View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Reducing Teacher Distress through Implementation of the Good Behavior Game

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Reducing Teacher Distress through Implementation of the Good Behavior Game
Language: English
Authors: Keith C. Radley (ORCID 0000-0001-6155-9666), Aaron J. Fischer, Paige Dubrow, Sara N. Mathis, Haylee Heller
Source: Journal of Behavioral Education. 2024 33(4):890-911.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Student Behavior, Behavior Change, Stress Variables, Elementary School Students, Intervention, Teacher Attitudes, Educational Games, Discipline, Behavior Problems, Classroom Techniques, Learner Engagement
DOI: 10.1007/s10864-023-09515-7
ISSN: 1053-0819
1573-3513
Abstract: High rates of teacher turnover are of critical concern for education agencies on a national level. When surveyed, teachers commonly report that student problem behavior is a primary motivator for leaving the profession. Previous research indicates that efforts to promote classroom management skills that address disruptive student behavior may alleviate some of the stress that leads to teacher burnout. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of the Good Behavior Game on self-reported stress levels in teachers. The rate of academically engaged behavior in students was also assessed as a secondary outcome measure. A multiple baseline design was used to evaluate the effects of teacher implementation of the Good Behavior Game within three elementary-level classrooms at a Title I school. Overall, the results indicate that the Good Behavior Game intervention procedures were effective in decreasing teacher stress levels and increasing academically engaged behavior in students.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1450573
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFGEZDNHxEhy4NVl6Ms8BUuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN7Ngx6la027sSsHQgIBEICBm0w1ncjOeefCGB1lY1BbLrv3kBDGMC0lxVRKzYzFxWlgTWCr_izYDZr40t343uwfcNvLyYDOyoYmSAkdGrxTdMj0K2edim1wGSFxdtpDqKgVN11d9XPf0mzGCFCGPppH9rAUNNrlC_-_97xCh2ZnduL_YZb9TMWK9342G0tMs19dGGUM2lMx8DYDNe1fVIT97KoEHlMWwG5FAqFC
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181118760;41z01dec.24;2024Nov28.04:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181118760-1">Reducing Teacher Distress Through Implementation of the Good Behavior Game </title> <p>High rates of teacher turnover are of critical concern for education agencies on a national level. When surveyed, teachers commonly report that student problem behavior is a primary motivator for leaving the profession. Previous research indicates that efforts to promote classroom management skills that address disruptive student behavior may alleviate some of the stress that leads to teacher burnout. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of the Good Behavior Game on self-reported stress levels in teachers. The rate of academically engaged behavior in students was also assessed as a secondary outcome measure. A multiple baseline design was used to evaluate the effects of teacher implementation of the Good Behavior Game within three elementary-level classrooms at a Title I school. Overall, the results indicate that the Good Behavior Game intervention procedures were effective in decreasing teacher stress levels and increasing academically engaged behavior in students.</p> <p>Keywords: Behavior analysis; Classwide behavior; Positive behavior support; Good behavior game; Teacher stress</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Teacher turnover represents a critical concern to local education agencies across the USA. On a national level, recent data suggest that 17% of teachers have left the profession within 5 years (Gray & Taie, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref1">23</reflink>]). However, data suggest that attrition is much higher in some states (e.g., 56% attrition within 7 years in Utah; Ni et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]). Regarding teachers who leave the field, younger teachers, teachers of color, and elementary school teachers have been found to leave the profession at higher rates (Ni et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]), as well as teachers within Title I schools (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>]). When surveyed about reasons for leaving the profession, teachers commonly report student problem behavior as a primary motivator (e.g., Wynn et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref5">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Disruptive behavior within classrooms has long been a concern of educators and researchers. Within school systems, the most common requests for assistance from teachers and discipline referrals stem from student behavior and classroom management (Department of Education, 2018; Rose & Gallup, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref6">43</reflink>]). This is unsurprising, as many classroom teachers do not receive training in evidence-based strategies for classroom management (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref7">22</reflink>]). Although substantial research has focused on student outcomes related to disruptive classroom behavior (e.g., Emmer & Stough, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]; Shinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>]), researchers are increasingly focusing on the toll of disruptive student behavior on teachers. In considering disruptive behavior, teachers often report that it is the primary source of work-related stress (Supaporn et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref10">48</reflink>]) and results in low levels of teacher well-being (e.g., Bakker et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]). Relatedly, disruptive behaviors in the classroom are positively associated with teacher burnout (Aloe et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]; Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]) and negatively associated with teacher self-efficacy (Aloe et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]; Brouwers & Tomic, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref15">9</reflink>]). Teacher burnout and poor self-efficacy are also associated with increased absenteeism from work, ineffective instructional practices in the classroom, increased use of reprimands, modeling of ineffective social emotional competencies for students, and poor student–teacher relationships (Fleming et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]; Herman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]; Reinke et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref18">42</reflink>]). As such, it is likely that disruptive student behavior indirectly undermines teaching and learning by negatively affecting teacher well-being.</p> <p>The effects of disruptive student behavior may be exacerbated for teachers relatively new to the profession, as teachers may enter the profession with less-than-ideal preparation in classroom management. For example, researchers have found teachers to report feeling inadequately prepared and receiving limited instruction in classroom management (Baker, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Siebert, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref20">46</reflink>]), and lacking sufficient knowledge in explicit procedures for managing group behavior (Oliver et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref21">35</reflink>]). As such, it is unsurprising that new teacher retention rates are poor. Fortunately, effective classroom management procedures have been identified to help alleviate this problem.</p> <p>One procedure, the Good Behavior Game (GBG) involves splitting the class into teams and giving points to teams observed to be violating classroom expectations (Barrish et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]). In this version of the GBG (i.e., response-cost), teams that earn a number of points that does not exceed a preestablished criterion during the time in which the GBG is implemented are then provided with a reward. Using a similar structure to the traditional GBG, other researchers have evaluated a positive variation of the GBG (PV-GBG) in which teams earn points contingent upon demonstrating class expectations and rewards are delivered to teams exceeding the preestablished criterion (e.g., Wright & McCurdy, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref23">57</reflink>]). Since publication of the initial evaluation of the GBG by Barrish and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]), researchers have repeatedly and consistently found the GBG, in both its traditional and positive variations, to be effective in addressing disruptive and off-task behavior in the classroom (e.g., Bowman-Perrott et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]). Additionally, comparisons between the traditional GBG and PV-GBG have found both variations to be effective in supporting student behavior (e.g., Tanol et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref26">50</reflink>]; Wahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref27">54</reflink>]; Wiskow et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref28">55</reflink>]). Overall, implementation of the GBG has been found to result in immediate and long-term, desirable student behavior change both in school settings (Flower et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]) and community contexts (e.g., Schaeffer et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref30">44</reflink>]). In fact, the positive effects of the GBG are so consistent and durable that it has been referred to as a "universal behavioral vaccine" for youth (Embry, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>], p. 273).