Ireland

Last updated : 09.01.2024
Country of origin
USA
Last reviewed:
Age group
0-5 years
6-10 years
Target group
Children aged 4-8 years who have oppositional defiant disorder and/or ADHD
Programme setting(s)
Community
School
Level(s) of intervention
Indicated prevention
Selective prevention

The child training component is comprised of weekly two-hour sessions for 18-19 weeks during which two therapists work with 6-7 children and focus on social skills, conflict resolution, empathy-building, problem solving and cooperation. Teachers and parents receive weekly letters explaining the concepts covered and strategies to reinforce skills taught. Children are assigned homework to complete with their parents and receive weekly good behaviour-charts that parents and teachers complete. The child training prevention programme is also described in a separate write-up.

Links to this programme in other registries
USA - Blueprints Programs
The Netherlands - Databank Effectieve Jeugdinterventies
UK - CYAT - mentor-adepis
UK - Early Intervention Foundation Guidebook
Contact details

Dr. Carolyn Webster-Stratton, Ph.D
Incredible Years, University of Washington
1411 8th Avenue West
Seattle, WA 98119
USA
Phone: 1 (206) 285-7565 / 1(888) 506-3562
Email: cwebsterstratton[a]comcast.net
Website: www.incredibleyears.com

Evidence rating
Additional studies recommended
Studies overview

The programme has been evaluated in two small studies, one each in Wales, UK and Turkey, and two randomised controlled trials, one each in Ireland in Norway.

The Welsh study was a small pilot with 24 children aged 5 to 9 years. It is unclear how groups were allocated but the implementation was alongside the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme. There were no significant differences between groups on any of the measures (assessing behaviour).

Another small study was conducted in Turkey with 32 children aged 4 to 6 years. The study found effects on social problem-solving, but not on child behaviour and social competence.

The Irish study was conducted with 45 children aged 3-7 years with symptoms of ADHD. There were two intervention groups and one control group. Both intervention groups received the Incredible Years Parent Programme; one also received the child training. The difference between the combined group and control group were largely insignificant, with the exception of SDQ impact scale. Compared to the parent-only intervention group, there was a significant difference only on one outcome – hyperactivity – in favour of the parent-only group, suggesting no added benefit of the child training.

The Norwegian study used a similar design with 136 children aged 4-8 years displaying oppositional or conduct problems randomly allocated to three groups: parent-only, parent and child training combined and control group. At posttest, children in the combined parent and child training had significantly lower aggression scores (as reported by mothers, but not fathers) compared to the control. In terms of parent measures, there were significant intervention effects on all 4 mother reports (harsh discipline, inconsistent parenting, positive parentings and stress), and 2/4 father reports. There were no effects on attention problems, internalising problems or intensity. Compared to the parent-only group, the only significant difference (father reported problems) favoured the parent-only group.

References of studies

Bayrak, H. U., & Akman, B. (2018). Adaptation of the" Incredible Years Child Training Program" and Investigation of the Effectiveness of the Program. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(2).

Beauchaine, T. P., Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2005). Mediators, moderators, and predictors of one-year outcomes among children treated for early-onset conduct problems: A latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 371-388.


*Drugli, M. B., & Larsson, B. (2006). Children aged 4-8 years treated with parent training and child therapy because of conduct problems: Generalizing effects to day-care and school settings. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15(7), 392-399.


*Drugli, M. B., Larsson, B., Fossum, S., & Morch, W. T. (2010). Five- to six-year outcome and its prediction for children with ODD/CD treated with parent training. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(5), 559-566.


*Hutchings, J., Bywater, T., Gridley, N., Whitaker, C., Martin-Forbes, P., & Gruffydd, S. (2012). The incredible years therapeutic social and emotional skills programme: A pilot study. School Psychology International, 33, 285-293.

*McGilloway, S., Ni Mhaille, G., Leckey, Y., Kelly, P., & Bracken, M. (n.d.)

*Larsson, B., Fossum, S., Clifford, G., Drugli, M., Handegard, B., & Morch, W. (2009). Treatment of oppositional defiant and conduct problems in young Norwegian children. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 18, 42-52.


Reid, M. J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (2003). Follow-up of children who received the Incredible Years intervention for oppositional defiant disorder: Maintenance and prediction of 2-year outcome. Behavior Therapy, 34, 471-491.


Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1997). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: A comparison of child and parent training interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 93-109.


Webster-Stratton, C. H., Reid, M. J., & Beauchaine, T. (2011). Combining parent and child training for young children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(2), 191-203.


Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: intervention outcomes for parent, child, and teacher training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 105-124.


Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M.J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: An evaluation of the Incredible Years Teacher and Child Training Programme in high risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 471-488.

Countries where evaluated
Ireland
Norway
United Kingdom
Protective factor(s) addressed
Family: attachment to and support from parents
Family: parent involvement in learning/education
Family: parent social support
Individual and peers: Problem solving skills
Individual and peers: skills for social interaction
School and work: opportunities for prosocial involvement in education
Risk factor(s) addressed
Family: aggressive or violent parenting
Family: family management problems
Family: neglectful parenting
Individual and peers: anti-social behaviour
Individual and peers: hyperactivity
Individual and peers: other
School and work: low commitment/attachment to school/workplace
Outcomes targeted
Positive relationships
Relations with peers
Other behaviour outcomes
Description of programme

The Incredible Years Series is a comprehensive programme for parents, teachers, and children with the goal of preventing, reducing, and treating behavioural and emotional problems in children aged two to eight. There are versions for parents, teachers and children.

The last addition was the training series for children (Dina Dinosaur Curriculum), a "pull out" treatment programme for small groups of children exhibiting conduct problems. This curriculum emphasizes emotional literacy, empathy and perspective taking, friendship development, anger management, interpersonal problem-solving, following school rules, and school success.

Last updated : 09.01.2024
Country of origin
USA
Last reviewed:
Age group
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-14 years
Target group
Teachers of children aged 3-8 years
Programme setting(s)
School
Level(s) of intervention
Selective prevention
Universal prevention

The Incredible Years Teacher Programme emphasizes effective classroom management skills such as: the effective use of teacher attention, praise and encouragement, use of incentives for difficult behaviour problems, proactive teaching strategies, how to manage inappropriate classroom behaviours, the importance of building positive relationships with students, and how to teach empathy, social skills and problem-solving in the classroom. Teachers receive 4-6 days of training spread out over several months.

Links to this programme in other registries
USA - Blueprints Programs
The Netherlands - Databank Effectieve Jeugdinterventies
UK - CYAT - mentor-adepis
UK - Early Intervention Foundation Guidebook
Contact details

Ms. Lisa St. George
Incredible Years
USA
Email: lisastgeorge[a]comcast.net
Website: www.incredibleyears.com

Evidence rating
Possibly beneficial
Studies overview

The programme has been evaluated in three cluster randomised controlled trials, one each in Ireland, England (UK) and Wales (UK), as well as three quasi-experimental studies, one in Wales (UK) and two in Norway.

In the Welsh trial, 107 students, aged approximately 5 years, from 11 primary schools that were randomised to intervention or control groups. From each class, 9 students were selected representing the three highest, lowest and middle scores on teacher-rated behaviour. At the classroom level, only one of eight measures of teacher and classroom behaviour observational measures showed a statistically significant positive intervention effect: classroom off-task behaviour. At the child level, 5 of 8 measures showed a significant intervention effect: child compliance to commands, child negatives to the teacher, teacher negatives, teacher commands and child off-task behaviour.

In the Irish study, twenty teachers from 11 schools were randomly assigned to intervention of control. 12 students from each classroom four highest scoring, four lowest scoring, and the four middle-scoring on teacher-rated behaviour problems were included, resulting in a sample of 234 children after parental consent and drop-out due to absent for baseline assessments. At post-test, there was a significant effect on 1/8 measures of child behaviour: Intervention group children showed significant improvements in emotional symptoms (self-regulation and cooperation skills), compared to control group children. At post-intervention, there was a significant intervention effect on teacher behaviours: observed incidence of teacher negatives, observed opportunity provided for child to comply and self-reported frequency of use of appropriate and inappropriate strategies. There was no effect on observed teacher positives, observed teacher praise, observed indirect and direct commands.

In the UK trial, 80 schools were randomised, resulting in 3113 students aged 4 to 9 years participating. The primary outcome was teacher-reported SDQ total difficulties score. The intervention group showed a significant improvement compared to the control at posttest based on partially-adjusted analysis, but this did not persist at 18 or 30 months. When total difficulties was analysed as a binary variable (struggling range), there was a significant intervention effect across the follow-up points. The difference between groups was not significant when fully-adjusted analysis was conducted. 2 of 7 other secondary measures showed the same pattern with effects significant at posttest but not sustained: peer relationships and pro-social subscales. 2 secondary measures showed effects across the follow-ups: overactivity subscale and pupil behaviour questionnaire.

one Norwegian study, the programme was implemented with 829 students aged 6 to 8 years in 21 schools and compared with 22 schools matched on geographical location and school size. There were significant positive intervention effects on 7 of 10 teacher-reported measures of student behaviour: problem behaviour, behaviour intensity, total problems, attention problems, cooperation, self-control and social skills total. There was no significant effect on aggression, assertion and academic performance.

In the second Norwegian study, 1049 students aged 3 to 6 years from 46 intervention and 46 control kindergartens participated. There were significant effects on all 6 child behaviour measures: behaviour problem, intensity, internalising behaviour, aggression, attention and total problem.

In another Welsh study, 10 teachers trained in the programme and 11 teachers not trained from 3 primary schools participated. Teacher and child behaviour was measured using the Teacher-Pupil Observation Tool. There were effects on 2 teacher and 2 child outcomes: teacher direct commands and teacher opportunity, and child non-complaint behaviour, positive behaviour. There were no effects on teacher negatives, positives, praise or indirect commands and child compliance or negative behaviour.

References of studies

Aasheim, M., Reedtz, C., Handegård, B. H., Martinussen, M., & Mørch, W. T. (2018). Evaluation of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Program in a Regular Norwegian School Setting. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-14.

Baker-Henningham, H. Scott, S., Jones, K., & Walker, S. (2012). Reducing child conduct problems and promoting social skills in a middle-income country: cluster randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 1-8. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096834.


Carlson, J. J., Tiret, H. B., Bender, S. L., & Benson, L. (2011). The influence of group training in the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Programme on preschool teachers' classroom management strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 134-154.


*Davenport, J., & Tansey, A. (2009). Outcomes of Incredible Years classroom management training with multiple schools. Article submitted for publication.


Ford, T., Hayes, R., Byford, S., Edwards, V., Fletcher, M., Logan, S., ... & Ganguli, P. (2018). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Incredible Years® Teacher Classroom Management programme in primary school children: results of the STARS cluster randomised controlled trial. Psychological medicine, 1-15.

Fossum, S., Handegård, B. H., & Drugli, M. B. (2017). The Incredible Years teacher classroom management programme in kindergartens: Effects of a universal preventive effort. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2215-2223.

*Hutchings, J., Daley, D., Jones, K., Martin, P., Bywater, T., & Gwyn, R. (2007). Early results from developing and researching the Webster-Stratton Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Training Programme in North West Wales. Journal of Children's Services, 2, 15-26.


