View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effects of the Good Behaviour Game on the Behaviour of Students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities in Physical Education Settings

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of the Good Behaviour Game on the Behaviour of Students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities in Physical Education Settings
Language: English
Authors: Olfa Tounsi (ORCID 0000-0001-9867-7906), Anis Ben Chikha, Abdessalem Koubaa, Omar Trabelsi (ORCID 0000-0001-6545-4706), Liwa Masmoudi (ORCID 0000-0002-9628-1585), Haitham A. Jahrami, Cain C. T. Clark (ORCID 0000-0002-6610-4617), Khaled Trabelsi (ORCID 0000-0003-2623-9557), Mourad Bahloul
Source: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 2025 72(1):117-133.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Students with Disabilities, Mild Intellectual Disability, Physical Education, Self Contained Classrooms, Learner Engagement, Student Behavior, Behavior Problems, Program Effectiveness, Behavior Modification, Game Based Learning, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Tunisia
DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2024.2317477
ISSN: 1034-912X
1465-346X
Abstract: The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is an interdependent group contingency intervention, previously shown to be effective in managing students' behaviour across several studies. An ABAB withdrawal design was implemented to examine the effects of the GBG on the engagement and disruptive behaviours of 12 students diagnosed principally with a mild intellectual disability (M[superscript age] = 7.83 ± 0.83 years) enrolled in two self-contained physical education classes. The first phase of the intervention was carried out from November 27th until Janvier 25th and the second phase took place from April 2nd to May 10th. Video recordings of all sessions were directly observed and analysed using a code unit grid. The collected data were subjected to inferential statistical analysis. Results showed a significant increase in engagement and a decrease in disruptive behaviours during the B1 conditions compared to the baseline A1 for both class 'A' and 'B' (p < 0.001). Similarly, there was a significant increase in engagement and a decrease in disruptive behaviours during the B2 conditions compared to both the A2 and A1 baselines (p < 0.001). Overall, this study demonstrates the effectiveness of the GBG as an intervention for promoting engagement and reducing disruptive behaviours when implemented in physical education settings with students diagnosed with mild intellectual disabilities.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1454454
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFC0s2UcnM-LVqfBRGpR0kKAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEkBFdGx4cuo4xhl1QIBEICBm6Iet5paoRPeoLuqfgAEN1SlDoPs4KS9rD4H8oPNw3nEfq6MN9W5WS8qv-jt_rYmMx4k8Q2iKugo2pNJncyJV6pD6cZ6sguPSQ_5J_kgp-cfi3oyzXSgJ3Mc9cYglOTTiyzomwSHPd78svct5h1GBQ0M0gp1jg5pU6HESxbG6BaL9jc_GFmLzuWAKldyA0ulnfxRhSe-ZVjBhp2E
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0181776754;54q01jan.25;2024Dec23.04:20;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0181776754-1&quot;&gt;Effects of the Good Behaviour Game on the Behaviour of Students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities in Physical Education Settings&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is an interdependent group contingency intervention, previously shown to be effective in managing students&#39; behaviour across several studies. An ABAB withdrawal design was implemented to examine the effects of the GBG on the engagement and disruptive behaviours of 12 students diagnosed principally with a mild intellectual disability (M&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;age&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; = 7.83 &#177; 0.83 years) enrolled in two self-contained physical education classes. The first phase of the intervention was carried out from November 27&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; until Janvier 25&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; and the second phase took place from April 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;nd&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to May 10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;th&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;. Video recordings of all sessions were directly observed and analysed using a code unit grid. The collected data were subjected to inferential statistical analysis. Results showed a significant increase in engagement and a decrease in disruptive behaviours during the B1 conditions compared to the baseline A1 for both class &#39;A&#39; and &#39;B&#39; (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Similarly, there was a significant increase in engagement and a decrease in disruptive behaviours during the B2 conditions compared to both the A2 and A1 baselines (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Overall, this study demonstrates the effectiveness of the GBG as an intervention for promoting engagement and reducing disruptive behaviours when implemented in physical education settings with students diagnosed with mild intellectual disabilities.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Keywords: Behavioural games; disruptive behaviour; engagement; good behaviour game; mild intellectual disabilities; physical education&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-2&quot;&gt;Introduction&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Classroom management is required to ensure a teaching process free of problems and prevent against the emergence of disruptive behaviours, which are considered among the most difficult aspects of teaching practices (Beaty et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Disruptive behaviours are defined as the kind of behaviour that causes confusion or disorder or interrupts, interferes, or impedes normal classroom or school activities (Urbina et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib43&quot; id=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;43&lt;/reflink&gt;]). They have long been considered as one of the most significant challenges for teachers in schools and a risk factor for the students&#39; academic achievement (N&#228;rhi et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib33&quot; id=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;33&lt;/reflink&gt;]), as they have detrimental effects not only on the educational process of those students who are disruptive, but also on the class as a whole (Higgins et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]). It has been shown that disruptive students&#39; presence can hinder the learning of new skills during physical education (PE) classes, as it erodes the level of students&#39; engagement (Jim&#233;nez et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib26&quot; id=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;26&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In particular, behaviour disorders are frequent in children who are diagnosed with an intellectual disability (Ageranioti-B&#233;langer et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) &#39;Intellectual disability is a disorder with onset during the developmental period that includes both intellectual and adaptive functioning deficits in conceptual, social, and practical domains&#39; (American Psychiatric Association, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;], p. 33). Children and young people with intellectual disabilities are generally less active than those without disabilities (Hinckson et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and commonly have lower levels of cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular endurance (Murphy et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib32&quot; id=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;32&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Challenging behaviours are highly prevalent among students belonging to this population (Nicholls et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib35&quot; id=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;35&lt;/reflink&gt;]), making it difficult for them to accomplish learning goals and often leading to the failure of the teaching process (Graham, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In PE settings, physical educators always strive to maintain the engagement of students diagnosed with mild intellectual disabilities and increase their learning time (Bertills et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Curran &amp;amp; Standage, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Levin, Nolan, &amp;amp; Nolan, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;]) through implementing effective classroom management strategies that are efficient enough to prevent or at least reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of disruptive behaviours (Downs et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sieberer-Nagler, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib38&quot; id=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;38&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sinclair et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib39&quot; id=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;39&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Nevertheless, due to the behavioural traits of those students, this is no easy task for teacher (Downs et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Nowadays, the need for efficient behavioural interventions for students with intellectual disabilities during PE classes has become crucial to combat disruptive behaviours and, thus, help them engage more effectively in health-enhancing physical activities.