</p> <p>Although the effects of the GBG on students are relatively well documented, it is only recently that researchers have investigated the effects of the implementation of the GBG on teachers. Hopman and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]) investigated training and implementation of a Dutch variation of the GBG, which adheres to the traditional response-cost model of the GBG, on teacher and student outcomes. This study found the implementation of the GBG by special education teachers to result in decreases in self-reported levels of emotional exhaustion and increases in teachers' self-efficacy to engage students in academic material. These findings are somewhat supported by those of Berg et al., ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]), who examined the effects of the PAX GBG, which employs the traditional response-cost version of the GBG, on teacher burnout. Berg and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]) found that implementation of the intervention was associated with positive effects on teachers' efficacy beliefs. However, they also found that teachers who were high implementers reported greater emotional exhaustion, which the authors suggested may possibly be attributed to intervention demands. Similarly, Breeman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]) found that an adaptation of the response-cost version of the GBG increased a sense of self-efficacy in engaging students in teachers of students with psychiatric disorders. Like Berg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>]), the intervention was found to have no effect on teacher burnout symptoms.</p> <p>In summary, relatively limited research has considered the effect of the GBG on teacher stress and burnout, with extant literature finding mixed results. In considering the extant research that has evaluated teacher stress as an outcome, it is important to note that research has primarily been conducted in special education settings and has evaluated traditional response-cost variations of the GBG. As such, little is known regarding the effect of GBG implementation on teacher stress in general education settings. Further, the effects of the PV-GBG on teacher stress remain unexamined. As such, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of training and implementation of the PV-GBG on general education teachers' self-reported stress. Further, the study sought to examine the relationship between student behavior and teacher stress when the PV-GBG was implemented by teachers, as well as student academic engagement. The following research questions guided the present investigation:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Does implementation of the PV-GBG result in a decrease in teacher stress level? It was hypothesized that implementation of the PV-GBG would be associated with reductions in self-reported teacher stress.</item> <p></p> <item> Does implementation of the PV-GBG result in increased levels of student academic engagement? It was hypothesized that implementation of the PV-GBG would be associated with increases in student academic engagement.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181118760-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118760-4">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>Prior to the recruitment of participants, all procedures were approved by affiliate university and school district institutional review boards. Participants included three teachers from an urban elementary school in the western USA. The school was identified as a Title I school with 757 total students. Of those students, 68% identified as Hispanic/Latinx, 18% as White, 5% as Pacific Islander, 4% as Asian, 3% as Black, and 1% as Native American. A total of 84% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Twenty-four different languages were spoken by students. The school implemented positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in the form of tickets distributed by teachers to students caught demonstrated school expectations, with tickets resulting in a student receiving a small candy and a spot on the school's Principals 200 Club board for the possibility of winning lunch with the principal. The study was conducted over approximately three-and-a-half months.</p> <p>Teacher 1 identified as a bilingual Latina female with 9 years of teaching experience. She taught a 4th grade Spanish immersion class that was composed of 23 students. Of the 23 students, 17 identified as Hispanic/Latinx, 3 students as White, and 3 students as Black. Teacher 1 expressed that she observed a high level of off-task and disruptive behavior in her classroom. At the time of the study, Teacher 1 was not implementing any other classwide group contingencies and reported not having implemented any group contingency in the past.</p> <p>Teacher 2 identified as a monolingual White female with 24 years of teaching experience. She taught a 5th grade class that was composed of 17 students. Of the 17 students, 10 identified as Hispanic/Latinx, 5 identified as Black, and 2 identified as White. Teacher 2 reported that although students in her class did not demonstrate high levels of disruptive behavior, they were often passively off-task. At the time of the study, Teacher 2 was not implementing any other classwide group contingencies and reported not having implemented any group contingencies with this group of students in the past. Teacher 2 did, however, report having previously participated in an in-service training on group contingencies which included information about the GBG. Teacher 2 reported that, at the time, she did not believe a change in her classroom management strategies was needed.</p> <p>Teacher 3 was a monolingual White female with 16 years of teaching experience. She taught a 3rd grade class that was composed of 30 students. Of the 30 students, 17 identified as Hispanic/Latinx, 9 as White, and 4 as Black. Teacher 3 reported that students in her classroom demonstrated relatively high levels of disruptive behavior. At the time of the study, Teacher 3 was not implementing any other classwide group contingency and reported not having implemented any group contingency with this group of students. Teacher 3 reported having implemented the GBG with classrooms in the past; however, she indicated that it had been several years since she had done so.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-5">Observers</hd> <p>Observers were a White male faculty member in a school psychology program with 15 years of experience in school psychology and three White female school psychology graduate students in their second and third years of training. Observers were trained on the operational definitions and observation procedures by the primary researcher prior to conducting observations. During training, observers were given a copy of the operational definitions to review and given an opportunity to ask the primary researcher questions regarding definitions prior to their initial observation. Thereafter, observers practiced using the operational definitions and observation scheme. Observations took place in a field setting, with both the primary researcher and the graduate student observers completing a classroom observation simultaneously and comparing data collected following conclusion of the 20-min practice observation. During practice observations, observers in training were required to obtain a minimum of 90% reliability with the primary researcher prior to collecting study data. All observers demonstrated reliability within two practice observations.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-6">Materials</hd> <p>The materials utilized in the study included computers with internet access, a projector, notecards, a white board, a teacher training script, protocol, and integrity checklist, and rewards identified by teachers. The training script, protocol, and treatment integrity checklist were used to ensure consistent implementation across each class. A computer and projector were utilized to run and project ClassDojo for two of the classes, with ClassDojo being used to record and track team points. ClassDojo is an internet-based tool used to track behavior, with the tool using a monster avatar to represent each team and teachers being able to award points via their computer or smart phone to each team (see Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>]). For the other class (Teacher 2), note cards taped to tables were used to record and track team points. Rewards provided were of little to no monetary value. Rewards were selected by each teacher and included items such as snacks (e.g., chips, cookies, crackers), PBIS tickets, and 10 min of free time.