Enhancing long jump performance in physical education: A randomized controlled trial of the good behaviour game with middle school students

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Randomisation was at the individual student level within one school with a shared teacher, not at the class or school level, and no tutoring exception applies.
    • A sex-stratified block randomization procedure ensured balanced gender distribution across experimental conditions.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "In this randomized controlled trial, 40 middle school students (age: 13.10±.40 years) were equally distributed between experimental and control-groups." (Abstract, p. 1) 2) "A sex-stratified block randomization procedure ensured balanced gender distribution across experimental conditions." (Study Design, p. 2) 3) "Forty middle school students (age: 13.10 ± .40 years) from a public school in Sfax region were recruited through purposive sampling. Participants were equally distributed between an experimental group (n = 20; 10 males, 10 females) receiving the GBG intervention and a control group (n = 20; 10 males, 10 females) participating in standard physical education sessions." (Participants, p. 2) 4) "Fourth, the same PE teacher delivered both experimental and control sessions, introducing the possibility of teacher expectancy effects influencing student performance." (Limitations, p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires randomisation at the class level (or stronger school level), so that entire classes, not individual students within the same class, are allocated to conditions. The paper describes a "sex-stratified block randomization procedure" applied to 40 individual students drawn from a single public school, who were then "equally distributed" into experimental and control groups. This is student-level randomisation, not class-level or school-level allocation. The limitation that "the same PE teacher delivered both experimental and control sessions" confirms that treatment and control students were taught by the same teacher, creating precisely the contamination risk that criterion C is designed to prevent. The intervention is a team-based physical education game, not one-to-one personal tutoring, so the tutoring exception does not apply. Criterion C is not met because randomisation was performed at the individual student level within a single school with a shared teacher, rather than at the class or school level.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were measured with custom sport-specific motor metrics (jump distance and successful jumps), not a recognised standardised exam.
    • Long jump performance was evaluated through two primary metrics: [1] jump distance ... and [2] successful jumps, defined as the number of technically valid attempts from three trials...
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Long jump performance was evaluated through two primary metrics: [1] jump distance, horizontal distance from take-offline to nearest break in landing area; and [2] successful jumps, defined as the number of technically valid attempts from three trials..." (Outcome Measures, p. 3) 2) "Video recording and Kinovea analysis procedures have been summarized to maintain essential methodological information while improving readability." (Outcome Measures, p. 3) 3) "A methodological pilot study was conducted with eleven participants ... to evaluate the inter-session reliability of jump performance measurements." (p. 2) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires the use of standardised, widely recognised exam-based assessments (e.g., national or state achievement tests), not measures created specifically for the study. The outcomes here are jump distance and number of "successful jumps," measured via video recording and Kinovea analysis and calibrated through a bespoke pilot reliability study. These are custom sport-specific performance measurements devised for this investigation, not standardised academic examinations. No recognised standardised exam is named or used. Criterion E is not met because outcomes were assessed with study-specific motor performance measures rather than a recognised standardised exam.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The intervention and outcome measurement spanned only about six weeks, well short of the one-term minimum.
    • The study was conducted over a 6-week period aligned with the standard long jump physical education curriculum cycle, consisting of 12 structured sessions.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study was conducted over a 6-week period aligned with the standard long jump physical education curriculum cycle, consisting of 12 structured sessions." (Study Design, p. 2) 2) "Following baseline assessments during the first session, the experimental protocol was implemented across the subsequent 11 sessions." (Study Design, p. 2) 3) "Performance assessments occurred during first (pre-intervention) and final (post-intervention) sessions." (Outcome Measures, p. 3) 4) "Second, the six-week intervention duration precludes conclusions regarding long-term maintenance of performance gains." (Limitations, p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that outcomes be measured at least one full academic term (approximately 3-4 months) after the intervention begins. This study ran over only a 6-week period of 12 sessions, with the post-intervention measurement taken at the final session. Six weeks is substantially shorter than one academic term, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the "six-week intervention duration" as a limitation. There is no term-length follow-up beyond the end of the intervention. Criterion T is not met because the interval from intervention start to outcome measurement was only about six weeks, far shorter than one academic term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control group's size, sex composition, age, baseline performance, and standard-PE condition are clearly documented.