*Hutchings, J., Martin-Forbes, P., Daley, D., & Williams, M.E. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of a teacher classroom management programme on the classroom behavior of children with and without behavior problems. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 571-585.


Hsueh, J., Lowenstein, A. E., Morris, P., Mattera, S. K., & Bangser, M. (2014). Impacts of social-emotional curricula on three-year-olds: Exploratory findings from the Head Start CARES demonstration. Report from the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
OPRE Report, 78.

Kirkhaug, B., Drugli, M. B., Handegård, B. H., Lydersen, S., Åsheim, M., & Fossum, S. (2016). Does the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management Training programme have positive effects for young children exhibiting severe externalizing problems in school?: a quasi-experimental pre-post study. BMC psychiatry, 16(1), 362.

Mattera, S., Lloyd, C. M., Fishman, M., & Bangser, M. (2013). A First Look at the Head Start CARES Demonstration: Large-Scale Implementation of Programmes to Improve Children’s Social-Emotional Competence. OPRE Report, 47. Washington, DC:

*McGilloway, S., Hyland, L., Ni Mhaille, G., Lodge, A., O’Neill, D., Kelly, P., & Donnelly, M. (2010). Positive classrooms, positive children: A randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of the incredible years teacher classroom management programme in an Irish context (short-term outcomes). Dublin: Archways.

Morris, P., Mattera, S. K., Castells, N., Bangser, M., Bierman, K., & Raver, C. (2014). Impact Findings from the Head Start CARES Demonstration: National Evaluation of Three Approaches to Improving Preschoolers' Social and Emotional Competence. Executive Summary. OPRE Report 2014-44. MDRC.

Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C. P., Metzger, M., Smallwood, K., & Sardin, L. (2008). Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial implemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 10-26.


Reid, M .J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (2003). Follow-up of children who received the Incredible Years intervention for oppositional defiant disorder: Maintenance and prediction of 2-year outcomes. Behavior Therapy, 34, 471-491.


Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A parent and teacher training partnership in Head Start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(3), 283-302.


Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: intervention outcomes for parent, child, and teacher training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 105-124.


Williford, A. P., and Shelton, T. L. (2008). Using mental health consultation to decrease disruptive behaviors in preschoolers: adapting an empirically-supported intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 191-200.

Countries where evaluated
United Kingdom
Ireland
Protective factor(s) addressed
Family: parent involvement in learning/education
Individual and peers: Problem solving skills
Individual and peers: skills for social interaction
School and work: opportunities for prosocial involvement in education
School and work: rewards and disincentives in school
Risk factor(s) addressed
School and work: other
Outcomes targeted
Emotional well-being
Emotion regulation, coping, resilience
Positive relationships
Relations with parents
Relations with peers
Other behaviour outcomes
Description of programme

The Incredible Years Series is a comprehensive programme for parents, teachers, and children with the goal of preventing, reducing, and treating behavioural and emotional problems in children ages two to eight.

The Incredible Years Teacher Programme emphasizes effective classroom management skills such as: the effective use of teacher attention, praise and encouragement, use of incentives for difficult behaviour problems, proactive teaching strategies, how to manage inappropriate classroom behaviours, the importance of building positive relationships with students, and how to teach empathy, social skills and problem-solving in the classroom. Teachers receive 4-6 days of training spread out over several months.

Implementation Experiences
Feedback date
Main obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

The main obstacle was getting schools to release teachers and fund supply cover.

With respect to social context

Some teachers believe that they are unique individuals with their own style.

With respect to organisational and economic context

The main obstacle was getting funding for supply cover for teachers to attend training.

How they overcame the obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

We publicised the benefits and results from our research trials.

With respect to social context

We agreed that we have our own styles but that there are common principles of effective classroom management.

With respect to organisational and economic context

We were able to get some grant funding from the local authority towards supply costs and some individual teacher grants.

Lessons learnt

With respect to individual professionals

Sometimes people were initially reluctant but the programme sold itself.

With respect to social context

Use pilot schools to allow visits to discuss the programme.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Sufficient time is needed to plan the programme. Understanding the challenges facing schools on the funding front is important so that they can be discussed and explored.

Strengths

A clear teacher classroom management curriculum based on social learning theory; great supporting resources; substantial evidence from research trials; and excellent classroom activities.

Weaknesses

Mainly the cost and the logistics of setting up the training — five full days, one day per month.

Opportunities

It provides support for schools that have poor performance reports.

Threats

There are other programmes without similar levels of evidence.

Recommendations

With respect to individual professionals

Start by establishing your own goals.

With respect to social context

Work with the school head teacher.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Work with system bosses, regional collaborators and local and national government officials. Describe how the programme improves the chances of low-achieving disadvantaged children.

Number of implementations
1
Country
United Kingdom
Feedback date
Contact details

Service provider

Dr Sean McDonnell
Deputy CEO and Research and Training Manager
Archways
smcdonnell[a]archways.ie

Lead Research Collaborator/Principal Investigator, National Evaluation of Incredible Years in Ireland

Professor Sinéad McGilloway
Centre for Mental Health and Community Research
Department of Psychology
Maynooth University, Ireland
Sinead.McGilloway[a]mu.ie

Main obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

Initially, there was some suspicion regarding evidence-based manualised programmes, particularly those produced by international developers. Among many professional bodies, the Incredible Years (IY) programmes (including the teacher classroom management (TCM) programme) were seen as faddish, not culturally appropriate and unlikely to gain purchase in an Irish context. There was also a general feeling that these programmes were a money-making enterprise with overly rigid protocols regarding adherence and fidelity that consequently did not allow the professionals to bring their own learning, skills and experience in to play.

Furthermore, many of the professionals felt that (a) the programmes were too universal in terms of their focus and, therefore, would not address the needs of children experiencing the most difficult conditions (specifically extreme externalising behaviours), and (b) to implement such programmes would present them with additional responsibilities and tasks when they were already operating within an environment characterised by long working hours and poor pay.

With respect to social context

As stated previously, we began our implementation carefully, as there was a cultural bias against the introduction of non-Irish programmes. Teacher training programmes were not considered to be popular or to be a social norm, and it was clearly the case that those who most required the intervention were the least likely to access and gain from the programme. However, attitudes slowly began to change as implementation continued and the research findings began to emerge.

Economically, we were initially delivering the IY TCM programme at a time of some prosperity, but this changed drastically in subsequent years, and we therefore had to change our implementation process to some extent. The programme was seen, in some cases, as a luxury that schools could not afford, and there was no governmental impetus for change.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Economically, we began our implementation at a time when the country was extremely strong, and so, initially, there were few economic challenges. However, as indicated earlier, this changed rapidly when the recession in Ireland took hold from around 2009 onwards. Budgets were cut across the country and community-based organisations were closed. Those that remained took a reductive approach, focusing only on the explicit terms and objectives of their funders. Both urban and rural poverty grew, although school budgets in deprived areas were retained to some degree because of their ‘disadvantaged’ status, so our access to schools was not as seriously affected as we had anticipated.

While the ‘politics’ involved in the economic crash were tumultuous and the government cutbacks drastic, the nature of the problems we were seeking to address did not fundamentally change: every child can experience difficulty, every teacher has one or more children in their class who may prove troublesome, and every parent can experience difficulties managing their child. This is not to say that economic factors are not important — the fewer risk factors there are and the more protective factors and inputs that are available, the easier a problem may be to address.

How they overcame the obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

We initially piloted and evaluated the programmes on a small scale in schools with which we already had established relationships. We provided free training and supervision to those introducing the IY TCM programme and in all cases made the link between the skill sets of the teachers and the benefits that these would bring to the programme itself. We also sought to develop advocates in each pilot site who would speak to others about the benefits of the programme for their colleagues and relevant professional bodies.

The programmes were promoted on the basis of the positive skills and abilities that they would bring to professional practice in order to produce positive outcomes for children and teachers. For example, we indicated the potential of the programme for improving academic performance in schools, making teaching easier and generating better home-school collaboration. We highlighted the universal application, but also the fact that more difficult behaviours could be addressed, making interactions and engagement more positive for the children and teachers, as well as for the parents, while also allowing the teachers to develop skills that would help to promote such positive changes — in line with social learning theory. The research findings from our initial research were promising, and this then provided a foundation to begin more extensive implementation and more rigorous evaluation. In schools, we took a holistic approach and so initially, for example, we provided teacher substitution costs. However, as the programme began to bed down and the (generally positive) findings emerged from the larger evaluation (McGilloway et al.), the need to meet these costs diminished.

With respect to social context

Our network of advocates and champions was hugely instrumental in helping us to overcome these obstacles. We also provided ongoing supervision to all teachers and schools that were implementing the TCM programme. In addition, the outcomes from the national evaluation, led by Professor Sinéad McGilloway, proved to be invaluable in convincing teachers and schools to begin or to continue their delivery of the programme.

Last, the growing emphasis on evidence-based practice meant that any programmes that were found to be both clinically effective and cost-effective, were strongly supported by the government and, therefore, were more likely to be funded and implemented.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Actually, the financial crisis both hindered and helped. Obviously, budget cuts to organisations meant that they had less flexibility in terms of introducing or championing new services. At the same time, however, the budgetary cuts meant that the Irish Government began to focus more attention and resources on evidence-informed and evidence-based practices and programmes, and we were deliberately targeting more needy, disadvantaged populations. Our philanthropic funder (the then Atlantic Philanthropies) also helped to drive this agenda.

Lessons learnt

With respect to individual professionals

  • The need to match the TCM programme to existing needs in relevant areas (e.g. in areas of high disadvantage).
  • The need to be aware of teacher sensitivities.
  • The importance of providing information that clearly outlined the benefits not only for the children, but also for the professionals/teachers that were introducing the programme.
  • The importance of evaluating the programme and keeping teachers, schools and relevant professional and organisational bodies informed of the mid-point and post-programme outcomes.
  • The need to provide support and ongoing coaching for those delivering the programme.
  • The importance of identifying advocates for the programme within community-based organisations and using these as a means of accessing schools and teachers (as well as other relevant organisations).
  • Most importantly, it is crucial to work collaboratively with teachers and schools, to be honest and to dispel the inevitable myths and fears around the implementation of any new programme in schools that already have their own cultures and ethos.

With respect to social context

  • The buy-in is crucial — the message must be positive, and, most importantly, it requires time to properly implement a programme.
  • Ongoing support and coaching, and being a visual presence on the ground were all crucial.
  • Identify and engage actively with advocates for the programme (e.g. teachers, school principals, representatives of community-based organisations that are seeking to address issues of social disadvantage).
  • Adopt a holistic approach to both the problem and those charged with changing and challenging the problem.
  • Ensure that the research is conducted sensitively, to take account of, for example, social issues such as disadvantage.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  • The need to adapt creatively to the economic and organisational context — to prepare for change and recognise the limitations.
  • The importance of challenging yourself and not making sweeping generalisations.
  • Deal with each school and individual teachers as they come.
  • Always focus on the universality of the problems to be tackled.
  • Recognise that sometimes an economic crisis creates opportunities and that problems continue to exist regardless of the fluidity and robustness of the economy.
  • Acknowledge that we, as organisations, must invest in the implementation process to a greater extent at some times than others, which is fine, as long as we do not create a precedent in the longer term or create learnt helplessness in communities and individuals.
  • Become self-sustaining as an organisation.
Strengths

Highly skilled and engaged staff; staff with relevant backgrounds and experience in teaching, psychology counselling and social care; good networks at both local and national levels; research and evaluation; funding and philanthropic support; strong organisational leadership; and strong community development experience.

