Effectiveness of a Universal, Classroom-Based Preventive Intervention (PAX GBG) in Estonia: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

  • 128 Accesses


The PAX Good Behavior Game (PAX GBG) is a behavior management strategy that has demonstrated positive effects on children’s behavior and well-being in trials conducted mainly in the USA. This study assessed the impact of the PAX GBG on students’ mental health and behavior 7 and 19 months post-baseline in Estonia. This matched-pair, cluster-randomized, waitlist-controlled, open-label trial included 42 Estonian elementary schools with 708 first-grade students. The primary outcome was children’s overall mental health rated by teachers, while secondary objectives were to examine whether the effects of the intervention extended to the home context. Teachers also rated their self-efficacy and overall classroom behavior. Intervention adherence and children’s exposure to the intervention were also measured. Modified intention to treat analysis involved 696 students on first post-baseline and 647 on second post-baseline. Intervention had positive effects on children’s mental health at the end of the first academic year, which lasted and strengthened during the second academic year. Moderation analysis demonstrated positive effects on mental health and prosocial behavior for high-risk students during the first year. A few positive effects extended to the home environment during the second academic year. Implementation fidelity was satisfactory. The intervention also had a positive lasting effect on teacher’s self-efficacy and overall classroom behavior. This study shows the positive effects of the PAX GBG in Estonian schools and supports broader implementation of the intervention in Estonian elementary schools.

Trial registration No. NCT02865603

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1


  1. Berg, J. K., Bradshaw, C. P., Jo, B., & Ialongo, N. S. (2017). Using complier average causal effect estimation to determine the impacts of the good behavior game preventive intervention on teacher implementers. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 44, 558–571.

  2. Biglan, A., Flay, B. R., Embry, D. D., & Sandler, I. N. (2012). The critical role of nurturing environments for promoting human well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 257–271.

  3. Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M. D., Zaini, S., Zhang, N., & Vannest, K. (2016). Promoting positive behavior using the good behavior game: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 180–190.

  4. Bühler, A., & Thrul, J. (2015). Prevention of addictive behaviours. Luxembourg: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).

  5. Bussing, R., Fernandez, M., Harwood, M., Hou, W., Garvan, C., Swanson, J., & Eyberg, S. (2008). Parent and teacher SNAP-IV ratings of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms: Psychometric properties and normative rating from a school district sample. Assessment, 15, 317–328.

  6. Cambron, C., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2019). The social development model. In D. P. Farrington, L. Kazemian, & A. R. Piquero (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology (Vol. 191, pp. 223–247). Oxford University Press.

  7. Daza, E. J., Hudgens, M. G., & Herring, A. H. (2017). Estimating inverse-probability weights for longitudinal data with dropout or truncation: The Xtrccipw command. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 17, 253–278.

  8. De Los Reyes, A., Augenstein, T. M., Wang, M., Thomas, S. A., Drabick, D. A. G., Burgers, D. E., & Rabinowitz, J. (2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 858–900.

  9. Diehr, P., Martin, D. C., Koepsell, T., & Cheadle, A. (1995). Breaking the matches in a paired t-test for community interventions when the number of pairs is small. Statistics in Medicine, 14, 1491–1504.

  10. Donaldson, J. M., & Wiskow, K. M. (2017). The good behavior game. In Preventing crime and violence (pp. 229–241). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

  11. Embry, D. D., & Biglan, A. (2008). Evidence-based kernels: Fundamental units of behavioral influence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11, 75–113.

  12. Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. (2011). Applied longitudinal analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

  13. Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C. S., & Vega, R. (2014). Effects of the good behavior game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 84, 546–571.

  14. Fortier, J., Chartier, M., Turner, S., Murdock, N., Turner, F., Sareen, J., … Jiang, D. (2018). Adapting and enhancing PAX good behavior game for first nations communities: A mixed-methods study protocol developed with swampy Cree tribal council communities in Manitoba. BMJ Open, 8, e018454.

  15. Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 40, 791–799.

  16. Goodman, A., & Goodman, R. (2009). Strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a dimensional measure of child mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 400–403.

  17. Gupta, S. (2011). Intention-to-treat concept: A review. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2, 109–112.

  18. Hayes, R. J., & Moulton, L. H. (2017). Cluster randomised trials (Second ed.). CRC Press.

  19. Hopman, J. A. B., van Lier, P. A. C., van der Ende, J., Struiksma, C., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F. C., … Tick, N. T. (2018). Impact of the good behavior game on special education teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 24(4), 350–368.

  20. Huber, M. J., Fruth, J. D., Avila-John, A., & Rodriquez, E. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and student outcomes: A transactional approach to prevention. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5, 46–54.

