AggressionP2P+IYNCT03132805
An Evaluation of an Integrated Approach to Prevention and Early Intervention in the Elementary School Years
A study testing PATHS to PAX and PATHS to PAX and the Incredible Years in people with Aggression, run by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
In this study, the investigators propose to examine whether the combination of a universal, elementary school-based preventive intervention with an indicated preventive and treatment intervention would yield greater impact on aggression than the universal preventive intervention alone. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 5 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Aggression
- What is being tested?
- PATHS to PAX and PATHS to PAX and the Incredible Years
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 5,233 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2016to 30 Apr 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 5 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Students enrolled in kindergarten through second grade classrooms and their teachers.
Who cannot join
- Students must be enrolled in regular education classrooms.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Baltimore, Maryland, 21205
About this study
In this study, the investigators propose to examine whether the combination of a universal, elementary school-based preventive intervention with an indicated preventive and treatment intervention would yield greater impact on aggression than the universal preventive intervention alone.
Read the detailed description
Aggressive behavior in the elementary school years is a strong indicator of antisocial behavior, drug abuse and low educational and occupational attainment in adolescence and young adulthood. The Good Behavior Game (GBG) and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) represent two of a handful of universal, elementary school, preventive interventions which have been shown in large scale, randomized controlled trials to have an immediate and beneficial impact on aggression. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies seeks to accomplish reductions in aggressive behavior via teacher led instruction aimed at facilitating emotion regulation and social problem-solving, whereas the Good Behavior Game provides teachers with an efficient means of reducing aggressive behavior using social learning principles within a game-like context. Importantly, however, the effects of the Good Behavior Game on aggressive behavior proved modest in the first and second generation Johns Hopkins University Preventive Intervention Research Center randomized field trials. This has been the case for Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies as well. The investigators recently completed a 27-school, randomized controlled trial examining whether the combination of these interventions, which the investigators refer to as PATHS to PAX, would yield significantly greater impact on aggressive behavior than the Good Behavior Game alone. The rationale for expecting greater impact was that the use of the Good Behavior Game should result in reductions in aggressive behavior, which should then facilitate the acquisition of the emotion regulation and social problem-solving skills taught in Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies. PATHS to PAX did result in a modestly greater reduction in aggressive behavior than the Good Behavior Game alone at 1-year post-test. Yet, the most aggressive students still failed to sufficiently benefit from the PATHS to PAX intervention. Accordingly, in this application, the investigators propose to examine whether the addition of the Incredible Years (IY), an evidence-based preventive and treatment intervention aimed at reducing aggressive behavior, to PATHS to PAX would yield greater impact on these behaviors than the PATHS to PAX intervention alone. The investigators also propose to examine whether the combination of the PATHS to PAX plus the Incredible Years results in increased frequency of implementation of the PATHS to PAX intervention. It is hypothesized that relative to teachers in the PATHS to PAX alone condition, teachers in the PATHS to PAX plus Incredible Years condition will perceive PATHS to PAX as more efficacious and will therefore be more likely to implement it. Four cohorts of 12 schools each will be recruited with schools randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention conditions: 1) Control; 2) PATHS to PAX; or 3) PATHS to PAX plus the Incredible Years. Assessments of student outcomes will be carried out at pre-test and post-test in the fall and spring of the initial school year for each cohort and at a 6-month and 1-year follow-up. Teacher outcomes in terms of classroom behavior management self-efficacy, perceptions of the efficacy of PATHS to PAX, and teacher burn out will be assessed at 4-time points during the initial year for each cohort. Assessment of teacher implementation of PATHS to PAX will be carried out on a daily basis throughout the intervention year. Aims 1 and 2 represent the primary goals of this application, whereas Aims 3 and 4 represent secondary, or exploratory, aims:
- To evaluate, utilizing a group randomized design, whether the combination of PATHS to PAX plus Incredible Years child and parent groups yields greater reductions in aggressive behavior than PATHS to PAX alone.
- To examine whether the frequency of PATHS to PAX intervention implementation (i.e., number of times and minutes the Good Behavior Game is played per day and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies lessons taught per week) will be greater in the PATHS to PAX plus Incredible Years condition.
