Adolescent HealthSSDPNCT04075019
The Seattle Social Development Project: An Implementation of the Raising Healthy Children Intervention
A study testing The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent training in people with Adolescent Health and Adolescent Problem Behavior, run by University of Washington.
Trial summary
The Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) included a three-part intervention for teachers, parents, and students in grades 1 to 6. It was a universal prevention program that was tested in elementary schools serving children from high crime urban areas. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Adolescent Health, Adolescent Problem Behavior
- What is being tested?
- The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 808 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Sep 1981to 30 Jun 1993
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All students enrolled in the fifth grade in 1985 in one of 18 Seattle public elementary schools selected for the study were eligible
- Eligible schools had to serve children from neighborhoods with above average crime rates
- Parents of eligible participants consented to their longitudinal participation
Who cannot join
- -
About this study
Official title: The Seattle Social Development Project: A Quasi-experimental Test of the Raising Healthy Children (RHC) Intervention With Teachers, Parents, and Students in Grades 1 to 6 in Elementary Schools Serving Children From High Crime Urban Areas
The Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) included a three-part intervention for teachers, parents, and students in grades 1 to 6. It was a universal prevention program that was tested in elementary schools serving children from high crime urban areas. The intervention trained teachers in proactive classroom management, interactive teaching, and cooperative learning. SSDP also offered training to parents in child behavior management, academic support, and skills to reduce risks for drug use. It provided training to children designed to affect interpersonal problem solving and refusal skills. These interventions were designed to reduce risks and increase protection at the individual, peer, family and school levels. The package of interventions was guided theoretically by the social development model. We hypothesized that training teachers to teach and manage their classrooms in ways that promote bonding to school, training parents to manage their families in ways that promote bonding to family and to school, and providing children with training in skills for social interaction would positively affect children's attitudes toward school, behavior at school, and academic achievement. These methods further sought to reduce children's opportunities and rewards for antisocial involvement. We thought that these changes would, in turn, set children on a different developmental trajectory observable in higher school achievement and fewer health-risk behaviors later in adolescence.
Read the detailed description
The study asked whether delivering the intervention package over the full course of elementary school from grades 1 through 6 ("full intervention") had effects on academic and behavioral health outcomes; whether delivering the intervention just prior to adolescence in grades 5 and 6 only ("late intervention") had effects on academic and behavioral health outcomes; and whether offering parenting interventions only when participants were in grades 5 and 6 ("parenting only intervention") had effects on academic and behavioral health outcomes when compared with outcomes for students who were not assigned to intervention classrooms. This study examined this question by comparing outcomes for four separate groups, a "full intervention group" exposed to the interventions through grades 1-6, a "late intervention group" exposed to the interventions only in grades 5 and 6, a minimal "parent-training only group" (grades 5 and 6), and a control group that received no special intervention. The intervention package consisted of the following components:
Teacher Training In Classroom Instruction and Management included training in (a) proactive classroom management (establish consistent classroom expectations and routines at the beginning of the year; give clear, explicit instructions for behavior; recognize and reward desirable student behavior and efforts to comply; use methods that keep minor classroom disruptions from interrupting instruction); (b) interactive teaching (assess and activate foundation knowledge before teaching; teach to explicit learning objectives; model skills to be learned; frequently monitor student comprehension as material is presented; re-teach material when necessary); and (c) cooperative learning (involve small teams of students of different ability levels and backgrounds as learning partners; provide recognition to teams for academic improvement of individual members over past performance). Teacher training was provided to teachers of participants in full intervention classrooms in grades 1 through 6 and to teachers of participants in late intervention classrooms in grades 5 and 6.
Child Social and Emotional Skill Development included instruction in (a) interpersonal problem solving skills (communication; decision making; negotiation; conflict resolution) provided by teachers in classrooms assigned to the full intervention condition in grades 1 and 2; and (b) refusal skills (recognize social influences to engage in problem behaviors; identify consequences of problem behaviors; generate and suggest alternatives; invite peer(s) to join in alternatives) provided to participants in both the full intervention condition and the late intervention condition in grades 5 and 6.
