One of the main concerns of teachers in different types of schools is low-disruption teaching and the associated development of action knowledge around appropriate interventions to address problem behavior (Liaupsin and Scott, 2007; Ruiz-Olivares et al., 2010; Herman et al., 2017). Additionally, the expression of disruptive behavior in childhood can have negative effects on the child’s long-term development and predict disruptive behavior in adolescence and adulthood (Fergusson et al., 2005; Loeber et al., 2009; Bradshaw et al., 2010). Therefore, behavioral problems that significantly disrupt teaching are been topics of pedagogical practice and research for a long time (Reed et al., 1998).

Furthermore, disruptive behavior in childhood has negative effects on a society’s overall system of functioning (Cohen, 1998; Boldrini et al., 2023; Tehrani et al., 2023). For this reason, the reduction is not only a concern for teachers and parents but also has political and economic dimensions (Rivenbark et al., 2018). In this context, teachers are also required to have increased knowledge of dealing with disruptive behavior of students.

Addressing disruptive behavior in schools and designing a systematic environment to reduce such behavior are key areas of school research (Adamson et al., 2019; Zuniga and Cividini-Motta, 2021; Serrano et al., 2023). Part of this field is the investigation of the interplay between school interventions and the effects of implementing systemic school concepts. It receives significant international attention and is backed by robust research results (Reed et al., 1998; O'connor and Hayes, 2020; Gagnon et al., 2022; Boldrini et al., 2023). However, a challenge lies in the fact that the research designs of many studies cannot accurately trace the exact developmental trajectories of individual students, which can be better accomplished through single-case studies (Wilbert et al., 2022). Tracking specific developmental trajectories offers advantages, particularly for students with disruptive behaviors, as it enables more assessment of the effectiveness and timing of interventions (Lipien et al., 2023). Therefore, it is important, from political, social, and societal perspectives, to explore the impact of different school interventions and their application on students in terms of disruptive behavior.

Disruptive behavior is an umbrella term for different externalizing behaviors. It refers to actions or behaviors that interfere with the normal functioning of a group of students, and can assume multiple forms, including verbal outbursts, physical aggression, or refusal to follow rules or guidelines (Liaupsin and Scott, 2007). It is often viewed as a problem in educational settings, where it can impede the learning process for both the individual exhibiting the behavior and their classmates (Fossum et al., 2008; Loeber et al., 2009). Disruptive behaviors negatively impact the classroom climate (Reaves et al., 2018), teachers’ social relationship with the class (Cui, 2022), and peer to peer interactions (Barth et al., 2004). Disruptive behavior in elementary schools poses significant challenges as it hinders learning (Lopez Jimenez et al., 2016; Schmerse and Zitzmann, 2021), creates conflicts among students (Yamasaki and Nishida, 2009; Krause et al., 2021), and disrupts relationships (Horn et al., 2021). It also results in missed instruction and difficulties for teachers in managing behavior and resources, impacting both educators and students. Addressing disruptive behavior early is crucial to prevent long-term social and academic difficulties (Whitten, 2009; Tehrani et al., 2023).

Approximately 5.7% of children and adolescents worldwide exhibit disruptive behavior (Polanczyk et al., 2015) and the estimated prevalence has been increasing (Barkmann and Schulte-Markwort, 2012; Klasen et al., 2017; Husky et al., 2018; Klipker et al., 2018; Ravens-Sieberer et al., 2022). Additionally, studies in many Western countries have reported significant emotional stress on teachers (Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2021; Agyapong et al., 2022). The effects of disruptive behavior on teacher health can, therefore, be inferred based on a similar development of prevalence statistics and empirical school research (Kokkinos et al., 2005; Pines and Keinan, 2005; Herman et al., 2017).