- To explore whether any evidence of differential benefits in terms of student outcomes between the PATHS to PAX versus PATHS to PAX plus Incredible Years conditions at post-test are a function of differences in PATHS to PAX implementation (e.g., number of Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies lessons administered and the number of Good Behavior Games played and the duration of the games played). In addition, the investigators will explore whether any differences in implementation across the two intervention conditions is mediated by differences in teacher behavior management self-efficacy, perceived efficacy of PATHS to PAX in improving student behavior, and teacher burn out at post-test.
- To explore the moderating effects of teacher, parent and student characteristics on intervention outcomes by expanding the models used for Aims 1 \& 2 to include interactions between those characteristics and study condition,
- Conditions
- Aggression
- Being tested
- PATHS to PAX, PATHS to PAX and the Incredible Years
- Medical subject headings
- Aggression
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PATHS to PAXBehavioural
A universal classroom-based preventive intervention designed to prevent aggression.
PATHS to PAX and the Incredible YearsBehavioural
A universal classroom-based preventive intervention in combination with an indicated preventive intervention, both of which are designed to prevent aggression.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | Schools which receive no intervention |
| PATHS to PAX | Experimental | Universal classroom-based preventive intervention designed to reduce aggression. Receives: Behavioral: PATHS to PAX |
| PATHS to PAX and the IncredibleYears | Experimental | The combination of PATHS to PAX with the Incredible Years child and parent groups. Receives: Behavioral: PATHS to PAX and the Incredible Years |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Direct Classroom Observations of Student Behavior Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test.
Classroom observations of student behavior were carried out by independent observers on two occasions, one week apart, at pre- and post-test respectively. The behaviors observed were on-task and physical aggression. Behaviors were observed in 10 second intervals and were recorded as present if they occurred at least once during a 10 second interval. The per interval on-task and physical aggression scores could range from 0-1, with 0 signifying the behavior was not observed and 1 signifying the behavior was observed. The on-task and physical aggression scores used in the analyses were the average score across all of the 10-second intervals the student was observed. (Adapted from Tapp, Wehby \& Ellis, 1995).
Measured: The observations are carried out at pre-test and at post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Teacher Ratings of Student On-task and Aggressive-disruptive Behavior in the Classroom.
Change in Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation between pre-test and post-test, 6 months after the pre-test. Student adaptation to classroom task demands are rated by teachers over the last 3 weeks on a 6-point frequency scale (1 = almost never to 6 = almost always). The domains include authority acceptance and readiness to learn. Authority acceptance items include compliance with classroom rules, and readiness to learn items reflect attentive classroom behaviors (e.g. stays on task). The mean of the teacher ratings across the items making up each of these subscales was used in the outcome analyses. The minimum score for both the authority acceptance and readiness to learn subscales was 1 and maximum score was 6. Higher scores on both subscales reflect greater adaptation.
Measured: The ratings are carried out at pre-test, post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Secondary outcomes (4)
Change in Peer Assessment Inventory Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test.
Students are asked to nominate fellow students in terms of who they like, play with, and perceive as friends. Individual students were read aloud the names of the other students in the classroom. The student being interviewed was asked if they knew the named student. The student was then asked whether the peer nomination descriptors fit the named student (Do you like [student]?, Do you play with [student]?, and Is (s)he one of your best friends?). The student's summary score reflected the mean percentage of nominations received across the 3 items. A higher percentage reflects a student received a greater number of nominations from classmates.
Measured: The peer nomination instrument is administered at pre-test and at post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Change in Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test.
The Change in Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children assesses the student's perceived competence in the domains of peer acceptance. Items on this instrument present two pictorial alternatives, one of a child displaying high competence in the social acceptance domain and one that depicts less competence. Students were asked which pictorial plate was most like him/her. After making that decision, the student is then asked if the chosen picture is "really true for me" and "sort of true for me." Each item is scored on a 4-point scale, 4 would be the most competent and 1 would designate the least competent. The mean of the items was used in the outcome analyses.
Measured: This scale will be administered at pre-test and post-test, 6-months after the pre-test.
Change in Teacher Sense of Self Efficacy Scale Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6-months After the Pre-test.
