The Good Behavior Game (GBG) and a common variation referred to as the Caught Being Good Game (CBGG) are two well-established group contingency classroom management procedures. However, there have been few comparison studies of the two procedures, and none have been conducted with students older than kindergarten or those who engage in severe classroom disruption. Given the popularity of the GBG, its variations in the literature, and the likelihood for differences in contextual fit, more comparison studies are needed. In addition, education researchers frequently rely on topographical measures of on-task behavior that do not provide information on student work completion or accuracy. In the current study, the GBG and CBGG were implemented in a classroom of at-risk middle-school students who met criteria for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and engaged in severe classroom disruption and infrequent on-task behavior. Data were collected on disruption, on-task behavior, work completion, and work accuracy for three target students. Both the GBG and CBGG substantially reduced disruption and increased on-task behavior. The GBG produced greater reductions in disruption for all students and the CBGG produced greater increases in on task for two students and work completion for all students. However, these differential effects were modest and neither intervention affected student work accuracy. A correlation analysis indicated moderate positive correlations between on task and work completion, and weak to moderate negative correlations between disruption and on-task behavior. The classroom teacher indicated preference for the GBG over the CBGG and student preferences were mixed.

良好行为游戏 (GBG) 和被称为 Caught Being Good Game (CBGG) 的常见变体是两个完善的团体应急课堂管理程序。然而，对这两种程序的比较研究很少，也没有对幼儿园以上的学生或严重干扰课堂的学生进行过研究。鉴于 GBG 的流行、其在文献中的变化以及上下文拟合差异的可能性，需要进行更多的比较研究。此外，教育研究人员经常依赖于不提供有关学生作业完成情况或准确性的信息的任务行为的地形测量。在目前的研究中，GBG 和 CBGG 是在符合情绪和行为障碍 (EBD) 标准并参与严重课堂干扰和不经常执行任务行为的高危中学生的教室中实施的。收集了三个目标学生的中断、任务行为、工作完成情况和工作准确性的数据。GBG 和 CBGG 都大大减少了中断并增加了执行任务的行为。GBG 大大减少了所有学生的干扰，而 CBGG 使两名学生的任务和所有学生的作业完成率有了更大的增加。然而，这些不同的影响是适度的，并且两种干预都不影响学生作业的准确性。相关性分析表明任务和工作完成之间存在中度正相关，中断和任务行为之间存在弱到中度的负相关。课堂教师表示对 GBG 的偏好高于对 CBGG 的偏好，而学生的偏好则喜忧参半。