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-7">Dependent Variables</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118760-8">Subjective Units of Distress</hd> <p>The primary dependent variable was teacher stress. Teacher stress was assessed via Subjective Unit of Distress Scale (SUDS; Wolpe, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref38">56</reflink>]) ratings, a self-report measure of distress often used in assessing teacher distress (e.g., Fiat et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]; Lally, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref40">31</reflink>]; Larson et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref41">32</reflink>]). SUDS ratings were completed daily by teachers. SUDS ratings are a single item scale in which an individual rates their distress on a scale from 0 (<emph>totally relaxed</emph>) to 100 (<emph>highest distress/fear/anxiety/discomfort you have ever felt</emph>). No other items are included on the SUDS. SUDS have been found to have good psychometric properties (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]). Further, researchers have found SUDS to have a high level of correspondence with clinician ratings of general functioning (<emph>r</emph> = 0.45; Tanner, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref43">49</reflink>]) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 A Scale (<emph>r</emph> = 0.35; Tanner, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref44">49</reflink>]), which assesses generalized distress and negative emotionality as presented via features such as poor attention, dysphoric mood, pessimistic attitude, and low self-esteem. Further, SUDS ratings have been found to be positively correlated with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (<emph>r</emph> = 0.69; Kaplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>]) and the Beck Depression Inventory (Spearman rho = 0.46; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]). Finally, SUDS ratings have been found to be significantly correlated with autonomic measures of distress, such as heart rate and hand temperature (Thyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref47">51</reflink>]). Thus, although the SUDS does not represent an objectively observed measure of teacher distress, substantial research supports the concurrent and convergent validity of the measure.</p> <p>To collect daily SUDS ratings, teachers were texted a link to an online version of the SUDS hosted on Qualtrics. Teachers were texted the link five minutes after school dismissal each day. Qualtrics data indicate that all teachers completed the survey within 10 min of receipt of the link across the entirety of the study, with average completion time being 1 min.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-9">Academically Engaged Behavior</hd> <p>Classwide level of academically engaged behavior (AEB) was collected as a secondary dependent variable. AEB was defined using the definition adapted from Ford et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]): orienting one's head and eyes toward an academic task (e.g., teacher lecture), actively attending to an academic task (e.g., working on a worksheet), or following teacher-delivered instructions (e.g., taking out a book). Observations were conducted by the primary researcher and trained graduate students. Observations occurred four days per week using 10-s momentary time sampling during 20-minute periods. Using procedures described by Briesch et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref49">8</reflink>]), observers began with one student and moved to a different student at the end of each interval, ensuring that each student was observed multiple times throughout the observation in a systematic fashion. Observers used a smartphone-based stopwatch to cue the recording of student behavior. At the beginning of each interval, the observer determined whether the student was academically engaged according to the definition above by looking at the student to be observed. At the end of the observation, the total classwide percentage of intervals of AEB was calculated and graphed.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-10">Design</hd> <p>The effects of the implementation of the PV-GBG on teacher stress and student behavior were evaluated using a multiple probe design. Two experimental conditions were implemented as part of the study: baseline and intervention. Phase changes from baseline to intervention were response guided, made based on trend, level, and variability of the primary dependent variable (i.e., SUDS ratings). The multiple baseline design adhered to What Works Clearinghouse standards in providing for three demonstrations of intervention effect, collecting at least five data points per phase, and collecting interobserver agreement data during at least 20% of observations per phase per classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-11">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118760-12">Baseline</hd> <p>During the baseline phase, each teacher completed a daily SUDS rating to obtain baseline levels of teacher stress prior to implementing the PV-GBG intervention. During this time, each teacher was instructed to continue to teach and manage their classroom using their normal routine and typical classroom management strategies as usual. Baseline observations collected data on the percentage of intervals for which students in each classroom demonstrated AEB or DB. The baseline phase ended when at least five consecutive data points had been collected and SUDS and AEB data were stable.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-13">Teacher Training</hd> <p>Prior to beginning the intervention phase, teachers were trained on the implementation of the PV-GBG intervention. Each teacher met individually with the primary investigator and reviewed the steps of the PV-GBG intervention procedures. The teachers were provided with a treatment integrity checklist that listed the procedural steps of the PV-GBG in order of implementation. The primary investigator explained each step of the intervention to each teacher in detail. The teachers then practiced the PV-GBG intervention with the experimenter without students present and received feedback on their performance. Each teacher practiced the steps of the intervention procedure until they demonstrated 100% integrity. Next, the primary researcher worked to identify a point criterion. Point criteria were established in order to set a reasonably achievable daily point goal that would represent an increase in student AEB. Point criteria were determined by reviewing baseline AEB data and identifying how many points a class would have earned if one point was available to be delivered every two minutes (e.g., Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>]), and increasing this amount by 20% rounded to the nearest whole number. This number was then divided by the number of teams within the class, which was set by the number of tables within each classroom. Training for each teacher was completed in approximately 30 min.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-14">Intervention</hd> <p>Prior to starting the PV-GBG, each teacher explained to the students that they would be playing the PV-GBG. The students were informed that the class would be divided into teams based on table arrangements and that teams would earn points for demonstrating classroom expectations. Classes were then informed that any team that exceeded the predetermined point criterion would be able to select a reward from a list of those approved by the teacher. The teacher then reviewed the classroom expectations with the class and then allowed the class to ask questions regarding the PV-GBG.</p> <p>During the intervention phase, the teacher would begin the intervention by announcing that the PV-GBG was starting. Approximately every two minutes, the teacher would scan the class to determine which teams had all team members demonstrating classroom expectations. Teams that had all members demonstrating classroom expectations were then awarded a point. Although observations were only 20 min in duration, teachers would implement the PV-GBG across an entire class period (e.g., social studies)—with class periods being between 40 and 60 min. At the conclusion of the class period, the teacher allowed teams that exceeded the point criterion to select which reward they would receive.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-15">Interobserver Agreement</hd> <p>Prior to data collection, the primary researcher trained all other observers in observation procedures. Training began by reviewing the operational definitions of target behaviors. Next, observers practiced utilizing the data collection procedures in a classroom setting. Practice observations continued until observers demonstrated at least 90% reliability with the primary researcher.</p> <p>Interobserver agreement (IOA) was collected during at least 30% of observations within each phase. IOA for AEB was calculated by adding the total number of agreements for occurrence and nonoccurrence of a target behavior between the two observers, dividing that number by the total number of intervals, and multiplying by 100. IOA for AEB was high for all phases in all classrooms, averaging 95% (<emph>range</emph> = 88–97%).</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-16">Treatment Integrity</hd> <p>Treatment integrity was assessed daily via a 10-item teacher-completed treatment integrity checklist. Items on the checklist included announcing the game, splitting the class into teams, reviewing class rules, presenting possible rewards, indicating the point criterion to the class, reminding students of how to earn points and win the game, announcing the end of the game, determining which teams won, allowing the winning team(s) to select a reward, and providing access to the reward. Self-assessment of treatment integrity was used in the current study as teachers implemented the PV-GBG across an entire class period, while observations only occurred during a 20-min period during the class. Use of the teacher-completed treatment integrity assessment allowed for a measure of integrity across the entire class period and all portions of PV-GBG implementation. The study-specific treatment integrity checklist consisted of 10 items which assessed all portions of PV-GBG implementation.</p> <p>Teacher 1 reported that she implemented the intervention with 100% integrity during the intervention phase except for one class period, during which the PV-GBG was implemented with 80% integrity. The teacher reported that during this implementation session, the school day ended before she could allow the winning team to vote on and receive a reward. As such, the teacher delivered the reward at the beginning of the next school day. Teacher 2 and Teacher 3 reported that they implemented the intervention with 100% integrity during each session of the intervention phase.