This scale assesses teacher sense of self-efficacy in the instructional and classroom behavior management domains. We assessed two distinct dimensions of teachers' perceived self-efficacy that reflect skills uniquely associated with the strategies included in the two interventions. The Behavior Management Self-Efficacy Scale (Main and Hammond 2008) included 14 items regarding classroom behavior management (e.g., I am able to use a variety of behavior management techniques; α= 0.92). The Social-Emotional Learning Efficacy Scale (Domitrovich, et al., 2016) included 8 items which focused on teachers' perceived efficacy to promote social-emotional skills in students (e.g., I am able to teach children to show empathy and compassion for each other; α= 0.91). For each scale, item responses were on a 5-point Likert-type scale and were averaged. For both subscales the minimum score was 1 and maximum was 5, with higher scores indicating greater efficacy.
Measured: This scale will be administered at pre-test and post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Change in the Maslach Burnout Inventory Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test.
The Maslach Burnout Inventory assesses how frequently teachers experience feelings of burnout in the work place. Teachers completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI;Maslach et al. 1997) at pretest and post-test. One scale was used in the analyses: emotional exhaustion (9 items, e.g., I feel used up at the end of the workday, α=0.94). Responses were rated on a 7-point scale from never to every day with higher scores indicating greater emotional exhaustion (i.e., greater burnout). For this subscale, the minimum score was 1 and maximum score was 7. Therefore, low scores on emotional exhaustion were desired.
Measured: This scale will be administered at pre-test and post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted28 Apr 2017
- Study start1 Jun 2016
- Primary completion30 Apr 2021
- Study completion30 Apr 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AggressionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthThe 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
- Factorial
- Model description
- Schools are randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions, control, universal classroom-based preventive intervention, and universal classroom-based intervention plus an indicated preventive intervention. Data on student outcomes to be collected at pre- post- and 6 month follow-up. \*Enrollment numbers reflect both students and teachers who agreed to participate in the study.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 5,233 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Nicholas Ialongo, PhD, Principal investigator, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03132805
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- DA039869
- Other IDs
- R01DA039869
- Acronym
- P2P+IY
- Status last verified
- Jul 2022
- First submitted
- 4 Apr 2017
- Last updated
- 2 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Third edition. In C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources (pp. 191-218). Scarecrow Education.
Tapp, J., Wehby, J., & Ellis, D. (1995). A multiple option observation system for experimental studies: MOOSES. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 27(1), 25-31.
Harter S, Pike R. The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Dev. 1984 Dec;55(6):1969-82.
PubMed 6525886Main, S., & Hammond, L. (2008). Best Practice or Most Practiced? Pre-Service Teachers' Beliefs about Effective Behaviour Management Strategies and Reported Self-Efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 28-39.
Werthamer-Larsson L, Kellam S, Wheeler L. Effect of first-grade classroom environment on shy behavior, aggressive behavior, and concentration problems. Am J Community Psychol. 1991 Aug;19(4):585-602. doi: 10.1007/BF00937993.
PubMed 1755437Domitrovich CE, Bradshaw CP, Berg JK, Pas ET, Becker KD, Musci R, Embry DD, Ialongo N. How Do School-Based Prevention Programs Impact Teachers? Findings from a Randomized Trial of an Integrated Classroom Management and Social-Emotional Program. Prev Sci. 2016 Apr;17(3):325-37. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0618-z.
PubMed 26749578
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- An Evaluation of an Integrated Approach to Prevention and Early Intervention in the Elementary School Years
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03132805
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- P2P+IY / DA039869
- Conditions
- Aggression
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 5,233 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Apr 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Apr 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 28 Apr 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 29 Jul 2022
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
In this study, the investigators propose to examine whether the combination of a universal, elementary school-based preventive intervention with an indicated preventive and treatment intervention would yield greater impact on aggression than the universal preventive intervention alone.
