View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Managing Disruptive Behaviors at School: A Meta-Analysis of Strategies Using Differential Reinforcement for All

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Managing Disruptive Behaviors at School: A Meta-Analysis of Strategies Using Differential Reinforcement for All
Language: English
Authors: Irène Freyssinet (ORCID 0000-0002-3196-8618), Pascal Pansu (ORCID 0000-0002-8344-615X)
Source: Preventing School Failure. 2025 69(3):275-284.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Student Behavior, Behavior Problems, Reinforcement, Elementary School Students, Program Effectiveness, Intervention, Classroom Techniques, Prevention, Contingency Management
DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2025.2449842
ISSN: 1045-988X
1940-4387
Abstract: Disruptive behaviors are a source of concern in schools. Differential reinforcement strategies are often recommended to reduce their emergence by withholding access to their reinforcer while reinforcing appropriate behaviors. Differential Reinforcement for All (DR-All) refers to using a differential reinforcement strategy in the same way for all the students in a class, which would be even beneficial if applied consistently throughout the school year. This meta-analysis includes 16 single-case studies conducted in regular primary schools. The results revealed an effect of the DR-All strategy on the reduction of disruptive behaviors. They also showed a large effect size heterogeneity across studies, partly explained by several moderators. DR-All points to an effective way to reduce disruption in regular classroom situations.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1494407
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG1K_fidXDZOuwasN8TrEWnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKhUqwSFTqdqXjafBgIBEICBm3eyf-6FJ1ZGHzGy2Qj_e7KBKcnwuaHpmfkU9yoQgndPGeyrJx1dhDxb3Zaweuig4rxKqXmZaSZ-q_1wJ8OaP6AQEGcYnmW5Cjz_NmMOC1yby0iyEivgOQQ0WTPkCEQHclOymaFB2FQDOVffnnEqsXHsdVuncyCrXfSoXwQC3e3mUB10sjxxRgJOjmda54Jo8Kw2H0S8eAPKhXnY
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186284247;psf01jul.25;2025Jul02.03:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186284247-1">Managing disruptive behaviors at school: a meta-analysis of strategies using differential reinforcement for all </title> <p>Disruptive behaviors are a source of concern in schools. Differential reinforcement strategies are often recommended to reduce their emergence by withholding access to their reinforcer while reinforcing appropriate behaviors. Differential Reinforcement for All (DR-All) refers to using a differential reinforcement strategy in the same way for all the students in a class, which would be even beneficial if applied consistently throughout the school year. This meta-analysis includes 16 single-case studies conducted in regular primary schools. The results revealed an effect of the DR-All strategy on the reduction of disruptive behaviors. They also showed a large effect size heterogeneity across studies, partly explained by several moderators. DR-All points to an effective way to reduce disruption in regular classroom situations.</p> <p>Keywords: Differential reinforcement; disruptive behaviors; meta-analysis; school intervention; vicarious reinforcement</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Disruptive behaviors are generally described as student actions that disturb "ongoing classroom activities or teacher requests" (Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref1">63</reflink>], p. 247). They have direct repercussions on the class environment as well as on the students' future behavioral development. Today, 70% of teachers say they experience disruptive behaviors daily (Ofsted, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref2">60</reflink>]), and 40% say that dealing with them interferes with their teaching (Gruber et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]). Managing disruption causes stress for teachers (Longhi et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref4">51</reflink>]), and leads to poorer student/teacher interactions (Alvarez, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]). This has an adverse effect on the class climate (Debarbieux, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]), reduces learning opportunities (Little & Hudson, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref7">50</reflink>]) and affects academic success (Alvarez, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Disruptive behaviors also result in peer rejection, which damages the network of affinities binding group members, thereby worsening interpersonal relationships (Bierman, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]; Kessels & Heyder, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref10">42</reflink>]). While the harmful effects mainly concern the students whose behavior is disruptive (Little & Hudson, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref11">50</reflink>]), their classmates' wellbeing is also affected (Ruus et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref12">69</reflink>]). Bierman and Wargo ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]) and Kupersmidt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref14">44</reflink>]) showed that peer rejection can cause an increase in the intensity and frequency of aggressive behaviors. This negative atmosphere generates a cycle of disruptive behaviors, which decreases the rejected students' sense of belonging to the class, and reduces their opportunities for academic success (Marksteiner & Kruger, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref15">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers often use punishment or reprimands to reduce disruptive behaviors, with limited success (Pisacreta et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref16">63</reflink>]; Reddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref17">66</reflink>]). As a result, various strategies to improve behaviors have been tested in schools, but they do not give the teachers clear rules to follow in response to disruptive behaviors, with the exception of differential reinforcement (Petscher et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref18">62</reflink>]). In line with Social Learning Theory (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]), using differential reinforcement can decrease disruptive behaviors more effectively if it is applied in the same way to all the students in a class, creating a new class norm where no student is reinforced for disruptive behaviors. To date, meta-analyses on strategies using differential reinforcement in regular school settings have not taken into account specific cases when differential reinforcement is applied to all the students in a class (Goh & Bambara, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]; Solomon et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref21">73</reflink>]). Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to investigate the effectiveness of Differential Reinforcement for All (DR-All) and examine the moderating factors.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-3">Class management strategies based on behavioral theory</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186284247-4">Current class management strategies based on five behavioral theory operations</hd> <p>Disruptive behaviors challenge class management strategies which are generally based on the application of behavioral theory (Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref22">72</reflink>]). Landrum and Kauffman ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref23">45</reflink>], p.48) described five operations in line with behavioral theory. The first one is positive reinforcement. This is the addition of a positive stimulus contingent on a behavior that produces an increase in the future occurrence of the behavior under similar conditions. The positive stimulus can be social, like praise, or tangible, like a toy. Second, we have negative reinforcement, which occurs when the withdrawal of an aversive stimulus contingent on a behavior produces an increase in the future occurrence of the behavior under similar conditions, like stopping a shrill noise when an individual displays a behavior. The third operation is punishment with aversives. This is the addition of an aversive stimulus contingent on a behavior that produces a decrease in the future occurrence of the behavior under similar conditions, such as making a shrill noise after an individual displays a behavior. The fourth one is response cost punishment, which consists in the withdrawal of a positive stimulus contingent on a behavior that produces a decrease in its future occurrence under similar conditions, like removing a toy. Finally, the last operation is extinction. Extinction involves withholding access to a reinforcer following a specific behavior.