  21. Ialongo, N. S., Domitrovich, C., Embry, D., Greenberg, M., Lawson, A., Becker, K. D., & Bradshaw, C. (2019). A randomized controlled trial of the combination of two school-based universal preventive interventions. Developmental Psychology.

  22. Inchley, J. C., Currie, D. B., Young, T., Samdal, O., Torsheim, T., Augustson, L., … Barnekow, V. (2016). Growing up unequal: Gender and socioeconomic differences in young people’s health and well-being: Health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2013/2014 survey (Health Policy for Children and Adolescents; No. 7). Copenhagen.

  23. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.

  24. Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Mackenzie, A. C. L., Brown, C. H., Ompad, D. C., Or, F., … Windham, A. (2014). The impact of the good behavior game, a universal classroom-based preventive intervention in first and second grades, on high-risk sexual behaviors and drug abuse and dependence disorders into young adulthood. Prevention Science, 15, 6–18.

  25. Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1–38.

  26. Kutsar, D. (2016). Estonia. In Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 17 countries: Key messages from each country (pp. 20–23). Children’s worlds. Retrieved from Accessed 7 Apr 2019.

  27. McLean, L., Abry, T., Taylor, M., & Connor, C. M. (2018). Associations among teachers’ depressive symptoms and students’ classroom instructional experiences in third grade. Journal of School Psychology, 69, 154–168.

  28. Meltzer, H., Gatward, R., Goodman, R., & Ford, F. (2000). Mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain. London.

  29. Ministry of the Interior. (2014). Estonia’s drug prevention policy. White paper (2014). Retrieved from Accessed 7 Apr 2019.

  30. O’Keeffe, J., Thurston, A., Kee, F., O’Hare, L., & Lloyd, K. (2017). Protocol: A feasibility study and a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of the PAX ‘good behaviour game’ in disadvantaged schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 78–86.

  31. OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 results in focus.

  32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Teacher Questionnaire. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from

  33. Roberts, A., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Hamre, B., & DeCoster, J. (2016). Exploring teachers’ depressive symptoms, interaction quality, and children’s social-emotional development in head start. Early Education and Development, 27, 642–654.

  34. Rubow, C. C., Vollmer, T. R., & 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, 382–392.

  35. Santiago, P., Levitas, A., Radó, P., & Shewbridge, C. (2016). School education in Estonia. In OECD reviews of school resources: Estonia 2016 (pp. 35–68). Paris: OECD Publishing.

  36. Smith, E. P., Osgood, D. W., Oh, Y., & Caldwell, L. C. (2018). Promoting afterschool quality and positive youth development: Cluster randomized trial of the Pax good behavior game. Prevention Science, 19, 159–173.

  37. StataCorp. (2013). Stata statistical software: Release 13. College Station: StataCorp LP.

  38. Stone, L. L., Otten, R., Engels, R. C. M. E., Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (2010). Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: A review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 254–274.

  39. Streimann, K., Trummal, A., Klandorf, K., Akkermann, K., Sisask, M., Toros, K., & Selart, A. (2017). Effectiveness of a universal classroom-based preventive intervention (PAX GBG): A research protocol for a matched-pair cluster-randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 8, 75–84.

  40. Theimann, M. (2016). School as a space of socialization and prevention. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 67–91.

  41. Tingstrom, D. H. (2006). The good behavior game: 1969-2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225–253.

  42. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

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

  44. Weis, R., Osborne, K. J., & Dean, E. L. (2015). Effectiveness of a universal, interdependent group contingency program on children’s academic achievement: A countywide evaluation. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31, 199–218.

  45. Wilcox, H. C., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N. S., Wang, W., & Anthony, J. C. (2008). The impact of two universal randomized first- and second-grade classroom interventions on young adult suicide ideation and attempts. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95.

  46. World Health Organization. (2004). Prevention of mental disorders: Effective interventions and policy options: Summary report. Geneva.

Download references


The authors would like to express their gratitude to the following people and institutions: PAXIS Institute and Dr. Dennis Embry; ERSI with prof. Merike Sisask and Joosep Vaikma; NIHD with Tiia Pertel, Anita Baumbach, Mari Orusalu, Kaja-Kristen Sune and Kai Klandorf.

Funding Information

The study was funded by the European Social Fund and Ministry of the Interior in Estonia.

Author information

Correspondence to Karin Streimann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval for the study was received from Tallinn Medical Research Ethics Committee on June 2016. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material


(DOCX 63 kb)


(DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Streimann, K., Selart, A. & Trummal, A. Effectiveness of a Universal, Classroom-Based Preventive Intervention (PAX GBG) in Estonia: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Prev Sci (2019) doi:10.1007/s11121-019-01050-0

Download citation


  • Universal prevention
  • Mental health
  • Good behavior game
  • Children
  • School