</p> <p>To supplement teacher-reported treatment integrity, researchers completed observations to determine the presence and use of PV-GBG materials within each classroom. These observations were conducted simultaneously with student behavior observations, with these data collected during each observation. Observation indicated that all teachers had a system for tracking points displayed to students, with two teachers using ClassDojo to award points to teams and one teacher using notecards taped to team tables. Observations also indicated that all teachers were noted to deliver and record points using the recording systems noted.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-17">Procedural Integrity</hd> <p>Procedural integrity was assessed by the primary researcher during the teacher training session to ensure that the training procedures adhered to study protocol and were consistent across teachers. Procedural integrity was assessed via a study-specific six-item procedural integrity checklist, which included the training steps described above. The teacher training was completed with 100% procedural integrity.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-18">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Visual analysis was used to assess the level, trend, and variability of data, as well as overlap across baseline and intervention phases, immediacy of effects, and consistency across similar phases across participating classrooms (Horner et. al, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref51">27</reflink>]). Graphs on which visual analysis was conducted were formatted according to guidelines suggested by Dart and Radley ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>]), with the x-axis scale being set to weekdays in order to prevent obfuscation of temporal relations that may occur when using an ordinate scale (e.g., session, observation). To supplement visual analysis, Tau-U was calculated using the Single Case Research online calculator (Vannest et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>]). Tau-U allows for the quantification of change between adjacent phases (Parker et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>]). Tau-U values obtained in the current study were interpreted using suggestions provided by Vannest and Ninci ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref55">52</reflink>]), with values between 0.00 and 0.20 being considered small effects, values between 0.20 and 0.60 being moderate effects, values from 0.60 to 0.80 being considered large effects, and values above 0.80 being considered large to very large effects.</p> <p>As Tau-U is a quantification of overlap across adjacent phases, log response ratios (LRR; Pustejovsky, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]) were calculated to quantify magnitude of effect. LRR quantifies the proportionate change in level between phases and has relative benefits over other effect size measures for single-case design in that it is directly related to percentage change and is insensitive to variations in measurement procedures (Pustejovsky, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref57">39</reflink>]). In order to synthesize effects across participating teachers and classrooms, design comparable effect size (DCES; Pustejovsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref58">40</reflink>]) was calculated. DCES is a standardized mean difference effect size that is interpreted using the same metric as Cohen's <emph>d</emph>, specifically <emph>d</emph> = 0.2 as a small effect, <emph>d</emph> = 0.5 as a medium effect, and <emph>d</emph> = 0.8 as a large effect (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref59">12</reflink>]). LRR and DCES were calculated using the online single-case effect size calculator (Pustejovsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref60">41</reflink>]), with the online calculator also converting LRR to a percentage change. Finally, a Pearson's product moment correlation was calculated to quantify the relationship between student behavior and teacher stress. Pearson's product moment correlations were calculated using GraphPad Prism 9 and interpreted using guidelines provided by Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref61">12</reflink>]): 0.10 to 0.29 interpreted as small correlations, 0.30 to 0.49 interpreted as moderate correlations, and 0.50 and above interpreted as large correlations.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118760-20">Teacher Stress</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics for teacher stress are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 depicts SUDS ratings for Teachers 1, 2, and 3. During baseline, Teacher 1 indicated stable and moderate levels of stress. Upon implementation of the PV-GBG, Teacher 1 immediately reported lower levels of stress. Although some variability was observed throughout the intervention phase, the phase was characterized by lower SUDS ratings and minimal increasing trend in data. Calculation of Tau-U indicated a Tau-U score of − 0.92, representing a very large decrease in teacher SUDS ratings. Calculation of LRR indicated a value of − 0.70, representing a decrease in mean level of 50.5%.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics for SUDS and AEB</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Baseline</p></th><th align="left"><p>Intervention</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Teacher 1 SUDS</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 41.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 20.63</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 9.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 7.72</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 30.00–60.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 10.00–40.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Classroom 1 AEB</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 69.30%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 83.02%</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 4.26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 5.05</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 62.50–75.00%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 74.17–92.50%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Teacher 2 SUDS</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 38.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 26.36</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 11.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 9.24</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 20.00–60.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 20.00–50.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Classroom 2 AEB</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 78.79%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 84.88%</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 4.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 4.67</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 70.83–90.00%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 77.50–91.67%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Teacher 3 SUDS</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 22.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 18.57</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 11.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 8.99</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 10.00–60.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 10.00–30.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Classroom 3 AEB</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 74.28%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>M</italic> = 88.69%</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 5.41</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><italic>SD</italic> = 4.11</p></td></tr><tr><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 63.33–85.83%</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>Range = 82.50–95.00%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Subjective unit of distress ratings, teachers 1, 2, and 3</p> <p>Teacher 2 indicated moderate and increasing levels of stress and burnout across the baseline phase. Upon implementation of the PV-GBG, immediate reductions in SUDS ratings were observed. Although some variability in ratings was observed across the intervention phase, an immediate reduction in ratings was apparent with a slight decreasing trend across the phase. Calculation of Tau-U indicated a Tau-U score of − 0.65, representing a large decrease in teacher SUDS ratings. Calculation of LRR indicated a value of − 0.39, representing a decrease in mean level of 32.0%.</p> <p>Teacher 3 indicated low-to-moderate levels of stress and burnout on baseline SUDS ratings. Variability was noted in data, with minimal decreasing trend across the phase. Upon the introduction of the PV-GBG, a slight decrease in the level of SUDS ratings was observed across the intervention phase, with a slight decreasing trend across the phase. Calculation of Tau-U indicated a Tau-U score of − 0.20, representing a moderate decrease in teacher SUDS ratings. Calculation of LRR indicated a value of -0.19, representing a decrease in mean level of 17.0%.</p> <p>Calculation of DCES was performed to quantify change in SUDS scores across all participating teachers. The DCES for the SUDS scores was found to be − 0.92 (95% CI = − 1.57 to -0.26). Using interpretation metrics for Cohen's <emph>d</emph> (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>]), this effect is interpreted as a large effect.