Good Behavior Game

The Good Behavior Game was first used in 1967 in Baldwin, Kansas by Muriel Saunders, who was a new teacher in a forth-grade classroom. Muriel Saunders, Harriet Barrish (a graduate student at the University of Kansas), and the professor and co-founder of applied-behavior analysis, the late Montrose Wolfe, co-created the Good Behavior Game in 1969. Today, this study is among the most cited behavior change studies in the world. In 2009, the Institute of Medicine Report on the Prevention of Mental, Emotional and Behavioral Disorders as one of the most powerful prevention strategies that classroom teachers can use.

Because of the name of the strategy, many assume assume the game reinforces "good behavior." That is technically not correct; the Game actually reinforces voluntary control over attention and reduces the susceptibility to accidental negative reinforcement from peers in the classroom. The Game has multiple active ingredients or evidence-based kernels. The Game has been scientifically proven to work for preschool-age children all the way through 12th grade students.

The Game works by positive peer pressure of 2-to-5 classroom teams, who work together reduce inattentive, disturbing, disruptive, and destructive behaviors that interfere with learning and success. When the teams succeed, all the "winners" earn brief intrinsic activity rewards based on Premack's principle. While the teacher can define the behaviors to be reduced, the Game can be just as effective when student students define the behaviors to be reduced to make a better learning environment. Embry argues that Game is more likely to be acceptable, adopted, and sustained by teachers and students, when students actively participate in setting up the "rules" of the game.

Students teams win the Game by having very low rates of disturbing, disruptive, destructive, or inattentive behaviors. The teacher must respond to such problematic behaviors neutrally and unemotionally, and the person who committed the breach is not called out or given "consequences." Rather, the team has a point against it, not the individual. Teams who have less than a criterion of low points, win.

The Game is used during normal instruction—such as during lectures, seat-work, cooperative leaning, and even during transitions. When children and their teacher are first learning to play the Game, it is important to play during simple activities so that the teacher can watch closely and the students have fewer distractions. As the students succeed, the times and activities that the Game can be used expand.

Procedural Instructions

The process of introducing the Good Behavior Game into a classroom is a relatively simple procedure. There are five steps involved in putting the Good Behavior Game into practice:

(1) Decide when to schedule the game. The teacher needs to decide during which content area(s) the game will be played and for how long.

(2) Clearly define the negative behaviors that will be scored during the game. Teachers have successfully used the Good Behavior Game to target three classes of behaviors: out-of-seat behavior, talking-out behavior, and disruptive behavior. According to Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969), out-of-seat behavior is defined as "leaving the seat and/or seat position during a lesson or scooting the desk without permission" and talking-out behavior is defined as "talking or whispering without permission" (pp. 120). Disruptive behavior can be subjective without a clear definition that includes examples and non-examples of the behavior. For example, disruptive behavior may be defined as any behavior that disrupts classroom instruction. Knocking on a table, looking around the room, tearing up paper, passing notes, or playing with toys at one's desk would all be scored as disruptive behaviors.

(3) Decide upon appropriate daily and weekly rewards for the winning team(s). Teachers need to select rewards that are motivating to students, but should consider rewards that fit naturally into the context of the classroom. Some examples of rewards are free time, posting the winners' names on the board, providing a special badge, and lining up first for lunch.

(4) Introduce the Good Behavior Game to the class. Teachers should conduct a whole-class meeting to explain the procedures and rules of the game. The teacher can provide clear examples of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors before implementing the procedure.

(5) Put the game into effect in the classroom. Once the game is in place, the teacher provides the typical classroom instruction and routines. However, if a student displays an inappropriate behavior, the teacher needs to publicly record the point on the board or chart paper.