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;One example of those interventions could be The Good Behaviour Game (GBG). This latter is a class-wide behavioural intervention (Barrish et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and represents one of the most rigorously evaluated group contingency procedures (Bowman-Perrott et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The GBG adopts an interdependent group contingency design, in which reinforcement is provided to each member of a group based on the behavioural performance of all members of the group as a whole (Gresham &amp;amp; Gresham, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]). A growing body of evidence supports the effectiveness of the GBG in controlling disruptive behaviours and, in turn, increasing appropriate ones (Ford et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Joslyn et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Statnikov, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib40&quot; id=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;40&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Given its high procedural integrity (Tingstrom, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib41&quot; id=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;41&lt;/reflink&gt;]), the GBG has been shown to be an acceptable intervention by teachers (Joslyn &amp;amp; Vollmer, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Furthermore, it appears to have strong social validity across multiple contexts and disciplines. For example, Donaldson, Matter, and Wiskow ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;]) examined the feasibility of teaching young students in one first-grade and three kindergarten classes using the GBG and showed that teacher preference should be taken into account when determining how class-wide interventions are to be implemented. Wahl, Hawkins, Haydon, Marsicano, and Morrison ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]) also compared the effects of the GBG and a similar version of the GBG, dubbed as the Caught Being Good Game (CBGG), on students&#39; behaviours as well as teachers&#39; use of positive and negative statements. The GBG is supported by a large base of behavioural research and has been successfully implemented with students ranging from special educational to mainstream educational settings (Breeman et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Groves et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In the context of special education evaluated effects of the GBG on students diagnosed with both intellectual and physical disabilities enrolled in two classes at a special education school and found that the GBG was effective in reducing disruptive and off‐task behaviours. Likewise, Rubow, Vollmer, and Joslyn ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib36&quot; id=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;36&lt;/reflink&gt;]) investigated the effects of the GBG on fourth- to eighth-grade students in two classes at an alternative school enrolling students with emotional and behavioural disorders and their findings suggested that the GBG was effective in reducing classroom disruptions.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The GBG was originally developed by Barrish et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]) to reduce out-of-seat behaviour and inappropriate vocalisations in a fourth-grade classroom. At the start of the game, teachers always begin by setting clear expectations for behaviour, which become the &#39;rules&#39; of the game. Under GBG conditions, the teacher explained that the class would be playing a game during maths period, divided the class into groups, and announced that groups would be rewarded for adhering to the classroom rules. The groups were given points whenever a member violated a classroom rule. At the end of the maths period, the team that had the fewest points or, both teams if they each received less than five points (numerical criterion), were given a reward (Barrish et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The GBG has been applied to various educational populations with various psychiatric disorders, such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD), attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder, and pupils with high levels of social, emotional, and behavioural problems and educational needs, in various countries around the world (Breeman et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Groves &amp;amp; Austin, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Groves et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, despite receiving the attention of many researchers in the field of special education, no study has ever before investigated the application of GBG in a population of students diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. To fill this gap in the literature, we aimed at evaluating the effects of the GBG on the engagement of students with a mild intellectual ability in PE classes, along with the patterns of disruptive behaviour. We hypothesised that GBG implementation would increase engagement rate and reduce disruptive behaviours.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-3&quot;&gt;Method&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-4&quot;&gt;Participants and Setting&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Two self-contained physical education (PE) classes, referred to as &#39;A&#39; and &#39;B&#39;, were carefully chosen to take part in this study. As depicted in Table 1, both classes comprised six students resulting in a total of 12 participants (7 boys and 5 girls), averagely aged 7.83 &#177; 0.83 years. Each of the students had been diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability according to the DSM-5, along with other associated disorders, accounting for 58.33% of the sample.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 1. Participant information.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Participant&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Sex&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Age&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Diagnosis&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Class&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Female&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability, epilepsy&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Female&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability, bipolar disorder&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Female&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Female&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Female&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Male&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Mild intellectual disability&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;These classes cater to students with mild intellectual disabilities and are located in two separate public centres of special education and rehabilitation for students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. These centres are situated in the province of Sfax, Tunisia. Notably, these associative centres provide education to children in various educational departments and offer vocational training workshops for young adolescents.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In order to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the game procedures and maintain consistency within the study, students with a mild intellectual disability were deliberately selected to participate. The inclusionary criteria mandated that, throughout three preliminary observations, a median level of disruption, encompassing off-task motor and off-task verbal behaviour, must have occurred during at least 20% of the intervals. Additionally, the median level of classroom engagement had to be within the range of no more than 80% of intervals, as established by Wahl, Hawkins, Haydon, Marsicano, and Morrison ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This purposive sampling technique was implemented to ensure the homogeneity of the sample.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Two female teachers, licenced to teach adapted physical activity, volunteered to take part in this study. The teacher in charge of class &#39;A&#39; had eight years of experience and the teacher for class &#39;B&#39; had ten years of experience in teaching students with special needs, particularly those diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. There was no interaction between teachers and researchers regarding the objectives of the study. This ensured that the teachers&#39; actions and approaches remained uninfluenced by external factors, preserving the integrity and impartiality of the research process.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;All of the participants involved in this study were free from any physical impairments and were not receiving any form of medication. PE sessions for both classes took place at the centre&#39;s indoor gymnasium, which resembled typical mainstream settings and was familiar to the participating students. The intervention did not begin until each child&#39;s parents/guardians had signed an informed consent containing detailed description of the study&#39;s objectives and procedures. The study was conducted according to the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local research ethics committee (CE101/18).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-5&quot;&gt;Study Design&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;To establish a cause-effect relationship between the implementation of the Good Behavior Game (GBG) and its impact on student engagement and disruptive behaviours, an ABAB withdrawal design was employed in this study. The ABAB withdrawal design is a well-established research methodology that involves comparing alternating periods characterised by the presence (phase B) and absence (phase A) of a specific treatment/intervention procedure (Davis, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In this design, phase switching occurred after a stable rate of student behaviours had been observed, thereby ensuring consistent and reliable data. As a result, the number of observation sessions varied between classes and across different phases due to the need for stability before transitioning to the next phase. This design allowed for a systematic evaluation of the effects of the GBG intervention by examining changes in behaviour during the implementation (phases B) and the withdrawal (phases A) of the intervention.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study consisted of alternating phases of baseline (A) and GBG intervention (B) periods, with each phase corresponding to specific time intervals. During the first baseline phase, labelled A1, data was collected from October 12th to 23 November 2018. Class A underwent a total of 9 observation sessions, while Class B had 8 observation sessions. Following the baseline phase, the first intervention phase, labelled B1, took place from 27 November 2018, to 25 January 2019. Class A had 13 observation sessions during this phase, and Class B had 12 observation sessions. After the initial intervention, the study returned to a second baseline phase, labelled A2, which spanned from February 1st to 12 March 2019. Both Class A and Class B had 10 observation sessions each during this baseline phase. The final intervention phase, labelled B2, commenced sometime on 2 April 2019, and lasted until 10 May [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref39&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]. Class A underwent 11 observation sessions, while Class B had 9 observation sessions during this phase. In summary, class A participated in a total of 43 observation sessions, while class B had 39 observation sessions as part of the study over the course of the school year 2018/2019.