Weaknesses

Over-reliance on the initial investment; time-specific philanthropic support; lack of preparation for reduced funding; challenges in dealing with programme developers; economic factors slowed us down.

Opportunities

Bedding down and scaling up; further development; tackling different populations; well-being in schools, which is now a major issue in the UK and Ireland; increasing government support.

Threats

Competing programmes; potential bombardment of teachers; reaching saturation in terms of programme distribution; financial sustainability as an organisation supporting programme implementation.

Recommendations

With respect to individual professionals

  • Work collaboratively with teachers, schools and community-based organisations.
  • Pilot the programme first.
  • Start with those schools with which you already have an established relationship.
  • Provide initial workshops so that teachers know what is required and can see the benefits.
  • Provide training and ongoing support.
  • Evaluate the programme and provide ongoing feedback and do not fear making mid-point corrections in terms of implementation.
  • Identify advocates for the programmes in specific areas and relevant teacher support organisations.
  • Be patient — successful implementation can take two years or more.

With respect to social context

  • Start delivering the programme based on emerging or present needs.
  • Be sure that the programme meets these needs — do not overstate its value.
  • Recognise and state clearly that no evidence-based programme is a silver bullet that will meet the needs of all children and especially those living in disadvantaged areas.
  • Problems that are ‘long in the making’ are ‘long in the shifting’ — successful implementation takes time, so expect this.
  • Accept that those who most require these programmes may not always benefit from them due to the many other social factors that come into play. Changing behaviour can be difficult and these programmes are often the beginning of a long (but hopefully productive) journey.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  • The proof of implementation success for an organisation working in this space is that they may not be needed in the longer term — accept this!
  • Always place your programmes into the organisations that are best placed to implement the programme on a sustainable mainstream basis. For example, the TCM programme is now delivered exclusively by the government-funded National Educational Psychology Services.
  • Economically, the best defence against financial crisis is to invest in those programmes that are proven to work, so it is crucially important to evaluate, evaluate, evaluate!
  • Remember to always build into your evaluation process an effective dissemination strategy that will make financial sense and reach the key funding bodies in your area (e.g. government, third sector or philanthropic sources).
  • Expect financial downturns and plan accordingly.
Note from the authors

The implementation experiences regarding The Incredible Years suite of parent, teacher and child programmes. We have introduced the programme in 10 of our 26 counties and regions since 2007 onwards.

Number of implementations
1
Country
Ireland
Last updated : 18.06.2024
Country of origin
Norway
Last reviewed:
Age group
6-10 years
11-14 years
Target group
Children aged 10-14
Programme setting(s)
School
Level(s) of intervention
Selective prevention

The Olweus Bullying Prevention programme is a school-wide programme designed to prevent bullying amongst children aged 10-14. It includes administering a bullying survey, establishing a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee and addressing bullying incidents through separate follow-up meetings for bullies and victims. The classroom level component involves establishing clear and consistently enforced rules against bullying, along with regular class discussions and activities designed to reinforce rules and anti-bullying values and norms. Discussions and activities also present the harm caused by bullying and strategies for preventing it. The programme encourages parental involvement through meetings and discussion of the problem and efforts to address it.

Links to this programme in other registries
USA - Blueprints Programs
Germany - Grüne Liste Prävention
Norway - Ungsinn
Contact details

Ms. Lydia Arneson
OBP Programme Coordinator
Clemson University
2038 Barre Hall
Clemson, SC 29634
USA
Phone: 1 (864) 656-6712
Email: lydia[a]clemson.edu / nobully[a]clemson.edu
Website: www.clemson.edu/olweus

Evidence rating
Likely to be beneficial
Studies overview

The programme has been evaluated in two quasi-experimental studies in Norway and one quasi-experimental study in England, UK.

The original Norwegian study used comparisons of adjacent age-cohorts, with 2500 students in Grades 4 to 7 from 42 schools. There were reductions in self-reported bullying, antisocial behaviours (theft, vandalism and truancy) and self-reported victimisation, improved school climate, as well as teacher and peer reports of bully-victim problems. The outcomes were found in the first follow-up (8 months after baseline) as well as the second follow-up (20 months after baseline).

The second Norwegian study was conducted in grades 7 to 9 in 6 schools. The study evaluated the effects on substance use behaviours and did not include bullying measures. There were significant effects on 3 of 9 measures. There were significant differences between groups in levels of cannabis use, smoking, and drunkenness between groups, with levels much higher among control group.

The English study was also conducted with adjacent age-cohorts. of 6,758 students, aged 8 to 16 years, from 24 schools participated. Although for most measures, changes were better in treatment schools than in comparison schools, the study only showed a significant intervention effect on frequency of bullying.

References of studies

*Amundsen, E. J., & Ravndal, E. (2010). Does successful school-based prevention of bullying influence substance use among 13- to 16-year-olds? Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 17(1), 42-54.

Bauer, N.S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F.P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme in public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266-274.

Bowllan, N. M. (2011). Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive, school-wide bullying prevention programme in an urban/suburban middle school. Journal of School Health, 81(4), 167-173.

*Eslea, M. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in primary schools. Educational Research, 40, 203-218.


Limber, S. P., Olweus, D., Massiello, M., Molnar-Main, S., & Moore, D. (2012). Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme in a large scale study in Pennsylvania. Unpublished.

Melton, G.B., Limber, S.P., Cunningham, P., Osgood, D.W., Chambers, J., Flerx, V., Henggeler, S., & Nation, M. (1998). Violence among rural youth. Final report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.


*O'Moore, A.M., & Minton, S.J. (2005). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an anti-bullying programme in primary schools. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 609-622.

* Olweus, D. (2005). New positive results with the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme in 37 Oslo schools. Report. Bergen, Norway: Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of Bergen.

*Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

*Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among school children: Intervention and prevention. In R.D. Peters, R.J. McMahon, & V.L. Quinsey (eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span (pp.100-125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

*Olweus, D., & Alsaker, F.D. (1991). Assessing change in a cohort-longitudinal study with hierarchical data. In D. Magnusson, L.R. Bergman, G. Rudinger, & B. Torestad (Eds.), Problems and methods in longitudinal research: Stability and change (pp. 107-132). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

*Olweus, D. (1987). Schoolyard bullying-grounds for intervention. School Safety, 4, 4-14.

Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community, 13, 95-110.


Schroeder, B. A., Messina, A., Schroeder, D., Good, K., Barto, S., Saylor, J., Masiello, M. (2011). The implementation of a statewide bullying prevention programme: Preliminary findings from the field and the importance of coalitions. Health Promotion Practice, 13(4), 489-495.

*Smith, P.K. (1997). Bullying in schools: The UK experience and the Sheffield anti-bullying project. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 191-201.

*Whitney, I., & Smith, P.K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Education Research, 35, 3-25.


*Whitney, I., Rivers, I., Smith, P.K., & Sharp, S. (1994). The Sheffield Project: Methodology and findings. In P.K. Smith and S. Sharp (eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 20-56). London, England: Routledge.


Countries where evaluated
Ireland
Norway
United Kingdom
Protective factor(s) addressed
Community: opportunities and rewards for prosocial involvement in the community (including religiosity)
Family: parent involvement in learning/education
Individual and peers: clear morals and standards of behaviour
Individual and peers: individual/peers other
Individual and peers: interaction with prosocial peers
Individual and peers: opportunities and rewards for prosocial peers involvement
Individual and peers: Problem solving skills
Individual and peers: refusal skills and decision making
Individual and peers: skills for social interaction
School and work: opportunities for prosocial involvement in education
Risk factor(s) addressed
No defined risk factors
Outcomes targeted
Education
Academic performance
Positive relationships
Relations with peers
Substance-related behaviours
Bullying
Crime
Other behaviour outcomes
Description of programme

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme targets the problem of bullying at three levels: the school, the classroom and the individual. Designed for elementary and middle schools, the programme addresses the problem of bullying with multiple strategies at each level. At the school level, students are given an anonymous questionnaire (25-45 minutes long) to assess the nature and prevalence of bullying at the school. The survey is administered in spring of the school year prior to programme implementation. Secondly, the school administration convenes a conference day, during which programme consultants and school staff discuss findings from the student questionnaire, familiarize themselves with the programme and its effects (through discussions with programme consultants, handbooks and videos), form a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee, and plan for programme implementation. The coordinating committee includes representatives from all constituencies involved with the school, i.e. administration, teachers, counsellors, health professionals, parents and students. The school level component also involves increased adult supervision of school areas that are frequently the setting for bullying, i.e., the playground, cafeteria and restrooms.

The classroom level component involves establishing clear and consistently enforced rules against bullying, along with regular class discussions and activities designed to reinforce rules and anti-bullying values and norms. Discussions and activities also present the harm caused by bullying and strategies for preventing it. The programme encourages parental involvement through meetings and discussion of the problem and efforts to address it.

Individual level components include interventions with bullies, victims and their parents. Interventions are designed to ensure the cessation of the bullying behaviour and to provide support to victims.

Last updated : 02.12.2024
Country of origin
USA
Last reviewed:
Age group
6-10 years
Target group
Children in Elementary school (6-10 years)
Programme setting(s)
School
Level(s) of intervention
Environmental prevention
Universal prevention

The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is a classroom-based behaviour management strategy for elementary school that teachers use along with a school’s standard instructional curriculum. GBG uses a classroom-wide game format, with teams and rewards, to socialise children to the role of student and reduce aggressive, disruptive classroom behaviour, which is a risk factor for adolescent and adult illicit drug abuse, alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking, antisocial personality disorder, and violent and criminal behaviour.
In GBG classrooms, the teacher assigns all children to teams that are balanced with regard to gender; aggressive, disruptive behaviour; and shy, socially isolated behaviour. Basic rules of student behaviour in the classroom are displayed and reviewed. When GBG is played, each team is rewarded if team members commit a total of four or fewer infractions of the classroom rules during a game period.

During the first weeks of the intervention, GBG is played three times a week for 10 minutes each time, during periods of the day when the classroom environment is less structured and the students are working independently of the teacher. Game periods are increased in length and frequency at regular intervals; by mid-year, the game may be played every day. Initially, the teacher announces the start of a game period and gives rewards at the conclusion of the game. Later, the teacher defers rewards until the end of the school day or week. Over time, GBG is played at different times of the day, during different activities and in different locations; the game evolves from being highly predictable in timing and occurrence with immediate reinforcement to being unpredictable with delayed reinforcement, so that children learn that good behaviour is expected at all times and in all places.