    • Participants were equally distributed between an experimental group (n = 20; 10 males, 10 females) ... and a control group (n = 20; 10 males, 10 females) participating in standard physical education sessions.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Participants were equally distributed between an experimental group (n = 20; 10 males, 10 females) receiving the GBG intervention and a control group (n = 20; 10 males, 10 females) participating in standard physical education sessions." (Participants, p. 2) 2) "Baseline assessment confirmed homogeneity between groups in jump distance performance prior to intervention (P> .05)." (Results, p. 3) 3) "Table 2. Descriptive statistics and within-group changes in jump distance and number of successful jumps by group and sex." showing Control Male pre-intervention 1.79 ± .20 and Control Female pre-intervention 1.56 ± .24. (p. 3) 4) "Only students performing within the medium threshold were selected to ensure homogeneous baseline competency..." (Participants, p. 2) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires that the control group be well-documented, including its size, demographic characteristics, baseline performance, and the conditions it experienced. The paper reports the control group size (n = 20), its sex composition (10 males, 10 females), the age of the sample (13.10 ± .40 years), its condition ("participating in standard physical education sessions"), and baseline performance broken out by sex in Table 2. Baseline homogeneity between groups was statistically confirmed (P > .05), and inclusion criteria (medium-threshold performers) are described. This provides adequate documentation of the control group. Criterion D is met because the control group's size, demographics, baseline performance, and business-as- usual condition are clearly documented.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • Only one school participated and randomisation was at the individual student level, so school-level randomisation is absent.
    • Forty middle school students (age: 13.10 ± .40 years) from a public school in Sfax region were recruited through purposive sampling.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Forty middle school students (age: 13.10 ± .40 years) from a public school in Sfax region were recruited through purposive sampling." (Participants, p. 2) 2) "A sex-stratified block randomization procedure ensured balanced gender distribution across experimental conditions." (Study Design, p. 2) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires that randomisation occur among schools (or equivalent implementing units), not among classes or students within a single school. This study recruited students from a single public school in the Sfax region and randomised individual students into the two conditions. Only one school was involved, and the unit of randomisation was the individual student, so there is no school-level randomisation. Criterion S is not met because the study involved a single school and randomised individual students rather than schools.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The intervention was designed, delivered, and analysed by the same team with no independent external evaluator, so independence is not established.
    • Fourth, the same PE teacher delivered both experimental and control sessions, introducing the possibility of teacher expectancy effects influencing student performance.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Group allocation was concealed from outcome assessors to minimize detection bias, strengthening the methodological rigor." (Study Design, p. 2) 2) "Fourth, the same PE teacher delivered both experimental and control sessions, introducing the possibility of teacher expectancy effects influencing student performance." (Limitations, p. 6) 3) "Conceptualization, O.T. and W.D.; methodology, O.T., W.D. and A.B.O.; ... investigation, O.T. and A.B.O.; ... formal analysis, W.D.; ... supervision, J.P." (Author's contribution, p. 7) 4) "This study aims to address this gap by exploring the effect of the GBG on targeted physical performance metrics..." (Introduction, p. 2) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires that the study be conducted independently of the people who designed the intervention, e.g., by an external evaluation team. Here the same author team conceived, designed, implemented, and analysed the intervention, and several authors (e.g., O. Tounsi) have an established programme of GBG research. Although the paper notes that "group allocation was concealed from outcome assessors," blinding of assessors is a bias-control measure, not independence from the intervention designers. Moreover, "the same PE teacher delivered both experimental and control sessions," indicating the delivery was internal rather than externally evaluated. There is no statement of a third-party or external evaluation body. Criterion I is not met because the same team designed, delivered, and analysed the intervention, with no independent external evaluator.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • The roughly six-week duration is far below the year-long requirement, and criterion T is also not met.
    • Second, the six-week intervention duration precludes conclusions regarding long-term maintenance of performance gains.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study was conducted over a 6-week period aligned with the standard long jump physical education curriculum cycle, consisting of 12 structured sessions." (Study Design, p. 2) 2) "Second, the six-week intervention duration precludes conclusions regarding long-term maintenance of performance gains." (Limitations, p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires outcomes to be measured at least 75% of a full academic year (roughly 9-10 months) after the intervention begins. This study spanned only 6 weeks with the outcome measured at the final session. In addition, per the ERCT rules, if criterion T (Term Duration) is not met, then criterion Y cannot be met; here T is not met. Six weeks is far below the year-duration threshold. Criterion Y is not met because the tracking interval was only about six weeks, and criterion T was also not met.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • Both groups received equal regular PE curriculum time, with the GBG being a game format overlaid on existing sessions rather than added time or budget, so the groups are balanced.