</p> <p>Punishments aim to stop the behavior with immediate effect. However, extinction results in a longer term decrease in disruptive behaviors (Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref24">72</reflink>]). While teachers believe that reprimanding students for a disruptive behavior is effective, they often inadvertently reinforce it by paying attention to it, and this may result in future repetitions of the behavior. Indeed, most disruptive behaviors in class aim at attracting teacher and peer attention (Kodak et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref25">43</reflink>]; Storey et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref26">77</reflink>]). Using punitive strategies also damages the students' personal and social development (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref27">53</reflink>]), by reinforcing the behavioral issues these strategies aim to extinguish. Moreover, punishment involving exclusion can be counterproductive in the cases in which behaviors are maintained by the escape from the task (Cipani, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>]). Several studies showed that reprimands and aversive sanctions make aggressive behaviors worse (e.g. Del Hoyo-Bilbao et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref29">25</reflink>]; Hastings et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Extinction is usually advised to reduce the frequency of a disruptive behavior (Landrum & Kauffman, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref31">45</reflink>]). However, extinction may produce rather unstable results because ignoring disruptive behavior is unnatural for most teachers, who unwittingly add some other type of reinforcement (Burt & Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>]). However, an absence of teacher reinforcement is not appropriate in the case of physical aggression when the behavior must be stopped immediately. Physical restraint is used to stop aggressive behavior without reinforcing it by gently blocking the perpetrator for 10 s to 3 min. (Bitgood et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]; Saloviita, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref34">70</reflink>]). While physically blocking the perpetrator, the school staff member uses extinction by not paying attention to the disruptive individual (no verbal interaction and no eye contact).</p> <p>Some contextual change may cause a reappearance of the inappropriate behavior (Bouton & Ricker, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref35">13</reflink>]; Crombag & Shaham, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]). This is called the renewal effect (Bouton, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]). When the context does not vary, the reappearance of the behavior is known as spontaneous recovery (Bouton, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]; Quirk et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref39">65</reflink>]). During extinction, the frequency and intensity of the disruptive behavior may increase, and then suddenly disappear: this is called the extinction burst (Lerman et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]). Moreover, extinction can lead to an increase in aggression before the disappearance of the disruptive behavior (Lerman et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref41">46</reflink>]). These two undesirable effects are more common when extinction is used alone, than when it is combined with the positive reinforcement of an appropriate behavior (Northup et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref42">58</reflink>]; Petscher et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref43">62</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-5">Types of differential reinforcement</hd> <p>Strategies involving both reinforcement and extinction are known as differential reinforcement strategies. The main idea behind differential reinforcement is to extinguish the targeted disruptive behavior, while reinforcing appropriate behaviors (Galilée, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]). According to Landrum and Kauffman ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>]), reinforcement is more effective when it is contingent to the activity, and must be used each time the appropriate behavior occurs in the relevant situation. If this is not done, a resurgence effect may occur (Epstein & Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>]), which is the reappearance of a disruptive behavior after a long period of absence (Lieving et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref47">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Negative reinforcement is not recommended in class because it results in the constant presence of unpleasantness (Landrum & Kauffman, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>]), and may lead to a rejection of the school system as a means of preserving self-esteem. Therefore, the most effective way to reinforce appropriate behavior is to use positive social reinforcement or behavior specific praise (Clair et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]). Using tangible reinforcement (e.g. tokens) also decreases the emergence of disruptive behaviors (Stage & Quiroz, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref50">74</reflink>]), but it leads to categorization by highlighting the differences between students emitting good or bad behaviors.</p> <p>Differential Reinforcement of Alternative behavior (DRA) is when the reinforcer for the behavior stops and is used systematically when an alternative behavior appears (Alberto and Troutman, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]). Few studies have looked at the effectiveness of DRA in complete classes at ordinary school. Studies using all types of differential reinforcement in primary schools are shown in Tables S1, S2, and S3 (online OSF only).</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-6">Differential reinforcement combined with preventive methods and group contingency</hd> <p>Differential reinforcement is often used with preventive methods, such as explicit teaching of appropriate behavior, which involves explaining appropriate behaviors and using role-play to practice them (Stormont et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref52">78</reflink>]). It stems from the idea that not all students assimilate the code of conduct immediately, and need to learn the rules through modeling and practical exercises. Another preventive method is precorrection, consisting of giving clear instruction just before a situation with a high risk of disruption (De Pry & Sugai, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]). Precorrection seems to reduce the emergence of disruptive behaviors, but it has not been tested enough alone, as it is usually paired with another behavioral method (Ennis et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref54">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Other preventive methods consist of asking the students to self-evaluate their behavior (Briesch & Chafouleas, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref55">14</reflink>]), or letting the students make choices during activities (Dunlap et al.0.1994). These last two methods are often used for one specific student in the class (individualized method, Dunlap et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref56">26</reflink>]), and for students with cognitive disabilities (Briesch & Chafouleas, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]; Carr, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]). Some class management strategies add another form of positive reinforcement of appropriate behaviors: group contingency. Group contingency is when there is a positive consequence (reward) for the entire group when an individual or a sub-group emits appropriate classroom behaviors (Rodriguez & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref59">68</reflink>]). We will focus on interdependent group contingency, when the reward for the entire group depends on the behavior of the entire group, creating interdependency between group members. As the students depend on each other to obtain this positive consequence, group contingency improves students' interpersonal relationships. However, if there are different groups within the same class, group contingency can lead to social comparison, which may harm interpersonal relationships (Kelshaw-Levering et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref60">41</reflink>]). It is impossible to know exactly which method leads to the reduction in disruptive behaviors when more than one method is used simultaneously.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-7">Differential reinforcement for all: a strategy anchored in social learning theory</hd> <p>According to Social Learning Theory, human beings do not only learn from their own experience, but also by observing others (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]). Thus, one way to motivate the reproduction of a new behavior is through vicarious reinforcement (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]). This is the expectation to receive the same positive or aversive reaction when emitting the same behavior. For example, if a group observes one of its members emit a behavior, which is then rewarded, the group members will be motivated to reproduce it to obtain the same reinforcement. All the students in a class are observers of their classmates' behaviors and their teacher's reactions, so when the teacher acts in the same way with the entire class, all the students may become role models for each other, and are highly likely to encode the "behavior-consequence" sequence they have observed (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>We called the use of DRA to all the students in a class "Differential Reinforcement for All" (DR-All, Pansu et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref65">61</reflink>]). This method is fully anchored in Social Learning Theory (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]). To our knowledge, the term DR-All has not previously been used by other researchers, but DRA has occasionally been applied to entire classes (Tables S2 and S3, OSF online). For example, Brown and Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>]) describe a comparable strategy without making the use of differential reinforcement explicit. Hall et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref68">36</reflink>]) applied DRA to all the students in a class using social reinforcement, but without discussing the effect of vicarious reinforcement. In DR-All, DRA is applied to all the students in a class in exactly the same way. It is this consistency of application that ensures its success.