In this context, the leading approach to address disruptive behaviors is the Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS) (Reynolds, 1962; Simonsen et al., 2021; Agyapong et al., 2022). A key feature of this framework is the use of multiple interventions to effectively address and reduce the occurrence of the targeted behavior (Batsche, 2014). The explicit design of MTSS concepts varies internationally by school and education system (Steed et al., 2014; Nelen et al., 2020). Tiered prevention was first developed in the 1950s to address public health concerns (Institute of Medicine Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders, 1994). Presently, they are widely adopted because they do not provide merely a one-dimensional answer and seek to link different areas of school support (Gage et al., 2018; Charlton et al., 2021). They are essentially characterized by an attempt to align a student’s problem areas with the interventions of the approach. The MTSS, depending on their origin and design, can target student behaviors or academic achievement, that is, academic learning. Both may be supported depending on the school’s format or resources (Fox et al., 2021).

The MTSS usually comprises three tiers (Stoiber and Gettinger, 2016): Initially, it reaches all students at the first tier. Support is implemented here for the benefit of all students. If students continue to exhibit problem behavior despite universal support, they are moved to the second tier. This tier is characterized by the fact that approximately 10–15% of the students in a class receive another appropriate intervention as support in achieving the target behavior (Huber, 2013). For this, the target behavior must first be determined, which is accompanied by a diagnostic process. If an identified at-risk student does not exhibit any change in behavior, he or she is moved to the third tier. Here, another 1–5% of the students receive an intervention to further reduce the problem behavior. These interventions are often systemic and can also include external support networks (Eagle et al., 2015).

However, all applied interventions of the MTSS should be evidence-based in terms of theory (Stoiber and Gettinger, 2016; Simonsen et al., 2021). In addition, the diagnostic process and teamwork are important components of the MTSS. Many studies and systematic reviews have demonstrated the effectiveness of the MTSS on different target variables, such as self-efficacy (e.g., Skinner et al., 2014), stress experience, and behavioral (e.g., Majeika et al., 2020) and learning-related effects (e.g., Gage et al., 2015) on students. Additionally, positive effects on variables other than disruptive behavior (O'connor and Hayes, 2020), such as school or classroom climate (Charlton et al., 2021), and internalizing behavior problems (Weist et al., 2018) can be derived from different studies.

The MTSS with a focus on behavioral issues (MTSS-B) would typically include interventions such as support for positive behavior, social skills training, and individualized behavior plans (Briesch et al., 2019). These interventions may emphasize reducing disruptive behavior and promoting positive behavior in the classroom.

One of these potential tier-one interventions is the Good Behavior Game (GBG) (Barrish et al., 1969). It is a widely used and well-researched classroom-wide intervention that employs positive reinforcement to promote positive behavior and reduce disruptive behavior (Joslyn et al., 2019). The standard arrangement of the GBG involves dividing a class into teams, setting rules, and implementing an interdependent group contingency to encourage students to follow the rules. Points (also called fouls) are given to teams each time a member breaks a rule, and rewards are given to teams with the lowest points (fouls). This approach, along with variations, has been extensively studied. The GBG reduces disruptive behavior and inattention in children with psychiatric disorders, as demonstrated in several single-case studies by Groves and Austin (2017), Joslyn and Vollmer (2020), and Donaldson et al. (2017). Another single-case study by Pennington and McComas (2017) demonstrated improvement in on-task behavior in children with attention problems. Groves and Austin (2019) also reported reduction in negative peer interactions in students with psychiatric disorders during play.

The positive effect on students (with behavioral problems) has been recently demonstrated in the form of single-case studies in Germany (Leidig et al., 2022; Hagen et al., 2023). Leidig et al. (2022) show significant higher effects of the GBG for students exhibiting disruptive problem behavior. In addition, Hagen et al. (2023) indicate that the GBG mitigates students’ disruptive behavior over the school day and not only after playing the GBG in class. Both studies were conducted in German inclusive primary schools and involved approximately 20–30 students. However, research on the GBG with students who have emotional and behavioral disorder (EBD) diagnoses and histories of delinquency is still limited (Joslyn and Vollmer, 2020).

