The Good Behaviour Game

INTERVENTION: The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is one of the most popular behaviour management systems for primary‐aged children. It has an extensive evidence base supporting its use. Since its initial development over 40 years ago multiple trials across the United States, the Netherlands and Belgium have attested to its effectiveness in promoting a range of positive outcomes (e.g. increased pro‐social behaviour, reduced substance abuse, aggression and criminality). This has led to a number of endorsements from agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (who have included it on their National Registry of Evidence‐Based Programmes and Practices) and the University of Colorado Blueprints For Healthy Youth Development (who have classified it as a ‘promising programme’ in their database). The GBG itself can be described as an, “interdependent group‐oriented contingency management procedure”. Pupils in a given class are divided into mixed teams with up to 7 members. Strata can include a range of factors such as behaviour, academic ability, and gender. The teams then attempt to win the game as a means to access particular privileges/rewards. During the game period, the class teacher records the number of infractions to the following four rules among the teams: 1. We will work quietly 2. We will be polite to others 3. We will get out of seats with permission 4. We will follow directions The game is ‘won’ by the team with the lowest number of infractions when it ends, although any team with fewer than four infractions also accesses the agreed reward. Over the course of implementation of the GBG, there is a natural evolution in terms of the types of rewards used (from tangible rewards such as stickers to more abstract rewards such as free time), how long the game is played for (from 10 minutes to a whole lesson), at what frequency (from three times a week to every day), and when rewards are given (at the end of the game, end of the day, and at end of the CONDITION: Behaviour in the classroom – concentration, disruptive and pro‐social ; Mental and Behavioural Disorders INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1. Our target population are children aged 7‐8 years of age (Year 3) attending said primary schools at the beginning of the 2015/16 school year 2. All children who are on a given school’s full‐time roll in each of the Year 3 classes at the start of the main trial will be considered as potential participants 3. Parental consent will need to be provided for each potential pupil to participate PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome measure for this study is children’s attainment in reading. The primary outcome will be assessed at pre‐test (T1), post‐test (T3) and at follow‐up (T4 and T5). The primary outcome measure at T1 will be derived from the National Pupil Database (see below). At T3, T4 and T5 it will be administered via on‐site whole‐class testing. ; ; The baseline period for the trial coincides with the end of Key Stage 1 teacher assessments for the study cohort and so children’s KS1 National Curriculum reading levels will be used as the pre‐test covariate.; ; Post‐test assessment of reading will utilize the Hodder Group Reading Test (www.hoddertests.co.uk). This paper‐based measure produces National Curriculum levels, reading ages and standardized scores. It can be administered in a whole‐class/group context and takes 30‐35 minutes to complete, minimizing the data burden for participating schools. SECONDARY OUTCOME: 1. Pupil secondary outcome measures are children’s behaviour which will be assessed at pre‐test (T1), after 12 months (T2), and at post‐test (T3) and at follow‐up at (T4) and (T5) and children’s health‐related outcomes which will be assessed at post‐test (T3) and follow‐up (T4 and T5) ; 2. Teacher secondary measures are teacher efficacy in classroom management, classroom stress, and retention which will be assessed at pre‐test (T1), after 12 months (T2), and at post‐test (T3); ; Behaviour:; Children’s behaviour will be assessed using the Teacher Observation of Children’s Adaptation checklist (TOCA‐C). At T1 only we will also employ the teacher‐rated conduct problems subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) in order to identify our at‐risk sample. ; ; Health‐related outcomes:; Children’s health‐related outcomes will be assessed by a host of measures including:; 1. Mental health (Me and My School scale, MMS ‐ Deighton et al, 2013; emotional symptoms and conduct problems subscales of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, SDQ ‐ Goodman, 1997). ; 2. Health‐related quality of life (Child Health Utilities 9D – CHU9D; Stevens, 2012). ; 3. Resilience (Child and Youth Resilience Measure 12 – CYRM; Liebernberg, Ungar & Leblanc, 2013). ; 4. Bullying (Bullying Behaviour and Experience Scale ‐ BBES; Fink, Deighton, Humphrey & Wolpert, 2015; 5. School attendance (% half‐days missed due to unauthorized absence) and exclusions (fixed‐term and permanent), derived from the National Pupil Database. ; ; All proposed outcome measures have been selected above alternatives on the basis of their brevity, ease of administration and scoring, age appropriateness, psychometric properties, and use in similar or related research. Administration of the measures will be randomly counterbalanced to prevent order/fatigue effects.; ; Teacher efficacy in classroom management:; Teacher efficacy in classroom management will be assessed using the 4‐item subscale of the short‐form Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TES; Tschannen‐Moran & Hoy, 2001). ; ; Teacher classroom stress:; Teacher stress will be captured using the 3‐item classroom stress subscale of the Teacher Stress Inventory (TSI; Boyle, Borg, Falzon, & Baglioni, 1995). ; ; Teacher retention:; Teacher retention will be assessed through the use of a single item measure, as follows: “How likely are you to leave the teaching profession in the next 5 years?” Participating teachers will respond on a 6‐item scale (Definitely/Highly Likely/Likely/Unlikely/Highly Unlikely/Definitely Not).