</p> <p>Studies show that attention-seeking behaviors are the most common drivers of disruptive behavior in class, even though some disruptive behaviors can be caused by other factors (Kodak et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref69">43</reflink>]). DR-All consists in withholding access to the reinforcement of all disruptive behaviors (using physical restraint for dangerous behavior), while praising all appropriate behaviors. When a student behaves in a disruptive manner because they want to avoid a task, the teacher using DR-All does not draw attention to the behavior by ignoring it or saying "we don't have time for this," which leads to an extinction of the behavior by withholding reinforcement (Cipani, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref70">19</reflink>]). However, ignoring the disruptive behavior cannot be applied when a student engages in elopement by running outside the classroom to avoid a task, but the teacher should withhold access to the reinforcer (i.e. escape from task) by representing the task when the student is brought back to the classroom.</p> <p>Paying less or no attention to disruptive behaviors is a challenge for teachers (Harris and Ersner-Hershfield, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref71">35</reflink>]), who are often advised to create a diversion by focusing on the ongoing task, and praising well-behaved students. Our previous studies show that, once trained, teachers are able to withhold reinforcement for up to 94% of disruptive behaviors (Pansu et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref72">61</reflink>]). This can be explained by the new class norm thanks to vicarious reinforcement. However, it is crucial that teachers consistently reinforce appropriate behaviors and pay less or no attention to inappropriate ones to create this new norm. The previous class norm, in which the teacher reacts aversively to disruptive behavior, is replaced by a new behavioral norm. To our knowledge, no meta-analysis has previously focused on studies specifically examining the effectiveness of this DR-All strategy. This is precisely what this meta-analysis seeks to do.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-8">Meta-analysis</hd> <p>Previous meta-analyses on the effect on differential reinforcement on disruptive behaviors found positive results. Chezan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref73">18</reflink>]) and Heath et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref74">38</reflink>]) focused on a type of differential reinforcement called functional communication training for people with disabilities. Solomon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref75">73</reflink>]) analyzed studies using combined strategies in ordinary school. Goh and Bambara's meta-analysis (2012) looked at students with and without disabilities. These previous meta-analyses reveal the widespread use of strategies to reduce disruptive behavior.</p> <p>Most teachers are more likely to apply a new strategy when it is identical for all the students in their class, since it is easier to implement. This also ensures its long-term benefit (State et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref76">75</reflink>]). A teacher's comments to a student may be heard by the whole class and provide information about appropriate behaviors. This is consistent with the principles of Social Learning Theory as well as observational experience (role models) in modeling new behaviors (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>]). Vicarious reinforcement strengthens the strategy (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>]). The added value of this meta-analysis is therefore its focus on the DR-All strategy by quantifying the decrease in disruptive behaviors before and after its implementation. It also aims to identify the moderators that could influence the success of this strategy in regular classes.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-9">Method</hd> <p>This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Prisma method as described by Gedda ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref80">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-10">Study selection</hd> <p>The peer-reviewed articles and dissertations were selected using keywords in several databases, and by contacting authors to request missing data for our meta-analysis. We selected articles from Pascal & Francis and EbscoHost and its databases: Business Source Complete, EconLit, GreenFILE, Literary Reference Center, MLA Directory of Periodicals, MLA International Bibliography, PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycInfo, Regional Business News, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, and SocIndex. We used the research tools presented in each database to refine the search (Tables S4, S5, S6, OSF online).</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-11">Inclusion criteria</hd> <p>First, we retained English and French language articles presenting experimental studies that had a sample of at least 10 participants in the same experimental conditions whose behaviors were measured. The effect size estimation of studies with small sample size are less precise and suffer from an increasing bias we wanted to avoid, even though this bias can be revealed by an asymmetric funnel plot (Borenstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref81">11</reflink>]; Sterne et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref82">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>We also wanted to measure the effect of the strategy in a sample that was representative of the student population, so we excluded studies where the participants presented severe mental or cognitive disabilities, and studies conducted in other environments, such as special education classes or hospitals. Interventions on school premises only were retained when the experimenter was the school staff member ordinarily in charge, such as the playground monitor, to have the most common school context. Finally, the intervention had to include positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior, and no reprimands or aversive sanctions for disruptive behavior (differential reinforcement of alternative behavior). However, we included studies in which the strategy used aimed to significantly reduce reprimands and sanctions. Articles were included if the frequency of disruptive behavior (dependent variable) was measured on its own before and after the implementation of the strategy, and there was sufficient data available. Disruptive behaviors were measured in two ways: (a) by counting the number of suspensions and discipline referrals as reported by the schools or teachers (b) by the experimenters who were either present in the class, or watching a video recording made in class. They had to mark down every disruptive behavior on the behavior typology grid.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-12">Moderator coding</hd> <p>We coded five moderators. First, "Type of Reinforcement used in the DR-All Strategy": social reinforcement (praise), tangible reinforcement (extra recess, rewards), and class or school interdependent contingency. All reactions to disruptive behavior were coded including those that cannot be categorized as reinforcement, such as a break to stop dangerous conduct or a reminder of the rules. Second, "Preventive Methods Combined with DR-All," we retained two preventive methods combined with DR-All: explicit teaching of appropriate behaviors and precorrection. Explicit teaching of appropriate behaviors was coded when the teacher informed the students what appropriate behaviors were expected from them, by using appropriate behavior posters, or by setting up practical exercises in class. Third, "School Year," in order to ensure a sufficient number of participants in each group, the participants were coded according to four school levels (kindergarten, elementary, junior high, and high school) instead of individual class grades (4<sups>th</sups>, 5<sups>th</sups>, 6<sups>th</sups> grade etc.). Fourth, "Strategy Location," we coded strategy location as "in class" or "out of class, but on school premises." Out of class locations can be recess, school corridors, or dining halls. Fifth, "Strategy Duration" is the time between the end of the baseline and the posttest measures. The duration was coded in days at school. Finally, participant grade, gender, disability, experimenters' characteristics, pre-intervention training and coaching were not included as moderators due to a lack of information.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-13">Statistical analyses</hd> <p>We used the <emph>Metafor</emph> R package to carry out a meta-analysis with repeated measures. To launch the meta-analysis script, we needed (a) the number of participants, (b) the mean and standard deviation of the pretest and the posttest, and (c) Pearson's correlation between the pretest and the posttest data. For studies without (b) and (c) indicators, we used Solomon et al.'s procedure (2012) to estimate them with <emph>GetData Graph Digitizer</emph>. The SPSS program was used to calculate the means, standard deviations, and Pearson's correlations.