Conduct DisorderNCT01653535
Multisite Prevention of Conduct Problems (Fast Track)
A study testing Fast Track in people with Conduct Disorder and Anti-Social Behavior, run by Duke University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The primary aim of this project is to evaluate the effects of a comprehensive intervention to prevent severe and chronic conduct problems in a sample of children selected as high-risk when they first entered school. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 6 to 8 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Conduct Disorder, Anti-Social Behavior
- What is being tested?
- Fast Track
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 891 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Mar 1991to Aug 2029
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 6 to 8 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- must be in public schools in 4 study sites
- must be in 1st grade
Who cannot join
- cannot be older than 1st grade
- could not score in the top 40% on the TOCA-R
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Multisite Prevention of Conduct Problems
The primary aim of this project is to evaluate the effects of a comprehensive intervention to prevent severe and chronic conduct problems in a sample of children selected as high-risk when they first entered school. It is hypothesized that the intervention will have positive effects on proximal child behavior in middle school, and high school affecting long-term adolescent outcomes such as conduct disorder, juvenile delinquency, school dropout, substance use, teen pregnancy, relational competence with peers, romantic partners and parents, education and employment and social and community integration.
Read the detailed description
This study is a comprehensive intervention project designed to look at how children develop across their lives by providing academic tutoring and lessons in developing social skills and regulating their behaviors. There can be multiple stressors and influences on children and families that increase their risk levels. In such contexts, some families that experience marital conflict and instability can cause inconsistent and ineffective parenting. These children can sometimes enter school poorly prepared for the social, emotional, and cognitive demands of this setting. Often the child will then attend a school with a high number of other children who are similarly unprepared and are negatively influenced by disruptive classroom situations and punitive teacher practices. Over time, children in these circumstances tend to demonstrate particular behaviors, are rejected by families and peers, and tend to receive less support from teachers, further increasing aggressive exchanges and academic difficulties. Thus, this project is based on the hypothesis that improving child competencies, parenting effectiveness, school context and school-home communications will, over time, contribute to preventing certain behaviors across the period from early childhood through adolescence.
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
- Conduct Disorder, Anti-Social Behavior
- Being tested
- Fast Track
- Keywords
- Prevention, Health Service Use, Behavioral Intervention, Conduct Problems, Anti-Social Behavior
- Medical subject headings
- Conduct Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Fast TrackBehavioural
Also called Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Fast Track Eligible | Experimental | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Fast Track |
| Control Group | No intervention | 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 |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Anti-Social Behaviors
Assessment of participant rates of anti-social behaviors (e.g., fighting, criminal activity)
Measured: Grades 1-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Secondary outcomes (9)
Substance Usage
Assessment of participant drug, alcohol, and tobacco use (e.g., any use, frequency of use).
Measured: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Sexual Activity
Assessment of participant engagement in various sexual activities (e.g., sexual intercourse).
Measured: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, and 32
Psychiatric Disorders
Assessment of participant rates of psychiatric disorders (e.g., clinical depression).
Measured: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, and 34
Academic Achievement
Assessment of participant academic achievement (e.g., grades, standardized test scores) in grade 1-12. Post-secondary educational attainment collected at ages 19, 20, 25, 32, and 34.
Measured: Grades 1-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, and 34
Financial Well-Being
Assessment of participants employment history, income, assets, and utilization of government services.
Measured: Grades 10-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Physical Health
Self-reported assessments of the participants physical health.
Measured: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Family Formation and Romantic Partnerships
Assessments of participants marital/partnership status and children in their households.
Measured: Grades 10-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Parenting Behaviors
Assessments of participants own parenting behaviors, among participants with children.
Measured: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Characteristics/Behaviors of Participants' Offspring
Participant-reported information about the behavior and health of their own children.
Measured: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Jul 2012 (estimated)
- Study startMar 1991
- Primary completionAug 2029 (estimated)
- Study completionAug 2029 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (24)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Conduct DisorderStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Duke UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 891 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Duke University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Kenneth A Dodge, PhD, Principal investigator, Duke UniversityKaren L Bierman, PhD, Principal investigator, Penn State UniversityMark T Greenberg, PhD, Principal investigator, Penn State UniversityJohn E Lochman, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Alabama at BirminghamRobert J McMahon, PhD, Principal investigator, Simon Fraser UniversityEllen E Pinderhughes, PhD, Principal investigator, Tufts UniversityDaniel M Crowley, PhD, Principal investigator, Penn State UniversityJennifer Lansford, PhD, Principal investigator, Duke University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01653535
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R01HD093651
- Other IDs
- 5R01DA016903, R01MH117559, R01DA036523, R01DA011301, P30DA023026, S184U30002, R18MH050951, R18MH050952
- Status last verified
- Feb 2025
- First submitted
- 16 Jul 2012
- Last updated
- 18 Feb 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: The Fast Track Project is committed to a policy of allowing the research community access to data, under conditions that strictly protect the rights and privacy of Fast Track participants. The research design that has guided Fast Track data collection over the entire study period requires a restricted-use mechanism for sharing the data with the research community. As noted, the restricted-use data policy currently applies to data collected in grades K-12 and at ages 19, 20, 25, 32 and 34. The full terms of the Fast Track data sharing plan and access criteria exceed the 1000 character limit. Full information about the data-use policy and application forms can be found at http://fasttrackproject.org/request-use-data.php
Publications
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.
PubMed 35705512Rothenberg 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.
PubMed 38321914McCabe 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.
PubMed 39392546Lansford 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.