    • The experimental group received the GBG intervention integrated into their regular physical education curriculum, while the control group participated in standard physical education sessions.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The experimental group received the GBG intervention integrated into their regular physical education curriculum, while the control group participated in standard physical education sessions." (Abstract, p. 1) 2) "The experimental group received the GBG intervention during 11 sessions (twice weekly), integrated into their regular physical education curriculum. At each session, the teacher reinforced key game rules and organized the class into balanced teams." (Intervention Protocol, p. 2) 3) "The study was conducted over a 6-week period aligned with the standard long jump physical education curriculum cycle, consisting of 12 structured sessions." (Study Design, p. 2) 4) "Game procedures included monitoring performance, recording rule violations on a visible scoreboard, and awarding brief reinforcement periods to winning teams." (Intervention Protocol, p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B compares the time, budget, and materials given to intervention and control groups, unless extra resources are themselves the treatment variable. In this study both groups followed the same 6-week, 12- session long jump physical education curriculum during regular PE class time; the experimental group's GBG was "integrated into their regular physical education curriculum," while the control group did "standard physical education sessions." The GBG is a pedagogical game structure (team rules, a scoreboard, brief reinforcement periods for winning teams) overlaid on the same instructional time rather than an addition of extra class time or budget. Applying the decision tree: the intervention adds no additional instructional time or budget relative to the control (EXTRA_RESOURCES_PRESENT is false), since both groups receive equal PE curriculum time; the only difference is the behavioural game format itself, which is the intervention under test. The brief reinforcement periods occur within regular sessions and are integral to the GBG package. Thus the groups are balanced on time and resources. Criterion B is met because both groups received the same amount of regular PE curriculum time, with the GBG game structure - the intervention itself - added without extra instructional time or budget.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • The study is presented as novel with no independent replication of this specific GBG long-jump performance trial.
    • To date, no studies have directly examined GBG impact on specialized physical performance indicators, such as those required in the long jump...
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "To date, no studies have directly examined GBG impact on specialized physical performance indicators, such as those required in the long jump..." (Introduction, p. 2) 2) "This study aims to address this gap by exploring the effect of the GBG on targeted physical performance metrics within specific physical activity cycles during PE sessions." (Introduction, p. 2) 3) "These findings extend the established GBG literature beyond behavioural management applications into performance enhancement domains..." (Conclusions/ Abstract, p. 1) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires that this specific study be independently replicated by a different research team in a different context, published in a peer-reviewed journal. The authors explicitly state that "no studies have directly examined GBG impact on specialized physical performance indicators, such as those required in the long jump," framing this as a novel, gap-filling study. This paper was only published ahead-of-print in June 2026, so no independent reproduction of this specific GBG long-jump performance trial could exist yet, and none was found. While the GBG generally has a large literature, that concerns behavioural outcomes, not an independent replication of this particular performance-enhancement study. (WebSearch quota was exhausted during verification; grounding relied on the paper's own text and the publisher landing page, which confirm the study's novelty and recent ahead-of-print status.) Criterion R is not met because this specific study is novel and has not been independently replicated.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Only a single long-jump motor skill was measured with non-standardised metrics, and criterion E is not met, so A fails.
    • The GBG significantly enhanced both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of long jump performance.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Long jump performance was evaluated through two primary metrics: [1] jump distance ... and [2] successful jumps..." (Outcome Measures, p. 3) 2) "The GBG significantly enhanced both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of long jump performance." (Abstract, p. 1) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires that all main subjects taught at the relevant level be assessed using standardised exam-based assessments, and it explicitly depends on criterion E: if E is not met, A cannot be met. Here criterion E is not met because outcomes were custom motor performance metrics rather than standardised exams. In addition, the study measured only a single motor skill (long jump) and no other school subjects. On both grounds the criterion fails. Criterion A is not met because criterion E is not met and only a single long-jump motor skill was assessed rather than all main subjects.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Measurement ended at the six-week post-test with no graduation tracking, and criterion Y is not met.
    • Performance assessments occurred during first (pre-intervention) and final (post-intervention) sessions.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Performance assessments occurred during first (pre-intervention) and final (post-intervention) sessions." (Outcome Measures, p. 3) 2) "Second, the six-week intervention duration precludes conclusions regarding long-term maintenance of performance gains." (Limitations, p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires tracking participants through to graduation from their educational stage, and it depends on criterion Y: if Y is not met, G cannot be met. Here Y is not met (the study lasted only about six weeks). Outcome measurement stopped at the final session, with no follow-up, let alone tracking to graduation, and the authors acknowledge they cannot speak to long-term maintenance. No follow-up publications tracking this cohort were found. (WebSearch quota was exhausted during verification; grounding relied on the paper's own text and the publisher landing page, which show no graduation tracking or planned follow-up.) Criterion G is not met because there was no follow-up beyond the six-week post-test and criterion Y is also not met.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper reports only local ethics approval and no public trial pre-registration with a registry ID or date.
    • The study protocol was approved by the local institutional ethics committee of the Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Kef, Tunisia (C-0010/2024 – September 19th, 2024)...
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study protocol was approved by the local institutional ethics committee of the Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Kef, Tunisia (C-0010/2024 – September 19th, 2024)..." (Participants, p. 2) 2) "Sample size was determined using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.7)..." (Participants, p. 2) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires that the full study protocol be pre-registered on a public registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, OSF) before data collection begins, with hypotheses and analysis plans specified in advance. The paper reports only local institutional ethics committee approval (C-0010/2024), which is not a public trial pre-registration. No registry name, registration ID, or pre-registration date is provided anywhere in the paper, and the publisher's article landing page likewise shows no trial registration. There is therefore no registry entry to verify. Criterion P is not met because the paper reports only ethics approval and provides no public pre-registration of the protocol.