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-14">Effect size</hd> <p>We used standardized mean change because it allowed us to compare pretest and post-test disruptive behaviors means considering the standard deviations' sizes and difference (Morris & DeShon, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref83">56</reflink>]). To calculate the total effect size, we chose a random effect model to make inferences which were not limited to the studies presented (Hedges & Vevea, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref84">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>We built one model without the effect of potential moderators, and a second one to compare the effectiveness of each sub-category of the moderators. In the second one, we looked at the effect size and confidence intervals of each study according to their moderators. We considered an effect size to be small between <emph>d</emph> = 0.20 and <emph>d</emph> = 0.50, to be medium between <emph>d</emph> = 0.50 and <emph>d</emph> = 0.80, to be large between <emph>d</emph> = 0.80 and <emph>d</emph> = 1 (Fan, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref85">30</reflink>]), and to be very large over <emph>d</emph> = 1.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-15">Publication bias</hd> <p>We used Egger's regression test to look for the presence of a publication bias due to the small study effect (Sterne et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref86">76</reflink>]). When the result showed a publication bias, we used the Trim and Fill test to estimate the number of forgotten articles (Duval & Tweedie, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref87">27</reflink>]). To test the robustness of our analysis, we used a test for excessiveness significance (Ioannidis & Trikalinos, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref88">40</reflink>]): when the test was significant, it meant that we had found too many studies with a significant effect size in the meta-analysis. We also used a leave-one-out analysis to check that the results are not too influenced by one study with an extreme value (Viechtbauer & Cheung, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref89">80</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186284247-17">Study selection</hd> <p>The flow diagram shows the literature search steps (Figure S1, OSF online). It made a total of 3024 articles. We kept 46 articles after examining the titles and abstracts. After close inspection, only ten articles containing 16 studies were retained for the meta-analysis (Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Characteristics of the studies respecting the inclusion criteria.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Studies</td><td>Strategy</td><td>Preventive learning</td><td>School</td><td>Place</td><td>Duration</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Benedict et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2007</xref>) − 1</td><td>Social R</td><td>E + Precorrection</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>73 days</td></tr><tr><td>Benedict et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2007</xref>) − 2</td><td>Social R</td><td>E + Precorrection</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>51 days</td></tr><tr><td>Benedict et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2007</xref>) − 3</td><td>Social R</td><td>E + Precorrection</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>45 days</td></tr><tr><td>Benedict et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2007</xref>) − 4</td><td>Social R</td><td>E + Precorrection</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>20 days</td></tr><tr><td>(Colvin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">1997</xref>)− 1*</td><td>Social R + Reaction</td><td>E + Precorrection</td><td>Kindergarten + Elementary</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>22 days</td></tr><tr><td>De Pry & Sugai (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2002</xref>)</td><td>Social R</td><td>Precorrection</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>9 days</td></tr><tr><td>Hall et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">1971</xref>) − 5</td><td>Social R + Contingency</td><td>–</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>20 days</td></tr><tr><td>Hall et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">1971</xref>) − 6</td><td>Social R + Contingency</td><td>–</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>21 days</td></tr><tr><td>Lewis et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">1998</xref>) − 2</td><td>Social R + Contingency</td><td>E</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>7 days</td></tr><tr><td>Lewis et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2000</xref>)*</td><td>Social R + Reaction</td><td>E + Precorrection</td><td>Kindergarten + Elementary</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>16 days</td></tr><tr><td>Metzler et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">2001</xref>)*</td><td>Social and Material R</td><td>E</td><td>Middle</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>2 years</td></tr><tr><td>O'Handley et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2018</xref>) − 1</td><td>Social R</td><td>–</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>9 days</td></tr><tr><td>O'Handley et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2018</xref>) − 2</td><td>Social R</td><td>–</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>8 days</td></tr><tr><td>O'Handley et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2018</xref>) − 3</td><td>Social R</td><td>–</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>8 days</td></tr><tr><td>Pansu et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2024</xref> − 1</td><td>Social R</td><td>–</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>8 days</td></tr><tr><td>Pansu et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2024</xref> − 2</td><td>Social R</td><td>–</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td>Class</td><td>8 days</td></tr><tr><td>Pansu et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2024</xref> − 3</td><td>Social R</td><td>–</td><td>Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>9 days</td></tr><tr><td>Putnam et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2003</xref>)*</td><td>Social and Material R + Contingency</td><td>E</td><td>Kindergarten + Elementary</td><td>Out of Class</td><td>1.5 years</td></tr><tr><td>Reinke et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2014</xref>)*</td><td>Social R + Reaction</td><td>Precorrection</td><td>Kindergarten + Elementary</td><td>Class</td><td>39 days</td></tr><tr><td>Rodriguez and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2014</xref>)</td><td>Social R + Contingency</td><td>–</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td>Class</td><td>19.2 days</td></tr><tr><td>Stormont et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">2007</xref>)</td><td>Social R</td><td>E + Precorrection</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td>Class</td><td>6.3 days</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. * These studies with were excluded from the meta-analysis because their strategy was one-off. R = Reinforcement, Reaction = reaction to disruption that is not a reinforcement, E = Explicit teaching for appropriate behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-18">DR-all moderators</hd> <p>The duration was simply copied from the 3 studies that explicitly stated it (Pansu et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref90">61</reflink>]). We counted the number of strategy observation sessions per day in the strategy duration graphs published in the articles in 12 studies. One study, Reinke et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref91">67</reflink>]), included a weekly coaching session, so we inferred the strategy duration from the number of coaching sessions. The first intervention condition of Lewis et al.'s study (1998) did not comply with our definition of an intervention phase due to an absence of reinforcement. We added these measures of the first intervention condition to the baseline phase. The last condition did not fit because the reinforcement became intermittent. Finally, we included the baseline and the first intervention condition in the pretest, and only the second intervention condition in the posttest. Hall et al.'s sixth study (1971) used different strategies, so we included the first strategy phase only.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-19">Retained study characteristics</hd> <p>This meta-analysis covered eight articles published between 1971 and 2020, of which 71% were published after 2006. It included 16 studies grouping 425 mixed gender participants. One study had more than 30 participants. The studies all took place in the United States of America, except for three in France. Five studies took place in a rural area of which two were in a privileged area, and three in an underprivileged area. The participants were preschool to 6<sups>th</sups> grade students. Forty-four percent of the studies took place in kindergartens, and 56% in elementary schools. Disruptive behaviors were measured by observation, as was implementation of the strategy in 75% of the studies.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-20">Total effect</hd> <p>The effect size of each study is reported in Figure 1. We obtained a significant negative total effect size (<emph>d</emph> = −2.53, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). There was a considerable reduction in disruptive behavior. The total effect size was greater than 1, which means that the difference between the pretest and posttest means of disruptive behavior was greater than one standard deviation. The Q was significant (<emph>Q</emph> = 195.77, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), which means there was a heterogeneity between the studies' effect sizes. The I<sups>2</sups> indicated that 97.58% of the variation between the studies was caused by heterogeneity rather than by chance. We thought the moderators could explain these differences.