Parent Training offered to parents of participants in the full intervention condition included instruction in (a) behavior management skills (observe and pinpoint desirable and undesirable child behaviors; teach expectations for behaviors; provide consistent positive reinforcement for desired behavior; provide consistent and moderate consequences for undesired behaviors) when participants were in grades 1 and 2; (b) academic support skills (initiate conversation with teachers about children's learning; help children develop reading and math skills; create a home environment supporting of learning) when participants were in grades 2 and 3; and (c) skills to reduce risks for drug use (establish a family policy on drug use; practice refusal skills with children; use self-control skills to reduce family conflict; create new opportunities in the family for children to contribute and learn) when participants were in grades 5 and 6. Parent training in skills to reduce risks for drug use was also offered to parents of participants in the late intervention condition and the parenting only condition when participants were in grades 5 and 6.
This resulted in a nonrandomized controlled trial with 4 conditions. The full intervention group received the intervention package from grade 1 through grade 6. The late intervention group received the intervention package in grades 5 and 6 only. The parent intervention only condition included students in schools assigned to receive only parent training in skills to reduce risks for drug use when their children were in grades 5 and 6, and the control group received no special intervention. This design was created in 1985 by nesting an intervention initiated in 1981 at first-grade entry within the clinical trial. For the present study, schools were assigned nonrandomly to conditions in the fall of 1985, and from that point, all fifth-grade students in the full and late intervention conditions participated in the same interventions. New schools added for the clinical trial when students entered grade 5 were matched to the original intervention and control schools with respect to grades served and inclusion of students drawn from high-crime neighborhoods of Seattle. Schools added for the panel study were assigned to conditions to achieve balanced numbers across conditions. During this study the Seattle School District used mandatory busing to achieve racial equality in schools. As a result, all schools in this study served heterogeneous population of students drawn from at least 2 different neighborhoods of the city. This practice reduced the risk that outcomes observed in the trial reflected contextual or neighborhood differences in the populations attending different schools.
- Conditions
- Adolescent Health, Adolescent Problem Behavior
- Being tested
- The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent training
- Keywords
- Proactive classroom management, Interactive teaching, Cooperative learning, Interpersonal problem solving skills, Refusal skills, Behavior management skills, Academic support skills, Skills to reduce risks for drug use
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent trainingBehavioural
Also called Seattle Social Development Project
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| full intervention | Experimental | students assigned to intervention classrooms in grades 1 through 4 and who remained in schools assigned to the intervention condition in grades 5 or 6 Receives: Behavioral: The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent training |
| late intervention | Experimental | students in intervention classrooms in grades 5 and 6 only Receives: Behavioral: The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent training |
| parent-training only | Experimental | students whose parents were offered parent training only when their children were in grades 5 and 6 and no other intervention Receives: Behavioral: The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent training |
| control | No intervention | students in schools assigned to receive no intervention in grades 5 and 6 and who were not in intervention classrooms in grades 1 through 4 |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
substance use
Youth substance use was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments from the University of Michigan Monitoring the Future survey annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's substance use. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youth self-reported onset and use of specific substances in the year and 30 day period prior to each survey administration.
Measured: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
delinquency
Youth delinquency was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments from the University of Colorado National Youth Survey annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's delinquent behavior. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youth onset of delinquency and number of different delinquent acts self-reported by youth for the year prior to each survey administration..
Measured: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
school misbehavior
Youth school misbehavior was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's behavioral outcomes. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist, a standardized instrument developed to measure children's behaviors, annually from ages 11 to 14. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youths' self-reported onset and involvement in misbehavior at school and teacher reported involvement of the participant in misbehavior at school in the year prior to each survey administration.
Measured: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
aggression and violence
Youth aggression and violence was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's behavioral outcomes. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist, a standardized instrument developed to measure children's behaviors, annually from ages 11 to 14. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youths' self-reported onset and involvement in aggressive and violent behavior and teacher reported involvement of the participant in aggressive and violent behavior in the year prior to each survey administration.
