AggressionNCT04164472
NIH R01 Friend to Friend With Coaching
A study testing Friend to Friend (F2F) with Coaching in people with Aggression, run by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study examines the effectiveness of the Friend to Friend (F2F) program when conducted by teachers and counselors with active coaching from the research team. The project involves 14 small group sessions for relationally aggressive girls and 8 classroom sessions. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 7 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Aggression
- What is being tested?
- Friend to Friend (F2F) with Coaching
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 5,250 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 12 Nov 2019to 31 Jan 2026
- 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 7 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 40 schools will be selected on the basis of the following inclusion criteria:
- Urban school from the School District of Philadelphia
- Predominately minority student body (> 80%)
- Relatively large school with at least 2 classrooms per grade
- School is not currently involved in a systematic anti-aggression or bullying prevention program
- School must have at least 1 school counselor who is interested in participating
Show all 12Show fewer
- All boys and girls in regular education 4th-5th grade classrooms will be eligible to participate in screening and outcome assessment activities.
- Screening will include a peer-rating procedure that will be utilized to identify girls with relational aggression (GRAs).
- GRAs will be based on if they score > .50 of a Standard Deviation above mean on relational aggression on the peer-rating measure. These identified girls will be recruited (with written parent consent and student assent) to participate in the F2F with Coaching or control condition.
- 1) All parents of students in regular education 4th-5th grade classrooms will be eligible to participate in outcome assessment activities. Starting in year 4, parent recruitment will focus on parents of indicated girls.
- Teachers/counselors employed by the participating school sites who provide their verbal consent for participation.
- Teachers/counselors who currently teach and/or provide services to students in 4th-5th grade.
Who cannot join
- 1) Students who do not speak English. 2) Students whose parents do not speak English or one of the foreign languages into which the Parent Information Sheet for Child Participation has been translated (who therefore cannot opt their child in or out of the study in an informed manner).
- 3) Special education students who are not integrated within the regular education classroom.
- 4) In intervention schools, boys are excluded from the F2F small group intervention, however, as noted above, all boys will participate in the class portion of the program. Boys in both conditions will complete screening and outcome assessment activities.
- 1) Parents who do not speak English or one of the foreign languages into which the Parent Information Sheet for Parent Participation and parent questionnaires have been translated.
- 2) Parents of students in special education who are not integrated within the regular education classroom.
- Teachers/counselors who do not speak English.
Show all 16Show fewer
- Teachers/counselors who are not working with 4th-5th grade students at the participating school sites.
- Aim 2: Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
- Aim 2 Inclusion Criteria - Schools 1) 10 of Friend to Friend with Coaching schools in Aim 1 will participate in Aim 2.
- Aim 2 Inclusion Criteria - Students
- 4th grade boys and girls who meet the same criteria as described in Aim 1.
- Similar to Aim 1, a peer rating procedure will be used to identify girls with relational aggression (GRAs) and prosocial role models.
- Aim 2 Inclusion Criteria - Parents 1) Same as Aim 1.
- Aim 2 Inclusion Criteria - Teachers/Counselors 1) Counselors and 4th grade teachers who participated in F2F with Coaching in Aim 1.
- Aim 2 Exclusion Criteria - Students, Parents, Teacher/Counselors
- 1) Same as Aim 1.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19146
About this study
Official title: The Friend to Friend Program: Effectiveness When Conducted by School Staff
This study examines the effectiveness of the Friend to Friend (F2F) program when conducted by teachers and counselors with active coaching from the research team. The project involves 14 small group sessions for relationally aggressive girls and 8 classroom sessions. Students, teachers, counselors and parents at intervention and control schools fill out pre- and post- program questionnaires.
Read the detailed description
This study takes a proven effective program (Friend to Friend) that was initially run by the research team in a clinical trial and examines for the first time its effectiveness when conducted by teachers and counselors with active coaching from the research team. The primary target population for this study will be 4th-5th grade relationally aggressive girls. In intervention schools, these girls will participate in Friend to Friend with Coaching (14 small group sessions, 8 classroom sessions and additional pre- and post- program questionnaires).
In both intervention and control schools all 4th-5th grade students (boys and girls) will participate in a screening measure to identify the relational aggressors and pre- and post-program questionnaires. Counselors and 4th-5th grade teachers in both conditions will participate in pre/post questionnaires and will also participate in training, coaching, the small group intervention and classroom sessions in intervention schools.
These procedures will be repeated with new students in 5 of the F2F with Coaching schools the following school year, except that the research team will provide minimal coaching to staff running the intervention in year 2.