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Forest plot.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-21">DR-all moderator analyses</hd> <p>Table 2 shows the comparison between the modalities of the moderators. As expected, the use of precorrection significantly decreases the emergence of disruptive behaviors. Strategies using positive social reinforcement of appropriate behavior are more effective when mixed with class or school contingency. We could not find an effect of the strategy location. Contrary to expectations, the strategy is more effective on elementary students than kindergarten students, and the explicit teaching of appropriate behaviors decreases the effectiveness of the strategy. The Q test of moderators is significant, which means the heterogeneity is explained by the moderators (<emph>QM</emph> = 77.04, <emph>p</emph> = < 0.01). However, the I<sups>2</sups> test indicates that 66.06% of the heterogeneity is caused by differences between the studies that are not measured.</p> <p>Table 2. Moderator effects.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>d</td><td>CI</td><td>p</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>–3.251<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref>*</td><td>–4.095</td><td>–2.407</td><td><italic>p</italic> <.001</td></tr><tr><td>Positive social reinforcement + group contingency</td><td>–2.597<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref>*</td><td>–3.957</td><td>–1.237</td><td><italic>p</italic> <.001</td></tr><tr><td>Kindergarten level</td><td char=".">3.469<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref>*</td><td char=".">2.223</td><td char=".">4.715</td><td><italic>p</italic> <.001</td></tr><tr><td>A part out of class</td><td char=".">.974</td><td>–1.353</td><td char=".">3.301</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.412</td></tr><tr><td>Explicit teaching of appropriate behavior</td><td char=".">3.690<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">*</xref>*</td><td char=".">1.000</td><td char=".">6.381</td><td><italic>p</italic> <.01</td></tr><tr><td>Precorrection</td><td>–4.890<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">**</xref>*</td><td>–7.166</td><td>–2.614</td><td><italic>p</italic> <.001</td></tr><tr><td>Duration</td><td>–.004</td><td>–.042</td><td char=".">.035</td><td><italic>p</italic> =.846</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Note. d = standardized mean difference, CI = 95% random-effect confidence intervals.</item> <item>3 * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p>We also added an indicator of methodological study quality that we did not include first to limit the number of moderators in the model because of the limited study sample (Tables S7, S8, OSF online). Therefore, the model including methodological quality did not include the moderators showing any effect: duration and place. We did not find an effect of methodological quality (<emph>d</emph> = −0.03, <emph>p</emph> = 0.95). The model including this moderator did not explain the differences of effect between studies better (<emph>QM</emph> = 79.77, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01; <emph>I<sups>2</sups></emph> = 68.99%).</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-22">Publication bias analysis</hd> <p>Egger's regression test was not significant (<emph>z</emph> = −1.68, <emph>p</emph> = 0.09), which means the meta-analysis is not particularly affected by a publication bias. The test for excessive significance was not significant (<emph>p</emph> = < 0.191): the number of studies with significant effect size was not excessive. The leave-one-out analysis showed that the study of De Pry and Sugai ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref92">23</reflink>]) had a disproportionate weight in the results, the global effect size going from −2.53 to −2.18 without it (Table S9, OSF online). This study did not seem to have a particularity that might explain its effect size gap with the other studies. We launched the meta-analysis without De Pry and Sugai's study (2002). The coefficients changed but they kept their significance (or their non-significance) and their sense. Even if the global effect size changed (<emph>d</emph> = −2.18, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) it was still large and negative.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the effects of the DR-All strategy. By combining the effects of direct reinforcement (the consequence of the target student's behavior), and vicarious reinforcement (other students' observation of this consequence), this strategy facilitates the creation of a new class norm (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref93">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref94">5</reflink>]). The results of our meta-analysis showed a sizeable decrease in disruptive behaviors as a result of the DR-All strategy. The large effect size can be explained by the fact that most disruptive behaviors prior to the implementation of the strategy were aimed at attracting the teacher's attention. Given that the teacher no longer paid attention to disruptive behaviors post-strategy, most students may have stopped behaving inappropriately because they no longer received the attention they desired. The decrease in disruptive behaviors may also be attributed to the simple acquisition of class rules over time. However, if this were true, we would also have found a duration effect in the control group, which we did not. Indeed, in most cases, no decrease was found in the control group contrary to the experimental group (Metzler et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref95">55</reflink>]; Närhi et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref96">57</reflink>]; Pansu et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref97">61</reflink>]—study 2; Reinke et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref98">67</reflink>]). We also observed a strong heterogeneity among the study effect sizes. The smallest effect size was 0.04, and the biggest was −8.25. This heterogeneity is partly explained by the moderator effects.</p> <p>The use of precorrection decreased the emergence of disruptive behaviors, as in previous research (Ennis et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref99">28</reflink>]). Strategy duration had no impact, which implies that these strategies result in rapid behavioral change. In contrast to previous findings (Solomon et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref100">73</reflink>]), strategy location did not affect these results. However, there was a categorization problem with the location moderator. In order to have enough studies per category, we aggregated out-of-class strategies with in- and out-of-class strategies.</p> <p>The positive social reinforcement of appropriate behavior produces more effects when it is combined with class or school interdependent contingency. By giving praise and rewards to students for their behaviors as a group – like "thank you all for your behavior this morning"-, and not just individual praise—like "thank you [name] for being attentive," it improves students' interpersonal relationships, and decreases disruptive behaviors.</p> <p>However, explicit teaching of appropriate behavior does not always produce the desired effect. The teacher might believe that clarifying the class rules at the beginning of the strategy may encourage the students to behave appropriately, but this may result in some students increasing their disruptive behaviors to attract the teacher's attention. When students realize that disruptive behaviors no longer attract their teacher's attention, their occurrence should decrease. In some studies, the posttest measure takes into account the behavior at the start of the intervention when the students sought their teacher's attention by behaving in a disruptive manner. Thus, they include the initial increase of disruption due to explicit teaching of appropriate behavior, which can explain our result.</p> <p>Finally, our findings showed that differential reinforcement of disruptive behaviors seems to be less effective among kindergarten students. This is surprising because we expected behavioral change to occur faster in this age group (Meisels & Shonkoff, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref101">54</reflink>]). These young students may not disturb the class on purpose (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref102">5</reflink>]). Their "inappropriate" behavior might fulfill a physiological need, and they may not understand that their behavior is disturbing the class. Indeed, empathy, which is a person's capacity to relate to the feelings of others, is required, and this only begins to develop during the kindergarten years (Bensalah et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref103">7</reflink>]). Another explanation is that kindergarten students are still learning how to behave in class, so they do not always respect the rules because they do not know them well enough.