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-21">Student Behavior</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics for student behavior are presented in Table 1. Figure 2 depicts data collected on student AEB across baseline and intervention phases for Classrooms 1, 2, and 3. During baseline, students in Classroom 1 demonstrated moderate levels of AEB, with no trend and minimal variability. Upon the introduction of the PV-GBG, immediate and sustained increases in academically engaged behavior were observed. Although variability was observed initially, increases in AEB were observed to be stable at the conclusion of the phase. Calculation of Tau-U indicated a Tau-U score of 0.98, representing a very large increase in AEB of students in Classroom 1 during the intervention phase. Calculation of LRR indicated a value of 0.18, interpreted as an increase of 19.9% in AEB.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Student academically engaged behavior, classrooms 1, 2, and 3</p> <p>During baseline, students in Classroom 2 demonstrated moderate-to-high levels of AEB, with minimal change in trend and variability across the phase. Implementation of the PV-GBG was associated with a slight increase in the level of academically engaged behavior across the intervention phase. As during baseline, minimal trend and variability were noted during the phase. Calculation of Tau-U indicated a Tau-U score of 0.69, representing a large change in AEB of students in Classroom 2 during the intervention phase. Calculation of LRR indicated a value of 0.07, interpreted as an increase of 7.73% in AEB.</p> <p>During baseline, students in Classroom 3 demonstrated moderate levels of AEB, with a degree of variability and minimal trend present across the baseline phase. Upon the introduction of the intervention phase, an immediate increase in AEB was observed, with levels remaining increased throughout the intervention phase. Minimal changes in trend and variability were noted during the phase. Calculation of Tau-U indicated a Tau-U score of 0.97, representing a very large increase in academically engaged behavior of students in Classroom 3. Calculation of LRR indicated a value of 0.18, interpreted as an increase of 19.4% in AEB.</p> <p>Calculation of DCES was performed to quantify change in AEB scores across all participating classrooms. The DCES for AEB values was found to be 1.77 (95% CI = 1.11 to 2.42). Using interpretation metrics for Cohen's <emph>d</emph> (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref63">12</reflink>]), this effect is interpreted as a large effect.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-22">Relationship Between Teacher Stress and Student Behavior</hd> <p>A Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the relationship between teacher stress and student behavior. For Teacher 1, a statistically significant correlation of <emph>r</emph> = − 0.64 (<emph>p</emph> = 0.001) was observed, representing a strong negative relationship between teacher stress and student behavior—with teacher stress decreasing as student AEB increased. For Teacher 2, the relationship between teacher stress and student behavior was found to be moderate (<emph>r</emph> = − 0.34), with the relationship approaching statistical significance (<emph>p</emph> = 0.068). For Teacher 3, the relationship between teacher stress and student behavior was found to be weak (<emph>r</emph> = − 0.21; <emph>p</emph> = 0.288). Overall, the relationship between teacher-reported stress and student behavior was found to be weak-to-moderate (<emph>r</emph> = − 0.26), with the association being found to be statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> = 0.022).</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-23">Discussion</hd> <p>Teachers report that student behavior is a primary cause of vocation-related stress (e.g., Haydon et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref64">24</reflink>]; Rose & Gallup, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref65">43</reflink>]) and contributes to teachers leaving the profession (e.g., Ingersoll et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref66">28</reflink>]; Wynn et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref67">58</reflink>]). As such, the implementation of effective classroom management strategies may serve to improve outcomes for both teachers and students. The current study sought to replicate and extend initial research which found mixed results regarding the effect of the GBG on teacher stress. Results of the study indicated that study hypotheses were supported, with the implementation of the PV-GBG being associated with decreased general education teacher stress and increased student AEB. Further, a statistically significant correlation between teacher stress and student AEB was identified, supporting a relationship between student behavior and teacher stress. These findings are particularly important, given that previous research in this area has focused on special education teachers or not concurrently considered teacher stress and student behavior.</p> <p>The findings of this study indicate that the implementation of the PV-GBG was associated with decreases in self-reported stress levels for all three participants. Whereas DCES for SUDS ratings indicated a large effect, this finding should be considered in light of visual analysis, which indicates more variable decreases in SUDS ratings across teachers. For Teacher 3, the relatively smaller decrease in SUDS scores may be due to floor effects due to lower reported levels of stress during baseline. In general, these findings support the previous research by Hopman and colleagues (2018), which indicated that the implementation of the GBG resulted in decreases in self-reported levels of emotional exhaustion and increases in teachers' self-efficacy to engage students in academic material. Although the results of Hopman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref68">26</reflink>]) were limited to the population of special education teachers, the findings of the present study further extend those results by demonstrating similar effects of the PV-GBG on the stress levels of general education teachers. The present study provides initial support to indicate that implementing procedures such as the PV-GBG can effectively improve teacher outcomes related to stress and burnout. Overall, these findings support the use of evidence-based practices like the PV-GBG as a means to reduce stress for general education teachers and improve their well-being (e.g., Hopman et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref69">26</reflink>]; Ouellette et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref70">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results of this study also found that the overall level of students' AEB increased when their teachers implemented the PV-GBG intervention regularly in their classrooms, with Tau-U values calculated being consistent with those obtained in Bowman-Perrott et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref71">6</reflink>]) meta-analysis of the GBG (i.e., 0.82). Similar to SUDS ratings, the visual and statistical analysis effects may have been influenced by observed baseline levels of AEB. Specifically, ceiling effects may have limited the effects of the PV-GBG on AEB due to relatively high baseline levels of AEB. Despite potential ceiling effects, the findings of increased AEB are not surprising given the plethora of research to support the positive effects of the PV-GBG on student behavior (Bowman-Perrott et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref73">47</reflink>]). The present study adds to the existing body of evidence to support the efficacy of the PV-GBG when implemented in schools and supports previous research, which indicates that the implementation of the PV-GBG results in immediate desirable student behavior change in school settings (Flower et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref74">19</reflink>]). However, due to the limited time frame of the present study, conclusions cannot be made about the long-term effects of these results.</p> <p>Finally, the present study indicates a correlation between teacher stress and student behavior such that as students demonstrated more AEB, teachers experienced a decrease in stress levels. Previous research has indicated that teachers often report that disruptive behavior is the primary source of work-related stress (Haydon et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref75">24</reflink>]; Supaporn et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref76">48</reflink>]). Additionally, disruptive behaviors in the classroom are positively associated with teacher burnout (Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>]; Herman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref78">25</reflink>]). Furthermore, previous evidence suggests that teacher burnout is also associated with increased absenteeism from work, ineffective instructional practices in the classroom, and poor student–teacher relationships (Fleming et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref79">18</reflink>]). The findings of the present study support previous research by demonstrating an inverse relationship between disruptive behavior and teacher stress (e.g., Herman et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]). Based on the results of previous research, the results of the present study suggest that it is likely that efforts to address disruptive student behavior such as the implementation of the PV-GBG indirectly have a positive impact on teaching and learning by positively affecting teacher well-being.