In addition to the original classroom-based game where students are reinforced for their mutual success in withholding inappropriate behaviour, the PAX Good Behaviour Game (PAX GBG) is another manualised GBG version. In PAX GBG, evidence-based kernels (e.g., PAX Quiet, PAX Voices, Timer, PAX Stix, Granny’s Wacky Prizes, PAX Tootle Notes) are added and the game is played daily within the school curriculum. There are four categories of kernels based on their effect: antecedent, relational, physiological and reinforcement. The teachers in the PAX GBG schools received 3 days of training and are regularly supported by mentors over a 1-year period.

Keywords
No data
Links to this programme in other registries
USA - Blueprints Programs
Germany - Grüne Liste Prävention
UK - Early Intervention Foundation Guidebook
UK - CAYT - mentor-adepis
Contact details

AIR version of GBG
Kellam Sheppard
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
United States of America
Phone: +1 (410) 614-0680
Email: kellam[a]jhsph.edu
Website: www.air.org/focus-area/education/?id=127

PAX version of GBG
Dennis Embry
PAXIS Institute
United States of America
Phone: +1 (520) 299-6770
Email: dde[a]paxis.org or info[a]paxis.org
Website: goodbehaviorgame.org/

Show link
0
Evidence rating
Beneficial
Studies overview

The programme has been evaluated in one cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Belgium, three cluster RCTs in the Netherlands (one of which was conducted with children with psychiatric disorders), one mixed methods study in Ireland, one RCT in United Kingdom, and one RCT in Estonia.

The RCT in Belgium, involving children aged 7.4 years on average, found statistically significant positive effects at post-test on observed teacher behaviour management and some peer-rated and observed child classroom behaviours.

The Dutch RCT that involved children aged 5-13 years with psychiatric disorders found statistically significant effects favouring the intervention at post-test on teacher-reported child emotional and behavioural problems, but no effect on most measures of teacher self-reported outcomes.

One of the other Dutch RCTs, involving children with a mean age of 6 years, found a statistically significant positive effect at post-test on teacher-reported externalising behaviour and peer relations.

The final study in the Netherlands, also an RCT, involved children aged 6.9 years on average. It found a statistically significant effect favouring the intervention on teacher-reported child ADHD, bullying, victimisation and anxiety/depression, but not on anti-social or aggressive behaviours at post-test. From age 10 to 13 years, young people who had participated in the programme had a lower probability of starting to use tobacco and reduced growth in alcohol weekly use, but there was no statistically significant effect on weekly tobacco use and past year or month of alcohol use.

An Irish study (O'Donnell 2016) employed a mixed methods approach to evaluate the GBG PAX version, using both quantitative (classroom observations recording the number of SPLEEMS (i.e. disturbing, disruptive, inattentive and unengaged behaviours) and qualitative data (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire).  It was conducted among 420 pupils aged between 7 and 8 years, and 21 teachers and 2 mentors in primary schools. The results of the study showed significant improvements among pupils’ self-regulation, self-control, and self-management. Moreover, it showed significantly reduced disruptive behaviour instances, and increased attentiveness and focus.

In a British RCT, 77 schools were randomly allocated to implement the GBG AIR for two years. The target cohort was form of 3084 pupils from between 7 and 8 years old. The study found no evidence of improvement of pupils’ behaviour (specifically, concentration problems, disruptive behaviour, and pro-social behaviour) but the implementation varied considerably (frequency and duration). Higher  levels  of  pupil  engagement  with  the game were  associated  with  improved  reading,  concentration, and disruptive behaviour scores at follow. Moreover, there was tentative evidence that boys identified as at-risk of developing conduct problems at the beginning of the project benefitted from the GBG. For these children, small reductions in concentration problems and disruptive behaviour were observed.

Streimann et al. 2020: this Estonian RCT (matched-pair, cluster-randomized, waitlist controlled, open-label trial) studied child mental health rated by teachers, whether the effects of the intervention on child mental health extended to the home context, teacher self-efficacy and overall classroom behaviour. Intervention adherence and children’s exposure to the intervention were also measured. The trial included 42 Estonian elementary schools with 708 first-grade students. The intervention had positive effects on teacher-rated children’s mental health at the end of the first academic year, which lasted and strengthened during the second academic year. Moderation analysis demonstrated positive effects on mental health and prosocial behaviour for high-risk students during the first year (but not the second year). The intervention also had a positive lasting effect on teacher’s self-efficacy and overall classroom behaviour. A few intervention effects (prosocial behaviour, emotional well-being) were evident in the home environment during the second academic year (as reported by parents), but there were no effects on parent-rated child ADHD symptoms.

Humprey et al. 2021: this large cluster randomized controlled trial tested whether implementation variability and participant cumulative risk status (e.g. young relative age, begin male, identified as having a special education need, eligible for free schools meals, speaking English as an additional language etc.) were examined as predictors of disruptive behaviour. Seventy-seven English primary schools (N = 3,084 children, aged 6–7) were randomly assigned to deliver the GBG or continue their usual practice over 2 years. Intent-to-treat analysis found no discernible impact of the intervention on children’s disruptive behaviour. Subgroup analyses revealed no differential gains among children at low, moderate or high levels of cumulative risk exposure (CRE). CRE holds that individual risk factors at baseline (e.g. male, eligible for free schools meals, living in deprived neighbourhood etc.) are considered in the outcome analysis. However, dosage as a compliance marker identified a large, statistically significant intervention effect (d = −1.35) among compliers (>1,030 min of cumulative intervention exposure). Furthermore, children at high and low levels of exposure experienced significantly greater and lesser reductions in disruptive behaviour. These findings highlight the importance of optimizing implementation and demonstrate the utility of CRE as a theoretically informed approach to subgroup moderator analysis.

Troncoso et al. 2021: this cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examined the impact of the Good Behaviour Game (GBG) on children's developmental trajectories of disruptive behaviour, concentration problems, and pro-social behaviour from middle childhood (ages 6–7 years) to early adolescence (ages 10–11 years). Seventy-seven schools in England were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. During the 2-year main trial period, teachers of this cohort in intervention schools implemented the GBG, whereas their counterparts in the control group continued their usual practice. A multivariate multilevel non-linear growth curve model indicated that the GBG reduced concentration problems over time. In addition, the model also revealed that the intervention improved prosocial behaviour among at-risk children (e.g., those with elevated symptoms of conduct problems at Time 1, n = 485). No intervention effects were unequivocally found in relation to disruptive behaviour.

Ashworth et al. 2020: this study examined the efficacy of the Good Behaviour Game (GBG) in improving children’s reading attainment, and the extent to which this varies as a function of dosage and timing of outcome measurement by means of a 2-year cluster randomized controlled trial. Seventy-seven primary schools from three regions in England were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Children (N = 3084) aged 6-7 at baseline were the target cohort. Reading attainment was assessed via national teacher assessment scores at baseline, and the Hodder Group Reading Test at post-test and 1-year post intervention follow-up. At post-test, no effects of the GBG on children’s reading attainment were found. At 1-year follow-up, results demonstrated that GBG can produce measurable improvements in children’s academic attainment, but these effects may take time to become apparent and are contingent upon implementation dosage falling within an optimal range.

In a small exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial (O’Keeffe et al. 2021) of the PAX Good Behaviour Game in Northern Ireland a total of 15 schools (19 classes) were randomised to intervention and control groups. The analysis focused specifically on the outcome of self‐regulation with 355 elementary school pupils in year 3 (age M = 7.40, SD = 0.30). Participating schools in the trial were located in areas with socio‐economic disadvantage. After 12 weeks of implementation, the trial provided some evidence that the PAX GBG may help improve self‐regulation in participating pupils, while the findings suggest that it may offer a feasible mental health prevention and early intervention approach for Northern Ireland classrooms.

The programme has been rated as Promising by Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development based on a review of studies conducted world-wide.

References of studies

Studies Included in the Assessment

*Ashworth, E., Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N., & Hennessey, A. (2020). Game On—Complier Average Causal Effect Estimation Reveals Sleeper Effects on Academic Attainment in a Randomized Trial of the Good Behavior Game. Prevention Science, 21(2), 222-233.

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

Bradshaw, C. P., Zmuda, J. H., Kellam, S. G. and Ialongo, N. S. (2009), ‘Longitudinal impact of two universal preventive interventions in first grade on educational outcomes in high school’, Journal of Educational Psychology 101, pp. 926-937.

*Breeman, L. D., van Lier, P. A., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F. C., van der Ende, J., Maras, A. and Tick, N. T. (2015), ‘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, 1098300715593466.

Dolan, L., Turkkan, J., Wethamer-Larsson, L. and Kellam, S. (1989), The good behavior game manual, The Johns Hopkins Prevention Research Centre, Baltimore, MD (also available at www.bpp.jhu.edu).

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

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

Humphrey, N.; Hennessey,A.; Ashworth,E.; Frearson,K.; Black, L.; Petersen,K.; Wo,L.; Panayiotou,M.; Lendrum, A.; Wigelsworth,M.; Birchinall, L.; Squires, G. and Pampaka, M. (2018).  Good Behaviour Game Evaluation report and executive summary. The University of Manchester.

*Humphrey, N., Panayiotou, M., Hennessey, A., & Ashworth, E. (2021). Treatment effect modifiers in a randomized trial of the good behavior game during middle childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 89(8), 668–681.

Kellam, S. G. and Rebok, G. W. (1992), ‘Building developmental and etiological theory through epidemiologically based prevention intervention trials’, pp. 162-195 in McCord, J. and Tremblay, R. E. (eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior, The Guilford Press, New York.

Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N. and Mayer, L. S. (1994), ‘The course and malleability of aggressive behavior from early first grade into middle school: results of a developmental epidemiologically-based preventive trial’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35, pp. 259 282.

Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J., Ialongo, N., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P., Petras, H., et al. (2008), ‘Effects of a universal classroom behavior management programme in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95(Suppl. 1), S5-28.

Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Mackenzie, A. C. L., Brown, C. H., Ompad, D. C., Or, F., Ialongo, N. S., Poduska, J. M., Windham, A. (2014). The impact of the Good Behavior Game, a universal classroom based preventive intervention in first and second grades, on high risk sexual behaviors and drug abuse and dependence disorders in young adulthood. Prevention Science, 15 (Suppl. 1), S6-18.

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

*Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A., Onghena, P. and Colpin, H. (2010), ‘The role of teacher behavior management in the development of disruptive behaviors: an intervention study with the Good Behavior Game’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 38, pp. 869-882.

*Leflot, G., van Lier, P. A., Onghena, P. and Colpin, H. (2013), ‘The role of children’s on-task behavior in the prevention of aggressive behavior development and peer rejection: a randomized controlled study of the Good Behavior Game in Belgian elementary classrooms’, Journal of School Psychology 51, pp. 187-199.

Medland, M. B. and Stachnik, T. J. (1972), ‘Good-Behavior Game: a replication and systematic analysis,’ Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 5, pp. 45-51.

Mihalic, S., Huizinga, D. and Ladika, A. (2011), An evaluation of the Good Behavior Game intervention, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ.

O’Donnell, M., Morgan, M., Embry, D. E., Kelly, N., & Owens, C. (2016). Supporting the development of pupils’ self-regulation skills: Evaluation of the PAX GBG Programme in Ireland. Irish Teachers’ Journal, 4(1), 9-29.