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-24">Implication for practice</hd> <p>On a practical level, common strategies based on reprimands and aversive sanctions can focus students' attention on the disruptive behavior. While they often stop the behavior immediately, the long-term effect of this strategy can be counter-productive <emph>a fortiori</emph> when the student's self-concept values are in accordance with the disruptive behavior. In this case, the disruptive behavior is highly likely to reoccur when the threat of sanction disappears. In contrast, this is unlikely to happen if the disruptive behavior is not in accordance with the student's self-concept values. Aronson and Carlsmith ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref104">3</reflink>]) concluded that if a child, whose behavior is deviant or disruptive, is induced to cease this behavior through the threat of mild sanction, the child may depreciate the behavior. However, the threat of severe sanction may add value to the target behavior, thereby leading to its reoccurrence. Thus, threats of severe sanction do not ensure the construction of a value system that is appropriate in the school environment. Social reinforcement given by the teacher (external source) strengthens or contradicts the student's internal feedback, which in turn leads to better self-regulation. When this social reinforcement is in line with the student's self-concept values, it results in more appropriate behavior, whereas its effect on behavior is weaker when it does not correspond to these values. Taking this into account, early researchers added extinction to reduce disruptive behaviors more effectively.</p> <p>Paying less or no attention to inappropriate behaviors and rewarding good ones in the same way for all students has powerful behavioral effects. By responding consistently to all the students, the teacher structures the classroom environment and establishes a new norm to shape student behavior. Further, role models enable all the students to observe appropriate behaviors in action as well as the teacher's responses to these behaviors. Importantly, the students learn and adopt a new way of behaving in class without threats or punishments.</p> <p>The DR-All strategy gives real hope to teachers whose aim is to optimize the precious time they spend with their students (checklist of DR-All, OSF only). Teachers are usually expected to give their attention to individual students, which often means that students whose behavior is disruptive receive special attention. The notion of extinction would therefore be challenging for many teachers. In addition, most teachers work in schools where individualistic and meritocratic values are upheld, so it is crucial that teachers are taught how this DR-All strategy may benefit their students as individuals in today's school environment.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-25">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>The first limitation is a potential sample bias, since our meta-analysis only included 16 studies (see Table S10, OSF online). Second, our study may suffer from a publication bias because most of the studies took place in the USA. Future studies should test the strategy elsewhere. Third, the heterogeneity of the studies' effect sizes may be due to untested moderators, such as the effect of implementation quality, which is often a problem in studies where teachers are the experimenters (Sanetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref105">71</reflink>]). Finally, future studies should be conducted over a longer period of time, on a larger scale, and pay more attention to implementation quality.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-26">Conclusion</hd> <p>Disruptive behaviors at school are not inevitable and can be reduced. This all depends on how teachers and school staff react to these behaviors. If greater value is systematically attributed to appropriate behaviors (behavior specific praise), and extinction is used instead of paying attention to disruptive behaviors (reprimands and sanctions), a new behavioral norm can be created. By rolling out this differential reinforcement strategy for all the students in a class or school, the new norm becomes a prominent feature of school life, which will ensure its effectiveness over time. This type of strategy is inexpensive as it does not require costly teacher training programs. Teachers simply need to understand how direct and indirect reinforcement impacts their students' behaviors. Although the results of this meta-analysis are encouraging, a large-scale randomized study needs to be set up to confirm its effectiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-27">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors thank Roderick D. O'Handley who kindly provided his data.</p> <hd id="AN0186284247-28">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0186284247-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref51" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2025.2449842.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186284247-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A.C. (2006). Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers (7th ed). Pearson Merril Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alvarez, H. K. (2007). The impact of teacher preparation on responses to student aggression in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 (7), 1113 – 1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref104" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of the severity of threat on the devaluation of forbidden behavior. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (6), 584 – 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0039901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref63" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> a Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., & Squires, J. K. (2007). Assessment and implementation of positive behavior support in preschools. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27 (3), 174 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214070270030801</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref103" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bensalah, L., Caillies, S., & Anduze, M. (2016). Links among cognitive empathy, theory of mind, and affective perspective taking by young children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 177 (1), 17 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2015.1106438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bierman, K. L. (1986). The relation between social aggression and peer rejection in middle childhood. Advances in Behavioral Assessment of Children & Families, 2, 151 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006775</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. B. (1995). Predicting the longitudinal course associated with aggressive-rejected, aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) status. Development and Psychopathology, 7 (4), 669 – 682. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006775</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bitgood, S. C., Crowe, M. J., Suarez, Y., & Peters, R. D. (1980). Immobilization: Effects and side-effects of stereotyped behavior in children. Behavior Modification, 4 (2), 187 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1177/014544558042003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bouton, M. E. (2004). Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learning & Memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 11 (5), 485 – 494. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.78804</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bouton, M. E., & Ricker, S. T. (1994). Renewal of extinguished responding in a second context. Animal Learning & Behavior, 22 (3), 317 – 324. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209840</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009). Review and analysis of literature on self-management interventions to promote appropriate classroom behaviors (1988–2008). School Psychology Quarterly, 24 (2), 106 – 118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, P., & Elliott, R. (1965). Control of aggression in a nursery school class. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2 (2), 103 – 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(65)90035-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burt, J. L., & Pennington, R. C. (2017). A teacher's guide to using extinction in school settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53 (2), 107 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carr, M. E. (2016). Self‐management of challenging behaviours associated with autism spectrum disorder: A meta‐analysis. Australian Psychologist, 51 (4), 316 – 333. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chezan, L. C., Wolfe, K., & Drasgow, E. (2018). A meta-analysis of functional communication training effects on problem behavior and alternative communicative responses. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 33 (4), 195 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357617741294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cipani, E. C. (1995). Be aware of negative reinforcement. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 27 (4), 36 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005999502700408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clair, E. B., Bahr, M. W., Quach, H. L., & LeDuc, J. D. (2018). The positive plus program: Affirmative classroom management to improve student behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 33 (3), 221 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1632</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good, R. H., & Lee, Y.-Y. (1997). Using active supervision and precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12 (4), 344 – 363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crombag, H. S., & Shaham, Y. (2002). Renewal of drug seeking by contextual cues after prolonged extinction in rats. Behavioral Neuroscience, 116 (1), 169 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.116.1.169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> a De Pry, R. L., & Sugai, G. (2002). The effect of active supervision and pre-correction on minor behavioral incidents in a sixth grade general education classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11 (4), 255 – 267. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021162906622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Debarbieux, É. (2015). Du "climat scolaire": Definitions, effets et politiques publiques. Éducation Et Formations, (88–89), 11 – 27. <ulink href="http://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/revue%5f88-89/73/2/depp-2015-EF-88-89%5f510732.pdf">http://cache.media.education.gouv.fr/file/revue%5f88-89/73/2/depp-2015-EF-88-89%5f510732.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Del Hoyo-Bilbao, J., Gámez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2017). Corporal punishment by parents and child-to-parent aggression in Spanish adolescents. Anales De Psicología, 34 (1), 108 – 116. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.34.1.259601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunlap, G., DePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Wright, S., White, R., & Gomez, A. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 (3), 505 – 518. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95 (449), 89 – 98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669529</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, R. P., Royer, D. J., Lane, K. L., & Griffith, C. E. (2017). A systematic review of precorrection in PK-12 settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 40 (4), 465 – 495. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2017.0021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epstein, R., & Skinner, B. F. (1980). Resurgence of responding after the cessation of response-independent reinforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 77 (10), 6251 – 6253. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.77.10.6251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, X. (2001). Statistical significance and effect size in education research: Two sides of a coin. The Journal of Educational Research, 94 (5), 275 – 282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galilée, M. (2016). Lecture 3: Le Renforcement Différentiel. In M. Galilée (Ed.), Théories et Méthodes de l'Apprentissage (pp. 18 – 53). Université Grenoble Alpes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gedda, M. (2015). Traduction française des lignes directrices PRISMA pour l'écriture et la lecture des revues systématiques et des méta-analyses. Kinésithérapie, la Revue, 15 (157), 39 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kine.2014.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh, A. E., & Bambara, L. M. (2012). Individualized positive behavior support in school settings: A meta‐analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 33 (5), 271 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510383990</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, K. J., Wiley, S. D., Broughman, S. P., Strizek, G. A., & Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and staffing survey 1999–2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and bureau of Indian affairs elementary and secondary schools. U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, S. L., & Ersner-Hershfield, R. (1978). Behavioral suppression of seriously disruptive behavior in psychotic and retarded patients: A review of punishment and its alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 85 (6), 1352 – 1375. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.85.6.1352</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> a Hall, R. V., Fox, R., Willard, D., Goldsmith, L., Emerson, M., Owen, M., Davis, F., & Porcia, E. (1971). The teacher as observer and experimenter in the modification of disputing and talking-out behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4 (2), 141 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1971.4-141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., & DeRose, L. (2005). Links among gender, inhibition, and parental socialization in the development of prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51 (4), 467 – 493. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heath, A. K., Ganz, J. B., Parker, R., Burke, M., & Ninci, J. (2015). A meta-analytic review of functional communication training across mode of communication, age, and disability. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2 (2), 155 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-014-0044-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3 (4), 486 – 504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ioannidis, J. P., & Trikalinos, T. A. (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials (London, England), 4 (3), 245 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774507079441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelshaw-Levering, K., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Henry, J. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools, 37 (6), 523 – 533. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kessels, U., & Heyder, A. (2020). Not stupid, but lazy? Psychological benefits of disruptive classroom behavior from an attributional perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 23 (3), 583 – 613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09550-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kodak, T., Northup, J., & Kelley, M. E. (2007). An evaluation of the types of attention that maintain problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40 (1), 167 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.43-06</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M., & Patterson, C. J. (1995). Developmental patterns of childhood peer relations as predictors of externalizing behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7 (4), 825 – 843. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006866</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landrum, T. J., & Kauffman, J. M. (2006). Behavioral approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 47 – 71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874783.ch3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., & Wallace, M. D. (1999). Side effects of extinction: Prevalence of bursting and aggression during the treatment of self‐injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32 (1), 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> a Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000). The effects of pre-correction and active supervision on the recess behavior of elementary students. Education and Treatment of Children, 23 (2), 109 – 121. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42940520">www.jstor.org/stable/42940520</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school-wide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27 (3), 446 – 459. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1998.12085929</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieving, G. A., Hagopian, L. P., Long, E. S., & O'Connor, J. (2004). Response-class hierarchies and resurgence of severe problem behavior. The Psychological Record, 54 (4), 621 – 634. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, E., & Hudson, A. (1998). Conduct problems and treatment across home and school: A review of the literature. Behaviour Change, 15 (4), 213 – 227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0813483900004708</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longhi, L., Charpentier, A., Raffaëlli, C. (2020). Caractériser les Environnements de Travail Favorisant la Satisfaction Professionnelle des Enseignants: les Apports de l'Enquête Talis 2018. Direction de l'Evaluation, de la Prospective et de la Performance. https://archives-statistiques-depp.education.gouv.fr/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/45505/caracteriser-les-environnements-de-travail-favorisant-la-satisfaction-professionnelle-des-enseignant?_lg=fr-FR</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marksteiner, T., & Kruger, S. (2016). Sense of belonging to school in 15-year-old students. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32 (1), 68 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28 (4), 467 – 478. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meisels, S. J., & Shonkoff, J. P. (1990). Early Childhood Intervention: A Continuing Evolution. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early intervention (2nd ed., pp. 3 – 34). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior support. Education and Treatment of Children, 24 (4), 448 – 479. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42900503">www.jstor.org/stable/42900503</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 105 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Närhi, V., Kiiski, T., & Savolainen, H. (2017). Reducing disruptive behaviours and improving classroom behavioural climate with class‐wide positive behaviour support in middle schools. British Educational Research Journal, 43 (6), 1186 – 1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Northup, J., Fisher, W., Kahang, S. W., Harrell, R., & Kurtz, P. (1997). An assessment of the necessary strength of behavioral treatments for severe behavior problems. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 9 (1), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-017-9563-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> a O'Handley, R. D., Dufrene, B. A., & Whipple, H. (2018). Tactile prompting and weekly performance feedback for increasing teachers' behavior-specific praise. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27 (3), 324 – 342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-017-9283-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ofsted. (2019). Teacher well-being at work in schools and further education providers. U.K. Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936253/Teacher_well-being_report_110719F.