Measured: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
school achievement
Youth school achievement was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's behavioral outcomes. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist, a standardized instrument developed to measure children's behaviors, annually from ages 11 to 14. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youths' self-reported level of achievement at school and teacher reported level of participant achievement in the year prior to each survey administration.
Measured: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Aug 2019
- Study start1 Sep 1981
- Primary completion13 Jun 1987
- Study completion30 Jun 1993
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Adolescent HealthStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of WashingtonThe 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
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Model description
- This study examined four separate groups, a "full intervention group" exposed to the interventions in grades 1 through 6, a "late intervention group" exposed to the interventions only in grades 5 and 6, a minimal "parent-training only group" (grades 5 and 6), and a control group that received no special intervention.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 808 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Washington
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, J. David Hawkins, University of Washington
- Investigators
- J. David Hawkins, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Washington
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04075019
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- STUDY 22-355
- Other IDs
- R01DA003721
- Acronym
- SSDP
- Status last verified
- Aug 2019
- First submitted
- 27 Aug 2019
- Last updated
- 3 Sep 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Selected, de-identified data are shared with collaborating colleagues at other institutions. Shared datasets contain variable subsets related to analyses planned for developing papers for publication.
Publications
Hawkins JD, Von Cleve E, Catalano RF Jr. Reducing early childhood aggression: results of a primary prevention program. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1991 Mar;30(2):208-17. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199103000-00008.
PubMed 2016224Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Morrison DM, O'Donnell J, Abbott RD, Day LE, McCord J, Tremblay RE. The Seattle Social Development Project: Effects of the first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors. In: McCord J, Tremblay, RE, editors. Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence. New York: Guilford Press; 1992. 139-61.
O'Donnell J, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Abbott RD, Day LE. Preventing school failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children: long-term intervention in elementary schools. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1995 Jan;65(1):87-100. doi: 10.1037/h0079598.
PubMed 7733220Abbott RD, O'Donnell J, Hawkins JD, Hill KG, Kosterman R, Catalano RF. Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to school. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1998 Oct;68(4):542-52. doi: 10.1037/h0080363.
PubMed 9809114Hill KG, Steeger CM, Epstein M, Bailey JA, Hawkins JD. Addressing Suicide and Mental Health Through Universal Childhood Intervention: Results from The Seattle Social Development Project. Prev Sci. 2025 Nov;26(7):1033-1044. doi: 10.1007/s11121-025-01834-7. Epub 2025 Oct 18.
PubMed 41108509Le VT, Bailey JA, Pandika DM, Epstein M, Satchell K. Long-term Effects of the Raising Healthy Children Intervention on Family Functioning in Adulthood: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. J Prev (2022). 2024 Feb;45(1):17-25. doi: 10.1007/s10935-023-00753-z. Epub 2023 Nov 16.
PubMed 37973659Bailey JA, Pandika D, Le VT, Epstein M, Steeger CM, Hawkins JD. Testing Cross-Generational Effects of the Raising Healthy Children Intervention on Young Adult Offspring of Intervention Participants. Prev Sci. 2023 Oct;24(7):1376-1385. doi: 10.1007/s11121-023-01583-5. Epub 2023 Sep 21.
PubMed 37733189Hill KG, Bailey JA, Steeger CM, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Kosterman R, Epstein M, Abbott RD. Outcomes of Childhood Preventive Intervention Across 2 Generations: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 1;174(8):764-771. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1310.