*O’Keeffe, J., Thurston, A., Kee, F., O’hare, L., & Lloyd, K. (2021). An exploratory, cluster randomised control trial of the pax good behaviour game. Social Inclusion, 9(4), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i4.4612

Storr, C. L., Ialongo, N. S., Kellam, S. G. and Anthony, J. C. (2002), ‘A randomized controlled trial of two primary school intervention strategies to prevent early onset tobacco smoking’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 66, pp. 51-60.

Streimann, K., Trummal, A., Klandorf, K., Akkermann, K., Sisask, M., Toros, K., & Selart, A. (2017). Effectiveness of a universal classroom-based preventive intervention (PAX GBG): A research protocol for a matched-pair cluster-randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications. 8. 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.08.013.

*Streimann, K., Selart, A., & Trummal, A. (2020). Effectiveness of a Universal, Classroom-Based Preventive Intervention (PAX GBG) in Estonia: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Prevention Science, 21(2), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01050-0

*Spilt, J. L., Koot, J. M. and van Lier, P. A. C. (2013), ‘For whom does it work? Subgroup differences in the effects of a school-based universal prevention programme’. 


*Troncoso, P., & Humphrey, N. (2021). Playing the long game: A multivariate multilevel non-linear growth curve model of long-term effects in a randomized trial of the Good Behavior Game. Journal of School Psychology, 88, 68-84.

*Van Lier, P., Muthen, B., van der Sar, R. and Crijnen, A. (2004), ‘Preventing disruptive behavior in elementary schoolchildren: impact of a universal classroom-based intervention’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72, pp. 467-478.


*Van Lier, P., Vuijk, P. and Crijnen, A. (2005), ‘Understanding mechanisms of change in the development of antisocial behavior: the impact of a universal intervention’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33, pp. 521-535.


*Van Lier, P., Huizink, A. and Crijnen, A. (2009), ‘Impact of a preventive intervention targeting childhood disruptive behavior problems on tobacco and alcohol initiation from age 10 to 13 years’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 100, pp. 228-233.

*Vuijk, P., van Lier, P., Huizink, A., Verhulst, F. and Crijnen, A. (2006), ‘Prenatal smoking predicts non-responsiveness to an intervention targeting attention-deficit/hyperactivity symptoms in elementary schoolchildren’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47, pp. 891-901. 


*Vuijk, P., van Lier, P., Crijnen, A. and Huizink, A. (2007), ‘Testing sex-specific pathways from peer victimization to anxiety and depression in early adolescents through a randomized intervention trial’, Journal of Affective Disorders 100, pp. 221-226.

Wang, Y., Browne, D. C., Petras, H., Stuart, E. A., Wagner, F. A., Lambert, S. F., Kellam, S. G., et al. (2009), ‘Depressed mood and the effect of two universal first grade preventive interventions on survival to the first tobacco cigarette smoked among urban youth’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence 100, pp. 194-203.

*Witvliet, M., van Lier, P. A. C., Cuijpers, P. and Koot, H. M. (2009), ‘Testing links between childhood positive peer relations and externalizing outcomes through a randomized controlled intervention study’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77, pp. 905-915.

Studies not Included in the Assessment

Kiefel, M.; Reynaud_Maurupt, C. And Poidevin, E. (2018).  Le programme américain Good Behavior Game: premiers éléments de compréhension de sa transférabilité en France.  Revue Éducation, Santé, Sociétés. 99-119

Lönn, S. L., Krauland, M. G., Fagan, A. A., Sundquist, K., Roberts, M. S., & Kendler, K. S. (2023). The Impact of the Good Behavior Game on Risk for Drug Use Disorder in an Agent-Based Model of Southern Sweden. Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs, 84(6), 863–873. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.22-00413

Countries where evaluated
Belgium
Netherlands
Ireland
United Kingdom
Estonia
Protective factor(s) addressed
Individual and peers: clear morals and standards of behaviour
Individual and peers: interaction with prosocial peers
Individual and peers: opportunities and rewards for prosocial peers involvement
Individual and peers: prosocial behaviour
Individual and peers: academic self-efficacy
School and work: opportunities for prosocial involvement in education
School and work: rewards and disincentives in school
Risk factor(s) addressed
Individual and peers: anti-social behaviour
Individual and peers: early initiation of drug/alcohol use
Outcomes targeted
Academic performance
Depression or anxiety
Suicidal ideation
Alcohol use
Use of illicit drugs
Smoking (tobacco)
Other behaviour outcomes
Description of programme

The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is a classroom-based behaviour management strategy for elementary school that teachers use along with a school’s standard instructional curriculum. GBG uses a classroom-wide game format, with teams and rewards, to socialise children to the role of student and reduce aggressive, disruptive classroom behaviour, which is a risk factor for adolescent and adult illicit drug abuse, alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking, antisocial personality disorder, and violent and criminal behaviour.

In GBG classrooms, the teacher assigns all children to teams, usually three, that are balanced with regard to gender; aggressive, disruptive behaviour; and shy, socially isolated behaviour. The teacher assigns a team leader, usually a shy child, to organise activities and pass out rewards. Next, the teacher explains the rules of the game, describing what behaviours will not be allowed during the period in which the GBG is played (which are usually verbal disruption, physical disruption, being out of one’s seat without permission and non-compliance), and the rules are posted on the wall of the classroom.


During the game, the teacher notes the occurrence of problem behaviours by placing ticks next to the name of a team whenever one of its members displays a targeted prohibited behaviour. The teacher neutrally states the behaviour that was displayed, identifies the child who displayed it and praises the other teams for behaving well. A team wins the game if the number of ticks does not exceed four at the end of the game period, and more than one team can win. Initially, members of the winning team receive tangible rewards (stickers, rubbers) and activities (extra break time, class privileges). In addition, any team that wins a game during the week receives a special reward on Friday (such as a party or an outdoor activity). Non-winners engage in quiet seat-work during this time, and they receive no special attention from the teacher.


During the first weeks of the intervention, GBG is played three times a week for 10 minutes each time during periods of the day when the classroom environment is less structured and the students are working independently of the teacher. Game periods are increased in length and frequency at regular intervals; by mid-year, the game may be played every day. Initially, the teacher announces the start of a game period and gives rewards at the conclusion of the game.

Later, the teacher defers rewards until the end of the school day or week. Over time, GBG is played at different times of the day, during different activities and in different locations; the game evolves from being highly predictable in timing and occurrence with immediate reinforcement to being unpredictable with delayed reinforcement, so that children learn that good behaviour is expected at all times and in all places.

GBG originates from work developed in the late 60ies in the US; and that original GBG work was not copyrighted. Therefore, two versions (with variations between them) currently exist, the one by AIR and the one by PAX (see contact information). In the implementation experiences below, we identify the version that was used. The longitudinal studies that established the evidence for the effectiveness of GBG in the US can be connected to both versions, but evaluations of the European PAX version are still in process.

 

 

 

Implementation Experiences
Feedback date
Contact details

Dr Geertje Leflot
geertje.leflot[a]thomasmore.be

This experience refers to the AIR GBG version

Main obstacles

Although the cost of the intervention was reduced in comparison to the Dutch version, many schools (especially small schools) still find the intervention quite expensive. In Flanders schools get educational guidance in terms of a fixed number of ‘staff hours’ (depending on their pupils’ population, more hours if more pupils from low SES backgrounds) from ‘pedagogical guidance centers’ (staff mainly consisting of teachers) and student counseling from ‘centres for student counseling’ (multidisciplinary staff consisting of, e.g., school psychologists and social workers). These centres, however, do not have the ‘know how’ or time and resources to provide GBG training and consultations. Thus, to implement the GBG, the schools must use the budget provided by the government for their daily operating costs or attract external funding (which is not common practice in Flanders).

Schools have three ‘pedagogical days’ each school year. During these days the school must organise educational activities for school staff. As these pedagogical days are frequently already allocated to other activities (such as seminars on new regulations regarding inclusive education in Flanders), finding sufficient time for the three half-day training sessions for the Flemish version of the GBG (the first before the start of the implementation, the second after approximately 5 months, and the last at the end of the school year) is challenging.

In Flanders schools and teachers are under a lot of pressure to follow government-based regulations and educational guidelines for pupils, leaving little time for investing in preventive programmes such as the GBG.

In schools where not all teachers and principle support the intervention, the quality and quantity of the implementation of the GBG is hampered (e.g. teachers negatively influence each other).

De Sleutel, the organisation that provides the training and consultations for the Flemish version of the GBG, is just one of the many organisations providing education and training to teachers. This makes the dissemination and distribution of the Flemish version of the GBG challenging.

How they overcame the obstacles
  1. De Sleutel helps schools search for funding to finance the implementation of the GBG. For example, de Sleutel has set up cooperation with the Rotary or the local authorities to fund the implementation of the GBG in schools
  2. When the training sessions cannot be organised during pedagogical days, de Sleutel and the school search for other opportunities to gather all of the teachers. This frequently results in training sessions being organised during staff meetings. As these meetings take place after school hours and are kept short, the quality of the training session can be impeded.
  3. As support of the whole school team is crucial to the implementation of the GBG, de Sleutel fully informs the school team about the GBG so that the team as a whole can make an informed decision before investing in the GBG.
  4. De Sleutel invests in the dissimination and distribution of the Flemish version of the GBG. Schools receive information on the GBG via seminars, mail, pamphlets, Facebook page, etc.
Lessons learnt

Based on our experience with the Flemish and Dutch version of the GBG, we leant that it is necessary to adapt the GBG to the specific educational context, without changing the core elements of the programme. Moreover, quasi-experimental research with the Flemish version showed that the adapted version has positive effects despite the adaptions (Leflot and Colpin, 2016; Leflot et al., 2017).

Furthermore, we learnt that the implementation quality and dosage of the Flemish version is higher when the intervention is embedded in the school context (e.g. the majority of the teachers implement the GBG, the GBG is visualised in the school, schools portray themselves as GBG schools, the GBG theory is part of the school’s educational vision, parents are involved). On the other hand, we have experienced that in some schools where the GBG was only implemented by a few teachers, these teachers can become GBG pioneers by showing and sharing their positive experiences and results, making other teachers curious and more open to the intervention, facilitating the implementation in the whole school.

After the training phase, we noticed that the GBG fades out of the school: the GBG becomes less prominent in the school, teachers implement the GBG less or only implement aspects of the intervention, some teachers stop completely. De Sleutel aims to sustain the implementation by publishing new game elements to motivate teachers and pupils (e.g. new ways to reward children), discussing the long-term implementation with the school team during the final training session, organising booster sessions after the implementation phase, etc. Despite these efforts, long-term implementation (after the training phase) remains a problem.

Notwithstanding the changes, the cost still remains an obstacle for many schools.

Finally, schools were very positive toward the durable GBG material (e.g. pictograms, posters, cards, instruction booklet) provided in the GBG-box

Recommendations

Based on our experience with a foreign version of the GBG and the Flemish adaption we advise other countries to make necessary changes to the non-core elements of the programme in order to fit the educational context.