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-6&quot;&gt;Materials&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Materials used for game application were a poster detailing the game rules, tangible rewards (sweets, potato chips, chocolate, etc.), intervention script, and a data recording sheet. A common poster of rules (dimensions A0 1189 &#215; 841 mm) was designed for display in the gymnasium to each participating class. It contained five main rules: &#39;Rule 1&#39; corresponded to &#39;the use of sport equipment in an appropriate manner and after permission from the teacher&#39;; &#39;Rule 2&#39; corresponded to &#39;the focus on the lesson and engagement in the task at hand&#39;; &#39;Rule 3&#39; corresponded to &#39;the adherence and application of the teacher&#39;s instructions&#39;; &#39;Rule 4&#39; corresponded to &#39;taking permission before going to the water cycle&#39;; &#39;Rule 5&#39; corresponded to &#39;waiting your turn calmly&#39;. The intervention script was thoroughly explained to teachers to ensure that they successfully administer the game to the participating students. The script defined the game, outlined its rules, explained its procedures step by step, and gave examples of inappropriate behaviours that count as rule violations. The data recording sheet comprised of two textboxes, each with a team name on it (e.g. blue or white) and a space for each team&#39;s tally.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-7&quot;&gt;Dependent Measures and Data Collection&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The dependent variables in this study were engagement and disruptive behaviour. Engagement was assessed and coded based on two distinct categories: active engagement time and passive engagement time (Wahl, Hawkins, Haydon, Marsicano, &amp;amp; Morrison, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Active engagement time referred to the duration during which students actively participated and interacted in the assigned motor activities or used of equipment in an appropriate manner. Examples of active engagement include jumping, running, throwing, launching, etc. On the other hand, passive engagement time represented the period in which students displayed attentive behaviour without active participation, such as watching a demonstration or waiting for one&#39;s action turn.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Disruptive behaviours are reflected in two categories: verbal off-task behaviour and motor off-task behaviour. Both these categories negatively affect the smooth running of learning activities (Wahl et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref41&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Verbal off-task behaviours include humming, singing, shouting, crying, or talking to peers. On the other hand, motor off-task behaviours include playing without waiting one&#39;s turn, throwing things, using sports equipment inappropriately, refraining from activity, leaving the classroom without asking for permission, disrespecting the classroom rules, demonstrating aggressive behaviour, etc.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Data collection in this study employed video-based observation techniques utilising videotaped sessions of class &#39;A&#39; and &#39;B&#39;. The video recordings encompassed sessions that lasted approximately 46 to 50 minutes, with an average duration of 48 minutes. To analyse the video recordings, a code unit grid was utilised, implementing the time sampling (fixed interval recording) behaviour assessment method. The unit grid was divided into several consecutive 15-sec intervals. Observations were conducted on video recordings of 46- to 50-min sessions (48 minutes on average).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Engagement was coded using a 15-second momentary time sampling approach, while disruptive behaviour was observed using 15-second partial intervals. This method of observation was similar to that implemented by Tounsi et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib42&quot; id=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;42&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The 15-second momentary time sampling involves recording the presence or absence of a behaviour at specific 15-second intervals throughout the observation period. In this method, the observer records whether the behaviour of interest is occurring or not at the exact moment the interval ends. This provides a snapshot of the behaviour&#39;s occurrence within each 15-second interval. On the other hand, 15-second partial intervals involve observing and coding behaviours continuously throughout each 15-second interval. The observer monitors the behaviour throughout the entire 15-second period and records its presence or characteristics during that time frame.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The levels of engagement and disruptive behaviour were determined by calculating the proportion of 15-second intervals in which the target behaviour (off-task or on-task) was observed, relative to the total number of observation intervals in each session. This proportion was then multiplied by 100 to express the levels as percentages. The level of engagement or disruption for each student during a given session was obtained by calculating the average of the values independently determined by two observers.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-8&quot;&gt;Preliminary Assessment for Rewards&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;A reinforcer survey was conducted to determine students&#39; preferences for both tangible and intangible rewards. The survey included 12 tangible rewards, such as sweets, chocolate, and potato chips, as well as 12 intangible rewards, including popular motor games such as musical chairs and ball games. The selection of games was sourced from the recommendations of the teachers and constituted activities typically engaged in during extra-activity periods.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;During the survey, each student was individually addressed by the interviewer, who verbally presented the rewards listed on each survey. In cases where a student explicitly expressed their preference for a specific reward, it was duly provided to them. For the practical intervention, only the rewards that were most frequently chosen by the students in each group were selected by the investigators to be awarded to the winning team at the end of the game.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;It should be noted that rewards selected fewer than three times were not considered for inclusion as study materials. During the practical intervention, these selected rewards were distributed exclusively to the winning teams as a form of recognition and reinforcement for their performance.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-9&quot;&gt;Treatment Integrity, Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Acceptability&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-10&quot;&gt;Treatment Integrity&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The primary investigator developed a scripted protocol to measure adherence to the game application procedures. Treatment integrity was assessed during 50% of the sessions scheduled as part of the first and second phase of the practical intervention. The primary investigator recorded whether the teacher followed the procedures of the game application, according to the game integrity checklist, by putting a cross in the column &#39;yes&#39; or &#39;no&#39;. The checklist listed, in order, the 10 steps of the game (1&lt;sups&gt;st&lt;/sups&gt;, post the rules poster. 2&lt;sups&gt;nd&lt;/sups&gt;, appoint the members of each team and distribute ribbons of the same colour to the students in each group. 3&lt;sups&gt;rd&lt;/sups&gt;, announce that the game will start in a few minutes. 4&lt;sups&gt;th&lt;/sups&gt;, review the rules of the game with students and remind them not to exceed the criterion. 5&lt;sups&gt;th&lt;/sups&gt;, start the game. 6&lt;sups&gt;th&lt;/sups&gt;, identify and record occurrences of rule violations in the score recording checklist. 7&lt;sups&gt;th&lt;/sups&gt;, announce the end of the game. 8&lt;sups&gt;th&lt;/sups&gt;, count the score of each team. 9&lt;sups&gt;th&lt;/sups&gt;, announce the numerical criterion and the winning team. 10&lt;sups&gt;th&lt;/sups&gt;, give the reward to the members of the winning team (s) at the end of the game). At the end of the session, the percentage integrity was calculated using the following formula: (number of procedures implemented correctly by the teacher * 100)/10. Across all sessions, treatment integrity was very high for class &#39;A&#39; and &#39;B&#39;, ranging from 90.9% to 100%.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-11&quot;&gt;Interobserver Agreement&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Interobserver agreement (IOA) of observational measures is an important psychometric property which allows to ensure reliable and valid measurement (Watkins &amp;amp; Pacheco, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib45&quot; id=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;45&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Before baseline assessment, two observers unaware of the study&#39;s purpose and phase changes were trained in data collection. They were initially trained in operational definitions and observation procedures. Each observer co-observed with the principal investigator until an IOA of at least 90% was reached (Tounsi et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib42&quot; id=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;42&lt;/reflink&gt;]). IOA was assessed on a detailed checklist. Inter-observer agreement for the dependent measures was assessed during 20 sessions of the observation, distributed across experimental and baseline conditions for each class. Agreement was calculated on an interval-by-interval basis by dividing the number of intervals with agreement by the number of intervals with agreement plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The agreement average for engagement was 94% (range 88.5%-95.5%) and for disruptive behaviour the average was 93.65% (range 88%- 98.5%).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-12&quot;&gt;Treatment Acceptability&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Following the completion of the study, the teacher participated in a structured interview, which was adapted from Wahl, Hawkins, Haydon, Marsicano, and Morrison ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]), and conducted by the investigator. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale with &#39;1&#39; meaning &#39;strongly disagree&#39;, &#39;2&#39; meaning &#39;disagree&#39;, &#39;3&#39; meaning &#39;not sure&#39;, &#39;4&#39; meaning &#39;agree&#39; and &#39;5&#39; meaning &#39;strongly agree&#39;. The scale asked, &#39;Was the script of the intervention easy to follow?&#39;; &#39;Did you like the procedures implemented in this intervention?&#39;; &#39;Was the intervention easy to include in your daily routine?&#39;, &#39;Will you be ready to use this intervention in the future?&#39;, &#39;Overall, was this intervention beneficial to the student?&#39;. In addition, an open-ended question was added to encourage the teacher to provide any additional information regarding the intervention.