Second-tier interventions such as the Daily Behavior Report Card (DBRC) (Volpe et al., 2013) are implemented to improve positive behavior or reduce disruptive behavior (Briesch et al., 2019). The DBRC is a commonly used intervention to document and provide feedback on student behavior. It includes a clear target behavior, a scale for periodic judgment, a daily monitoring system, and communication between the student’s teacher and home. The DBRCs are differentiated from other forms of behavior ratings in terms of their summative rating and emphasis on feedback. Studies have shown that the DBRCs are efficient and effective in improving academic skills and addressing behavioral issues (Vannest et al., 2010). To use evidence-based methods, educators seek efficient techniques to address student behaviors, and the DBRCs offer flexibility in implementation with minimal interruption to instructional time. A meta-analysis by Pyle and Fabiano (2017) comprising 40 single-case studies demonstrated the efficacy of the DBRC as an intervention for students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The study suggests that the use of higher-quality designs and special education classroom settings can lead to a more rapid and effective behavioral change. Based on these findings, school psychologists, special educators, and clinicians are highly recommended to incorporate the DBRCs in their approach to address on-task and disruptive behavior of children with ADHD.

Both interventions, the GBG and DBRC, are effective in reducing disruptive behavior and promoting positive behavior in the classroom. Their combination within the MTSS has been conceptualized for the German-speaking region but has not yet been evaluated (Hanisch et al., 2019).

As shown disruptive behavior is an increasingly prevalent issue in the Western school environment. Although there are many educational strategies to address disruptive behavior, the MTSS has been found to be effective in reducing such behavior and involving multiple stakeholders to address school-wide issues. However, further research is required to determine the effectiveness of different interventions within the context of the MTSS. The GBG and DBRC have been identified as potential interventions that may be well-suited for use within the MTSS. The interaction of these different tiers within an MTSS in Germany appears to be novel in the context of research and innovative along the theoretical concept of MTSS in Germany (Hanisch et al., 2019). Often, studies remain rather superficial regarding the effectiveness of different interventions or the interaction of the different tiers within an MTSS. Furthermore, a review by Lee and Gage (2020) also demonstrated the effectiveness of tiered support in relation to student behavior. This leads to the assumption that it seems to make sense to integrate behavior modification measures into an MTSS and to investigate the outcome regarding disruptive behavior. Therefore, the first question is about testing the effectiveness of the GBG in reducing the disruptive behavior embedded in the MTSS at the first tier.

Based on RQ1, testing Tier 2 compared to Tier 1 seems reasonable. Presently, there are few comparable studies using single-case studies to test the effects of Tiers 1 and 2 on disruptive behavior. This leads to the second research question.

Based on the formulated questions, the following hypotheses can be derived, which form the basis of this study for the evaluation.

Hypotheses (H):

The conceptual basis for this study is a German MTSS called Multimo (Hanisch et al., 2019), which was implemented at several elementary schools in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia in 2021 and 2022. It is an approach that makes teachers, parents, students, and school social workers part of the support, and thus, works in a multimodal manner. At the first tier, the GBG (e.g., Barrish et al., 1969) was implemented, and at the second tier, the DBRC (e.g., Volpe et al., 2013) was implemented in addition to the GBG. The third tier intervention is the SCEP Coaching (Schulbasiertes Coaching bei Kindern mit expansivem Problemverhalten, Hanisch et al., 2018), which is not part of this evaluation. The implementation was scientifically accompanied and evaluated based on a single-case study.

The aim of RQ1 was to investigate the effectiveness of Tier 1 (GBG) in reducing disruptive behavior. The results show that through the implementation of the GBG, the disruptive behavior of elementary school students can be significantly reduced. The hypothesis (H1) made in this context can, therefore, be confirmed. The decisive factors here are the key figures of the individual NAP comparisons between the baseline and Phase B, as well as the significant overall effect of −0.86 in the comparison of Phases A and B. This is consistent with the results of other studies conducted on German-speaking samples (Leidig et al., 2022; Hagen et al., 2023). These studies were also single-case studies, but here the GBG was not implemented in the context of the MTSS. Compared to the results of this study, the effects of these two studies were greater. This could be explained by the timing of the research: several schools had just gone through a lockdown period, which complicated various processes within the school. It is difficult to quantify the impact of this factor; however, it should not be overlooked.