- Conditions
- Aggression
- Being tested
- Friend to Friend (F2F) with Coaching
- Keywords
- Relational Aggression, Aggression, Indicated intervention, Universal prevention, School-based, Urban
- Medical subject headings
- Aggression
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Friend to Friend (F2F) with CoachingBehavioural
Friend to Friend (F2F) with Coaching has 14 small group sessions and 8 classroom sessions as led by school staff with coaching from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) research team. The program aims to improve problem solving and prosocial behaviors, and decrease aggressive behaviors.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Friend to Friend with Coaching | Experimental | Program for relationally aggressive girls and their classmates delivered by school personnel who have been coached by study team. Receives: Behavioral: Friend to Friend (F2F) with Coaching |
| Control | No intervention | Referral to school counselor as needed as per standard practice. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in hostile attribution biases
The self-report Cartoon-Based Hostile Attributional Bias measure will be used to assess hostile attributions with 2 relational vignettes and 2 physical vignettes, with one question asking whether a behavior was intentional or unintentional and a second questions asking whether the behavior was harmful or not harmful. Scores on the 2 items per vignette type (relational, physical) are summed, each vignette has a range of 0 (no bias) to 4 (strong bias) where higher scores reflect a worse outcome (i.e. more relational hostile attributional biases and/or more physical hostile attributional biases).
Measured: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
Change in Knowledge of Anger Problem-Solving Steps
Knowledge of Anger Problem Solving (KAPS) is a 9 item abbreviated multiple choice measure (original measure was 15 items) designed to assess students' general knowledge of the steps underlying the social information processing model of aggression and of anger management techniques. Scores are calculated through summing across all 9 items, where a score is given a 1 if a correct answer is selected or 0 if an incorrect answer is selected; with a range of 0 (no correct) to 9 (all correct), higher scores reflect a better outcome.
Measured: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
Change in Relational Aggression
Teacher report of relational aggression will be assessed using the Children's Social Behavior Questionnaire with 5 items. Scores are calculated by averaging across all items, with a range of 1 to 5, higher scores reflect a worse outcome (more relational aggression).
Peer reports of relational aggression will be measured using two items. These items are based on Crick and Grotpeter and have strong psychometric properties. Students rate the frequency that each classmate engages in relational aggression on 2 items (leaving out, rumor spreading) on a scale from 1- Not at All to 5- A Whole Lot. Each individual child has a mean score ranging from 1 to 5 (drawn from an average rating across all students/peers in a class). Higher scores reflect a worse outcome (more relational aggression).
Measured: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
Change in Prosocial Leadership
This 7-item measure combines items from the leadership and prosocial competence scales from the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) to create a combined scale called Prosocial Leadership that has been found to be reliable and valid in prior studies. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (1-hardly ever to 4-almost always).
Measured: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
Change in Teacher-Student Relationships
The STRS has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, and a strong student-teacher relationship has been shown to be predictive of adaptive adjustment in school. Ten items drawn from the Closeness subscale (e.g., "shares information about self") (α = .89) and the Conflict subscale (e.g., "easily becomes angry at me") (α = .93) will be completed by teachers for all assented students (boys and girls) in their class. Teachers respond to each item on a five-point scale (1 = definitely does not apply to 5 = definitely applies), with higher scores indicating higher closeness or higher conflict.
Measured: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
Change in Staff Self-Efficacy for Handling Aggression
This 12-item measure called "Staff Self-Efficacy for Handling Aggression" has been designed for this study for school counselors and teachers to rate their own strategies for intervening, comfort in intervening, and perceived effectiveness for intervening with girls who are relationally aggressive on a five point scale from (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Scores are averaged across items with higher scores indicating a better outcome.
Measured: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and on up to 8 months later
Secondary outcomes (4)
Explore peer rejection as mediator/moderator
Peer reports of rejection are measured using two items asking how much students like each classmate and how much they dislike each classmate on a scale from 1- Not at All to 5- A Whole Lot. Each individual child has a mean score ranging from 1 to 5 (drawn from an average rating across all students/peers in a class). Level of peer rejection is calculated by subtracting an individual child's likeability mean score from their dislikability mean score. Higher scores represent greater peer rejection. We anticipate using the first time point for this analysis.
Measured: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later.
Explore perception of intervention attributes as mediator/moderator
Given one time in the study, this measure was adapted from the Teacher perceptions of the intervention attributes measure and includes 10 items with a scale of 1- Not at All to 5- A Whole Lot. Scores are averaged across items with higher scores indicating a better outcome (positive perception of the intervention)
Measured: Up to 8 months after the study began.