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-13&quot;&gt;Procedures&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-14&quot;&gt;Baseline&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;During the baseline phase, data were collected on students&#39; levels of engagement and disruptive behaviours over the entire course of a PE lesson, lasting approximately 50 minutes. The class rules were set in collaboration between the teachers and investigators, taking into account preliminary observation data that highlighted common classroom issues and concerns. For instance, if unauthorised classroom exits were identified as a frequent disruptive behaviour, a rule would be implemented stating that students must seek permission before leaving the classroom for any reason, such as accessing the water cycle. At the onset of the observation period, the investigator carefully identified students who exhibited a higher propensity for engaging in problematic behaviours. These students were then divided into two equally sized groups, ensuring gender diversity and equitable representation of disruptive students. Groups maintained the same line-up until the end of practical intervention.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-15&quot;&gt;Teachers Training&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Under baseline conditions, and one day before GBG implementation, the research investigator met the two PE teachers outside their working hours to prepare for the application of the game in the classroom. During this meeting, the principles of the GBG and its procedures were presented and explained. An intervention script including all the information necessary to understand the principles and rules of the game and facilitating its application in the classroom was presented to the teachers. Then, the investigator and the teachers discussed how the teacher would explain the game to the students. The meeting lasted an hour, ensuring comprehensive comprehension of the game procedures and rules by the teachers before its conclusion. At the end of the baseline conditions, the teachers were tested for comprehension of the GBG procedures.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-16&quot;&gt;Intervention&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The Good Behavior Game (GBG) was implemented in two classes, with class &#39;A&#39; receiving the intervention twice a week on Mondays and Thursdays, and class &#39;B&#39; on Tuesdays and Fridays. The GBG was integrated into the entire 50-minute physical education (PE) session. Before each GBG session, the teacher received a sealed envelope containing a numerical criterion, which remained undisclosed to the students until the end of the session (Lannie &amp;amp; Mccurdy, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;]). To initiate the game, the teacher displayed the game rules poster in the gymnasium prior to the students&#39; entry. A few minutes were dedicated to introducing and reminding the students of the rules. Team members were assigned ribbons of the same colour to facilitate score recording, and the game commenced promptly.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The rules of the GBG included using sports equipment appropriately with permission from the teacher, focusing on the lesson and actively engaging in the proposed activities, respecting and following the teacher&#39;s instructions, asking for permission before taking water breaks, and waiting calmly for their turn. During the GBG, whenever a student violated a rule, the teacher discreetly marked a point for that student&#39;s team on the recording sheet, which was either attached to their lanyard or kept in their pocket (Wahl et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref47&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;At the end of each session, the teacher announced the end of the game and revealed the numerical criterion from the previously sealed envelope. The team with an equal or lower number of points compared to the mystery criterion received a tangible or intangible reward based on an intermittent schedule. For instance, if a tangible reward was administered during the initial intervention session, an intangible reward was given in the subsequent session. Both teams had the opportunity to be winners. The mystery criterion varied from session to session and was determined by the experimenter after observing the previous session, by counting the total number of rule violations by the winning team and subtracting 20%. The criterion was written on a paper, folded in an envelope, and delivered to the teachers at the beginning of each session.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Rewards were distributed to the winning team at the end of the game. During the intervention phase, lesson plans were tailored based on the official curriculum implemented at the participating centres by the teachers involved in this study. These plans primarily encompassed motor games and psychomotricity circuits. To uphold the integrity of the study conditions, the investigators rigorously maintained the original learning environment settings throughout the intervention phase (Wahl et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib44&quot; id=&quot;ref48&quot;&gt;44&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Following the first three sessions of game implementation, the experimenter provided the teachers with feedback on their performance to improve the intervention integrity (Lannie et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The feedback pertained to the teacher&#39;s completion of the 10 steps of the game integrity checklist.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-17&quot;&gt;Statistical Analysis&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;All statistical tests were performed using STATISTICA Software (Statistica Kernel version 10; Stat Software; France). Mean and standard deviation (SD) values were calculated for each variable. The Shapiro – Wilk test revealed that percentage of engagement intervals and percentage of disruptive behaviour intervals, for class A and B, were normally distributed. Once the assumption of normality was confirmed, parametric tests were used. Percentage of engagement intervals and percentage of disruptive behaviour intervals data, for classes A and B, were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) across four conditions (baseline A1, intervention B1, baseline A2, intervention B2). When appropriate, significant differences between means were assessed using the Bonferroni post hoc test. Effect sizes were calculated as a partial eta-squared ɳp&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; to estimate the meaningfulness of the findings, where ɳp&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; values of 0.02, 0.06, and 0.14 represent small, moderate, and large effect sizes, respectively (Cohen, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Statistical significance was accepted for all analyses, a priori, at the level of &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.05.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-18&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-19&quot;&gt;Class A&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;As shown in Figure 1 and Table 2, the results of the statistical analysis revealed a significant effect of the GBG intervention on engagement in class A, as determined by the repeated measures one-way ANOVA, F&lt;subs&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;,&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;)sphericity assumed&lt;/subs&gt; = 71.64, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001, ɳ&lt;subs&gt;p&lt;/subs&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; = 0.90 (large effect), observed power = 1.0. Post hoc comparisons indicated significant differences (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001) between on-task intervals recorded during phase A1 (9 sessions: lower bound = 41.67%, upper bound = 61.11%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 54.38 &#177; 7.16%) and those recorded during B1 (13 sessions: lower bound = 79.51%, upper bound = 89.75%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 86.71 &#177; 6.40%), as well as a significant difference (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001) between on-task intervals recorded during phases A2 (10 sessions: lower bound = 53.01%, upper bound = 66.38%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 60.33 &#177; 8.45%) and B2 (11 sessions: lower bound = 88.98%, upper bound = 93.37%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 91.46 &#177; 2.64%). A significant difference was also found between on-task intervals recorded during phases B1 and A2 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Figure 1. Percentage of intervals with engagement and disruptive behaviour at the class-wide level for class &#39;A&#39;.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 2. Percentage of engagement intervals and disruptive behavior intervals at the class-wide level for class &#39;A&#39;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Means &amp;amp;#177; SD&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;ANOVA&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Variables&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;P&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;-value&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#951;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Percentage of engagement intervals&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;54.38 &amp;amp;#177; 7.16&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;86.71 &amp;amp;#177; 6.40&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;**&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;60.33 &amp;amp;#177; 8.45$$&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;91.46 &amp;amp;#177; 2.64&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;##&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#60; 0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.90&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Percentage of disruptive behaviour intervals&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;44.87 &amp;amp;#177; 8.41&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;16.32 &amp;amp;#177; 5.07&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;**&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;40.11 &amp;amp;#177; 8.81$$&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12.93 &amp;amp;#177; 2.03&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;##&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#60; 0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.88&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 ** significantly different from A1 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01; ## significantly different from A2 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001; $$, significantly different from B1 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The statistical analysis also showed a significant effect of GBG of the intervention on disruptive behaviour in class A [F&lt;subs&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;,&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;) sphericity