Young Adult Outcomes from the Good Behavior Game: a classroom behavior management program applied in 1st and 2nd Grades

Sheppard G. Kellam, M.D.AIR Center for Integrating Education and Prevention Research in Schools

Presentation at SREEDecember 11, 2006

Funding since 1984 by National Institutes of Health: NIDA, NIMH, NICHD

Co-Authors

Sheppard G. Kellam, M.D. 1,4

C. Hendricks Brown, Ph.D. 2

Jeanne Poduska, Sc.D. 1

Carla Ford, Ph.D. 1

Amy Windham, Ph.D. 1

Natalie L. Keegan 1

John Reid, Ph.D. 3

Nicholas Ialongo, Ph.D. 4

Hanno Petras, Ph.D. 6

Bonnie Copeland, Ph.D. 5

Linda Chinnia, 5

1 American Institutes for Research, Center for Integrating Education and Prevention Research in Schools2 University of South Florida, Prevention Science Methodology Group

3 Oregon Social Learning Center4 Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health

5 Baltimore City Public School System6University off Maryland

The Baltimore Education and Prevention Partnership

The Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) has collaborated in 3 generations of education and prevention epidemiologically-based randomized field trials.

Trials were directed at helping children master key social task demands in 1st and 2nd grade classrooms.

Interventions were tested separately, then together.

The 1st generation will be our main focus today, where the Good Behavior Game (GBG) was tested by itself and the children, now young adults, were recently followed to ages 19-21.

Developmental Epidemiological Randomized Preventive Trials

One of a set of current prevention research strategies

Intervention is directed at early risk factor to reduce risk and improve developmental paths

Defining population helps control selection bias

Allows study of means, but also variation in developmental paths and in impact—”who benefits and under what conditions”

Periodic follow-up to determine impact on paths and outcomes

Early Risk in Prevention and Education Research

Over the last four decades much has been learned about early risk factors and paths leading to behavioral, mental health, and school problems.

Most if not all are strongly related to academic failure, also a major risk factor for later school drop-out, delinquency, drug abuse, depression, and other problem outcomes.

Aggressive, disruptive behavior as early as 1st grade has been repeatedly found a risk factor for later school failure, delinquency, violence, drug abuse, and high risk behaviors.

Stancavage: Theory

Design of 1st Generation Baltimore Trial: Aimed at Aggressive Behavior and Poor Achievement Separately

41 1st grade classrooms in 19 schools

Across schools: 3 or 4 schools in each of 5 low to low/mid

SES urban areas were matched. 70% African American.

Schools were randomly assigned either to the standard

program (control); or to an enhanced curriculum (Mastery

Learning--ML); or to a classroom behavior management

program (Good Behavior Game--GBG).

Within intervention schools: Children were balanced across

all 1st grade classrooms. 1st grade classrooms and teachers

were randomly assigned to standard program classrooms or to

intervention classrooms.

Study Design cont.

In the 1st generation, the GBG trial was done over 1st and 2nd grades in 2 consecutive first grade cohorts.

1st cohort with 40 hours of teacher training and support thru the year. This was the effectiveness trial, and will be our focus today.

2nd cohort with same teachers with little training and support, tested the sustainability of results—the naïve trial.

Classroom Levels of Aggressive, Disruptive Behavior 8-10 Weeks After Random

Assignment in First Grade (control classrooms)

Level of Classroom Aggression

2.001.00

Fre

qu

ency

of

clas

sro

om

s

10

8

6

4

2

0

Mean = 1.85Std. Dev. = .42

N = 40

High Risk Children in Well vs Poorly-Managed Classrooms (control classrooms) If the top 25% of all children on aggressive

behavior were in disrupted classrooms, their risk of severe aggressive behavior problems by middle school was up to 59 times the average child’s.

If similar children were in well-managed classrooms, the risk was 2.7 times the average child’s.

Random assignment of children and teachers within schools allowed inferences re classroom effect.

Impact of Poorly Managed Classrooms on Teachers

The number-one reason for teacher burn-out is the inability to manage classrooms.

