A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of the Good Behavior Game.
GBG gives only small, uneven gains—use it as a gentle classroom routine, not a primary behavior fix.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team looked at seven gold-standard trials of the Good Behavior Game. Over 4,700 general-education kids took part.
They pooled the results to see how GBG affects conduct, attention, reading, and social skills.
What they found
GBG gave only tiny benefits. Girls’ conduct improved a bit. Boys’ reading edged up. Attention did not move.
Effects were so small that one class might not notice the change.
How this fits with other research
Veenman et al. (2018) also meta-analyzed 19 RCTs of classroom behavior programs. They found small drops in disruption too, so the new data extend the same pattern.
Lemons et al. (2015) warned that reading lessons alone rarely fix behavior. GBG now mirrors that warning: even when the game lifts reading a little, social gains stay small.
Bush et al. (2021) reviewed ABA studies for kids with ID. Their strong effects on communication show that when we need big change, explicit ABA tools beat universal games like GBG.
Why it matters
If you run GBG, treat it as a light classroom routine, not a fix for serious behavior. Use it to nudge girls’ conduct or boys’ reading, then layer on stronger ABA tactics for kids who need more. Pick precise reinforcement or social-skills training when the goal is attention or deep social change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Keep GBG if you like it, but add a stronger, targeted intervention for any child whose attention or conduct still fails your criterion.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is widely recognized as an evidence-based intervention that reinforces prosocial behaviors and discourages disruptive behaviors among students in the classroom setting. The current meta-analysis synthesized randomized controlled trials of the GBG to examine its impact on proximal student outcomes across seven studies representing 4,700 children. Although recent reviews focusing on single-case studies of the GBG have reported moderate to large treatment effects, our results were quite modest in comparison (hedges' g = 0.09-0.32). Treatment effect sizes also varied according to outcome and sex. The GBG significantly outperformed the comparison conditions for peer-rated conduct problems and shy/withdrawn behavior as well as teacher-rated conduct problems for which a greater effect was found for girls relative to boys. Moreover, the treatment effect in favor of the GBG for reading comprehension was specific to boys and not girls. No significant differences were found between the GBG and comparison conditions for inattention and teacher-rated shy/withdrawn behavior. These results suggest that the GBG may not be as impactful as originally reported and the intended population and treatment targets should be considered before its implementation in the classroom.
Behavior modification, 2021 · doi:10.1177/0145445519878670