Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
891 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
1991-03-31
2029-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Early Prevention of Conduct Problems
NCT00051714
Preventing Problem Behavior Among Middle School Students
NCT00062959
Prevention Program for Problem Behaviors in Girls in Foster Care
NCT00239837
Parent Preferences and Family Engagement in a Conduct Problems Prevention Program
NCT02432014
Preventing Conduct Disorder in Child Welfare
NCT03329625
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Four geographic sites were selected for the study: Durham, NC, a small city with a large low-income population that is primarily African American; Nashville, TN, a moderated-sized city with a mix of low-to-middle income and African American and European-American population; Seattle, WA, a moderate-sized city with a low-to-middle ethnically diverse population; and central PA, a mostly rural area with low-to-middle income European American population. These sites varied widely in ethnicity (most minorities were African American, with some Latino) and poverty (as measured by free/reduced lunch rates) as follows: Durham, NC, 90% minority and 80% reduced lunch; Nashville, TN, 54% minority and 78% reduced lunch; rural PA; 1% minority and 39% reduced lunch; and Seattle, WA, 52% minority and 46% reduced lunch. "High risk" schools within each site (12 in Durham, 9 in Nashville, 18 in PA, and 16 in Seattle) were selected based on crime and poverty statistics of the communities that they served. Within each site, schools were divided into one to three paired sets matched for demographics (size, percentage free or reduced lunch, and ethnic composition), and one set within each pair was randomly assigned to intervention and one to control condition. Students at these elementary schools moved into middle school at grade 5, 6 or 7. A multiple-gating screening procedure that combined teacher and parent ratings of disruptive behavior was applied to all kindergarteners across three cohorts (1991-93) in these 55 schools. Children were screened initially for classroom conduct problems by teachers, using the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment-Revised (TOCA-R) Authority Acceptance Score. Those children scoring in the top 40% within cohort and site were then solicited for the next stage of screening for home behavior problems by the parents, using a novel 22-item instrument that included items from the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991a), the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist, and novel items that we created for this study. 91% (n=3,274) completed the home-behavior screen. The teacher and parent screening scores were then standardized within site, based on screening a representative sample of approximately 100 children within each site (which also served as a normative comparison), and then summed to yield a total severity-of-risk screen score. Children were selected for inclusion into this study based on this screen score, moving from the highest score downward until desired sample sizes were reached within sites, cohorts, and conditions. Exceptions to this inclusion rule were made when a child failed to matriculate in the first grade at a core school (n=59) or refused to participate (n=75), or to accommodate a superceding rule that no child would be the only female in an intervention group. The outcome was that three successive cohorts were recruited in 1991, 1992, and 1993 to yield a sample of 891 children (445 in the intervention group and 446 in the control group).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
PREVENTION
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Fast Track Eligible
Participants in the Experimental group received the "Fast Track" intervention. Intervention included school-based curriculum attended by high-risk children, parents, program staff, and occasionally teachers, home visiting, the the in-class PATHS prevention program.
Fast Track
First grade intervention included a weekly two-hour curriculum-based day that was attended by high-risk children, parents, program staff, and teachers of the high-risk children. During each session, the staff modeled academic tutoring with target children in the presence of their parents. In 3rd and 4th grades, intervention consisted of monthly parent and child curriculum-based sessions during the academic year, home visiting, and teachers implementing the in-class PATHS prevention program. In 5th and 6th grades, intervention included monthly parent and child groups and home visiting. In grades 8, 9 and 10 staff developed sessions on an as needed basis to cover topics like transition to high school, note-taking, and study skills.