Teachers need tested tools to manage classrooms, i.e., to teach children how to be students.

A large portion of 1st grade teachers need such tools, e.g. ~50% in Baltimore.

Goals of the Good Behavior Game (GBG)

Provide teachers a classroom-wide method to socialize children into the role of student

Reduce classroom aggressive, disruptive behavior among children to enhance classroom teaching and learning

Prevent school failure, drug abuse, delinquency, and other problem outcomes

The History of the Good Behavior Game (GBG), a Classroom-wide Program

The GBG was originally developed by Barrish, Saunders, & Wolfe at the University of Kansas in the late 1960s

The GBG had been reported in over 20 scientific papers, none randomized field trials, prior to the Baltimore large scale epidemiologically based trials.

GBG Implementation

In Baltimore, the GBG consists of dividing the 1st grade class into 3 heterogeneous teams.

Teacher exhibits a large poster that states proper student behaviors, i.e., classroom rules.

Teams are rewarded for each child’s pro-social behavior, and not rewarded when a child is disruptive. It is “group contingent.”

GBG Implementation (cont’d)

Early in the year, the GBG was played

systematically for ten minutes, 3 times a

week, and the time extended over the

year.

Rewards were more abstract as the

year went on. It was carried out in first

and second grades.

Kellam: Framework

Measure of Early Classroom Aggressive, Disruptive Behavior

For this presentation a sub-set of Teacher’s Observations of Classroom Adaptation (TOCA R), a measure of each child’s social adaptation to classroom rules for student behavior

Structured 2 hour interview with the teacher, not a checklist

Ratings were obtained for each child in the classroom in fall and spring of 1st and 2nd grades, and thereafter in spring of 3rd through 7th grades

TOCA Aggressive, Disruptive Items on 6 point scales: (1) breaks rules, (2) harms others and property, (3) breaks things, (4) takes others property, (5) fights, (6) lies, (7) teases classmates (8) yells at others, (9) stubborn, (10) trouble accepting authority

The Young Adult Follow-up Data

Ages 19-21 2 Hour (average) telephone interview with

each respondent. Developmental, psychological and

psychiatric status, WHO version of the CIDI for diagnoses.

Juvenile court and school records. Social adaptational status in social fields

of parental family, school, work, intimate relations, marital family if any, peers.

GBG Impact vs All Controls on Any Service Use for Males

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of A

ny

Se

rvic

e U

se

Teacher Ratings of Aggression: Fall of 1st Grade

GBG (n = 74 )All Controls (n = 138 )

GBG Impact vs All Controls on Alcohol Abuse or Dependence Disorder for Males

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of A

lco

ho

l Ab

use

/De

pe

nd

Teacher Ratings of Aggression: Fall of 1st Grade

GBG (n = 73 )All Controls (n = 134 )

GBG Impact vs All Controls on Drug Abuse or Dependence Disorder for Males

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of D

rug

Ab

use

/De

pe

nd

Teacher Ratings of Aggression: Fall of 1st Grade

GBG (n = 72 )All Controls (n = 134 )

GBG Impact vs All Controls on Drug Abuse or Dependence Disorder for Females

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of D

rug

Ab

use

/De

pe

nd

Teacher Ratings of Aggression: Fall of 1st Grade

GBG (n = 103 )All Controls (n = 164 )

GBG Impact vs All Controls on Antisocial Personality Disorder for Males

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of A

SP

D

Teacher Ratings of Aggression: Fall of 1st Grade

GBG (n = 75 )All Controls (n = 138 )

GBG Impact vs All Controls on Regular Smoking for Males

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of R

eg

ula

r S

mo

ker

Teacher Ratings of Aggression: Fall of 1st Grade

GBG (n = 75 )All Controls (n = 136 )

GBG Impact vs All Controls on Completed High School for Males

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of C

om

ple

ted

HS

Teacher Ratings of Aggression: Fall of 1st Grade

GBG (n = 75 )All Controls (n = 137 )

GBG Effectiveness trial vs.