PubMed 32511669
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Sep 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Seattle Social Development Project: A Quasi-experimental Test of the Raising Healthy Children (RHC) Intervention With Teachers, Parents, and Students in Grades 1 to 6 in Elementary Schools Serving Children From High Crime Urban Areas
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04075019
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SSDP / STUDY 22-355
- Conditions
- Adolescent Health, Adolescent Problem Behavior
- Keywords
- Proactive classroom management, Interactive teaching, Cooperative learning, Interpersonal problem solving skills, Refusal skills, Behavior management skills, Academic support skills, Skills to reduce risks for drug use
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 808 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of WashingtonUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Study start
- 1 Sep 1981 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 13 Jun 1987 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 1993 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Aug 2019 (actual)
- 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 Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) included a three-part intervention for teachers, parents, and students in grades 1 to 6. It was a universal prevention program that was tested in elementary schools serving children from high crime urban areas. The intervention trained teachers in proactive classroom management, interactive teaching, and cooperative learning. SSDP also offered training to parents in child behavior management, academic support, and skills to reduce risks for drug use. It provided training to children designed to affect interpersonal problem solving and refusal skills. These interventions were designed to reduce risks and increase protection at the individual, peer, family and school levels. The package of interventions was guided theoretically by the social development model. We hypothesized that training teachers to teach and manage their classrooms in ways that promote bonding to school, training parents to manage their families in ways that promote bonding to family and to school, and providing children with training in skills for social interaction would positively affect children's attitudes toward school, behavior at school, and academic achievement. These methods further sought to reduce children's opportunities and rewards for antisocial involvement. We thought that these changes would, in turn, set children on a different developmental trajectory observable in higher school achievement and fewer health-risk behaviors later in adolescence.
Detailed description
The study asked whether delivering the intervention package over the full course of elementary school from grades 1 through 6 ("full intervention") had effects on academic and behavioral health outcomes; whether delivering the intervention just prior to adolescence in grades 5 and 6 only ("late intervention") had effects on academic and behavioral health outcomes; and whether offering parenting interventions only when participants were in grades 5 and 6 ("parenting only intervention") had effects on academic and behavioral health outcomes when compared with outcomes for students who were not assigned to intervention classrooms. This study examined this question by comparing outcomes for four separate groups, a "full intervention group" exposed to the interventions through grades 1-6, a "late intervention group" exposed to the interventions only in grades 5 and 6, a minimal "parent-training only group" (grades 5 and 6), and a control group that received no special intervention. The intervention package consisted of the following components:
Teacher Training In Classroom Instruction and Management included training in (a) proactive classroom management (establish consistent classroom expectations and routines at the beginning of the year; give clear, explicit instructions for behavior; recognize and reward desirable student behavior and efforts to comply; use methods that keep minor classroom disruptions from interrupting instruction); (b) interactive teaching (assess and activate foundation knowledge before teaching; teach to explicit learning objectives; model skills to be learned; frequently monitor student comprehension as material is presented; re-teach material when necessary); and (c) cooperative learning (involve small teams of students of different ability levels and backgrounds as learning partners; provide recognition to teams for academic improvement of individual members over past performance). Teacher training was provided to teachers of participants in full intervention classrooms in grades 1 through 6 and to teachers of participants in late intervention classrooms in grades 5 and 6.
Child Social and Emotional Skill Development included instruction in (a) interpersonal problem solving skills (communication; decision making; negotiation; conflict resolution) provided by teachers in classrooms assigned to the full intervention condition in grades 1 and 2; and (b) refusal skills (recognize social influences to engage in problem behaviors; identify consequences of problem behaviors; generate and suggest alternatives; invite peer(s) to join in alternatives) provided to participants in both the full intervention condition and the late intervention condition in grades 5 and 6.
Parent Training offered to parents of participants in the full intervention condition included instruction in (a) behavior management skills (observe and pinpoint desirable and undesirable child behaviors; teach expectations for behaviors; provide consistent positive reinforcement for desired behavior; provide consistent and moderate consequences for undesired behaviors) when participants were in grades 1 and 2; (b) academic support skills (initiate conversation with teachers about children's learning; help children develop reading and math skills; create a home environment supporting of learning) when participants were in grades 2 and 3; and (c) skills to reduce risks for drug use (establish a family policy on drug use; practice refusal skills with children; use self-control skills to reduce family conflict; create new opportunities in the family for children to contribute and learn) when participants were in grades 5 and 6. Parent training in skills to reduce risks for drug use was also offered to parents of participants in the late intervention condition and the parenting only condition when participants were in grades 5 and 6.