Summary of Literature

Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969) evaluated the effectiveness of the Good Behavior Game on reducing out-of-seat behavior and talking-out behavior with 24 fourth-grade students. Seven of the students had been referred by the teacher to the principal for a number of disruptive behaviors. It was also noted that the classroom was lacking a general behavior management plan. Prior to implementation, the teacher presented a short overview of the game to explain the instructional times when the game would be in effect (i.e. math period), rules, and rewards. When the experimental conditions were altered, the teacher provided a new explanation of the change(s). The researchers used a reversal and multiple baseline experimental design with four phases: (1) math baseline and reading baseline, (2) math game and reading baseline, (3) math reversal and reading game, and (4) math game and reading game. The results indicate a significant decrease in disruptive behavior during both math and reading class when the Good Behavior Game was in effect. Talking-out behavior decreased from 96% during baseline to 19% when the game was applied during the math period. Similarly, the students' out-of-seat behavior was reduced from 82% of the scored intervals to 9% during the intervention. Both teams won on all but three occasions. Evidence of generalization and maintenance was not reported.

Harris and Sherman (1973) replicated the Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969) study and examined the effectiveness of the Good Behavior Game with one fifth-grade classroom and one sixth-grade classroom. Each teacher attended a 15-minute meeting prior to implementing the procedures in his or her classroom. During the meeting, the researchers defined disruptive behavior, explained the recording system, and reviewed the procedures of the Good Behavior Game. After baseline data was collected, the teachers divided the students into two teams, discussed the rules of the game, and outlined the contingencies. The reward was a 10- minute early dismissal at the end of the school day. Again, the researchers recorded talking and out-of-seat behavior during 30-minute observation sessions. Each session was divided into 30 one-minute intervals. If one or more of the children exhibited the disruptive behavior, the interval was scored as containing disruptive behavior. In addition to collecting data on disruptive behavior, the researchers evaluated the students' academic performance during two math periods in the fifth-grade classroom. In the sixth-grade classroom, several experimental manipulations (i.e., eliminating the consequences, changing the maximum number of marks needed to win, eliminating feedback, and keeping the class intact) were performed to identify which components of the game were the most effective in reducing disruptive behavior. The findings show that implementing the Good Behavior Game successfully reduced disruptive out-of-seat and talking behavior. Each of the following procedural components contributed to its effectiveness: permission to leave school early, the number of marks chosen as a criterion, and the division of students into teams. Furthermore, a reduction in problem behavior resulted in slightly higher accuracy rates on the independent math tasks.

In 2007, Lannie and McCurdy extended the research on the Good Behavior Game by evaluating its impact in an urban classroom serving a population of students characterized by a high level of poverty and also evaluating the effects of the game on teacher behavior, especially teacher praise. The study was conducted in a first-grade classroom with 22 students and examined the effects of the Good Behavior Game on on-task and disruptive behaviors, as well as teacher response statements. The study used similar procedures as detailed in the prior studies but employed an ABAB withdrawal design. Each observation session was a 30-minute math period. Results show that students’ on-task behavior increased while disruptive behavior decreased. The number of teacher praise statements remained at near zero levels across conditions.

Strengths and Limitations

Classroom management is an important component of effective teaching. The Good Behavior Game is an empirically-based group behavior management strategy. Multiple studies have highlighted the effectiveness of the Good Behavior Game on reducing distracting and disruptive student behavior in a variety of school settings, including regular and special education classrooms, the school library, and with a wide-range of grade levels. However, in each study, one or more students discontinued their participation in the group-contingency. This prompted the researchers to create a third group for the students that no longer wanted to participate. Over time, if the rewards and consequences were altered to be more motivating, these students requested to be placed back in their original teams. Additionally, while providing visual feedback did not impact the effectiveness of the Game when used in the no-team condition (Harris & Sherman, 1973), it may be sufficient for maintaining low levels of disruptive behavior in the team condition because the last mark before criterion was reached led to high rates of disruptive behavior. Perhaps if students were unaware of the number of points they had accumulated, they would be less likely to engage in disruptive behavior.

Alternative Suggestions

Rather than focusing on choosing a small number of undesirable behaviors, have the students select several desirable behaviors instead. This way they practice, observe and report the behaviors the teacher has deemed important Every time the teacher "catches" a student engaging in one of the predetermined appropriate behaviors, a tally or token is added to the students bank. Simultaneously the teacher can then "earn points" for catching the students engaging in predetermined undesired behaviors. The goal here is to have the students tally more points for their desirable behavior than the teacher will tally for undesirable behavior. You can even allow the students to catch each other engaging in those predetermined behaviors to earn points. This gets them looking for and modeling desired behavior. Don't be overly concerned in the beginning if this distracts from learning, especially if behavior change is needed immediately and sorely in the classroom. Be sure to shape course of the game as time progresses over a few days and weeks. Allowing them to win and setting them up for success is key in the beginning so that they associate this game with rewards. Ultimately, if the students are able to tally more points than the teachers, a simple contingency is set up (i.e. An extra 5 minutes of recess). If the teacher happens to win (this should not be all that frequent) then the students owe their teacher an undesirable course of action (i.e. an extra five minutes of math problems).