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-24">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>The results of the study have direct implications for teachers and classrooms. First, findings suggest that classroom management support may be considered beneficial for teachers experiencing burnout. Freeman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref81">22</reflink>]) described that many pre-service teachers may not receive adequate training in evidence-based classroom management strategies. As such, school support personnel (e.g., school psychologists, social workers, administrators) should work with teachers to support implementation of empirically supported classroom management strategies, such as the PV-GBG, in these classrooms. In addition to directly benefiting teacher stress and burnout, it is also expected that these interventions would also benefit students within these classrooms by increasing academic engagement. Second, the findings of the current study have implications for the training of new teachers. Equipping new teachers with effective classroom management strategies may serve as a proactive means of preventing burnout and reducing the likelihood that new teachers leave the profession after a few years in the classroom. Thus, effectively equipping teachers with tools for managing challenging behavior within the classroom may directly impact shortages of teachers by limiting the outflow of early-career teachers exiting the field. Third, the current study provides a model for assessing teacher stress over time through a brief self-report measure. To the authors' knowledge, such measures are rarely observed in practice and seldom implemented in research contexts. Use of such measures in applied contexts may support effective decision making regarding teacher supports that may promote teacher well-being.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-25">Limitations</hd> <p>The results of the study provide support for the role that effective classroom management plays in teacher stress and burnout. However, these results should be considered in relation to limitations. First, teachers in the study implemented the PV-GBG across entire class periods, while observations only took place during 20-min periods. As such, levels of AEB during portions of the class period not observed are unknown. Relatedly, because only a portion of PV-GBG implementation was observed, the study relied on daily teacher self-report of intervention integrity. Although high levels of integrity were reported by teachers, it is possible that teachers inaccurately reported intervention steps completed. Researchers in the current study attempted to mitigate potential inaccurate reports by recording whether intervention materials were present, and points were awarded, though these elements do not represent all steps to implementation that were trained with teachers. Future researchers may consider limiting implementation only to periods observed or extending observations to match longer implementation periods. Given that implementation of the PV-GBG was limited to one class period, future researchers may also consider whether implementation of the PV-GBG across a more extended period of time may result in differential effectiveness of the PV-GBG on teacher stress.</p> <p>Similarly, the study relied on self-report of teacher stress as the primary dependent variable. Given that these data were self-reported, no IOA were collected for this variable. However, previous research has found SUDS ratings to be valid representations of stress and overall functioning (e.g., Tanner, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref82">49</reflink>]). Teachers in the current study were recruited based on self-report of stress and burnout and not based on level of disruptive behavior within the classroom. As such, some classrooms demonstrated relatively high levels of AEB during baseline—limiting the ability to detect change in this variable. Future researchers should prioritize recruiting teachers that report both elevated stress and low levels of AEB to evaluate the effect of PV-GBG implementation to more directly understand how changes in AEB due to implementation of the PV-GBG are related to teacher stress. Further, future researchers may consider whether training in and implementation of the PV-GBG in the absence of low AEB may serve to inoculate teachers against stress and burnout—similar to how the GBG has been found to proactively mitigate physical, mental, and behavioral disorders in children and adolescents (Embry, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref83">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, it should be noted that no formal measure of social validity was collected regarding the GBG. Although data collected indicate reduced levels of self-reported distress and anecdotal reports indicate that two of three teachers continued to implement the GBG through the remainder of the school year, future researchers should collect formal data regarding teacher perception of the GBG, which may have a moderating role in the relationship between the GBG and teacher stress (e.g., Berg et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]). This research may be particularly important given findings of high levels of implementation being associated with greater reports of emotional exhaustion (Berg et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref85">5</reflink>]). Further, researchers should consider evaluation of simplified GBG procedures (e.g., Dadakhodjaeva et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref86">13</reflink>]; Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref87">20</reflink>]) as a potential means of reducing burnout associated with implementation demands.</p> <p>It should also be noted that there was a relatively longer interval between the final baseline point and the first intervention point for Teacher 2, making visual analysis of immediacy of effects more difficult. In the current study, this interval was due to availability of researchers to conduct observations. Future researchers should address this limitation through shorter intervals between observations (e.g., daily collection of data on teacher stress and student behavior). Finally, the current study did not collect long-term follow-up data. As such, it is unknown whether implementation of the PV-GBG would serve to decrease teacher stress over a more extended period of time or whether implementation would result in decreased rates of teachers leaving the profession.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-26">Future Directions</hd> <p>In addition to addressing those limitations noted above, researchers may consider additional questions in future empirical evaluations. First, relatively little research has examined the implementation of classwide behavioral interventions as a means of reducing teacher burnout and stress—despite the fact that research has long indicated that challenging classroom behavior is a primary cause of teacher distress (e.g., Supaporn et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref88">48</reflink>]). Although the GBG and PV-GBG have garnered abundant empirical support as a classwide behavioral support (e.g., Bowman-Perrott et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>]), future lines of inquiry may consider evaluation of other classwide interventions and their association with teacher stress. Relatedly, future inquires may also directly compare the effects of classwide behavioral supports on teacher stress—considering the mediating role of complexity of intervention procedures.</p> <p>In considering strategies for supporting teacher well-being, future researchers may consider the application of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) framework. Strategies such as that evaluated in the current study may represent a tier 1 support for all teachers, just as the GBG has been suggested to be a universal behavioral vaccine to support student well-being (Embry, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref90">15</reflink>]). In considering development of an MTSS framework for teacher well-being, teachers who indicate elevated stress and burnout and do not demonstrate a response to tier 1 supports for stress and burnout may be engaged in more targeted support efforts. Future researchers may consider further development of this model and identification of more targeted and intensive supports for those teachers that may benefit from such strategies.</p> <p>Finally, future researches should consider that stress and burnout in teachers cannot be completely explained by student behavior. Other factors not related to students, such as the presence or absence of supportive coworker networks, administration and district policies and procedures, salary, and non-school factors (e.g., health, family, social networks) are also likely to impact individual teacher well-being (e.g., Prilleltensky et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref91">38</reflink>]). Thus, interventions targeting classroom behavior may only be one element of a comprehensive strategy for promoting teacher well-being. Future researchers should consider evaluation of how classroom behavior supports may serve as a component of a comprehensive strategy for decreasing teacher stress and burnout.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>The results of the study add to emerging literature regarding the association between empirically based classroom management strategies (e.g., PV-GBG) and teacher stress. Across all participating teachers, reduction in stress was observed following implementation of the PV-GBG. Interestingly, teachers that reported higher initial levels of stress reported the greatest reduction in stress upon implementation. These data suggest that the PV-GBG may be a useful tool in promoting teacher well-being, particularly among teachers who are experiencing substantial stress. The study also provides an important contribution in its evaluation of the relationship between teacher stress and student behavior, adding additional empirical support to teacher report that has indicated student behavior as a primary cause of teacher stress. To the authors' knowledge, the study is the first to evaluate this relationship using single-case design, allowing an examination of the relationship between these two variables across multiple time points. Taken together, the results of the study provide support to implementation of the PV-GBG as a beneficial tool for both teachers and students, and suggests that prioritizing training and implementation in evidence-based classroom management strategies may be useful as a means of mitigating teacher exiting of the profession.