This resulted in a nonrandomized controlled trial with 4 conditions. The full intervention group received the intervention package from grade 1 through grade 6. The late intervention group received the intervention package in grades 5 and 6 only. The parent intervention only condition included students in schools assigned to receive only parent training in skills to reduce risks for drug use when their children were in grades 5 and 6, and the control group received no special intervention. This design was created in 1985 by nesting an intervention initiated in 1981 at first-grade entry within the clinical trial. For the present study, schools were assigned nonrandomly to conditions in the fall of 1985, and from that point, all fifth-grade students in the full and late intervention conditions participated in the same interventions. New schools added for the clinical trial when students entered grade 5 were matched to the original intervention and control schools with respect to grades served and inclusion of students drawn from high-crime neighborhoods of Seattle. Schools added for the panel study were assigned to conditions to achieve balanced numbers across conditions. During this study the Seattle School District used mandatory busing to achieve racial equality in schools. As a result, all schools in this study served heterogeneous population of students drawn from at least 2 different neighborhoods of the city. This practice reduced the risk that outcomes observed in the trial reflected contextual or neighborhood differences in the populations attending different schools.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
- Model description
- This study examined four separate groups, a "full intervention group" exposed to the interventions in grades 1 through 6, a "late intervention group" exposed to the interventions only in grades 5 and 6, a minimal "parent-training only group" (grades 5 and 6), and a control group that received no special intervention.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| full intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent trainingstudents assigned to intervention classrooms in grades 1 through 4 and who remained in schools assigned to the intervention condition in grades 5 or 6 |
| late intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent trainingstudents in intervention classrooms in grades 5 and 6 only |
| parent-training only | Experimental | Behavioral: The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent trainingstudents whose parents were offered parent training only when their children were in grades 5 and 6 and no other intervention |
| control | No intervention | –students in schools assigned to receive no intervention in grades 5 and 6 and who were not in intervention classrooms in grades 1 through 4 |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- All students enrolled in the fifth grade in 1985 in one of 18 Seattle public elementary schools selected for the study were eligible
- Eligible schools had to serve children from neighborhoods with above average crime rates
- Parents of eligible participants consented to their longitudinal participation
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 |
|---|---|---|
| The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent trainingAlso: Seattle Social Development Project | Behavioural | full intervention, late intervention, parent-training only |
Primary outcome
substance use
Time frame: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
Youth substance use was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments from the University of Michigan Monitoring the Future survey annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's substance use. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youth self-reported onset and use of specific substances in the year and 30 day period prior to each survey administration.
delinquency
Time frame: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
Youth delinquency was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments from the University of Colorado National Youth Survey annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's delinquent behavior. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youth onset of delinquency and number of different delinquent acts self-reported by youth for the year prior to each survey administration..
school misbehavior
Time frame: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
Youth school misbehavior was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's behavioral outcomes. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist, a standardized instrument developed to measure children's behaviors, annually from ages 11 to 14. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youths' self-reported onset and involvement in misbehavior at school and teacher reported involvement of the participant in misbehavior at school in the year prior to each survey administration.
aggression and violence
Time frame: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
Youth aggression and violence was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's behavioral outcomes. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist, a standardized instrument developed to measure children's behaviors, annually from ages 11 to 14. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youths' self-reported onset and involvement in aggressive and violent behavior and teacher reported involvement of the participant in aggressive and violent behavior in the year prior to each survey administration.
school achievement
Time frame: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)
Youth school achievement was assessed by having all study participants complete standardized survey instruments annually from ages 10 to 16 and again at age 18, designed to assess children's behavioral outcomes. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist, a standardized instrument developed to measure children's behaviors, annually from ages 11 to 14. Items from surveys were combined into scales assessing youths' self-reported level of achievement at school and teacher reported level of participant achievement in the year prior to each survey administration.