assumed&lt;/subs&gt; = 56.78, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001, ɳ&lt;subs&gt;p&lt;/subs&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; = 0.88 (large effect), observed power = 1.0]. Post hoc comparisons indicated significant differences (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001) between off-task intervals recorded during phase A1 (9 sessions: lower bound = 38.41%, upper bound = 51.34%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 44.87 &#177; 8.41%) and those recorded during B1 (13 sessions: lower bound = 14.11%, upper bound = 22.06%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 16.32 &#177; 5.07%), as well as a significant difference (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001) between off-task intervals recorded during phases A2 (10 sessions: lower bound = 33.64%, upper bound = 47.72%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 40.11 &#177; 8.81%) and B2 (11 sessions: lower bound = 11.45%, upper bound = 14.84%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 12.93 &#177; 2.03%). A significant difference was also found between off-task intervals recorded during phases B1 and A2 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-20&quot;&gt;Class B&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;As depicted in Figure 2 and Table 3, the results of the statistical analysis also uncovered a significant effect of the GBG intervention on engagement in class B [F&lt;subs&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;,&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;)sphericity assumed&lt;/subs&gt; = 32.73, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001, ɳ&lt;subs&gt;p&lt;/subs&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; = 0.81 (large effect), observed power = 1.0]. Post hoc comparisons indicated significant differences (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001) between on-task intervals recorded during phase A1 (8 sessions: lower bound = 55.09%, upper bound = 67.40%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 61.25 &#177; 7.36%) and those recorded during B1 (12 sessions: lower bound = 78.19%, upper bound = 91.40%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 85.32 &#177; 7.03%), as well as a significant difference (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01) between on-task intervals recorded during phases A2 (10 sessions: lower bound = 56.2%, upper bound = 70.61%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 63.05 &#177; 8.36%) and B2 (9 sessions: lower bound = 83.51%, upper bound = 95.51%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 90 &#177; 6.87%). A significant difference was also found between on-task intervals recorded during phases B1 and A2 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Figure 2. Percentage of intervals with engagement and disruptive behaviour at the class-wide level for class &#39;B&#39;.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 3. Percentage of engagement intervals and disruptive behavior intervals at the class-wide level for class &#39;B&#39;.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Parameters&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Means &amp;amp;#177;SD&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;ANOVA&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;A2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;B2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;P&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;-value&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#951;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Percentage of engagement intervals&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;61.25 &amp;amp;#177; 7.36&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;85.32 &amp;amp;#177; 7.03&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;**&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;65.05 &amp;amp;#177; 8.36$&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;90 &amp;amp;#177; 6.87#&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#60; 0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.81&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Percentage of disruptive behaviour intervals&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;38.19 &amp;amp;#177; 9.51&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18.61 &amp;amp;#177; 5.55&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;*&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;33.61 &amp;amp;#177; 9.85$&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18.51 &amp;amp;#177; 5.58#&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#60; 0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.79&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2 * significantly different from A1 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01; **significantly different from A1 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001; ## significantly different from A2 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01, $, significantly different from B1 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The statistical analysis also showed a significant effect of the intervention on disruptive behaviour in class B [F&lt;subs&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref57&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;,&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;)sphericity assumed&lt;/subs&gt; = 11.63, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001, ɳ&lt;subs&gt;p&lt;/subs&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; = 0.79 (large effect), observed power = 0.99]. Post hoc comparisons indicated significant differences (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01) between off-task intervals recorded during phase A1 (8 sessions: lower bound = 30.24%, upper bound = 46.15%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 30.19 &#177; 9.51%) and those recorded during B1 (12 sessions: lower bound = 14.97%, upper bound = 25.45%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 18.61 &#177; 5.55%), as well as a significant difference (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01) between off-task intervals recorded during phases A2 (10 sessions: lower bound = 26.32%, upper bound = 43.96%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 33.62 &#177; 9.85%) and B2 (9 sessions: lower bound = 14.23%, upper bound = 23.81%, &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 18.51 &#177; 5.58%). A significant difference was also found between off-task intervals recorded during phases B1 and A2 at &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In both classes, the transition to phase B, where the GBG intervention was implemented, consistently revealed a notable effect on student behaviour, indicating the effectiveness of the intervention. Conversely, the return to phases A, where the intervention was withdrawn and normal classes were conducted, resulted in a washout of the observed effects.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The social validity results of teachers regarding acceptability and game satisfaction are also shown. Teachers reported satisfaction with the implementation of the GBG, where, according to the Likert scale, a very high score was made by the teacher for this intervention (&lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 4.6). Teachers reportedly highly appreciated the procedures applied in this game and noted that the intervention scenario was easy to follow and include in the daily routine. Moreover, the teachers reported that the GBG was beneficial for the students and are ready to use this intervention in the future.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-21&quot;&gt;Discussion&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Visual analysis of the graphs and statistical analysis of the data showed that the percentages of student&#39;s engagement intervals increased, while the percentages of the disruptive behaviour intervals decreased, at each implementation of the GBG conditions. These results were correspondent for both classes &#39;A&#39; and &#39;B&#39;, and therefore, the GBG was beneficial for the behaviour of students with mild intellectual disability in physical education sessions.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The GBG was efficient in managing students behaviours and the findings of the current study are consistent with previous research in regular education settings (Barrish et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref59&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Groves &amp;amp; Austin, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref60&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Joslyn &amp;amp; Kronfli, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref61&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Joslyn, Vollmer, &amp;amp; Kronfli, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref62&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Rubow, Vollmer, &amp;amp; Joslyn, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib36&quot; id=&quot;ref63&quot;&gt;36&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sharpe &amp;amp; Joslyn, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib37&quot; id=&quot;ref64&quot;&gt;37&lt;/reflink&gt;]), and particularly in special education settings (Flower et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref65&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Groves et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref66&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hopman et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In the present study, the teachers highly appreciated the procedures applied in this game and reported that the intervention scenario was easy to follow and to include in the daily routine. In fact, it was noted that the GBG was beneficial for the student and the teachers were prepared to use this intervention in the future. Moreover, the results of this study are in accordance with those of previous studies (Ford et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Joslyn &amp;amp; Kronfli, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref69&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In addition, teacher for classroom &#39;B&#39; added that the small number of students in the classroom helped to better implement the behavioural game.