Explore student self-efficacy for non-violence
Self-Efficacy for Nonviolence is an 9-item, self-report measure adapted from the Multisite Violence Prevention Project, which used modified items from the Teen Conflict Survey. Questions ask how confident students are on a scale from 1=Not at all confident to 4=very confident. Items are averaged with higher scores indicating a better outcome (more self-efficacy for using non-violent approaches to conflict). We will use the first time point for this analysis.
Measured: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later.
Explore implementation factors
Measured by number of sessions attended
Measured: This will be first administered during the first session/lesson in the school year (approximately October/November) and to be filled out weekly by facilitators for up to 8 months.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 Nov 2019
- Study start12 Nov 2019
- Primary completion30 Jun 2025
- Study completion31 Jan 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AggressionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Children's Hospital of PhiladelphiaThe 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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Randomized clinical trial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 5,250 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04164472
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 18-015582
- Other IDs
- 1R01HD094833-01A1
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 23 Oct 2019
- Last updated
- 1 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Leff SS, Paskewich BS, Waasdorp TE, Waanders C, Bevans KB, Jawad AF. Friend to Friend: A Randomized Trial for Urban African American Relationally Aggressive Girls. Psychol Violence. 2015 Oct;5(4):433-443. doi: 10.1037/a0039724.
PubMed 30079272Leff SS, Waasdorp TE, Paskewich BS. The Broader Impact of Friend to Friend (F2F): Effects on Teacher-Student Relationships, Prosocial Behaviors, and Relationally and Physically Aggressive Behaviors. Behav Modif. 2016 Jul;40(4):589-610. doi: 10.1177/0145445516650879. Epub 2016 May 23.
PubMed 27222262Leff SS, Gullan RL, Paskewich BS, Abdul-Kabir S, Jawad AF, Grossman M, Munro MA, Power TJ. An initial evaluation of a culturally adapted social problem-solving and relational aggression prevention program for urban African-American relationally aggressive girls. J Prev Interv Community. 2009;37(4):260-74. doi: 10.1080/10852350903196274.
PubMed 19830622Crick NR, Dodge KA. Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Dev. 1996 Jun;67(3):993-1002.
PubMed 8706540Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Dev. 1995 Jun;66(3):710-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x.
PubMed 7789197Mehari KR, Waasdorp TE, Leff SS. Measuring Relational and Overt Aggression by Peer Report: A Comparison of Peer Nominations and Peer Ratings. J Sch Violence. 2019;18(3):362-374. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2018.1504684. Epub 2018 Aug 23.
PubMed 31462897Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). BASC-2: Behavior assessment system for children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444-458.
Leadbeater BJ, Thompson K, Sukhawathanakul P. Enhancing Social Responsibility and Prosocial Leadership to Prevent Aggression, Peer Victimization, and Emotional Problems in Elementary School Children. Am J Community Psychol. 2016 Dec;58(3-4):365-376. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12092. Epub 2016 Sep 30.
PubMed 27686887Crick NR. The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children's future social adjustment. Child Dev. 1996 Oct;67(5):2317-27.
PubMed 9022243Domitrovich CE, Bradshaw CP, Poduska JM, Hoagwood K, Buckley JA, Olin S, Romanelli LH, Leaf PJ, Greenberg MT, Ialongo NS. Maximizing the Implementation Quality of Evidence-Based Preventive Interventions in Schools: A Conceptual Framework. Adv Sch Ment Health Promot. 2008 Jul;1(3):6-28. doi: 10.1080/1754730x.2008.9715730.
PubMed 27182282Bosworth, K., & Espelage, D. (1995). Teen conflict survey. Bloomington, IN: Center for Adolescent Studies, Indiana University.
Multisite Violence Prevention Project. (2004). Description of measures: Cohort-wide student survey. Available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished).
Leff SS, Crick NR, Angelucci J, Haye K, Jawad AF, Grossman M, Power TJ. Social cognition in context: validating a cartoon-based attributional measure for urban girls. Child Dev. 2006 Sep-Oct;77(5):1351-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00939.x.
PubMed 16999803Leff SS, Cassano M, MacEvoy JP, Costigan T. Initial validation of a knowledge-based measure of social information processing and anger management. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2010 Oct;38(7):1007-20. doi: 10.1007/s10802-010-9419-9.
PubMed 20449645
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Friend to Friend Program: Effectiveness When Conducted by School Staff
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04164472
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 18-015582
- Conditions
- Aggression
- Keywords
- Relational Aggression, Aggression, Indicated intervention, Universal prevention, School-based, Urban
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 5,250 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Children's Hospital of PhiladelphiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Study start
- 12 Nov 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Jan 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 15 Nov 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.
