Aggressive BehaviorNCT01710969
Individual and Group Intervention Formats With Aggressive Children
A study testing Individual intervention and Group Intervention in people with Aggressive Behavior, run by National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
Trial summary
The planned study will randomly assign aggressive children to one of two versions of the Coping Power child component. The two versions of Coping Power will either deliver the child component of the program in the usual small group format (Group Coping Power: GCP) or in a newly-developed individual format (Individual… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 9 to 12 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Aggressive Behavior
- What is being tested?
- Individual intervention and Group Intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 360 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Sep 2008to Jul 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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 9 to 12 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- top 25% in teacher-rated aggression and above low-aggressive range in parent-rated aggression
Who cannot join
- -
About this study
The planned study will randomly assign aggressive children to one of two versions of the Coping Power child component. The two versions of Coping Power will either deliver the child component of the program in the usual small group format (Group Coping Power: GCP) or in a newly-developed individual format (Individual Coping Power: ICP). By providing a direct comparison of two different formats of the same intervention, the planned study's design will fill a critical gap in our current understanding of the relative effectiveness of group vs. individual programs. Further, this study will allow for examination of the specific factors that influence relative effectiveness of these two formats, important information with broad implications for program development, training of clinicians, and intervention implementation.
Read the detailed description
Specific Aim 1: The study will test the hypothesis that the Coping Power intervention will produce larger effect sizes when delivered in an individual format in comparison to a group format. Although there are advantages of both formats, pilot data suggests that the group format may be diminishing the strength of outcome effects of intervention in comparison to the same intervention delivered in individual format. This pilot data is consistent with some prior findings, but a direct randomized comparison of children assigned to group versus individual formats has not been conducted, despite the critically important conceptual, clinical, and policy implications.
Hypothesis 1-1: It is hypothesized that ICP will produce greater reductions in behavior outcomes including substance use, externalizing behavior problems, and delinquency at a 1-year follow-up, in comparison to GCP.
Hypothesis 1-2: it is hypothesized that the ICP condition will produce greater improvements in children's social competence, which is directly targeted by the intervention, in comparison to GCP.
Specific Aim 2: Individual and group variation in effect sizes will be an outcome of youth behavior in the group (i.e., deviancy training) and group leader behavior management skill. We see youth behavior to be highly influenced by group leader management practices. We understand that some groups and/or individual children present challenges to even the most competent group leaders, and therefore, variation will be observable and meaningful. The design of the study allows for the testing of both group level and individual effects, and linkage of these effects to specific behaviors. Such information will provide an empirical basis for clinical training for group interventions with youth in general and Coping Power in particular.
Hypothesis 2-1: It is hypothesized that peer escalation in the GCP condition will predict worse outcomes, and that the level of group deviance in the GCP condition will moderate the effectiveness of the GCP condition, with better outcome effects for the groups with the highest initial screening scores.
Hypothesis 2-2: It is hypothesized that group interventions will be compromised by individual children's reactions to the interpersonal dynamics of the groups, such as inadvertent attention to deviant behavior and talk provided by group members and/or the group leader.
Hypothesis 2-3: It is hypothesized that level of positive group leader behaviors (directing attention to rules, correcting behavior, providing praise for compliance, introduction and review of activities, clear directions) will moderate the effectiveness of the GCP condition.
Specific Aim 3: Variability in outcome scores will differ between conditions. Hypothesis 3-1: It is hypothesized that there will be greater variability in the outcome scores of children in the GCP condition than in those of children in the ICP condition.
Specific Aim 4: Child characteristics will be examined as potential moderators of intervention effects.
Hypothesis 4-1: It is hypothesized that youth with low effortful control will be most vulnerable to deviancy effects in group interventions and therefore will show lower effect sizes than youth higher in effortful control at baseline. Thus we expect effortful control to function as a moderator of group intervention effectiveness, but not individual intervention effectiveness.
Research Question 1: In addition, we will investigate the possibility that characteristics of the youth's decision-making (impulsive decision-making; outcome expectations), affective arousal (callous-unemotional traits; low physiological arousal in response to negative consequences), temperament and behavior characteristics (baseline severity of aggressive behavior); perceived and actual peer reactions (perceived peer competence; peer rejection; peer victimization; deviant peers) and demographic characteristics (sex; age; race) will moderate the effectiveness of both interventions.
- Conditions
- Aggressive Behavior
- Being tested
- Individual intervention, Group Intervention
- Medical subject headings
- Aggression
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Individual interventionBehavioural
34 weekly sessions of cognitive-behavioral Coping Power intervention, delivered in an individual one-to-one format
Group InterventionBehavioural
34 weekly sessions of Coping Power intervention, delivered in a small group format (6 children per gorup)
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Intervention | Experimental | behavioral - children receive the Coping Power program in an individual, face-to-face format Receives: Behavioral: Individual intervention |
| Group Intervention | Experimental | behavioral - children receive the Coping Power program in a small group format (5-6 children per group) Receives: Behavioral: Group Intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Behavior Assessment System for Children, Externalizing Behavior
Measured: Baseline, Mid-Intervention, Post-Intervention; 1 year follow-up
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Oct 2012 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2008
- Primary completionJul 2014
- Study completionJul 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Aggressive BehaviorStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 360 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Sponsor type
- US National Institutes of Health
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01710969
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- DESPR DA023156
- Other IDs
- R01DA023156
- Status last verified
- Apr 2015
- First submitted
- 16 Oct 2012
- Last updated
- 11 Jan 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Jan 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Individual and Group Intervention Formats With Aggressive Children
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01710969
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- DESPR DA023156
- Conditions
- Aggressive Behavior
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 360 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)US National Institutes of Health
- Study start
- Sep 2008
- Primary completion
- Jul 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Oct 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 planned study will randomly assign aggressive children to one of two versions of the Coping Power child component. The two versions of Coping Power will either deliver the child component of the program in the usual small group format (Group Coping Power: GCP) or in a newly-developed individual format (Individual Coping Power: ICP). By providing a direct comparison of two different formats of the same intervention, the planned study's design will fill a critical gap in our current understanding of the relative effectiveness of group vs. individual programs. Further, this study will allow for examination of the specific factors that influence relative effectiveness of these two formats, important information with broad implications for program development, training of clinicians, and intervention implementation.