GBG Sustainability Trial Although the results from the 1st generation’s 1st

cohort were impressive, the results from the 2nd cohort-- the “sustainability trial”-- except for drug abuse and dependence disorder-- revealed less impact, but in the same direction.

Since the mid 1980s we have learned more about the problem of sustainability of practices and results over subsequent cohorts.

We are currently trying a model with BCPSS based on multi-level mentoring and continual monitoring.

Lessons Learned I

First-grade classrooms are of central importance to later academic, mental, and behavioral health.

A relatively simple universal method of classroom behavior management in 1st and 2nd grades, aimed at aggressive, disruptive behavior-- a risk factor shared by a set of long term outcomes-- appears to improve the set of long term outcomes.

Females are less responsive to GBG than are higher risk males. More research is needed re females.

Lessons Learned II

Without a system to mentor, model, and monitor teacher practices over time, GBG practices are prone to deteriorate.

Teachers need support from principals; principals from area leaders; area leaders from chief academic and executive officers.

Lessons Learned III

• Randomized field trials (RFTs) are vital in testing what works, for which children, in what conditions.

• Demographic epidemiology, analytic modeling, Pre-RFT observational studies—lead to testing with RFT designs

• Partnerships among researchers and school districts are essential to support such studies, and dissemination.

Thank you,

The End

Schools19

GBG6 schools

14 classrooms

ML7 schools

16 classrooms

External Control6 schools

11 classrooms

GBG Intervention8 classrooms238 students

GBG Control6 classrooms169 students

ML Intervention9 classrooms274 students

ML Control7 classrooms205 students

Control 11 classrooms310 students

23197%

14988%

25894%

19193%

25582%

18377%

12675%

18877%

15375%

22773%

17977%

11174%

17869%

14576%

19476%

Followed as young adult

Had baseline TOCA

2nd Generation Ed/Prev Trial in Baltimore Schools

Combined curriculum/instruction (C&I) and GBG from 1st trial

New family/classroom partnership program (FCP) tested separately

Children, teachers, intervention condition all randomly assigned within 9 schools

3 Classrooms randomly assigned within each school to: 1) C&I + GBG; 2) FCP alone; or 3) the standard program

Results: By middle school combined GBG and C&I improved both achievement and behavior

Family/classroom partnership by itself had modest impact

3rd Generation Ed/Prev Trial in Baltimore Schools Integrate 3 components into 1 Whole Day

Program (WD): GBG+ C&I+ F/C partnership

8 Development Schools helped design and refine interventions and measures

Within 12 trial schools, random assignment of all 1st grade children, teachers, and classrooms to WD or standard program

Children in 12 Whole Day 1st grade classrooms are compared to children in 12 Standard Program classrooms

Efficacy

Effectiveness

Sustainability

Going to Scale

Sustaining Systemwide

Efficacy

Effectiveness

Sustainability

Going-to-Scale

Sustaining

Systemwide

Phases of Education and Prevention Trials

Baltimore analytic model

ClassroomBehavior

Management Classrooms

DecreasedAggressive, Disruptive

Classrooms

Teachers’ EffectiveAcademic

Instruction

PoorReading Skills

ImprovedReading Skills

Decreased Later Conduct & Anti-

social PersonalityDisorders

Effective Family-Classroom

Partnerships

•••

Whole DayWhole Day First Grade Education and

Prevention Program

Decreased Later DepressiveDisorders

Depressive Symptoms

DecreasedDepressive Symptoms

PoorAchievement

IncreasedAchievement

Decreased Later Substance Abuse

Individual Aggression

DecreasedIndividual Aggression

School Success & Decreased

Drop-Out

Other mediating or moderating variables:

•Family and poverty

•Deviant peers

•School building

•Community economic health, resources, drugs, and violence

Kellam: Framework

DEVELOPMENTALEPIDEMIOLOGY:

directed at early proximal targets

MORE IMMEDIATE RISK:

directed at more recent

proximal targets

COMMUNITY PREVENTION:

directed at Community & School proximal

targets

COMMUNITY / SOCIETAL:

directed at Policies & Laws as

proximal targets

Prevention Research Strategies