Further reading

Aos, S., Lee, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Klima, T., Miller, M., . . . Burley, M. (2011). Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve Statewide Outcomes. (July), 8. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/11-07-1201.pdf

Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119-124.

Bostow, D., & Geiger, O. G. (1976). Good behavior game: A replication and systematic analysis with a second grade class. SALT: School Applications of Learning Theory, 8(2), 18-27.

Boyd, R. C., Cooley, M. R., Lambert, S. F., & Ialongo, N. S. (2003). First-grade child risk behaviors for community violence exposure in middle school. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 297-314.

Bradshaw, C. P., Zmuda, J. H., Kellam, S., & Ialongo, N. (2009). Longitudinal Impact of Two Universal Preventive Interventions in First Grade on Educational Outcomes in High School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 926-937.

Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., . . . Vitaro, F. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 222.

Brown, C. H., Kellam, S. G., Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., & Ford, C. (2007). Prevention of aggressive behavior through middle school using a first-grade classroom-based intervention Recognition and prevention of major mental and substance use disorders. (pp. 347–369): Arlington, VA, US: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

Darveaux, D. X. (1984). The Good Behavior Game Plus Merit: Controlling disruptive behavior and improving student motivation. School Psychology Review, 13(4), 510-514.

Dion, E., Roux, C., Landry, D., Fuchs, D., Wehby, J., & Dupere, V. (2011). Improving attention and preventing reading difficulties among low-income first-graders: a randomized study. Prev Sci, 12(1), 70-79. doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0182-5

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

Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Greenberg, M. T., Embry, D., Poduska, J. M., & Ialongo, N. S. (2010). Integrated models of school-based prevention: Logic and theory. Psychology in the Schools, 47(1), 71-88.

Donaldson, J. M., Vollmer, T. R., Krous, T., Downs, S., & Berard, K. P. (2011). AN EVALUATION OF THE GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME IN KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOMS. J Appl Behav Anal, 44(3), 605-609. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-605

Dorval, B., McKinney, J. D., & Feagans, L. (1982). Teacher interaction with learning disabled children and average achievers. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 7(3), 317.

Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., Stoolmiller, M., & Fetrow, R. A. (2003). Outcomes During Middle School for an Elementary School-Based Preventive Intervention for Conduct Problems: Follow-Up Results From a Randomized Trial. Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 535.

Embry, D. D. (2002). The Good Behavior Game: a best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 5(4), 273-297.

Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E., & Atha, H. (1996). Peacebuilders: a theoretically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5 Suppl), 91-100.

Fishbein, J. E., & Wasik, B. H. (1981). Effect of the good behavior game on disruptive library behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14(1), 89-93.

Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Liau, A. K., Guo, S., Powell, K. E., Atha, H., . . . Embry, D. (2003). Initial behavior outcomes for the peacebuilders universal school-based violence prevention program. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 292-308.

Furr-Holden, C. D., Ialongo, N. S., Anthony, J. C., Petras, H., & Kellam, S. G. (2004). Developmentally inspired drug prevention: middle school outcomes in a school-based randomized prevention trial. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 73(2), 149-158.

Grandy, G. S., Madsen, C. H., & De Mersseman, L. M. (1973). The effects of individual and interdependent contingencies on inappropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, . 10(4), 488-493.

Harris, V. W., & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Use and analysis of the "good behavior game" to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, . 6(3), 405-417.

Hegerle, D. R., Kesecker, M. P., & Couch, J. V. (1979). A behavior game for the reduction of inappropriate classroom behaviors. School Psychology Review, 8, 339-343.