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-28">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181118760-29">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>All authors of the study report no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-30">Ethical approval</hd> <p>Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to the commencement of recruitment.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-31">Human and animal rights statement</hd> <p>All procedures performed in the current study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-32">Informed consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to collection of data.</p> <hd id="AN0181118760-33">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0181118760-34"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref12" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aloe AM, Shisler SM, Norris BD, Nickerson AB, Rinker TW. A multivariate meta-analysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review. 2014; 12: 30-44. 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, T. C. (2005). The use of mini-exercise breaks in the classroom management of ADHD-type behaviors. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref11" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bakker AB, Hakanen JJ, Demerouti E, Xanthopoulou D. Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99: 274-284. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barrish HH, Saunders M, Wolf MM. Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1969; 2; 2: 119-124. 16795208. 1311049. 10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berg JK, Bradshaw CP, Jo B, Ialongo NS. Using complier average causal effect estimation to determine the impacts of the good behavior game preventive intervention on teacher implementers. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2017; 44; 4: 558-571. 27207372. 10.1007/s10488-016-0738-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bowman-Perrott L, Burke MD, Zaini S, Zhang N, Vannest K. Promoting positive behavior using the good behavior game: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2016; 18; 3: 180-190. 10.1177/1098300715592355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref35" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Breeman LD, van Lier PA, Wubbels T, Verhulst FC, van der Ende J, Maras A, Struiksma AC, Hopman JA, Tick NT. Effects of the good behavior game on the behavioral, emotional, and social problems of children with psychiatric disorders in special education settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2016; 18; 3: 156-167. 10.1177/1098300715593466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref49" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Briesch AM, Chafouleas SM, Riley-Tillman TC. Generalizability and dependability of behavior assessment methods to estimate academic engagement: A comparison of systematic direct observation and direct behavior rating. School Psychology Review. 2010; 39; 3: 408-421. 10.1080/02796015.2010.12087761</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref15" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brouwers A, Tomic W. A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2000; 16; 2: 239-253. 10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke RJ, Greenglass ER, Schwarzer R. Predicting teacher burnout over time: Effects of work stress, social support, and self-doubts on burnout and its consequences. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 1996; 9; 3: 261-275. 10.1080/10615809608249406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carver-Thomas, D, & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it.Learning Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dadakhodjaeva K, Radley KC, Tingstrom DH, Dufrene BA, Dart EH. Effects of daily and reduced frequency implementation of the good behavior game in kindergarten classrooms. Behavior Modification. 2020; 44; 4: 471-495. 30698455. 10.1177/0145445519826528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dart EH, Radley KC. Toward a standard assembly of linear graphs. School Psychology Quarterly. 2018; 33; 3: 350-355. 29975101. 10.1037/spq0000269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Embry DD. The good behavior game: A best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2002; 5; 4: 273-297. 12495270. 10.1023/A:1020977107086</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emmer ET, Stough LM. Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology and teacher education. Educational Psychologist. 2001; 36; 2: 103-112. 10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiat AE, Cook CR, Zhang Y, Renshaw TL, DeCano P, Merrick JS. Mentoring to promote courage and confidence among elementary school students with internalizing problems: A single-case design pilot study. Journal of Applied School Psychology. 2017; 33; 4: 261-287. 10.1080/15377903.2017.1292975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming JL, Mackrain M, LeBuffe PA. Caring for the caregiver: Promoting the resilience of teachers. Handbook of Resilience in Children. 2013. 10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flower A, McKenna JW, Bunuan RL, Muething CS, Vega R Jr. Effects of the good behavior game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research. 2014; 84; 4: 546-571. 10.3102/0034654314536781</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford WB, Radley KC, Tingstrom DH, Dufrene BA. Efficacy of a no-team version of the good behavior game in high school classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2020; 22; 3: 181-190. 10.1177/1098300719890059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford WB, Radley KC, Tingstrom DH, Dart EH, Dufrene B. Evaluation of the good behavior game using ClassDojo in secondary classrooms. School Psychology Review. 2022. 10.1080/2372966X.2022.2067736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman J, Simonsen B, Briere DE, MacSuga-Gage AS. Pre-service teacher training in classroom management: A review of state accreditation policy and teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education. 2014; 37; 2: 106-120. 10.1177/0888406413507002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray L, Taie S. Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first five years: Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007–08 beginning teacher longitudinal study (NCES 2015–337). 2015; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haydon T, Leko MM, Stevens D. Teacher stress: Sources, effects, and protective factors. Journal of Special Education Leadership. 2018; 31; 2: 99-107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herman KC, Reinke WM, Eddy CL. Advances in understanding and intervening in teacher stress and coping: The coping-competence-context theory. Journal of School Psychology. 2020; 78: 69-74. 32178812. 10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopman JA, Tick NT, van der Ende J, Wubbels T, Verhulst FC, Maras A, Breeman LD, Van Lier PA. Special education teachers' relationships with students and self-efficacy moderate associations between classroom-level disruptive behaviors and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2018; 75: 21-30. 10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner RH, Carr EG, Halle J, McGee G, Odom S, Wolery M. The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children. 2005; 71; 2: 165-179. 10.1177/001440290507100203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingersoll, R, Merrill, E, Stuckey, D. & Collins, G (2018). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force, Updated October, 2018. CPRE Report (#RR-2018–2). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan DM, Smith T, Coons J. A validity study of the subjective unit of discomfort (SUD) score. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development. 1995; 27; 4: 195-199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim D, Bae H, Park YC. Validity of the subjective units of disturbance scale in EMDR. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research. 2008; 2; 1: 57-62. 10.1891/1933-3196.2.1.57</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lally, M. (2021). The effects of adding components of acceptance and commitment training to behavior skills training with special education teachers on treatment integrity and stress. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson KE, Pas ET, Bradshaw CP, Rosenberg MS, Day-Vines NL. Examining how proactive management and culturally responsive teaching relate to student behavior: Implications for measurement and practice. School Psychology Review. 2018; 47; 2: 153-166. 10.17105/SPR-2017-0070.V47-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore TC, Gordon JR, Williams A, Eshbaugh JF. A positive version of the good behavior game in a self-contained classroom for EBD: Effects on individual student behavior. Behavioral Disorders. 2022; 47; 2: 67-83. 10.1177/01987429211061125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ni, Y, Yan, R, Rorrer, A. K, & Nicholson, A. (2017). Teacher turnover in Utah between 2013–14 and 2014–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliver RM, Wehby JH, Reschly DJ. Teacher classroom management practices: Effects on disruptive or aggressive student behavior. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2011; 7; 1: 1-55. 10.4073/csr.2011.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ouellette RR, Pellecchia M, Beidas RS, Wideman R, Xie M, Mandell DS. Boon or burden: The effect of implementing evidence-based practices on teachers' emotional exhaustion. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2019; 46; 1: 62-70. 30225662. 10.1007/s10488-018-0894-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker RI, Vannest KJ, Davis JL, Sauber SB. Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy. 2011; 42; 2: 284-299. 21496513. 10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prilleltensky I, Neff M, Bessell A. Teacher stress: What is it, why it's important, how it can be alleviated. Theory into Practice. 2016; 55: 104-111. 10.1080/00405841.2016.1148986</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky JE. Using response ratios for meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral outcomes. Journal of School Psychology. 2018; 68: 99-112. 29861034. 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky JE, Hedges LV, Shadish WR. Design-comparable effect sizes in multiple baseline designs: A general modeling framework. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2014; 39; 5: 368-393. 10.3102/1076998614547577</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pustejovsky, J. E, Chen, M, & Swan, D. M. (2022). Single-case effect size calculator (Version 0.6.1) [Web application]. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/SCD-effect-sizes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinke WM, Herman KC, Newcomer L. The brief student-teacher classroom interaction observation: Using dynamic indicators of behaviors in the classroom to predict outcomes and inform practice. Assessment for Effective Intervention. 2016; 42; 1: 32-42. 10.1177/1534508416641605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose LC, Gallup AM. The 37th annual Phi delta kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 2005; 87; 1: 41-57. 10.1177/003172170508700110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaeffer CM, Petras H, Ialongo N, Poduska J, Kellam S. Modeling growth in boys' aggressive behavior across elementary school: Links to later criminal involvement, conduct disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. Developmental Psychology. 2003; 39; 6: 1020-1035. 14584982. 10.1037/0012-1649.39.6.1020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shinn MR, Ramsey E, Walker HM, Stieber S, O'Neill RE. Antisocial behavior in school settings: Initial differences in an at risk and normal population. The Journal of Special Education. 1987; 21; 2: 69-84. 10.1177/002246698702100207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siebert EL. Promoting preservice teacher's success in classroom management by leveraging a local union's resources: A professional development school initiative. Education. 2005; 125: 385-392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith S, Barajas K, Ellis B, Moore C, McCauley S, Reichow B. A meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials of the good behavior game. Behavior Modification. 2021; 45; 4: 641-666. 31578077. 10.1177/0145445519878670</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supaporn S, Dodds P, Griffin L. An ecological analysis of middle school misbehavior through student and teacher perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2003; 22; 3: 328-349. 10.1123/jtpe.22.3.328</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner BA. Validity of global physical and emotional SUDS. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback. 2012; 37; 1: 31-34. 22038278. 10.1007/s10484-011-9174-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanol G, Johnson L, McComas J, Cote E. Responding to rule violations or rule following: A comparison of two versions of the good behavior game with kindergarten students. Journal of School Psychology. 2010; 48: 337-355. 20728687. 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thyer BA, Papsdorf JD, Davis R, Vallecorsa S. Autonomic correlates of the subjective anxiety scale. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 1984; 15: 3-7. 10.1016/0005-7916(84)90115-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vannest KJ, Ninci J. Evaluating intervention effects in single—case research designs. Journal of Counseling and Development. 2015; 93; 4: 403-411. 10.1002/jcad.12038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vannest KJ, Peltier C, Haas A. Results reporting in single case experiments and single case meta-analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2018; 79: 10-18. 29960830. 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.04.029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wahl E, Hawkins RO, Haydon T, Marsicano R, Morrison JQ. Comparing versions of the good behavior game: Can a positive spin enhance effectiveness?. Behavior Modification. 2016; 40; 4: 493-517. 27118053. 10.1177/0145445516644220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiskow KM, Urban-Wilson A, Ishaya U, DaSilva A, Nieto P, Silva E, Lopez J. A comparison of variations of the good behavior game on disruptive and social behaviors in elementary school classrooms. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice. 2021; 21; 2: 102-117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolpe J. Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. 1958; Stanford University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright RA, McCurdy BL. Class-wide positive behavior support and group contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the good behavior game. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2012; 14; 3: 173-180. 10.1177/1098300711421008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wynn SR, Carboni LW, Patall EA. Beginning teachers' perceptions of mentoring, climate, and leadership: Promoting retention through a learning communities perspective. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 2007; 6; 3: 209-229. 10.1080/15700760701263790</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Keith C. Radley; Aaron J. Fischer; Paige Dubrow; Sara N. Mathis and Haylee Heller</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref91"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1450573
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Reducing Teacher Distress through Implementation of the Good Behavior Game
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Keith+C%2E+Radley%22">Keith C. Radley</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6155-9666">0000-0001-6155-9666</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aaron+J%2E+Fischer%22">Aaron J. Fischer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Paige+Dubrow%22">Paige Dubrow</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sara+N%2E+Mathis%22">Sara N. Mathis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Haylee+Heller%22">Haylee Heller</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Behavioral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Behavioral Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 33(4):890-911.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Change%22">Behavior Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Variables%22">Stress Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Games%22">Educational Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discipline%22">Discipline</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Techniques%22">Classroom Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10864-023-09515-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1053-0819<br />1573-3513
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: High rates of teacher turnover are of critical concern for education agencies on a national level. When surveyed, teachers commonly report that student problem behavior is a primary motivator for leaving the profession. Previous research indicates that efforts to promote classroom management skills that address disruptive student behavior may alleviate some of the stress that leads to teacher burnout. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of the Good Behavior Game on self-reported stress levels in teachers. The rate of academically engaged behavior in students was also assessed as a secondary outcome measure. A multiple baseline design was used to evaluate the effects of teacher implementation of the Good Behavior Game within three elementary-level classrooms at a Title I school. Overall, the results indicate that the Good Behavior Game intervention procedures were effective in decreasing teacher stress levels and increasing academically engaged behavior in students.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1450573
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1450573
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10864-023-09515-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 890
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stress Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discipline
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Reducing Teacher Distress through Implementation of the Good Behavior Game
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Keith C. Radley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aaron J. Fischer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Paige Dubrow
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sara N. Mathis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Haylee Heller
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1053-0819
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3513
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Behavioral Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1