Control Group
Participants in the Control group were not eligible to receive the Fast Track intervention. These children received other services as usual, and served as the randomized comparison group for examining Fast Track program impacts
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Fast Track
First grade intervention included a weekly two-hour curriculum-based day that was attended by high-risk children, parents, program staff, and teachers of the high-risk children. During each session, the staff modeled academic tutoring with target children in the presence of their parents. In 3rd and 4th grades, intervention consisted of monthly parent and child curriculum-based sessions during the academic year, home visiting, and teachers implementing the in-class PATHS prevention program. In 5th and 6th grades, intervention included monthly parent and child groups and home visiting. In grades 8, 9 and 10 staff developed sessions on an as needed basis to cover topics like transition to high school, note-taking, and study skills.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* must be in 1st grade
Exclusion Criteria
* could not score in the top 40% on the TOCA-R
6 Years
8 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
NIH
U.S. Department of Education
FED
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
NIH
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
NIH
Duke University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Kenneth A Dodge, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Duke University
Karen L Bierman, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Penn State University
Mark T Greenberg, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Penn State University
John E Lochman, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Robert J McMahon, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Simon Fraser University
Ellen E Pinderhughes, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Tufts University
Daniel M Crowley, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Penn State University
Jennifer Lansford, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Duke University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Godwin JW, Dodge KA, Copeland WE, Odgers CL, McMahon RJ, Goulter N; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Intergenerational effects of the Fast Track intervention on the home environment: A randomized control trial. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2023 May;64(5):820-830. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13648. Epub 2022 Jun 15.
Rothenberg WA, Lansford JE, Godwin JW, Dodge KA, Copeland WE, Odgers CL, McMahon RJ, Rybinska A; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Intergenerational Effects of the Fast Track Intervention on Next-Generation Child Outcomes: A Preregistered Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2024 Mar 1;181(3):213-222. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220927. Epub 2024 Feb 7.
McCabe G, Godwin JW, Rothenberg WA, Goulter N, Lansford JE; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Fast Track Intervention Effects and Mechanisms of Action Through Established Adulthood. Prev Sci. 2025 May;26(4):667-680. doi: 10.1007/s11121-024-01736-0. Epub 2024 Oct 11.
Lansford JE, Godwin J, Copeland WE, Dodge KA, Odgers CL, Rothenberg WA, Rybinska A; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Fast Track intervention effects on family formation. J Fam Psychol. 2023 Feb;37(1):54-64. doi: 10.1037/fam0001039. Epub 2022 Nov 3.
Jones D, Godwin J, Dodge KA, Bierman KL, Coie JD, Greenberg MT, Lochman JE, McMahon RJ, Pinderhughes EE. Impact of the fast track prevention program on health services use by conduct-problem youth. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125(1):e130-6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0322. Epub 2009 Dec 14.
Slough NM, McMahon RJ, Bierman KL, Coie JD, Dodge KA, Foster EM, Greenberg MT, Lochman JE, McMahon RJ, Pinderhughes EE. Preventing Serious Conduct Problems in School-Age Youths: The Fast Track Program. Cogn Behav Pract. 2008 Feb 1;15(1):3-17. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2007.04.002.
Bierman KL, Coie JD, Dodge KA, Foster EM, Greenberg MT, Lochman JE, McMahon RJ, Pinderhughes EE; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. The effects of the fast track program on serious problem outcomes at the end of elementary school. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2004 Dec;33(4):650-61. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_1.
Bierman KL, Coie JD, Dodge KA, Greenberg MT, Lochman JE, McMahon RJ, Pinderhughes EE; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Using the Fast Track randomized prevention trial to test the early-starter model of the development of serious conduct problems. Dev Psychopathol. 2002 Fall;14(4):925-43. doi: 10.1017/s0954579402004133.
Kam CM, Greenberg MT, Bierman KL, Coie JD, Dodge KA, Foster ME, Lochman JE, McMahon RJ, Pinderhughes EE; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Maternal depressive symptoms and child social preference during the early school years: mediation by maternal warmth and child emotion regulation. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2011 Apr;39(3):365-77. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9468-0.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. The effects of the fast track preventive intervention on the development of conduct disorder across childhood. Child Dev. 2011 Jan-Feb;82(1):331-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01558.x.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Fast Track intervention effects on youth arrests and delinquency. J Exp Criminol. 2010 Jun;6(2):131-157. doi: 10.1007/s11292-010-9091-7.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. The effects of a multiyear universal social-emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Apr;78(2):156-68. doi: 10.1037/a0018607.