Huizink, A. C., van Lier, P. A. C., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2008). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms mediate early-onset smoking. [doi:10.1159/000173003]. European Addiction Research, 15(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1159/000173003

Ialongo, N., Edelsohn, G., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Crockett, L., & Kellam, S. (1996). The course of aggression in first-grade children with and without comorbid anxious symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24(4), 445-456.

Ialongo, N., Edelsohn, G., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Crockett, L., & Kellam, S. (1996). Social and cognitive impairment in first-grade children with anxious and depressive symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(1), 15-24.

Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S. (2001). The distal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder in early adolescence. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 9(3), 146-160.

Ialongo, N., Werthamer, L., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Wang, S., & Lin, Y. (1999). Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and antisocial behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(5), 599-641.

Kellam, S., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J., Ialongo, N., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P., . . . Wilcox, H. C. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes,. Drug & Alcohol Dependence(Special Issue), 24.

Kellam, S., Ialongo, N., Brown, H., Laudolff, J., Mirsky, A., Anthony, B., . . . Dolan, L. (1989). Attention problems in first grade and shy and aggressive behaviors as antecedents to later heavy or inhibited substance use. NIDA Research Monograph, 95, 368-369.

Kellam, S. G., & Anthony, J. C. (1998). Targeting early antecedents to prevent tobacco smoking: Findings from an epidemiologically based randomized field trial. American Journal of Public Health, 88(10), 1490-1495.

Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., & Fleming, J. P. (1983). Relationship of first-grade social adaptation to teenage drinking, drug-use, and smoking. Digest of Alcoholism Theory & Application, 2(2), 20-24.

Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165-185.

Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1999). "The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school": Erratum. Development & Psychopathology, 11(1), 193.

Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Hendricks Brown, C., & Ialongo, N. (2000). Erratum: The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Development & Psychopathology, 12(1), 107.

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. Addict Sci Clin Pract, 6(1), 73-84.

Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N., & Mayer, L. S. (1994). The course and malleability of aggressive behavior from early first grade into middle school: Results of a developmental epidemiology-based preventive trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 259-281.

Kellam, S. G., Reid, J., & Balster, R. L. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior program in first and second grades on young adult problem outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95(Suppl1), S1-S4. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.006

Kleinman, K. E., & Saigh, P. A. (2011). The Effects of the Good Behavior Game on the Conduct of Regular Education New York City High School Students. Behavior Modification, 35(1), 95-105. doi: 10.1177/0145445510392213

Kosiec, L. E., Czernicki, M. R., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1986). The Good Behavior Game: A replication with consumer satisfaction in two regular elementary school classrooms. Techniques, 2(1), 15-23.

Krug, E. G., Brener, N. D., Dahlberg, L. L., Ryan, G. W., & Powell, K. E. (1997). The impact of an elementary school-based violence prevention program on visits to the school nurse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 13(6), 459-463.

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 & Treatment of Children, 30(1), 85-98.

Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A. C., Onghena, P., & Colpin, H. (2010). The role of teacher behavior management in the development of disruptive behaviors: An intervention study with the good behavior game. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 38(6), 869-882. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9411-4

Long, J. D., & Williams, R. L. (1973). The comparative effectiveness of group and individually contingent free time with inner-city junior high school students1. J Appl Behav Anal, 6(3), 465-474. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1973.6-465

Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Lengua, L. J., & McCauley, E. (2004). Predicting depression, social phobia, and violence in early adulthood from childhood behavior problems. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(3), 307.

McCurdy, B. L., Lannie, A. L., & Barnabas, E. (2009). Reducing disruptive behavior in an urban school cafeteria: An extension of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of School Psychology, 47(1), 39-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.003

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(3), 247-261. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2010.495916

McParland, M. Q. (2003). Treating the disruptive adolescent: Finding the real self behind oppositional defiant disorders. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 67(4), 373.

Medland, M. B., & Stachnik, T. J. (1972). Good-behavior game: A replication and systematic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, . 5(1), 45-51.

Miller, T. R., & Hendrie, D. (2008). Substance Abuse Prevention Dollars and Cents: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 07-4298).

Patrick, C. A., Ward, P., & Crouch, D. W. (1998a). Effects of holding students accountable for social behaviors during volleyball games in elementary physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(2), 143-156.