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results found in the present study could be explained by the fact that GBG theoretically facilitated positive interactions between peers and offered opportunities to improve their social adaptation and integration into classes and peer groups (Newcomer et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib34&quot; id=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;34&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Thus, this strategy used an interdependent group contingency, whose consequences depended on the behaviour of each student to promote good behaviours and reduce problematic behaviours in the classroom (Bowman-Perrott, et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref71&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The original version of the GBG included four key components (Barrish et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref72&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]); the use of the game&#39;s rules, the allocation of marks to teams that violated the rules, the involvement of a group contingency that required all students to work in teams cooperatively towards a common criterion, and the provision of immediate rewards for those students who met that criterion. In the present study, researchers changed specific elements compared to the original game version. For example, the numerical criterion remained a mystery to the students until the end of the period as did Lannie and Mccurdy ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref73&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;]) in their study instead of announcing them at the outset of the game (Groves &amp;amp; Austin, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref74&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;], [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref75&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Moreover, due to the nature of physical education lessons, which assumed that the students were in free movement, the investigator identified each team by a different colour to facilitate the allocation of marks for each team. Further, the reinforcement system used in this study combined two types of tangibles (chips, chocolate, sweets, etc.) and intangible rewards (playing their preferred activities and games during extra-time) delivered on an intermittent schedule which confirm the theory is that any behaviour followed by a pleasant stimulus is likely to be repeated (Westen, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib46&quot; id=&quot;ref76&quot;&gt;46&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Generally, the modifications made to the game did not influence its effectiveness, but contributed to the management of students&#39; behaviour (Ford et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref77&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sharpe &amp;amp; Joslyn, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib37&quot; id=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;37&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In addition, the present study is not the first to modify specific elements of the game. Previous studies have introduced various changes in the GBG application. For example, Ford, Radley, Tingstrom, and Dufrene ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref79&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]) evaluated the efficacy of a no-team version of the GBG and Bohan, McDowell, and Smyth ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref80&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;]) evaluated the effectiveness of the Caught Being Good Game, a variation of the group contingency intervention &#39;GBG&#39; that involves awarding points to teams of students who adhere to the classroom rules. The involvement of GBG in this study affirmed that the behavioural intervention was relatively simple, inexpensive, and effective, as described by Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, &amp;amp; Vega (Flower, Mckenna, Bunuan, Muething, &amp;amp; Vega Jr, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref81&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In addition, it was a strategy that was applied at the class-wide level, instead of practicing a differentiated pedagogy, which was beneficial for both teachers, by saving behaviour management time, and for students, by increasing allocated student learning time.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;It is worth noting that the peer influence operating in GBG can potentially be the greatest disadvantage (Newcomer et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib34&quot; id=&quot;ref82&quot;&gt;34&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Witvliet et al. [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib47&quot; id=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;47&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Indeed, Newcomer et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib34&quot; id=&quot;ref84&quot;&gt;34&lt;/reflink&gt;]), for example, warned that peer influence can produce peer pressure towards peers. In addition, students might perceive a lack of fairness in the system when others cause the loss of opportunity to be rewarded, because one disruptive student could prevent an entire team from meeting the reinforcement criterion. In the present study, we applied homogeneity and equality in the composition of the groups, which ensured equal opportunities between the teams, and avoided this type of problem between the students.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study extends the GBG literature by systematically replicating the effects of the GBG during a physical education setting, which has not been sufficiently studied. Further studies on group contingencies with children with mild intellectual disabilities has the potential to significantly affect teacher quality of life, student performance, and life trajectory, and the general effectiveness of Tunisian special education.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study contains several limitations that must be addressed in future studies. First, the lack of assessment of teacher&#39;s satisfaction with the training provided on the application of GBG in the classroom to detect the strengths and weaknesses of the applied curriculum. Therefore, future research should take this assessment into consideration to optimise the application of GBG. Second, the student&#39;s engagement and disruptive behaviour was measured at the class-wide level, and not at the individual level for each student, and as such, behaviour at an individual level should be taken into consideration. In addition, numerous procedural variations of the GBG were made, and future research could compare the more common variations and determine contexts in which one might be more beneficial to use. Further, research has shown that the effects of the GBG may not generalise to other settings in which it is not being implemented (Donaldson, Wiskow, &amp;amp; Soto, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref85&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Future research should evaluate how early exposure to the GBG may produce desirable long-term effects. Furthermore, the generalisability the effect of the GBG is hindered, owing to the small sample size. Future studies should examine the wider use of the GBG with greater statistical power, various populations, settings, behaviours, modified versions, and novel data collection methods.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-22&quot;&gt;Conclusion&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study concluded that, when implemented in PE settings with students diagnosed with mild intellectual disabilities, the GBG is an effective intervention for promoting engagement and curtailing disruptive behaviours.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-23&quot;&gt;Acknowledgments&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The authors express their sincerest gratitude to the participants of the research, in addition to the editors and blind reviewers who have shared their expertise and guidance for the opportunity to publish this work.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0181776754-24&quot;&gt;Disclosure statement&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0181776754-25&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; References &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib1&quot; idref=&quot;ref6&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;1&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ageranioti-B&#233;langer, S., Brunet, S., D&#39;anjou, G., Tellier, G., Boivin, J., &amp;amp; Gauthier, M. (2012). Behaviour disorders in children with an intellectual disability. Paediatrics and Child Health, 17 (2), 84 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/17.2.84&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib2&quot; idref=&quot;ref7&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;2&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Intellectual disabilities. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/Appi.Books.9780890425596.Dsm01&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib3&quot; idref=&quot;ref19&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;3&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., &amp;amp; Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2 (2), 119 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib4&quot; idref=&quot;ref1&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;4&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Beaty O&#39;ferrall, M. E., Green, A., &amp;amp; Hanna, F. (2010). Classroom management strategies for difficult students: Promoting change through relationships. Middle School Journal, 41 (4), 4 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2010.11461726&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib5&quot; idref=&quot;ref12&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;5&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bertills, K., Granlund, M., &amp;amp; Augustine, L. (2019). Inclusive teaching skills and student engagement in physical education. Frontiers in Education, 4, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00074&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib6&quot; idref=&quot;ref80&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;6&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bohan, C., McDowell, C., &amp;amp; Smyth, S. (2022). Does the immediacy of feedback matter in game-based classroom management? Analysis of the caught being good game with adolescent students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 24 (3), 208 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007211068534&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib7&quot; idref=&quot;ref20&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;7&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M. D., Zaini, S., Zhang, N., &amp;amp; Vannest, K. (2016). Promoting positive behavior using the good behavior game: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18 (3), 180 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715592355&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib8&quot; idref=&quot;ref29&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;8&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Breeman, L. D., Van Lier, P. A., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F. C., Van Der Ende, J., Maras, A., Struiksma, A. J. C., Hopman, J. A. B., &amp;amp; Tick, N. T. (2016). 