PubMed 36326668Jones 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.
PubMed 20008428Slough 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.
PubMed 19890487Bierman 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.
PubMed 15498733Bierman 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.
PubMed 12549710Kam 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.
PubMed 21080053Conduct 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.
PubMed 21291445Conduct 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.
PubMed 20577576Conduct 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.
PubMed 20350027Dodge 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.
PubMed 23406610Bierman 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.
PubMed 23386568Sorensen 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.
PubMed 26670938
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Feb 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Multisite Prevention of Conduct Problems
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01653535
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- R01HD093651
- Conditions
- Conduct Disorder, Anti-Social Behavior
- Keywords
- Prevention, Health Service Use, Behavioral Intervention, Conduct Problems, Anti-Social Behavior
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 891 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Duke UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Study start
- Mar 1991
- Primary completion
- Aug 2029 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Aug 2029 (estimated)
- First posted
- 31 Jul 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The primary aim of this project is to evaluate the effects of a comprehensive intervention to prevent severe and chronic conduct problems in a sample of children selected as high-risk when they first entered school. It is hypothesized that the intervention will have positive effects on proximal child behavior in middle school, and high school affecting long-term adolescent outcomes such as conduct disorder, juvenile delinquency, school dropout, substance use, teen pregnancy, relational competence with peers, romantic partners and parents, education and employment and social and community integration.
Detailed description
This study is a comprehensive intervention project designed to look at how children develop across their lives by providing academic tutoring and lessons in developing social skills and regulating their behaviors. There can be multiple stressors and influences on children and families that increase their risk levels. In such contexts, some families that experience marital conflict and instability can cause inconsistent and ineffective parenting. These children can sometimes enter school poorly prepared for the social, emotional, and cognitive demands of this setting. Often the child will then attend a school with a high number of other children who are similarly unprepared and are negatively influenced by disruptive classroom situations and punitive teacher practices. Over time, children in these circumstances tend to demonstrate particular behaviors, are rejected by families and peers, and tend to receive less support from teachers, further increasing aggressive exchanges and academic difficulties. Thus, this project is based on the hypothesis that improving child competencies, parenting effectiveness, school context and school-home communications will, over time, contribute to preventing certain behaviors across the period from early childhood through adolescence.
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).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Fast Track Eligible | Experimental | Behavioral: Fast TrackParticipants 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. |
| Control Group | No intervention | –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 |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 6 to 8 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- must be in public schools in 4 study sites
- must be in 1st grade
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- cannot be older than 1st grade
- could not score in the top 40% on the TOCA-R
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Fast TrackAlso: Conduct Problems Prevention Research GroupFirst 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. | Behavioural | Fast Track Eligible |
Primary outcome
Anti-Social Behaviors
Time frame: Grades 1-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Assessment of participant rates of anti-social behaviors (e.g., fighting, criminal activity)
9 secondary outcomes
Substance Usage
Time frame: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Sexual Activity
Time frame: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, and 32
Psychiatric Disorders
Time frame: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, and 34
Academic Achievement
Time frame: Grades 1-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, and 34
Financial Well-Being
Time frame: Grades 10-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Physical Health
Time frame: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Family Formation and Romantic Partnerships
Time frame: Grades 10-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Parenting Behaviors
Time frame: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Characteristics/Behaviors of Participants' Offspring
Time frame: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Feb 2025.
- Results publication: PubMed 35705512Rothenberg 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 38321914Rothenberg 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 39392546McCabe 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 36326668Lansford 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 20008428Jones 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 19890487Slough 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 15498733Bierman 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 12549710Bierman 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 21080053Kam 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 21291445Conduct 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 20577576Conduct 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 20350027Conduct 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.
- Project Direct SiteLink provided by the sponsor.
- Related InfoLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. The Fast Track Project is committed to a policy of allowing the research community access to data, under conditions that strictly protect the rights and privacy of Fast Track participants. The research design that has guided Fast Track data collection over the entire study period requires a restricted-use mechanism for sharing the data with the research community. As noted, the restricted-use data policy currently applies to data collected in grades K-12 and at ages 19, 20, 25, 32 and 34. The full terms of the Fast Track data sharing plan and access criteria exceed the 1000 character limit. Full information about the data-use policy and application forms can be found at http://fasttrackproject.org/request-use-data.php
Related trials for Conduct Disorder
RecruitingObservational study
Augmenting Parent Management Training for Child Temper Outbursts Using a Digital Tool
Disruptive Behavior Disorders, Conduct Disorder
Recruiting
STIMPulseControl Ancillary Speech Study
Parkinson Disease, Impulse Control Disorder
Recruiting
Bilateral Subthalamic Stimulation in PD Patients With Impulse Control Disorders - STIMPulseControl
Parkinson Disease, Impulse Control Disorders
Recruiting
Efficacy of a Prediction Model-based Algorithm to PREVENT Drug-induced Impulse Control Disorders in Parkinson's Disease
Parkinson Disease, Impulse Control Disorder
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Anhedonia Beyond Depressive Symptoms in Children and Adolescents With Conduct Disorder
Conduct Disorder, Depression
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Kenneth A Dodge, PhD principal investigator
Duke University
Karen L Bierman, PhD principal investigator
Penn State University
Mark T Greenberg, PhD principal investigator
Penn State University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Fast Track in people with Conduct Disorder and Anti-Social Behavior, run by Duke University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Feb 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Anti-Social Behaviors (time frame: Grades 1-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01653535, which also lists 24 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Feb 2025; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 26 Oct 2026.