Note from the authors

Flemish version of the Good Behavior Game: “TOPgame” (TOPspel)

A Dutch version of the Good Behavior Game was tested in a randomized controlled trial in Flanders (Leflot et al., 2010, 2013). Whereas the implementation integrity in this study was good, it became clear that several characteristics of this Dutch version (e.g., the cost and intensity of the teacher training) were not compatible with the organization in Flemish schools and that further implementation and dissemination of this intervention as such was not feasible. Therefore, a Flemish version of the GBG was developed. The Flemish version is based on the same theoretical principles as the American and Dutch version of the GBG and uses the same core principles. The intervention however focusses more on facilitating social skills in general via an advanced program, requires less administration and leaves more room for teachers’ adaptation of non-core program elements to the specific classroom context (e.g., progress of the intervention, pictograms…). Furthermore, the Flemish version was adapted so it could be implemented in the six grades of primary school (6 to 12 years old). Finally, the amount of classroom consultations was reduced, contributing to the decrease of the financial cost of the intervention.

Year implemented: Dutch: 09/2006 - 05/2009; Flemish: 09/2014 - 05/2015

De Sleutel organises the training sessions and classroom consultations for the implementation of the GBG. They can be contacted via https://www.desleutel.be/

Country
Belgium
Feedback date
Contact details

Karin Streimann
karin.streimann[a]tai.ee

This experience refers to the PAX GBG version

Main obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

- Teachers were not implementing the programme with high fidelity during the first year of implementation.
- Mentors were not able to coach teachers, as they were not experienced in mentoring and did not have experience of implementing the methodology on their own.

With respect to social context

  • Teachers do not feel comfortable with mentors and observers visiting their lessons.
  • Teachers are not eager to take up new elements (kernels) in their classrooms (harmonica, timer, sticks, hand signals, OK/not OK cards, etc.); they need extra motivation from their mentors to continually use these elements.
  • Some Estonian teachers struggle with using the Tootle notes (praise notes).
  • Estonian teachers did not think that an ‘American’ programme would work and be relevant in Estonia.
  • In Estonia the educational system is inclusive, but teachers struggled with the use of the methodology for children with special needs.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  • Teachers did not have enough support from their schools for the programme implementation.
  • Some teachers were not able to take part in the 3day training course because there was no substitute who could teach their classes during training days.
  • Some teachers coming to PAX GBG training were sent there by the school management and were not motivated to implement the programme.
How they overcame the obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

  • Mentors received booster training to develop their coaching skills and had to practice the methodology on their own with children.
  • Mentoring frequency was increased (currently mentors visit each class between 10 and 14 times per school year).
  • The training for both teachers and mentors was restructured and content was added. This improved their understanding of the methodology and increased implementation fidelity.

With respect to social context

  • Clear communication about the aim and content of classroom visits before teacher training.
  • Mentors model the use of kernels and Tootle notes when visiting classrooms. Positive attention to PAX behaviour was also constantly modelled during teacher training.
  • Practical Estonian examples from previous years and experienced mentors have reduced resistance to the ‘American’ programme.
  • Engaging special education specialists and social pedagogues to the development activities helps to find solutions for teachers who use the programme with children with special needs.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  • School management and support specialists were also invited to the PAX GBG training. This resulted in teachers having more support inside the school and not feeling alone (which resulted in sustained use of the methodology and expansion within schools).
  • Both teachers and school management have to agree to participate in the programme implementation. This ensures that teachers are motivated to implement the methodology and that schools support them thoroughly with it.
Lessons learnt

With respect to individual professionals

  • Programme implementation needs continuous support and it’s important to consider from the beginning how to make the support system sustainable in the long term. For example, how often will teachers receive booster training sessions? Will there be a mentor in each school or a mentor in each region? How often will mentors visit schools? Who will pay for the support system? These are all questions that should be thought through at the beginning.
  • Mentors need comprehensive training not only about the methodology but also about coaching, advocating and lobbying for the programme, developing teachers’ and schools’ motivation, and sustaining their motivation during the implementation.

With respect to social context

The programme is easily adaptable to different social contexts and does not need many adaptations. Children like the programme a lot, which supports its implementation. But it’s important to keep in mind that this is a universal prevention programme: it will not solve all problems and selective/indicated approaches will still be needed.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  • It’s not enough to work only with teachers or only with school management.
  • It’s important to involve both, because the support and acknowledgement that teachers receive from school management motivates them to implement the programme with higher fidelity. It’s wise to involve parents also, as they are often motivated to work with the school when their children are in elementary school. Their recommendations can have a significant influence on the decisions made by schools.
  • It is important to include more than one teacher per school; the more teachers from a school implement the methodology the better is the support from and cooperation with school management.
Strengths

Content needs little adaptation, evidence-based kernels are easily implemented, teachers notice changes in the classroom quickly, the focus is on positive and prosocial behaviour.

Weaknesses

Resource consuming (intensive mentoring), difficult to evaluate rigorously and in the long term, difficult to involve school management.

Opportunities

Activities conducted with parents (i.e. parental training based on PAX GBG).

Threats

Low fidelity, difficulties in maintaining sustained use.

Recommendations

With respect to individual professionals

Start the implementation with motivated teachers who can help with the adaptation process.

With respect to social context

Involve local teachers and experts from different areas (mental health, prevention, education, special education, research) as much as you can in the adaptation process. They can help to develop the vocabulary, advise about necessary changes, suggest measures for evaluation, etc. They are also important parties in the advocacy and lobbying work.

With respect to organisational and economic context

We would recommend the use of a mentoring system, otherwise the implementation fidelity might be low. Choose your mentors carefully; they should have thorough experience of working in schools. Visit sites where PAX GBG has already been implemented and learn about the existing systems in Europe. Think in advance about the sustainability of the mentoring system: who could support the teachers if there is no extra funding for mentors?

Number of implementations
1
Country
Estonia
Feedback date
Contact details

Catherine Reynaud-Maurupt
c.reynaud.maurupt[a]gmail.com
association.grvs[a]gmail.com

This experience refers to the AIR GBG version

 

Link to the article on the transferability in France
Kiefel, M., Reynaud-Maurupt, C., & Poidevin, É. (2018). Le programme américain Good Behavior Game : Premiers éléments de compréhension de sa transférabilité en France. Revue Éducation, Santé, Sociétés,5(1), 99-119.

Main obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

  1. Difficulty in getting the assent of the whole teaching team in the same school to set up the programme.
  2. Rejection of purely behavioural methods by the majority of teachers; positive conditioning negatively perceived, characterised by teachers as not soliciting critical thinking from pupils.
  3. Rejection of American programmes by a small but significant proportion of teachers.
  4. Rejection of positive education by a minority of teachers (a small minority that consumes a great deal of energy!).
  5. Additional workload for teachers during the first year of implementation (particularly a one-on-one conversation with a GBG coach every fortnight to analyse and go through their work practices after a session of observation in their class).

With respect to social context

Some schools have a large proportion of children in precarious economic, social and educational situations and don’t benefit from any social diversity. These schools are precisely the ones that would benefit the most from the GBG programme. However, teachers working in schools that benefit from greater social diversity, with children who are better off, tend to be more willing to be trained in the GBG.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  1. At the organisational level, gathering two school teams at the same time (2 days in September and 1 day in February) requires simultaneously mobilising lots of replacement teachers to make sure the whole school team can participate in the training.
  2. At the economic level, the implementation of the GBG programme is supported by a non-profit association that solicits funding on an annual basis to successfully carry out its projects. Therefore, it could suffer from cash flow problems if public funding were not allocated in time (consequently jeopardising the development of the programme).
How they overcame the obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

  1. Presentation of the programme in the school year prior to implementation followed by a vote to determine the assent or otherwise of the teaching team.
  2. Systematisation of a collective debriefing with pupils after each GBG session that enables them to work on the verbalisation of emotions and arguments, thus better acknowledging and reflecting the French approach to the development of cognitive skills; a more detailed explanation during initial training of the value of rewards, focusing on the fact that rewards quickly become intangible as the school year progresses; focusing during the initial training and the coaching of the teachers on the part of the programme that deals with group dynamics and team work (cooperation, solidarity, negotiated resolution of problems).
  3. Emphasising GBG experiences in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands (scientific references), and promoting the 2013 EMCDDA report North American drug prevention programs: are they feasible in European cultures and contexts?
  4. Demonstrating that positive education is compatible with setting clear rules. Neuroscience studies have proven that positive education is not just an ideology.
  5. Scheduling sessions for teachers and GBG coaches to analyse work practices during lunchtime breaks. During initial training, focusing on the programme’s immediate outcomes (better classroom management, better school climate).

With respect to social context

  1. First step: we choose the schools with line managers in the national education services in order to select the schools with the most disadvantaged populations.
  2. Second step: we present the programme to the teams that work in these schools and we ask them to organise a vote on participation.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  1. To obtain enough replacement teachers we have to schedule training sessions very early on with the national education services to make sure that GBG training sessions are integrated into the training plan from April of the previous year (hence the need to mobilise teaching teams during the previous school year: everything must be set up in April for the following September). The available teaching resources combine replacement teachers for teachers who are being trained and replacement teachers for teachers who are on sick leave. Consequently, the booster session scheduled for February might have to be rescheduled to March or April, because February is ‘flu season’. We must accept the need to run a training session for each school team if it’s not possible to gather both teams simultaneously.
  2. Up until now the cost of implementing the GBG programme and the cost of the transfer of skills from AIR was covered by funding dedicated to the testing of innovative actions. Co-funding from different public bodies made it possible to avoid financial issues.
Lessons learnt

With respect to individual professionals

  1. Do not involve the minority of the teaching team that does not wish to engage in the programme despite a positive majority vote. We consider this respecting the teachers’ pedagogical freedom. Have teachers (those who have accepted GBG training) sign a contract committing to the programme for the first year of implementation.
  2. (+c. + d.) Adapt the teachers’ training to the needs expressed by the French teachers; use appropriate vocabulary adapted to their professional culture. Pay sustained attention in the GBG programme to the overall strategies that aim to develop social skills, such as cooperation and solidarity, academic skills such as concentration and autonomy, and cognitive skills such as verbalisation of emotions and arguments (help teachers to understand that the programme is not limited to the goal of ensuring that children conform to expected social behaviours).
  3. (e.) French teachers are obliged to contribute a certain number of ‘pedagogical teaching’ hours outside the classroom. The national education services will therefore offset the investment in the GBG programme by allocating 9 hours of each teacher’s pedagogical teaching time to the programme (1 hour to organising and scheduling, 6 hours to the analysis of work practices with the GBG coach and 2 hours to exploitation of data gathered in class).