Detailed description
Aggressive behavior in the elementary school years is a strong indicator of antisocial behavior, drug abuse and low educational and occupational attainment in adolescence and young adulthood. The Good Behavior Game (GBG) and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) represent two of a handful of universal, elementary school, preventive interventions which have been shown in large scale, randomized controlled trials to have an immediate and beneficial impact on aggression. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies seeks to accomplish reductions in aggressive behavior via teacher led instruction aimed at facilitating emotion regulation and social problem-solving, whereas the Good Behavior Game provides teachers with an efficient means of reducing aggressive behavior using social learning principles within a game-like context. Importantly, however, the effects of the Good Behavior Game on aggressive behavior proved modest in the first and second generation Johns Hopkins University Preventive Intervention Research Center randomized field trials. This has been the case for Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies as well. The investigators recently completed a 27-school, randomized controlled trial examining whether the combination of these interventions, which the investigators refer to as PATHS to PAX, would yield significantly greater impact on aggressive behavior than the Good Behavior Game alone. The rationale for expecting greater impact was that the use of the Good Behavior Game should result in reductions in aggressive behavior, which should then facilitate the acquisition of the emotion regulation and social problem-solving skills taught in Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies. PATHS to PAX did result in a modestly greater reduction in aggressive behavior than the Good Behavior Game alone at 1-year post-test. Yet, the most aggressive students still failed to sufficiently benefit from the PATHS to PAX intervention. Accordingly, in this application, the investigators propose to examine whether the addition of the Incredible Years (IY), an evidence-based preventive and treatment intervention aimed at reducing aggressive behavior, to PATHS to PAX would yield greater impact on these behaviors than the PATHS to PAX intervention alone. The investigators also propose to examine whether the combination of the PATHS to PAX plus the Incredible Years results in increased frequency of implementation of the PATHS to PAX intervention. It is hypothesized that relative to teachers in the PATHS to PAX alone condition, teachers in the PATHS to PAX plus Incredible Years condition will perceive PATHS to PAX as more efficacious and will therefore be more likely to implement it. Four cohorts of 12 schools each will be recruited with schools randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention conditions: 1) Control; 2) PATHS to PAX; or 3) PATHS to PAX plus the Incredible Years. Assessments of student outcomes will be carried out at pre-test and post-test in the fall and spring of the initial school year for each cohort and at a 6-month and 1-year follow-up. Teacher outcomes in terms of classroom behavior management self-efficacy, perceptions of the efficacy of PATHS to PAX, and teacher burn out will be assessed at 4-time points during the initial year for each cohort. Assessment of teacher implementation of PATHS to PAX will be carried out on a daily basis throughout the intervention year. Aims 1 and 2 represent the primary goals of this application, whereas Aims 3 and 4 represent secondary, or exploratory, aims:
- To evaluate, utilizing a group randomized design, whether the combination of PATHS to PAX plus Incredible Years child and parent groups yields greater reductions in aggressive behavior than PATHS to PAX alone.
- To examine whether the frequency of PATHS to PAX intervention implementation (i.e., number of times and minutes the Good Behavior Game is played per day and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies lessons taught per week) will be greater in the PATHS to PAX plus Incredible Years condition.
- To explore whether any evidence of differential benefits in terms of student outcomes between the PATHS to PAX versus PATHS to PAX plus Incredible Years conditions at post-test are a function of differences in PATHS to PAX implementation (e.g., number of Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies lessons administered and the number of Good Behavior Games played and the duration of the games played). In addition, the investigators will explore whether any differences in implementation across the two intervention conditions is mediated by differences in teacher behavior management self-efficacy, perceived efficacy of PATHS to PAX in improving student behavior, and teacher burn out at post-test.
- To explore the moderating effects of teacher, parent and student characteristics on intervention outcomes by expanding the models used for Aims 1 \& 2 to include interactions between those characteristics and study condition,
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Schools are randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions, control, universal classroom-based preventive intervention, and universal classroom-based intervention plus an indicated preventive intervention. Data on student outcomes to be collected at pre- post- and 6 month follow-up. *Enrollment numbers reflect both students and teachers who agreed to participate in the study.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | –Schools which receive no intervention |
| PATHS to PAX | Experimental | Behavioral: PATHS to PAXUniversal classroom-based preventive intervention designed to reduce aggression. |
| PATHS to PAX and the IncredibleYears | Experimental | Behavioral: PATHS to PAX and the Incredible YearsThe combination of PATHS to PAX with the Incredible Years child and parent groups. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 5 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Students enrolled in kindergarten through second grade classrooms and their teachers.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Students must be enrolled in regular education classrooms.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| PATHS to PAXA universal classroom-based preventive intervention designed to prevent aggression. | Behavioural | PATHS to PAX |
| PATHS to PAX and the Incredible YearsA universal classroom-based preventive intervention in combination with an indicated preventive intervention, both of which are designed to prevent aggression. | Behavioural | PATHS to PAX and the IncredibleYears |
Primary outcome
Change in Direct Classroom Observations of Student Behavior Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test.