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, 18 (3), 156 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715593466&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib9&quot; idref=&quot;ref50&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;9&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Curran, T., &amp;amp; Standage, M. (2017). Psychological needs and the quality of student engagement in physical education: Teachers as key facilitators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36 (3), 262 – 276. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0065&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Davis, G. A. (1978). The clinical application of withdrawal, single-case research designs. In Clinical Aphasiology: Proceedings of the Conference 1978 (pp. 11 – 19). Memphis State: BRK Publishers.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Donaldson, J. M., Matter, A. L., &amp;amp; Wiskow, K. M. (2018). Feasibility of and teacher preference for student‐led implementation of the good behavior game in early elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51 (1), 118 – 129&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Donaldson, J. M., Wiskow, K. M., &amp;amp; Soto, P. L. (2015). Immediate and distal effects of the good behavior game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48 (3), 685 – 689. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.229&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Downs, S. J., Knowles, Z. R., Fairclough, S. J., Heffernan, N., Whitehead, S., Halliwell, S., &amp;amp; Boddy, L. M. (2014). Exploring teachers&#39; perceptions on physical activity engagement for children and young people with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29 (3), 402 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.906979&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Flower, A., Mckenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C. S., &amp;amp; Vega Jr, R. (2014). Effects of the good behavior game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 84 (4), 546 – 571. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314536781&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Flower, A., Mckenna, J., Muething, C. S., Bryant, D. P., &amp;amp; Bryant, B. R. (2014). Effects of the good behavior game on classwide off-task behavior in a high school basic algebra resource classroom. Behavior Modification, 38 (1), 45 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445513507574&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ford, W. B., Radley, K. C., Tingstrom, D. H., &amp;amp; Dufrene, B. A. (2020). Efficacy of a no-team version of the good behavior game in high school classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22 (3), 181 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719890059&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Graham, L. (2017). Student compliance will not mean &#39;all teachers can teach&#39;: A critical analysis of the rationale for &#39;no excuses&#39; discipline. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22 (11), 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1420254&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Gresham, F. M., &amp;amp; Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. The Journal of Special Education, 16 (1), 101 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698201600110&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Groves, E. A., &amp;amp; Austin, J. L. (2017). An evaluation of interdependent and independent group contingencies during the Good Behavior Game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50 (3), 552 – 566. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.393&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Groves, E. A., &amp;amp; Austin, J. L. (2019). Does the good behavior game evoke negative peer pressure? analyses in primary and secondary classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52 (1), 3 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.513&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Groves, E. A., May, R. J., Rees, R. E., &amp;amp; Austin, J. L. (2022). Adapting the good behavior game for special education classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 59 (5), 1015 – 1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22496&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Higgins, J. W., Williams, R. L., &amp;amp; Mclaughlin, T. F. (2001). The effects of a token economy employing instructional consequences for a third-grade student with learning disabilities: A data-based case study. Education and Treatment of Children 24 (1), 99 – 106. https://&lt;ulink href=&quot;http://www.jstor.org/stable/42899646&quot;&gt;www.jstor.org/stable/42899646&lt;/ulink&gt;&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hinckson, E. A., &amp;amp; Curtis, A. (2013). Measuring physical activity in children and youth living with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34 (1), 72 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.07.022&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hopman, J. A., Van Lier, P. A., Van Der Ende, J., Struiksma, C., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F. C., Maras, A., Breeman, L. D., &amp;amp; Tick, N. T. (2018). Impact of the good behavior game on special education teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 24 (4), 350 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1379389&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Jim&#233;nez, J. L., Valero-Valenzuela, A., Anguera, M. T., &amp;amp; Su&#225;rez, A. D. (2016). Disruptive behavior among elementary students in physical education. Springerplus, 5 (1), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2764-6.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Joslyn, P. R., &amp;amp; Kronfli, F. R. (2021). Teacher-implemented good behavior game with detained juvenile offenders. Education and Treatment of Children, 44 (4), 269 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00052-4&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Joslyn, P. R., &amp;amp; Vollmer, T. R. (2020). Efficacy of teacher‐implemented good behavior game despite low treatment integrity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53 (1), 465 – 474. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.614&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Joslyn, P. R., Vollmer, T. R., &amp;amp; Kronfli, F. R. (2019). Interdependent group contingencies reduce disruption in alternative high school classrooms. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28 (4), 423 – 434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09321-0&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lannie, A. L., &amp;amp; Mccurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban classroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30 (1), 85 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2007.0002&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Levin, J., Nolan, J., &amp;amp; Nolan, J. F. (1999). Principles of classroom management: A professional decision-making model (3nd ed.). Allyn &amp;amp; Bacon.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Murphy, N. A., Carbone, P. S.; Council On Children with Disabilities. (2008). Promoting the participation of children with disabilities in sports, recreation, and physical activities. Pediatrics, 121 (5), 1057 – 1061. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-0566&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; N&#228;rhi, V., Kiiski, T., &amp;amp; Savolainen, H. (2017). Reducing disruptive behaviours and improving classroom behavioural climate with class-wide positive behaviour support in middle schools. British Educational Research Journal, 43 (6), 1186 – 1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3305&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Newcomer, A. R., Roth, K. B., Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Ialongo, N. S., Hart, S. R., Wagner, B. M., &amp;amp; Wilcox, H. C. (2016). Higher childhood peer reports of social preference mediates the impact of the good behavior game on suicide attempt. Prevention Science, 17 (2), 145 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0593-4&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Nicholls, G., Hastings, R. P., &amp;amp; Grindle, C. (2020). Prevalence and correlates of challenging behaviour in children and young people in a special school setting. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35 (1), 40 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1607659&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Rubow, C. C., Vollmer, T. R., &amp;amp; Joslyn, P. R. (2018). Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior in an alternative school. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51 (2), 382 – 392. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.455&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sharpe, A. N., &amp;amp; Joslyn, P. R. (2021). Correspondence of product and topographical behavior measures during a comparison of good behavior game arrangements. Education and Treatment of Children, 44 (4), 215 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00045-3&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sieberer-Nagler, K. (2016). Effective classroom-management &amp;amp; positive teaching. English Language Teaching, 9 (1), 163 – 172. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n1p163&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sinclair, A. C., Gesel, S. A., &amp;amp; Lemons, C. J. (2019). The effects of peer-assisted learning on disruptive behavior and academic engagement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21 (4), 238 – 248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719851227&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Statnikov, A. I. (2021). Good behavior game: History and modern trends. Autism and Developmental Disorders, 71 (2), 40 – 51. https://doi.org/10.17759/autdd.2021710205&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Tingstrom, D. H. (1994). The good behavior game: An investigation of teachers&#39; acceptance. Psychology in the Schools, 31 (1), 57 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(199401)31:1&amp;lt;57:AID-PITS2310310108&amp;gt;3.0.CO;2-K&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Tounsi, O., Masmoudi, L., Trabelsi, K., Koubaa, A., Clark, C., Anouda, C., &amp;amp; Bahloul, M. (2022). Effects of class-wide choice making on the behaviour of students with mild intellectual disability. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69 (1), 33 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1998889&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Urbina, C., Sim&#243;n, C., &amp;amp; Echeita, G. (2011). Teachers&#39; conceptions about disruptive behaviours: Analysis from an inclusive perspective. Journal for the Study of Education &amp;amp; Development, 34 (2), 205 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037011795377584&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wahl, E., Hawkins, R. O., Haydon, T., Marsicano, R., &amp;amp; Morrison, J. Q. (2016). Comparing versions of the good behavior game: Can a positive spin enhance effectiveness? Behavior Modification, 40 (4), 493 – 517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516644220&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Watkins, M. W., &amp;amp; Pacheco, M. (2000). Interobserver agreement in behavioral research: Importance and calculation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10 (4), 205 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012295615144&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Westen, D. (1999). Psychology: Mind, brain and culture. John Wiley and Sons.