This study examines the effectiveness of the Friend to Friend (F2F) program when conducted by teachers and counselors with active coaching from the research team. The project involves 14 small group sessions for relationally aggressive girls and 8 classroom sessions. Students, teachers, counselors and parents at intervention and control schools fill out pre- and post- program questionnaires.
Detailed description
This study takes a proven effective program (Friend to Friend) that was initially run by the research team in a clinical trial and examines for the first time its effectiveness when conducted by teachers and counselors with active coaching from the research team. The primary target population for this study will be 4th-5th grade relationally aggressive girls. In intervention schools, these girls will participate in Friend to Friend with Coaching (14 small group sessions, 8 classroom sessions and additional pre- and post- program questionnaires).
In both intervention and control schools all 4th-5th grade students (boys and girls) will participate in a screening measure to identify the relational aggressors and pre- and post-program questionnaires. Counselors and 4th-5th grade teachers in both conditions will participate in pre/post questionnaires and will also participate in training, coaching, the small group intervention and classroom sessions in intervention schools.
These procedures will be repeated with new students in 5 of the F2F with Coaching schools the following school year, except that the research team will provide minimal coaching to staff running the intervention in year 2.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Randomized clinical trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Friend to Friend with Coaching | Experimental | Behavioral: Friend to Friend (F2F) with CoachingProgram for relationally aggressive girls and their classmates delivered by school personnel who have been coached by study team. |
| Control | No intervention | –Referral to school counselor as needed as per standard practice. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 7 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (12 listed)
- 1) All parents of students in regular education 4th-5th grade classrooms will be eligible to participate in outcome assessment activities. Starting in year 4, parent recruitment will focus on parents of indicated girls.
Key exclusion criteria (16 listed)
- 1) Students who do not speak English. 2) Students whose parents do not speak English or one of the foreign languages into which the Parent Information Sheet for Child Participation has been translated (who therefore cannot opt their child in or out of the study in an informed manner).
- 3) Special education students who are not integrated within the regular education classroom.
- 4) In intervention schools, boys are excluded from the F2F small group intervention, however, as noted above, all boys will participate in the class portion of the program. Boys in both conditions will complete screening and outcome assessment activities.
- 1) Parents who do not speak English or one of the foreign languages into which the Parent Information Sheet for Parent Participation and parent questionnaires have been translated.
- 2) Parents of students in special education who are not integrated within the regular education classroom.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Friend to Friend (F2F) with CoachingFriend to Friend (F2F) with Coaching has 14 small group sessions and 8 classroom sessions as led by school staff with coaching from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) research team. The program aims to improve problem solving and prosocial behaviors, and decrease aggressive behaviors. | Behavioural | Friend to Friend with Coaching |
Primary outcome
Change in hostile attribution biases
Time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
The self-report Cartoon-Based Hostile Attributional Bias measure will be used to assess hostile attributions with 2 relational vignettes and 2 physical vignettes, with one question asking whether a behavior was intentional or unintentional and a second questions asking whether the behavior was harmful or not harmful. Scores on the 2 items per vignette type (relational, physical) are summed, each vignette has a range of 0 (no bias) to 4 (strong bias) where higher scores reflect a worse outcome (i.e. more relational hostile attributional biases and/or more physical hostile attributional biases).
Change in Knowledge of Anger Problem-Solving Steps
Time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
Knowledge of Anger Problem Solving (KAPS) is a 9 item abbreviated multiple choice measure (original measure was 15 items) designed to assess students' general knowledge of the steps underlying the social information processing model of aggression and of anger management techniques. Scores are calculated through summing across all 9 items, where a score is given a 1 if a correct answer is selected or 0 if an incorrect answer is selected; with a range of 0 (no correct) to 9 (all correct), higher scores reflect a better outcome.
Change in Relational Aggression
Time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
Teacher report of relational aggression will be assessed using the Children's Social Behavior Questionnaire with 5 items. Scores are calculated by averaging across all items, with a range of 1 to 5, higher scores reflect a worse outcome (more relational aggression). Peer reports of relational aggression will be measured using two items. These items are based on Crick and Grotpeter and have strong psychometric properties. Students rate the frequency that each classmate engages in relational aggression on 2 items (leaving out, rumor spreading) on a scale from 1- Not at All to 5- A Whole Lot. Each individual child has a mean score ranging from 1 to 5 (drawn from an average rating across all students/peers in a class). Higher scores reflect a worse outcome (more relational aggression).