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 3 Sep 2019.
- Results publication: PubMed 2016224Hawkins JD, Von Cleve E, Catalano RF Jr. Reducing early childhood aggression: results of a primary prevention program. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1991 Mar;30(2):208-17. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199103000-00008.
- Results publicationHawkins JD, Catalano RF, Morrison DM, O'Donnell J, Abbott RD, Day LE, McCord J, Tremblay RE. The Seattle Social Development Project: Effects of the first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors. In: McCord J, Tremblay, RE, editors. Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence. New York: Guilford Press; 1992. 139-61.
- Results publication: PubMed 7733220O'Donnell J, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Abbott RD, Day LE. Preventing school failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children: long-term intervention in elementary schools. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1995 Jan;65(1):87-100. doi: 10.1037/h0079598.
- Results publication: PubMed 9809114Abbott RD, O'Donnell J, Hawkins JD, Hill KG, Kosterman R, Catalano RF. Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to school. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1998 Oct;68(4):542-52. doi: 10.1037/h0080363.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41108509Hill KG, Steeger CM, Epstein M, Bailey JA, Hawkins JD. Addressing Suicide and Mental Health Through Universal Childhood Intervention: Results from The Seattle Social Development Project. Prev Sci. 2025 Nov;26(7):1033-1044. doi: 10.1007/s11121-025-01834-7. Epub 2025 Oct 18.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37973659Le VT, Bailey JA, Pandika DM, Epstein M, Satchell K. Long-term Effects of the Raising Healthy Children Intervention on Family Functioning in Adulthood: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. J Prev (2022). 2024 Feb;45(1):17-25. doi: 10.1007/s10935-023-00753-z. Epub 2023 Nov 16.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37733189Bailey JA, Pandika D, Le VT, Epstein M, Steeger CM, Hawkins JD. Testing Cross-Generational Effects of the Raising Healthy Children Intervention on Young Adult Offspring of Intervention Participants. Prev Sci. 2023 Oct;24(7):1376-1385. doi: 10.1007/s11121-023-01583-5. Epub 2023 Sep 21.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 32511669Hill KG, Bailey JA, Steeger CM, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Kosterman R, Epstein M, Abbott RD. Outcomes of Childhood Preventive Intervention Across 2 Generations: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Aug 1;174(8):764-771. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1310.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Selected, de-identified data are shared with collaborating colleagues at other institutions. Shared datasets contain variable subsets related to analyses planned for developing papers for publication.
Related trials for Adolescent Health
Not yet recruiting
Preventive and Personalized Digital Emotion Regulation Skills Intervention to Reduce Depression and Anxiety in Youths With Adverse Childhood Experiences
Adverse Childhood Experience, Depression / Major Depressive Disorder
Not yet recruiting
Mobile Game-Based Versus Classic First Aid Education in Adolescents: Randomized Controlled Trial
First Aid, Health Education in Schoolchildren
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Obesity Treatment With Phentermine-Topiramate ER in AYA Surviving Leukemia and Lymphoma
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Remission, Hodgkin Lymphoma in Remission
Recruiting
Estimating the Impact of Sexuality Education and Mobile Health Services on Reproductive Health and Empowerment Among Adolescents in Sierra Leone for the Family Planning Impact Lab
Reproductive Health, Sexual Health
Active, not recruiting
Designing and Evaluating a Classroom-Based Mental Health Programme for Adolescents.
Mental Health Promotion
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.
J. David Hawkins, PhD principal investigator
University of Washington
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing The Raising Healthy Children intervention, including teacher training, child skill development, and parent training in people with Adolescent Health and Adolescent Problem Behavior, run by University of Washington.
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 3 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 3 Sep 2019. 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?
substance use (time frame: annually at ages 10 through 16 and again at age 18 (1985 through 1991 and in 1993)). The study lists 5 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 NCT04075019, which also lists 8 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 3 Sep 2019.