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Witvliet, M., Van Lier, P. A., Cuijpers, P., &amp;amp; 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 (5), 905. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014597&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Olfa Tounsi; Anis Ben Chikha; Abdessalem Koubaa; Omar Trabelsi; Liwa Masmoudi; Haitham A. Jahrami; Cain C. T. Clark; Khaled Trabelsi and Mourad Bahloul&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl1&quot; bibid=&quot;bib43&quot; firstref=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl2&quot; bibid=&quot;bib33&quot; firstref=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl3&quot; bibid=&quot;bib23&quot; firstref=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl4&quot; bibid=&quot;bib26&quot; firstref=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl5&quot; bibid=&quot;bib24&quot; firstref=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl6&quot; bibid=&quot;bib32&quot; firstref=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl7&quot; bibid=&quot;bib35&quot; firstref=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl8&quot; bibid=&quot;bib18&quot; firstref=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl9&quot; bibid=&quot;bib10&quot; firstref=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl10&quot; bibid=&quot;bib31&quot; firstref=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl11&quot; bibid=&quot;bib14&quot; firstref=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl12&quot; bibid=&quot;bib38&quot; firstref=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl13&quot; bibid=&quot;bib39&quot; firstref=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl14&quot; bibid=&quot;bib19&quot; firstref=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl15&quot; bibid=&quot;bib22&quot; firstref=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl16&quot; bibid=&quot;bib29&quot; firstref=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl17&quot; bibid=&quot;bib40&quot; firstref=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl18&quot; bibid=&quot;bib41&quot; firstref=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl19&quot; bibid=&quot;bib28&quot; firstref=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl20&quot; bibid=&quot;bib12&quot; firstref=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl21&quot; bibid=&quot;bib44&quot; firstref=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl22&quot; bibid=&quot;bib36&quot; firstref=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl23&quot; bibid=&quot;bib20&quot; firstref=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl24&quot; bibid=&quot;bib11&quot; firstref=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl25&quot; bibid=&quot;bib42&quot; firstref=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl26&quot; bibid=&quot;bib45&quot; firstref=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl27&quot; bibid=&quot;bib30&quot; firstref=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl28&quot; bibid=&quot;bib21&quot; firstref=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl29&quot; bibid=&quot;bib27&quot; firstref=&quot;ref61&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl30&quot; bibid=&quot;bib37&quot; firstref=&quot;ref64&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl31&quot; bibid=&quot;bib16&quot; firstref=&quot;ref65&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl32&quot; bibid=&quot;bib25&quot; firstref=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl33&quot; bibid=&quot;bib17&quot; firstref=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl34&quot; bibid=&quot;bib34&quot; firstref=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl35&quot; bibid=&quot;bib46&quot; firstref=&quot;ref76&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl36&quot; bibid=&quot;bib15&quot; firstref=&quot;ref81&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl37&quot; bibid=&quot;bib47&quot; firstref=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl38&quot; bibid=&quot;bib13&quot; firstref=&quot;ref85&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1454454
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of the Good Behaviour Game on the Behaviour of Students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities in Physical Education Settings
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Olfa+Tounsi%22&quot;&gt;Olfa Tounsi&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9867-7906&quot;&gt;0000-0001-9867-7906&lt;/externalLink&gt;)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Anis+Ben+Chikha%22&quot;&gt;Anis Ben Chikha&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Abdessalem+Koubaa%22&quot;&gt;Abdessalem Koubaa&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Omar+Trabelsi%22&quot;&gt;Omar Trabelsi&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6545-4706&quot;&gt;0000-0001-6545-4706&lt;/externalLink&gt;)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Liwa+Masmoudi%22&quot;&gt;Liwa Masmoudi&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9628-1585&quot;&gt;0000-0002-9628-1585&lt;/externalLink&gt;)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Haitham+A%2E+Jahrami%22&quot;&gt;Haitham A. Jahrami&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Cain+C%2E+T%2E+Clark%22&quot;&gt;Cain C. T. Clark&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6610-4617&quot;&gt;0000-0002-6610-4617&lt;/externalLink&gt;)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Khaled+Trabelsi%22&quot;&gt;Khaled Trabelsi&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2623-9557&quot;&gt;0000-0003-2623-9557&lt;/externalLink&gt;)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Mourad+Bahloul%22&quot;&gt;Mourad Bahloul&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22International+Journal+of+Disability%2C+Development+and+Education%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;International Journal of Disability, Development and Education&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. 2025 72(1):117-133.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor &amp; Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Students+with+Disabilities%22&quot;&gt;Students with Disabilities&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Mild+Intellectual+Disability%22&quot;&gt;Mild Intellectual Disability&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Physical+Education%22&quot;&gt;Physical Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Self+Contained+Classrooms%22&quot;&gt;Self Contained Classrooms&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Learner+Engagement%22&quot;&gt;Learner Engagement&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Student+Behavior%22&quot;&gt;Student Behavior&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Behavior+Problems%22&quot;&gt;Behavior Problems&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Program+Effectiveness%22&quot;&gt;Program Effectiveness&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Behavior+Modification%22&quot;&gt;Behavior Modification&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Game+Based+Learning%22&quot;&gt;Game Based Learning&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Foreign+Countries%22&quot;&gt;Foreign Countries&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Tunisia%22&quot;&gt;Tunisia&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1034912X.2024.2317477
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1034-912X&lt;br /&gt;1465-346X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) is an interdependent group contingency intervention, previously shown to be effective in managing students&#39; behaviour across several studies. An ABAB withdrawal design was implemented to examine the effects of the GBG on the engagement and disruptive behaviours of 12 students diagnosed principally with a mild intellectual disability (M[superscript age] = 7.83 &#177; 0.83 years) enrolled in two self-contained physical education classes. The first phase of the intervention was carried out from November 27th until Janvier 25th and the second phase took place from April 2nd to May 10th. Video recordings of all sessions were directly observed and analysed using a code unit grid. The collected data were subjected to inferential statistical analysis. Results showed a significant increase in engagement and a decrease in disruptive behaviours during the B1 conditions compared to the baseline A1 for both class &#39;A&#39; and &#39;B&#39; (p &lt; 0.001). Similarly, there was a significant increase in engagement and a decrease in disruptive behaviours during the B2 conditions compared to both the A2 and A1 baselines (p &lt; 0.001). Overall, this study demonstrates the effectiveness of the GBG as an intervention for promoting engagement and reducing disruptive behaviours when implemented in physical education settings with students diagnosed with mild intellectual disabilities.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1454454
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1454454
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1034912X.2024.2317477
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 117
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mild Intellectual Disability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Contained Classrooms
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Modification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Game Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tunisia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of the Good Behaviour Game on the Behaviour of Students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities in Physical Education Settings
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Olfa Tounsi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anis Ben Chikha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abdessalem Koubaa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Omar Trabelsi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Liwa Masmoudi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Haitham A. Jahrami
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cain C. T. Clark
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Khaled Trabelsi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mourad Bahloul
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1034-912X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-346X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 72
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1