Petras, H., Kellam, S., Brown, C. H., Muthen, B., Ialongo, N., & Poduska, J. (2008). Developmental epidemiological courses leading to antisocial personality disorder and violent and criminal behavior: Effects by young adulthood of a universal preventive intervention in first- and second-grade classrooms. Drug & Alcohol Dependence(Special Issue), 15.

Phillips, D., & Christie, F. (1986). Behaviour management in a secondary school classroom: Playing the game. Maladjustment & Therapeutic Education, 4(1), 47-53.

Power, T. J., Hess, L. E., & Bennett, D. S. (1995). The acceptability of interventions for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder among elementary and middle school teachers. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 16(4), 238-243.

Reid, J. B., Eddy, J. M., Fetrow, R. A., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and immediate impacts of a preventive intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(4), 483.

Ruiz-Olivares, R., Pino, M. J., & Herruzo, J. (2010). Reduction of disruptive behaviors using an intervention based on the good behavior game and the say-do-report correspondence. Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1046-1058. doi: 10.1002/pits.20523

Saigh, P. A., & Umar, A. M. (1983). The effects of a good behavior game on the disruptive behavior of Sundanese elementary school students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16(3), 339-344.

Salend, S. J., Reynolds, C. J., & Coyle, E. M. (1989). Individualizing the Good Behavior Game across type and frequency of behavior with emotionally disturbed adolescents. Behavior Modification, 13(1), 108-126. Schaeffer, C. M., Petras, H., Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., & Kellam, S. (2003). Modeling

Storr, C. L., Ialongo, N. S., Kellam, S. G., & Anthony, J. C. (2002). A randomized controlled trial of two primary intervention strategies to prevent early onset tobacco smoking. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 66(1), 51.

Swain, J. J., Allard, G. B., & Holborn, S. W. (1982). The good toothbrushing game: a school-based dental hygiene program for increasing the toothbrushing effectiveness of children. J Appl Behav Anal, 15(1), 171-176. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1982.15-171

Swiezy, N. B., Matson, J. L., & Box, P. (1992). The Good Behavior Game: A token reinforcement system for preschoolers. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 14(3), 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. J Sch Psychol, 48(5), 337-355. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001

Tingstrom, D. H. (1994). The Good Behavior Game: An investigation of teachers' acceptance. Psychology in the Schools, 31(1), 57-65.

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

van Lier, P. A. C., Huizink, A., & Vuijk, P. (2011). The role of friends' disruptive behavior in the development of children's tobacco experimentation: Results from a preventive intervention study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 39(1), 45-57. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9446-6

van Lier, P. A. C., Muthen, B. O., van der Sar, R. M., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2004). Preventing Disruptive Behavior in Elementary Schoolchildren: Impact of a Universal Classroom-Based Intervention. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 467-478.

Warner, S. P., Miller, F. D., & Cohen, M. W. (1977). Relative effectiveness of teacher attention and the good behavior game in modifying disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(4), 737.

Werthamer-Larsson, L., Kellam, S. G., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Effect of first-grade classroom environment on shy behavior, aggressive behavior, and concentration problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(4), 585-602.

Wilcox, H. C., Kellam, S., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J., Ialongo, N., Wang, W., & Anthony, J. (2008). The impact of two universal randomized first- and second-grade classroom interventions on young adult suicide ideation and attempts. Drug & Alcohol Dependence(Special Issue), 14.

Witvliet, M., van Lier, P. A. C., Cuijpers, P., & Koot, H. M. (2009). Testing links between childhood positive peer relations and externalizing outcomes through a randomized controlled intervention study. [doi:10.1037/a0014597]. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(5), 905-915. doi: 10.1037/a0014597

Wright, R. A., & McCurdy, B. L. (2011). Classwide Positive Behavior Support and Group Contingencies: Examining a Positive Variation of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. doi: 10.1177/1098300711421008

Yan, W., Dorothy, C. B., Hanno, P., Elizabeth, A. S., Fernando, A. W., Sharon, F. L., . . . Nicholas, S. I. (2009). Depressed mood and the effect of two universal first grade preventive interventions on survival to the first tobacco cigarette smoked among urban youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 100(3), 194-203.