Dodge KA, Godwin J; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Social-information-processing patterns mediate the impact of preventive intervention on adolescent antisocial behavior. Psychol Sci. 2013 Apr;24(4):456-65. doi: 10.1177/0956797612457394. Epub 2013 Feb 13.
Bierman KL, Coie J, Dodge K, Greenberg M, Lochman J, McMohan R, Pinderhughes E; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. School outcomes of aggressive-disruptive children: prediction from kindergarten risk factors and impact of the fast track prevention program. Aggress Behav. 2013 Mar-Apr;39(2):114-30. doi: 10.1002/ab.21467. Epub 2013 Feb 5.
Sorensen LC, Dodge KA; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. How Does the Fast Track Intervention Prevent Adverse Outcomes in Young Adulthood? Child Dev. 2016 Mar-Apr;87(2):429-45. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12467. Epub 2015 Dec 16.
Dodge KA, Bierman KL, Coie JD, Greenberg MT, Lochman JE, McMahon RJ, Pinderhughes EE; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Impact of early intervention on psychopathology, crime, and well-being at age 25. Am J Psychiatry. 2015 Jan;172(1):59-70. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13060786. Epub 2014 Oct 31.
Albert D, Belsky DW, Crowley DM, Latendresse SJ, Aliev F, Riley B, Sun C; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group; Dick DM, Dodge KA. Can Genetics Predict Response to Complex Behavioral Interventions? Evidence from a Genetic Analysis of the Fast Track Randomized Control Trial. J Policy Anal Manage. 2015 Summer;34(3):497-518. doi: 10.1002/pam.21811.
Albert D, Belsky DW, Crowley DM, Bates JE, Pettit GS, Lansford JE, Dick D, Dodge KA. Developmental mediation of genetic variation in response to the Fast Track prevention program. Dev Psychopathol. 2015 Feb;27(1):81-95. doi: 10.1017/S095457941400131X.
Zheng Y, Albert D, McMahon RJ, Dodge K, Dick D; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Glucocorticoid Receptor (NR3C1) Gene Polymorphism Moderate Intervention Effects on the Developmental Trajectory of African-American Adolescent Alcohol Abuse. Prev Sci. 2018 Jan;19(1):79-89. doi: 10.1007/s11121-016-0726-4.
Goulter N, McMahon RJ, Dodge KA; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Does the Fast Track Intervention Prevent Later Psychosis Symptoms? Prev Sci. 2019 Nov;20(8):1255-1264. doi: 10.1007/s11121-019-01041-1.
Godwin JW; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. The Fast Track intervention's impact on behaviors of despair in adolescence and young adulthood. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Dec 15;117(50):31748-31753. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2016234117. Epub 2020 Dec 1.
Musci RJ, Kush JM, Masyn KE, Esmaeili MA, Susukida R, Goulter N, McMahon R, Eddy JM, Ialongo NS, Tolan P, Godwin J; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group6; Wilcox HC. Psychosis Symptom Trajectories Across Childhood and Adolescence in Three Longitudinal Studies: An Integrative Data Analysis with Mixture Modeling. Prev Sci. 2023 Nov;24(8):1636-1647. doi: 10.1007/s11121-023-01581-7. Epub 2023 Aug 24.
Gorla L, Rothenberg WA, Godwin J, Copeland WE; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Pathways of intergenerational transmission of depression: The role of the Fast Track intervention. Dev Psychopathol. 2025 Sep 10:1-11. doi: 10.1017/S0954579425100588. Online ahead of print.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Project Direct Site
Related Info
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
S184U30002
Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT
Identifier Source: secondary_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.