Detailed description
Specific Aim 1: The study will test the hypothesis that the Coping Power intervention will produce larger effect sizes when delivered in an individual format in comparison to a group format. Although there are advantages of both formats, pilot data suggests that the group format may be diminishing the strength of outcome effects of intervention in comparison to the same intervention delivered in individual format. This pilot data is consistent with some prior findings, but a direct randomized comparison of children assigned to group versus individual formats has not been conducted, despite the critically important conceptual, clinical, and policy implications.
Hypothesis 1-1: It is hypothesized that ICP will produce greater reductions in behavior outcomes including substance use, externalizing behavior problems, and delinquency at a 1-year follow-up, in comparison to GCP.
Hypothesis 1-2: it is hypothesized that the ICP condition will produce greater improvements in children's social competence, which is directly targeted by the intervention, in comparison to GCP.
Specific Aim 2: Individual and group variation in effect sizes will be an outcome of youth behavior in the group (i.e., deviancy training) and group leader behavior management skill. We see youth behavior to be highly influenced by group leader management practices. We understand that some groups and/or individual children present challenges to even the most competent group leaders, and therefore, variation will be observable and meaningful. The design of the study allows for the testing of both group level and individual effects, and linkage of these effects to specific behaviors. Such information will provide an empirical basis for clinical training for group interventions with youth in general and Coping Power in particular.
Hypothesis 2-1: It is hypothesized that peer escalation in the GCP condition will predict worse outcomes, and that the level of group deviance in the GCP condition will moderate the effectiveness of the GCP condition, with better outcome effects for the groups with the highest initial screening scores.
Hypothesis 2-2: It is hypothesized that group interventions will be compromised by individual children's reactions to the interpersonal dynamics of the groups, such as inadvertent attention to deviant behavior and talk provided by group members and/or the group leader.
Hypothesis 2-3: It is hypothesized that level of positive group leader behaviors (directing attention to rules, correcting behavior, providing praise for compliance, introduction and review of activities, clear directions) will moderate the effectiveness of the GCP condition.
Specific Aim 3: Variability in outcome scores will differ between conditions. Hypothesis 3-1: It is hypothesized that there will be greater variability in the outcome scores of children in the GCP condition than in those of children in the ICP condition.
Specific Aim 4: Child characteristics will be examined as potential moderators of intervention effects.
Hypothesis 4-1: It is hypothesized that youth with low effortful control will be most vulnerable to deviancy effects in group interventions and therefore will show lower effect sizes than youth higher in effortful control at baseline. Thus we expect effortful control to function as a moderator of group intervention effectiveness, but not individual intervention effectiveness.
Research Question 1: In addition, we will investigate the possibility that characteristics of the youth's decision-making (impulsive decision-making; outcome expectations), affective arousal (callous-unemotional traits; low physiological arousal in response to negative consequences), temperament and behavior characteristics (baseline severity of aggressive behavior); perceived and actual peer reactions (perceived peer competence; peer rejection; peer victimization; deviant peers) and demographic characteristics (sex; age; race) will moderate the effectiveness of both interventions.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: Individual interventionbehavioral - children receive the Coping Power program in an individual, face-to-face format |
| Group Intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: Group Interventionbehavioral - children receive the Coping Power program in a small group format (5-6 children per group) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 9 to 12 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- top 25% in teacher-rated aggression and above low-aggressive range in parent-rated aggression
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Individual intervention34 weekly sessions of cognitive-behavioral Coping Power intervention, delivered in an individual one-to-one format | Behavioural | Individual Intervention |
| Group Intervention34 weekly sessions of Coping Power intervention, delivered in a small group format (6 children per gorup) | Behavioural | Group Intervention |
Primary outcome
Behavior Assessment System for Children, Externalizing Behavior
Time frame: Baseline, Mid-Intervention, Post-Intervention; 1 year follow-up
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Jan 2017.
Related trials for Aggressive Behavior
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Lifestyle Behaviors and Their Associations With Mental Health, Aggressive Behaviors and Academic Performance Among Assiut University Students
Lifestyle Behaviors
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Nivolumab With or Without Varlilumab in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Aggressive B-cell Lymphomas
ALK-Positive Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Activated B-Cell Type
Recruiting
Virtual Reality Intervention (VR-GINSO) for Reducing Aggression in Young Offenders
Aggression
RecruitingPhase 3
Measuring if Immunotherapy Plus Chemotherapy is Better Than Chemotherapy Alone for Patients With Aggressive Poorly Differentiated Sarcomas
Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma, Metastatic Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma
Not yet recruiting
Virtual Reality to Advance Dementia Care and Quality of Life
Dementia, Agitation
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Individual intervention and Group Intervention in people with Aggressive Behavior, run by National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
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 1 inclusion and 1 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Jan 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Behavior Assessment System for Children, Externalizing Behavior (time frame: Baseline, Mid-Intervention, Post-Intervention; 1 year follow-up). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 11 Jan 2017.