Time frame: The observations are carried out at pre-test and at post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Classroom observations of student behavior were carried out by independent observers on two occasions, one week apart, at pre- and post-test respectively. The behaviors observed were on-task and physical aggression. Behaviors were observed in 10 second intervals and were recorded as present if they occurred at least once during a 10 second interval. The per interval on-task and physical aggression scores could range from 0-1, with 0 signifying the behavior was not observed and 1 signifying the behavior was observed. The on-task and physical aggression scores used in the analyses were the average score across all of the 10-second intervals the student was observed. (Adapted from Tapp, Wehby \& Ellis, 1995).
Teacher Ratings of Student On-task and Aggressive-disruptive Behavior in the Classroom.
Time frame: The ratings are carried out at pre-test, post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Change in Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation between pre-test and post-test, 6 months after the pre-test. Student adaptation to classroom task demands are rated by teachers over the last 3 weeks on a 6-point frequency scale (1 = almost never to 6 = almost always). The domains include authority acceptance and readiness to learn. Authority acceptance items include compliance with classroom rules, and readiness to learn items reflect attentive classroom behaviors (e.g. stays on task). The mean of the teacher ratings across the items making up each of these subscales was used in the outcome analyses. The minimum score for both the authority acceptance and readiness to learn subscales was 1 and maximum score was 6. Higher scores on both subscales reflect greater adaptation.
4 secondary outcomes
Change in Peer Assessment Inventory Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test.
Time frame: The peer nomination instrument is administered at pre-test and at post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Change in Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test.
Time frame: This scale will be administered at pre-test and post-test, 6-months after the pre-test.
Change in Teacher Sense of Self Efficacy Scale Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6-months After the Pre-test.
Time frame: This scale will be administered at pre-test and post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Change in the Maslach Burnout Inventory Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test.
Time frame: This scale will be administered at pre-test and post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Aug 2022.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- BackgroundMaslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Third edition. In C. P. Zalaquett & R. J. Wood (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources (pp. 191-218). Scarecrow Education.
- BackgroundTapp, J., Wehby, J., & Ellis, D. (1995). A multiple option observation system for experimental studies: MOOSES. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 27(1), 25-31.
- Background: PubMed 6525886Harter S, Pike R. The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Dev. 1984 Dec;55(6):1969-82.
- BackgroundMain, S., & Hammond, L. (2008). Best Practice or Most Practiced? Pre-Service Teachers' Beliefs about Effective Behaviour Management Strategies and Reported Self-Efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 28-39.
- Background: PubMed 1755437Werthamer-Larsson L, Kellam S, Wheeler L. Effect of first-grade classroom environment on shy behavior, aggressive behavior, and concentration problems. Am J Community Psychol. 1991 Aug;19(4):585-602. doi: 10.1007/BF00937993.
- Background: PubMed 26749578Domitrovich CE, Bradshaw CP, Berg JK, Pas ET, Becker KD, Musci R, Embry DD, Ialongo N. How Do School-Based Prevention Programs Impact Teachers? Findings from a Randomized Trial of an Integrated Classroom Management and Social-Emotional Program. Prev Sci. 2016 Apr;17(3):325-37. doi: 10.1007/s11121-015-0618-z.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Aggression
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Lisdexamfetamine For the Treatment of Conduct Disorder in Children
Conduct Disorder
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
RecruitingPhase 2
Testing the Effectiveness of a Combination Targeted Therapy (ViPOR) for Patients With Relapsed and/or Refractory Aggressive B-cell Lymphoma
High Grade B-Cell Lymphoma With MYC and BCL6 Rearrangements, Recurrent Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Recruiting
Momentary Coping Prompts and Hair Steroids in College Students
Emotional Regulation, Alcohol Drinking in College
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
First-in-Human (FIH) Trial in Patients With Relapsed, Progressive or Refractory B-Cell Lymphoma
DLBCL, High-grade B-cell Lymphoma (HGBCL)
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.
Nicholas Ialongo, PhD principal investigator
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing PATHS to PAX and PATHS to PAX and the Incredible Years in people with Aggression, run by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 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 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 2 Aug 2022. 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 29 Jul 2022). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Change in Direct Classroom Observations of Student Behavior Between Pre-test and Post-test, 6 Months After the Pre-test. (time frame: The observations are carried out at pre-test and at post-test, 6 months after the pre-test.). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT03132805, which also lists 6 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 2 Aug 2022.