.
Darch, C. B., & Thorpe, H. W. (1977). The principal game: A group consequence procedure to increase classroom on-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 341-347.
Darveaux, D. X. (1984). The good behavior game plus merit: Controlling disruptive behavior and improving student motivation. School Psychology Review, 13, 510-514.
Dillon, M. M. (2016). The tootling intervention with ClassDojo: Effects on classwide
disruptive behavior and academic engagement in an upper elementary school setting (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi,
Hattiesburg, MS.
Dunlop, T. (2013). Why it works: you can't just `PBIS' someone. Education Digest, 79, 38-40.
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, 43-51.
Fishbein, J. E. & Wasik, B. H. (1981). Effect of the good behavior game on disruptive library behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 89-93.
Ford, W. B. (2014). An Analysis of a variation of an interdependent group contingency
SW-PBIS. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Southern Mississippi.
Hattiesburg, MS.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in
U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. Journal of Special
Education, 16, 101-110.
Harvey, M. T., May, M. E., & Kennedy, C. H. (2004). Nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs and the evaluation of educational systems. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 13, 267-276.
Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Evaluation of a targeted intervention within a schoolwide system of behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 225-240.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252.
Horner, R. H., & Billingsley, F. F. (1988). The effect of competing behavior on the generalization and maintenance of adaptive behavior in applied settings. In R. J. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-
style changes in applied settings, (pp. 197-220). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Koegel, R. L., Carr, E. G., Sailor W., Anderson, J., et al. (1990). Toward a technology of “nonaversive” behavioral support. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 125–132.
Horner, R. H., Todd, A., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L., Sugai, G., & Boland, J. (2004). The School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school- wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 3– 12.
Hunt, B. M. (2012). Using the good behavior game to decrease disruptive behavior
while increasing academic engagement with a headstart population. (Doctoral
dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS.
Johnson, M. L. (2012). Using student response system (SRS) to reduce off-task behavior
of students with behavior problems. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Rowan
University, Glassboro, New Jersey.
Kellam, S. G., Mackenzie, A. C., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Wang, W., Petras, H., & Wilcox, H. C. (2011). The good behavior game and the future of prevention and treatment. Addiction Science and Clinical Practice, 6, 73-84.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. (1996). Positive behavioral support:
Including people with difficult behavior in the community. Baltimore, MD: Paul
H. Brookes.
Kratochwill, T. R. (2009). Classroom management teachers modules. American Psychological Association, Retrieved from
Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation in applied settings:
An individual guide. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban classroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior.
Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 85-98.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–614. Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & O’Neill, K. (2015). Group contingency interventions with
children—1980-2010: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0145445514554393
Littow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 4, 182–188.
Lynne, S. (2014). Investigating the use of a positive variation of the good behavior game
in a high school (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University of Southern
Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS.
Lynne, S. (2016). Implementing a positive variation of the good behavior game with the
use of a computer-based program (Doctoral dissertation). The University of
Maag, J. W. (2002). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in schools. Exceptional Children, 61, 173-186.
Maclean-Blevins, A., & Muilenburg, L. (2013). Using class dojo to support student self- regulation. Jan Herrington et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, (1684-1689).
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 153–184.
Martin, M., & Norwich, B. (1991). The integration of research findings on classroom management for use in teacher education. British Educational Research Journal,
17, 333-351.
McCormack, A. (1997). Classroom management problems, strategies and influences in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 3, 102-115.
McGoey, K. E., Schneider, D. L., Rezzetano, K. M., Prodan T., & Tankersley, M. (2010). Classwide intervention to manage disruptive behavior in the kindergarten
classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 247–261.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (n.d.). www.nclb.org. Accessed August 10, 2015.
Odom, S. L., Chandler, L. K., Ostrosky, M., McConnell, S. R., & Reaney, S. R. (1992). Fading teacher prompts from peer-initiation interventions for young children with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 307–317.
Parker, R., & Vannest, K. (2009). An improved effect size for single case research: Non- overlap of all pairs (NAP). Behavior Therapy, 40, 357-367.
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining non-overlap and trend for single case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy. 42, 284–299. Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom
serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review,
32, 271–284.
Radley, K. C., Dart, E. H., & O’Handley, R. D. (in press). The Quiet Classroom Game: A class-wide intervention to increase academic engagement and reduce disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review.
Rathvon, N. (2008). Effective school interventions: Evidence-based strategies for
improving student outcomes (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Reinke, W. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Merrell, K. (2008). The classroom check-up: A class wide teacher consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 37, 315–332.
Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont, M. (2013). Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing sw-pbis: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 39-50.
Riley-Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M., & Briesch, A. M. (2007). A school practitioner's guide to using Daily Behavior Report Cards to monitor interventions. Psychology
in the Schools, 44, 77-89.
Robertshaw, C. S., & Hiebert, H. D. (1973). The astronaut game: A group contingency applied to a first grade classroom. SALT: School Applications of Learning Theory,
Rock, M. L., & Thead, B. K. (2007). The effects of fading a strategic self-monitoring intervention on students’ academic engagement, accuracy, and productivity.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 389–412.
Rusch, F. R., & Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Toward a methodology of withdrawal designs for the assessment of response maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
14, 131–140.
Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., Lefebvre, D., & Rapp, N. (1990). Effects of self-evaluation on the independent work skills of preschool children with disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 56, 540–549.
Sanetti, L. M. H., Long, A. C. J., Byron, J. R., Kratochwill, T. R., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2015). Increasing teacher treatment integrity of behavior support plans through consultation and implementation planning. School Psychology Review, 53, 209- 229.
Sattler, J., & Hoge, R. (2006). Assessment of children: Behavioral, social, and clinical
foundations (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
Scott, T. M., & Barrett, S. B. (2004). Using staff and student time engaged in disciplinary procedures to evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 6, 21-27.
Skinner, C. H., Cashwell, C. S., & Dunn, M. S. (1996). Independent and interdependent group contingencies: Smoothing the rough waters. Special Services in the
Schools, 12, 61-78.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Introduction to the special series on positive behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 130-135.
Supaporn, S., Dodds, P., & Griffin, L. (2003). An ecological analysis of middle school misbehavior through student and teacher perspectives. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 22, 328–349.
Swain, J. J., Allard, G. B., & Holborn, S. W. (1982). The good tooth-brushing game: A school-based dental hygiene program for increasing the tooth-brushing
effectiveness of children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 171-176. Swiezy, N. B., Matson, J. L., & Box, P. (1992). The good behavior game: A token
reinforcement system for preschoolers. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 14, 21-32.
Tanol, G., Johnson, L., McComas, J., & Cote, E. (2010). Responding to rule violations or rule following: A comparison of two versions of the Good Behavior Game with kindergarten students. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 337–355.
Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The good behavior game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225-253.
Thorne, S., & Kamps, D. (2008). The effects of a group contingency intervention on academic engagement and problem behavior of at-risk students. Behavior
Analysis in Practice, 1, 12-18.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Educational Technology Plan 2010. Retrieved August 10, 2015, from.
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 403–411.
Vogelsberg, T., & Rusch, F. R. (1979). Training three severely handicapped young adults to walk, look and cross uncontrolled intersections. AAESPH Review, 4, 264-273. Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2003). Heading off disruptive behavior.
American Educator, 27, 6-21.
Witt, J., & Elliot, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology, 4, 251-288.
Wright, R. A., & McCurdy, B. (2011). Class-wide positive behavior support and group contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the good behavior game. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 173-180.
Zuckerman, E. L. (2005). Clinician’s thesaurus: The guide to conducting interviews and