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> a Pansu, P., Freyssinet, I., & Le Hénaff, B. (2024). Using differential reinforcement for all to manage disruptive behaviors: Three class interventions at kindergarten and primary school. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1411743. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1411743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petscher, E. S., Rey, C., & Bailey, J. S. (2009). A review of empirical support for differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30 (3), 409 – 425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2008.08.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pisacreta, J., Tincani, M., Connell, J. E., & Axelrod, S. (2011). Increasing teachers' use of a 1: 1 praise-to-behavior correction ratio to decrease student disruption in general education classrooms. Behavioral Interventions, 26 (4), 243 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., Ramirez‐Platt, C. M., & Luiselli, J. K. (2003). Improving student bus‐riding behavior through a whole‐school intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36 (4), 583 – 590. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quirk, G. J., Russo, G. K., Barron, J. L., & Lebron, K. (2000). The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in the recovery of extinguished fear. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 20 (16), 6225 – 6231. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.20-16-06225.2000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddy, L. A., Fabiano, G. A., Dudek, C. M., & Hsu, L. (2013). Instructional and behavior management practices implemented by elementary general education teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 51 (6), 683 – 700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Wang, Z., Newcomer, L., & King, K. (2014). Use of coaching and behavior support planning for students with disruptive behavior within a universal classroom management program. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22 (2), 74 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426613519820</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> a Rodriguez, B. J., & Anderson, C. M. (2014). Integrating a social behavior intervention during small group academic instruction using a total group criterion intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16 (4), 234 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713492858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruus, V., Veisson, M., Leino, M., Ots, L., Pallas, L., Sarv, E., & Veisson, A. (2007). Students' well-being, coping, academic success, and school climate. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35 (7), 919 – 936. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.7.919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saloviita, T. (1988). Elimination of self-injurious behaviour by brief physical restraint and DRA. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy, 17 (1), 55 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506078809455816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanetti, L. M. H., Kratochwill, T. R., & Long, A. C. (2013). Applying adult behavior change theory to support mediator-based intervention implementation. School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 28 (1), 47 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506078809455816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., Hintze, J. M., Cressey, J. M., & Peller, S. L. (2012). A meta‐analysis of school‐wide positive behavior support: An exploratory study using single‐case synthesis. Psychology in the Schools, 49 (2), 105 – 121. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20625</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26 (3), 333 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1997.12085871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State, T. M., Harrison, J. R., Kern, L., & Lewis, T. J. (2017). Feasibility and acceptability of classroom-based interventions for students with emotional/behavioral challenges at the high school level. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 19 (1), 26 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300716648459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sterne, J. A., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 323 (7304), 101 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Storey, K., Lawry, J. R., Ashworth, R., Danko, C. D., & Strain, P. S. (1994). Functional analysis and intervention for disruptive behaviors of a kindergarten student. The Journal of Educational Research, 87 (6), 361 – 370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1994.9941267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stormont, M., Lewis, T. J., & Beckner, R. (2005). Positive behavior support systems: Applying key features in preschool settings. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37 (6), 42 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503700605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> a Stormont, M. A., Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007). Teacher implementation of precorrection and praise statements in head start classrooms as a component of a program-wide system of positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16 (3), 280 – 290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9040-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1 (2), 112 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Irène Freyssinet and Pascal Pansu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Irène Freyssinet , she is a PhD researcher in educational sciences at the University of Grenoble Alpes. Her current research interests are in social psychology, particularly in behavior change. She works on class management strategies and their impact on student behavior and relationships.</p> <p>Pascal Pansu , he is a professor of social psychology of education at the University of Grenoble-Alpes, where he directed the Research Laboratory on Learning in Context (LaRAC) for over 8 years. His research focuses on teachers' judgment and its effect on students' self-evaluation, as well as on the evaluative indices present in the classroom, which guide students' values and regulate their learning and behavior. His work has mainly focused on the impact of attribution, context effects, self-perceptions, self-evaluation bias, and stereotype on learners' cognitive performance and classroom behavior. His research also aims to serve evidence-based practices and contribute to the emergence of new approaches in education.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref105"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1494407
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Managing Disruptive Behaviors at School: A Meta-Analysis of Strategies Using Differential Reinforcement for All
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Irène+Freyssinet%22">Irène Freyssinet</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3196-8618">0000-0002-3196-8618</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pascal+Pansu%22">Pascal Pansu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8344-615X">0000-0002-8344-615X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Preventing+School+Failure%22"><i>Preventing School Failure</i></searchLink>. 2025 69(3):275-284.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– 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+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reinforcement%22">Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Techniques%22">Classroom Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prevention%22">Prevention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Contingency+Management%22">Contingency Management</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1045988X.2025.2449842
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1045-988X<br />1940-4387
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Disruptive behaviors are a source of concern in schools. Differential reinforcement strategies are often recommended to reduce their emergence by withholding access to their reinforcer while reinforcing appropriate behaviors. Differential Reinforcement for All (DR-All) refers to using a differential reinforcement strategy in the same way for all the students in a class, which would be even beneficial if applied consistently throughout the school year. This meta-analysis includes 16 single-case studies conducted in regular primary schools. The results revealed an effect of the DR-All strategy on the reduction of disruptive behaviors. They also showed a large effect size heterogeneity across studies, partly explained by several moderators. DR-All points to an effective way to reduce disruption in regular classroom situations.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1494407
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1494407
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1045988X.2025.2449842
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 275
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reinforcement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prevention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Contingency Management
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Managing Disruptive Behaviors at School: A Meta-Analysis of Strategies Using Differential Reinforcement for All
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Irène Freyssinet
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pascal Pansu
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1045-988X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-4387
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 69
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Preventing School Failure
              Type: main
ResultId 1