With respect to social context

  1. It is advisable to start looking for the right school 8 months before starting the programme.
  2. The first GBG programme implementation in France occurred in an ideal socio-historical context, because the education and health services had realised that they had the same goal in terms of the development of children’s social skills: education services had begun to pay closer attention to the benefits of programmes enhancing life skills and to measure their performance, because they contribute to improved learning processes.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  1. We have to set up things very early on to organise the implementation of the programme in a school, beginning to prepare in January for a programme to start the following September.
  2. We must set up a development and funding plan for the coming years with public authorities, to take into account our cash flow problems throughout the year and find other sources of funding than the ones that have been allocated so far (the funding available for a particular innovative action on the basis that it is innovative inevitably becomes limited over time). To promote a project that could be developed at a larger scale, it would be interesting to see the results of economic impact studies on the GBG programmes that have been developed in Europe.
Strengths

An evidence-based programme using years of practical case studies, not adding anything to the school curriculum for the pupils.
A programme that fosters changes in teachers’ work practices, thanks to a very accurate description of expected professional gestures, and that provides the tools to enable data collection and analysis of observational data (teachers have the benefit of hindsight; unbiased approach to education).
Besides the long-term effects, teachers and pupils benefit from immediate outcomes.
A programme thoroughly cherished by children who themselves perceive the benefits, as they can fit in in groups better and work in a calmer, quieter atmosphere.

Weaknesses

French national education has a professional culture in which teachers are not used to working in teams and are totally free in terms of their pedagogical choices; how the programme is implemented may therefore be affected by differences in how individual teachers understand and conduct their jobs.

Opportunities

To implement an efficient programme rather rapidly on a large scale at a reasonable cost avoiding major disturbances for teachers or pupils, or changes in the school curriculum.
The long-term impact of the programme is not limited to a reduction in addictive behaviours but also involves delinquency prevention, suicide prevention and anti-social personality disorder prevention.

Threats

The need for sustained funding while the current funding must be renegotiated each year.
The current funding comes exclusively from public funds dedicated to health and not from education services, although education services have invested human resources.

Recommendations

With respect to individual professionals

Make sure you get the consent of all parties represented and/or accept the fact that some teachers won’t stick to the project and feel free to ‘let them go’ (you won’t achieve any significant result with people who don’t support the project).

With respect to social context

Find schools in deprived neighbourhoods with large numbers of disruptive children with learning difficulties, since these schools are those where you will get the best results from GBG implementation.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Build your own network of decision-makers prior to implementation in order to minimise difficulties in obtaining funding and to ensure the best local support possible for further organisation.

 

Note from the authors

Year the program was implemented:

School years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017: pilot study (3 schools = 35 teachers, 660 pupils, 3 trainers) with transfer of skills from AIR

Current school year: a transition before national development : first year of GBG implementation without AIR support (4 new schools = 49 new teachers and 860 new pupils) and first French experimentation of ‘Train the trainers’ (4 new trainers)

Number of implementations
1
Country
France
Feedback date
Contact details

This experience refers to the AIR GBG version

Main obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

  • Recruitment & training of teachers
  • Teacher turnover in intervention schools
  • Teacher availability for coaching support

With respect to social context

Different teaching culture during parts of the game. It was difficult for some teachers & teaching assistants. Also, some were more uncomfortable with the use of positive reinforcement. Some felt it was too American and felt unusual in a UK classroom.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  • Recruitment of schools to take part in intervention
  • Cost to schools
How they overcame the obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

  • Coaching support

With respect to social context

  • Coaching support & training.

With respect to organisational and economic contex

  • Extensive outreach and partnership marketing
Lessons learnt

With respect to individual professionals

  • Flexible & accessible training
  • Online/virtual coaching support

With respect to social context

  • Take care and ensure proper resources to help teachers understand Good Behaviour Game through training and coaching support.
  • Make it as easy as possible for teachers to collect data.

With respect to organisational and economic context

  • More investment required for schools recruitment
Strengths
  • Fidelity
  • Coaching
  • Impact
Weaknesses
  • Resource-heavy
  • Staff turnover
Opportunities
  • Impact
  • Seamless with curriculum
Threats
  • Cost
Recommendations

With respect to individual professionals

Invest in upfront training and help teachers have a deep understanding of GBG.

With respect to social context

Training & coaching.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Build strong relationships with school leadership team along with teachers. Maintain these relationships through the programme and build new ones as staff move on. Ensure a whole school buy-in.

Number of implementations
1
Country
United Kingdom
Feedback date
Contact details

Agnieszka Sukiennik — GBG Coach
agnieszka.sukiennik[a]o2.pl

This experience refers to the AIR GBG version

Main obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

The most difficult part was luring primary schools (i.e. head teachers and teachers) into the programme and making it look attractive from the very beginning.

With respect to social context

There was a lot of paperwork connected with legal issues and financing, caused by the money coming from different parties with nothing in common.

With respect to organisational and economic context

This does not apply to GBG at this stage.

How they overcame the obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

We relied mostly on professional and personal contacts of GBG coaches and ‘whispering’ marketing — we asked teachers to advertise the programme among their colleagues if they liked it.

With respect to social context

We hired new personnel to handle the office work.

With respect to organisational and economic context

This does not apply to GBG at this stage.

Lessons learnt

With respect to individual professionals

Do not push people. Do not give too many details, especially concerning the documents to be filled in. Focus on the positive aspects. Keep in touch.

With respect to social context

Think twice before engaging people who are not really willing to participate. If a teacher is forced by their supervisor to join the programme, they will leave sooner or later.

With respect to organisational and economic context

This does not apply to GBG at this stage.

Strengths

Fun for the children; satisfaction for the adults; and social advantages.

Weaknesses

Paperwork; lack of proper communication channels; and some people dropped out.

Opportunities

It had an amazing impact on children's social behaviour in the school environment, which will continue beyond the programme.

Threats

Teachers may get bored with the method.

Recommendations

With respect to individual professionals

Hire responsible professionals that are ready to work both independently and in a team.

With respect to social context

Not applicable.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Not applicable.

Number of implementations
1
Country
Poland
Feedback date
Contact details

Jimmy Pettersson
jimmy.pettersson[a]malmo.se

This experience refers to the AIR GBG version

Main obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

Some teachers were not willing to change the way they worked and if they eventually started to make some changes, they were often selective about the changes they made, choosing to make those changes that suited them best and ignoring others.

With respect to social context

In Sweden, we are working with the AIR version of the GBG, but we are using training materials from the Netherlands: we had a Dutch version of an American programme for implementation in Sweden. Some people saw this as a problem and said that it would never work. But, as risk and protective factors are the same in all countries, we did not consider this a problem.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Getting the school to allow enough time to support the teachers properly was an obstacle. As some teachers were sceptical and in some cases unwilling to change the way they managed their classrooms, it would have been very helpful to have more access to their time, especially after lessons in which they implemented the programme, when we wanted time for coaching, but there were no substitutes available to cover the teachers’ next lessons.

How they overcame the obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

As positive reinforcement is used in the Good Behaviour Game (GBG), we chose to use that approach with teachers as well. We tried to focus on the changes they made and gave them a lot of praise for making these changes. After doing this, we gave them advice as to how to proceed with making the other changes necessary.

With respect to social context

The first thing we needed to do was to adapt the programme to fit the Swedish cultural context. We were lucky though, as the Dutch school system is a lot more similar to the Swedish system than the American system. This meant that we needed to make only minor changes, such as altering some names and adjusting it to fit with the Swedish school curriculum.

With respect to organisational and economic context

We tried to find time outside the classroom (during breaks or lunch or between classes) in order to coach teachers regarding how well they stuck to the manual, etc. We also developed a form to give teachers written feedback.

Lessons learnt

With respect to individual professionals

You have to be flexible. Not everyone will be ready at the same time, so you also have to have patience. But above all you must never give up. We did see changes among the teachers who were initially unwilling to change.

With respect to social context

Evidence-based interventions work regardless of country and origin, as long as you are familiar with the relevant risk and protective factors.

With respect to organisational and economic context

We are preparing for a new study and this time we have been meticulous about pointing out what we expect from the schools that are willing to participate in the study, especially concerning time and access to teachers.

Strengths

As the programme is easy to learn and easy to use, teachers who are open-minded will see changes quickly. This will encourage them to continue.

Weaknesses

There will be children who will have problems adapting to this way of working, and teachers who lack the longer term perspective will have problems motivating themselves to continue to guide the children in the right direction.

Opportunities

The GBG offers so many opportunities. Children work more quietly so they get more done. This means that they get less homework and less homework means more time for other activities, etc.

Threats

Teachers who follow only certain parts of the package and by doing so do not get the results in the long run that we are looking for are a threat.

Recommendations

With respect to individual professionals

Those implementing the programme must have an understanding of how the school system works in order to reach the right people and foresee what will come during the school year.

With respect to social context

It is important to take time to reflect on how the context in which you plan to apply the programme compares with the context of the original programme.

With respect to organisational and economic context

It is important to make sure that the schools know exactly what is expected of them and what you need from them in order to implement the programme properly.

Number of implementations
1
Country
Sweden
Feedback date
Contact details

Conor Owens
conor.owens[a]hse.ie

This experience refers to the PAX GBG version

Main obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

Obstacles to initial implementation took two forms: (1) training and support and (2) preconceptions of some teachers and principals.

Principals were required to release teachers for two days PAX GBG training and teachers were required to invite a PAX GBG mentor into their classroom for four post-training mentoring visits.

At the start, training was dependent upon Dr Dennis Embry, a PAX GBG developer, coming over from the US.

The principals’ concerns related to the following: how much resource and teaching time the programme would take up; whether or not it would have additional effects on existing school policies and programmes; what children it would work for; if it would work for all children regardless of their abilities; and which teachers would need to be trained.

The teachers’ concerns before the take-up of PAX GBG related to the following: whether or not the children would buy into the programme, whether or not it would work, whether or not it would increase teachers’ workloads and whether or not they would have the confidence to deliver the training. A key concern was how teachers’ representative bodies would engage with PAX GBG.

With respect to social context

The number of programmes on offer to school principals the difficulty in accessing the evidence supporting them, and the implications for scalability and sustainability, were the main obstacles. The obstacles were about a crowded space rather than the programme.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Securing grant money to scale up delivery.

How they overcame the obstacles

With respect to individual professionals

Funding is an ongoing issue. Interestingly, funding and resources are currently received from a number of organisations with different focuses on child-related outcomes, e.g. health and well-being, childhood poverty, teacher education.

In collaboration with PAX GBG, we are now in a position to have our own accredited trainers; this will have significant positive implications for efficiency and scaling up.

The gathering of both quantitative and qualitative data was important for identifying obstacles and assessing our efforts to address them.

With regard to the principal and teacher preconceptions, based upon qualitative interviews, teachers reported that they felt confident and competent in terms of delivering PAX GBG following the training mentor support and school principals reported valuing the programme for its impacts on pupils self-regulation skills and teacher practice

With respect to social context

Routinely gathering local data was an important strategy for highlighting impacts both qualitatively and quantitatively. It was also important to collaborate with influential groups within the teaching profession, e.g. teacher unions and education centres.

With respect to organisational and economic context

Because of the far-reaching outcomes of PAX GBG, there are several potential routes to funding. Hence no one organisation is required to cover all the costs.

In building a funding case, it has also been our experience that teachers have continued to deliver PAX GBG for a number of years post training, which significantly reduces the cost of a child receiving the programme.

Since our first offer of training, we have had a waiting list of schools and teachers for future training.

Lessons learnt

With respect to individual professionals

The main lessons we learnt were that PAX GBG is transferable it works in Ireland, and it is accepted by pupils, teachers and principals. It is easy to implement. The model we developed was a teacher-to-teacher model; future trainers will be teachers and the mentors are teachers. The core outcome for pupils was self-regulation. Mentor support is essential. Teachers stated that the programme was easy to implement, took up little time and had positive effects on the individual pupils, the classroom and their own experiences as teachers.