In summary, there is an expected positive effect on the expression of disruptive behavior at the first tier of the MTSS across most cases. For more than half of the students (16), at least medium effects (NAP) were identified, and 13 students showed at least small effects. This, in addition to the data from the regression analyses, suggests an effect related to significant parts of the class.

The aim of RQ2 was to investigate the impact of assignment to Tier 2 on the development of disruptive behavior, compared to Tier 1. The results of the study reveal the qualitative impact of the assignment to Tier 2 on disruptive behavior. Through two different multi-level analyses and the resulting models, no significant difference (regarding the mean of disruptive behavior) between Phases B and C can be determined. This implies that no significant difference in students’ disruptive behavior became measurable through assignment to Tier 2. However, there is a significant difference between the baseline (Phase A) and the assignment to Tier 2 (Phase C). As this is not adjusted in Model 1, Model 2 must be calculated to provide further information about the phase difference from Phase B to C.

All the students accompanied by single-case research in this study have moved on to the second stage of this MTSS. This implies that after implementing the GBG at the universal tier, they also received a DBRC, which supported them in achieving a pre-defined goal regarding behavior. The evaluation of the second tier, which involved continuing the use of the GBG and the additional use of the DBRC for these students, concluded that the two measures can be used together, but there is a slight further reduction of −0.02 in disruptive behavior (trend effect of Model 2). The behavior gradually subsides, but this effect cannot be attributed to Tier 2. If a level effect were measurable, it would indicate a special effectiveness of the DBRC in combination with the GBG; however, this cannot be inferred from the results. Follow-up studies should examine this point and apply a methodological design, which is often difficult to implement in practice, to determine the isolated effects of the DBRC. Nevertheless, the overall concept of Tiers 1 and 2 is effective in reducing disruptive behavior.

An additional significant point is the definition of the variable and the resulting observation. Disruptive behavior in the classroom is one of the main factors that can be reduced by the GBG. However, the DBRC is an extremely flexible intervention. The teacher formulates a goal that should serve as a behavioral goal for the student. Thus, behavior goals can focus on other aspects of the behavior that are not captured by the variables and definition used here, resulting in a behavior change that diverts attention from disruptive behavior in the classroom.

In summary, disruptive behavior does not significantly differ between the means of Tiers 1 and 2 (level effect Model 2); however, a further decrease in behavior is evidenced through the trend effect of Model 2. The exact reasons and causes are not clearly identifiable. Nevertheless, a long-term effect of the GBG is conceivable, or a paired effect of both measures together, which, however, does not show a sudden behavioral change.

The overall findings of this study contribute to the existing research landscape on intervention research in the context of disruptive behavior and tiered support. The study extends the current literature by suggesting that the combination of the two tiers investigated can be implemented in school settings and may have varying degrees of effectiveness in reducing disruptive behavior. Methodologically, the study offers valuable insights for future studies aiming to investigate complex interventions and pedagogical systems with similar research inquiries. As demonstrated by previous single case studies in related fields, utilizing students’ individual developmental trajectories and within-individual reference norms can yield reliable results in assessing the effectiveness of interventions (Franzen and Kamps, 2008; Hill and Flores, 2014; Nelson et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019). Also the data collection method, DBR, employed in this study has proven successful in generating valid outcomes regarding disruptive behavior and teacher evaluations (Casale et al., 2017).

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethikkommission der Humanwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

JN: original draft and visualization. JN, ToH, and JK: methodology, software, and formal analysis. JN, ToH, JK, LV, and KE: writing and editing. ThH and CH: supervision and project coordination. JN, ToH, JK, LV, KE, CH, and ThH: conceptualization, review, and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

University funds were used for this project. There was no external funding but the authors acknowledge support for the Article Processing Charge from the DFG (German Research Foundation, 491454339).

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.