Because the programme had an impact on child behaviour so quickly, it was easy for teachers to see PAX GBG as a classroom management programme rather than as a mental health/resilience programme. Based on implementation experience, we focused on the long-term effects of the programme, e.g. reduced risk of drug usage.

With respect to social context

A partnership model for implementation that involved key decision-makers helped us to design an implementation plan that makes the PAX GBG system ready to scale up. A teacher-led approach fits within current education policy and practice developments.

With respect to organisational and economic context

PAX GBG is a transferable scalable programme that is valued by pupils, teachers and school principals. Implementation requires an ordinary amount of commitment nothing exceptional om behalf on the pupils, teachers or principals. Because of the training structure and the addition of evidence-based kernels, it is easy to implement and sustain.

Strengths

Teachers view PAX GBG  as being an acceptable, valuable and impactful additon to their practice achieving significant outcomes for both them and their pupils.

Pupils want to play PAX GBG. To achive equity of access for teachers and pupils ie scaling up multiple delivery routes are required. PAX GBG can be delivered as part of teacher in service training and as part of college based teacher training.

It is not a complicated programme in terms of its delivery but it is based on significant, complex research.

Weaknesses

The need to get multiple organisations to pool resources to facilitate the scaling up of GBG is a weakness.

Opportunities

It is scalable and sustainable and achieves significant long-term outcomes. This allows for population-level change.

Threats

There is a need to move the conversation from evidence-based programmes to the more difficult and important criteria of being evidence-based, scalable and sustainable programmes.

Recommendations

With respect to individual professionals

In our experience, teachers appreciated the teacher-to-teacher delivery and that data were collected and feedback given. Equip teachers to evaluate PAX GBG in their own classroom. This helps them to own and evolve their own practice by generating their own on-going evidence and quality improvement cycle.

With respect to social context

It is important to reinforce the idea that the benefits for pupils are developmental in nature, with behaviour in the classroom being the first outcome but the most important outcomes over time being related to mental health and risk-taking behaviour. Pupils learn self-regulation skills.

With respect to organisational and economic context

A partnership approach allows for more influence, profile and access to potential funding. There are positive impacts upon the culture of the classroom and the school.

Note from the authors

The description, content and implementation of PAX and PAX GBG are quite different. Only PAX GBG use the evidence-based kernels. I can either supply that information or you could request that from Dr Dennis Embry at dde[a]paxis.org

I want to declare that I receive no benefits from and have no financial interest of any kind in PAX GBG.

Number of implementations
1
Country
Ireland
Last updated : 18.06.2024
Country of origin
USA
Last reviewed:
Age group
11-14 years
15-18/19 years
Target group
At-risk young people aged between 11-18 years
Programme setting(s)
Family
Juvenile justice setting
Level(s) of intervention
Targeted intervention

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a short-term (approximately 30 hours), family-based therapeutic intervention for delinquent young people at risk of institutionalisation and their families. FFT is designed to improve within-family attributions and family communication and supportiveness while decreasing intense negativity and dysfunctional patterns of behaviour. Parenting skills, youth compliance and the complete range of behavioural domains (cognitive, emotional and behavioural) are targeted for change based on the specific risk and protective factor profile of each family. FFT should be implemented by a team of 3-8 master’s level therapists, with caseloads of 10-12 families, overseen by a licensed clinical therapist.

Keywords
No data
Links to this programme in other registries
USA - Blueprints Programs
UK - Early Intervention Foundation Guidebook
Norway - NUBU
Contact details

Professor James F. Alexander, PhD
University of Utah Department of Psychology
380 South 1530 East, Room 502
Salt Lake City
Utah 84112-0251
United States of America
Phone: 1 (801) 550-4131
Email: jfafft[a]aol.com
Website: www.fftinc.com

Thomas Sexton, PhD
FFT Partners, LLC
Email: tom[a]functionalfamilytherapy.com
Website: www.functionalfamilytherapy.com

Evidence rating
Likely to be beneficial
Studies overview

There is some evidence that the programme is effective in reducing behaviour problems among young people.

The programme has been evaluated in two quasi-experimental studies in Europe, respectively in Sweden (Hansson et al., 2000) and in the Netherlands (Eeren et al., 2018). Furthermore, two randomised controlled trials have been conducted in Sweden (Hansson et al., 2004) and in Ireland (Carr et al., 2014).

The quasi-experimental study in Sweden (Hansson et al., 2000) found statistically significant positive effects on child psychiatric symptoms at post-test.

In the second Quasi-experimental study in the Netherlands (Eeren et al., 2018), 697 adolescents with an average age of 15 years, were allocated to either the FFT intervention or the MST intervention according to the Risk-Need-Responsivity model. The FFT intervention is thereby seen as the control group. In this aspect, results of the comparison showed no significant differences between outcomes. Only the engagement in school or work after the treatment was higher in the group who completed MST.

The randomised controlled trial in Sweden (Hansson et al., 2004), involving young people with an average age of 15 arrested for serious offences, found statistically significant positive effects on behaviour (recidivism and internalising and externalising behaviour) at the two-year follow-up.

The study in Ireland (Carr et al., 2014) was conducted with children with an average age of 14 years who met the clinical cut-off for Total Difficulties on the parent-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). It found statistically significant effects at post-test (3 months) favouring the intervention on participants’ parent- and self-reported problem behaviour (based on some but not all measures).

The programme has been rated as Model by Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development database based on a review of studies conducted world-wide.

References of studies

Carr, A., Hartnett, D., Sexton, T. and Graham, C. (2014), Putting families first: an evaluation of functional family therapy in an Irish context, Archways.

Eeren, H. V., Goossens, L., Scholte, R. H., Busschbach, J. J., & Van der Rijken, R. E. (2018). Multisystemic therapy and functional family therapy compared on their effectiveness using the propensity score method. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(5), 1037-1050.

Hansson, K., Cederblad, M. and Hook, B. (2000), ‘Functional family therapy: a method for treating juvenile delinquents’, Social vetenskaplig tidskrift 3, pp. 231-243.

Hansson, K., Johansson, P., Drott-Emnglen, G. and Benderix, Y. (2004), ‘Funktionell familjeterapi I barnpsykiatrisk praxis: om behandling av ungdomskriminaliet utanfor universitesforskningen’, Nordisk Psykologi 56, pp. 304-320.

Papers not included in the Rating:

No control group
Vardanian, M. M., Scavenius, C., Granski, M., & Chacko, A. (2020). An international examination of the effectiveness of functional family therapy (FFT) in a Danish community sample. Journal of marital and family therapy, 46(2), 289-303.

Non-EU-studies (USA & Canada)

Alexander, J. F. and Parsons, B. V. (1973), ‘Short-term behavioral intervention with delinquent families: impact on family process and recidivism’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 81, pp. 219-225

Aos, S., Lee, S., Drake, E., Pennucci, A., Klima, T., Miller, M., Anderson, L., et al. (2011), Return on investment: evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia.

Barnoski, R. (2004), Outcome evaluation of Washington State’s research-based programmes for juvenile offenders (Document No. 04-01-1201), Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia.

Barton, C., Alexander, J. F., Waldron, H., Turner, C. W. and Warburton, J. (1985), ‘Generalizing treatment effects of Functional Family Therapy: three replications’, The American Journal of Family Therapy 13, pp. 16-26.

Celinska, K., Furrer, S. and Cheng, C.-C. (2013), ‘An outcome-based evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for youth with behavior problems’, OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice 2, pp. 23-36.

Friedman, A. (1989), ‘Family therapy vs. parent groups: effects on adolescent drug abusers’, The American Journal of Family Therapy 17, pp. 335-347.

Gordon, D. A. (1995), ‘Functional Family Therapy for delinquents’, in Ross, R. R., Antonowicz, D. H. and Dhaliwal G. K. (eds.), Going straight: effective delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation, Air Training and Publications, Canada.

Gordon, D. A., Graves, K. and Arbuthnot, J. (1995), ‘The effect of Functional Family Therapy for delinquents on adult criminal behavior’, Criminal Justice and Behavior 22, pp. 60-73.

Klein, N. C., Alexander, J. F. and Parsons, B. V. (1977), ‘Impact of family systems intervention on recidivism and sibling delinquency: a model of primary prevention and programme evaluation’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45, pp. 469-474.

Klein, N. C., Alexander, J. F. and Parsons, B. V. (1977), ‘Impact of family systems intervention on recidivism and sibling delinquency: a model of primary prevention and programme evaluation’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45, pp. 469-474.

Sexton, T. and Turner, C. W. (2010), ‘The effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy for youth with behavioral problems in a community practice setting’, Journal of Family Psychology 24, pp. 339-348.

Slesnick, N. and Prestopnik, J. (2009), ‘Comparison of family therapy outcome with alcohol-abusing, runaway adolescents’, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 35, pp. 255-277. 


Waldron, H. B., Slesnick, N., Brody, J. L., Turner, C. W. and Peterson, T. R. (2001), ‘Treatment outcomes for adolescent substance abuse at 4- and 7-month assessments’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69, pp. 802-813.

Countries where evaluated
Netherlands
Ireland
Sweden
Protective factor(s) addressed
Individual and peers: clear morals and standards of behaviour
Individual and peers: interaction with prosocial peers
Individual and peers: Problem solving skills
Individual and peers: refusal skills and decision making
Individual and peers: skills for social interaction
Risk factor(s) addressed
Individual and peers: anti-social behaviour
Individual and peers: early initiation of drug/alcohol use
Individual and peers: favourable attitude towards alcohol/drug use
Individual and peers: favourable attitudes towards anti-social behaviour
Individual and peers: hyperactivity
Individual and peers: rebelliousness and alienation
Outcomes targeted
Relations with parents
Alcohol use
Use of illicit drugs
Crime
Description of programme

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a short-term (approximately 30 hours) prevention/intervention programme for young people who have demonstrated a range of maladaptive, acting-out behaviours and related syndromes. Intervention services consist primarily of direct contact with family members, in person and by telephone; however, services may be coupled with support system services such as remedial education, job training and placement, and school placement. Some young people are also assigned ‘trackers’, who advocate for them for a period of at least three months after release.

FFT should be implemented by a team of 3-8 master’s level therapists, with caseloads of 10-12 families, overseen by a licensed clinical therapist. FFT is a phased programme with steps that build on each other. These phases are:

  • Engagement: designed to emphasise to young people and their families the factors that protect young people and their families from dropping out of the programme early.
  • Motivation: designed to change maladaptive emotional reactions and beliefs, and increase alliance, trust, hope, and motivation for lasting change.
  • Assessment: designed to clarify individual, family system and larger system relationships, especially the interpersonal functions of behaviour and how they relate to change techniques.
  • Behaviour change: consists of communication training, specific tasks and technical aids, parenting skill building, contracting and response-cost techniques, and youth compliance and skill building.
  • Generalisation: during which family case management is guided by individualised family functional needs, their interface with environmental constraints and resources, and the alliance with the FFT therapist/family case manager.
Top