Change in Prosocial Leadership
Time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
This 7-item measure combines items from the leadership and prosocial competence scales from the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) to create a combined scale called Prosocial Leadership that has been found to be reliable and valid in prior studies. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (1-hardly ever to 4-almost always).
Change in Teacher-Student Relationships
Time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later
The STRS has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, and a strong student-teacher relationship has been shown to be predictive of adaptive adjustment in school. Ten items drawn from the Closeness subscale (e.g., "shares information about self") (α = .89) and the Conflict subscale (e.g., "easily becomes angry at me") (α = .93) will be completed by teachers for all assented students (boys and girls) in their class. Teachers respond to each item on a five-point scale (1 = definitely does not apply to 5 = definitely applies), with higher scores indicating higher closeness or higher conflict.
Change in Staff Self-Efficacy for Handling Aggression
Time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and on up to 8 months later
This 12-item measure called "Staff Self-Efficacy for Handling Aggression" has been designed for this study for school counselors and teachers to rate their own strategies for intervening, comfort in intervening, and perceived effectiveness for intervening with girls who are relationally aggressive on a five point scale from (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Scores are averaged across items with higher scores indicating a better outcome.
4 secondary outcomes
Explore peer rejection as mediator/moderator
Time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later.
Explore perception of intervention attributes as mediator/moderator
Time frame: Up to 8 months after the study began.
Explore student self-efficacy for non-violence
Time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later.
Explore implementation factors
Time frame: This will be first administered during the first session/lesson in the school year (approximately October/November) and to be filled out weekly by facilitators for up to 8 months.
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 1 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 30079272Leff SS, Paskewich BS, Waasdorp TE, Waanders C, Bevans KB, Jawad AF. Friend to Friend: A Randomized Trial for Urban African American Relationally Aggressive Girls. Psychol Violence. 2015 Oct;5(4):433-443. doi: 10.1037/a0039724.
- Background: PubMed 27222262Leff SS, Waasdorp TE, Paskewich BS. The Broader Impact of Friend to Friend (F2F): Effects on Teacher-Student Relationships, Prosocial Behaviors, and Relationally and Physically Aggressive Behaviors. Behav Modif. 2016 Jul;40(4):589-610. doi: 10.1177/0145445516650879. Epub 2016 May 23.
- Background: PubMed 19830622Leff SS, Gullan RL, Paskewich BS, Abdul-Kabir S, Jawad AF, Grossman M, Munro MA, Power TJ. An initial evaluation of a culturally adapted social problem-solving and relational aggression prevention program for urban African-American relationally aggressive girls. J Prev Interv Community. 2009;37(4):260-74. doi: 10.1080/10852350903196274.
- Background: PubMed 8706540Crick NR, Dodge KA. Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Dev. 1996 Jun;67(3):993-1002.
- Background: PubMed 7789197Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Dev. 1995 Jun;66(3):710-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x.
- Background: PubMed 31462897Mehari KR, Waasdorp TE, Leff SS. Measuring Relational and Overt Aggression by Peer Report: A Comparison of Peer Nominations and Peer Ratings. J Sch Violence. 2019;18(3):362-374. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2018.1504684. Epub 2018 Aug 23.
- BackgroundReynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). BASC-2: Behavior assessment system for children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
- BackgroundPianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444-458.
- Background: PubMed 27686887Leadbeater BJ, Thompson K, Sukhawathanakul P. Enhancing Social Responsibility and Prosocial Leadership to Prevent Aggression, Peer Victimization, and Emotional Problems in Elementary School Children. Am J Community Psychol. 2016 Dec;58(3-4):365-376. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12092. Epub 2016 Sep 30.
- Background: PubMed 9022243Crick NR. The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children's future social adjustment. Child Dev. 1996 Oct;67(5):2317-27.
- Background: PubMed 27182282Domitrovich CE, Bradshaw CP, Poduska JM, Hoagwood K, Buckley JA, Olin S, Romanelli LH, Leaf PJ, Greenberg MT, Ialongo NS. Maximizing the Implementation Quality of Evidence-Based Preventive Interventions in Schools: A Conceptual Framework. Adv Sch Ment Health Promot. 2008 Jul;1(3):6-28. doi: 10.1080/1754730x.2008.9715730.
- BackgroundBosworth, K., & Espelage, D. (1995). Teen conflict survey. Bloomington, IN: Center for Adolescent Studies, Indiana University.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Aggression
RecruitingPhase 1
Belinostat in Combination With Azacitidine or Pralatrexate for the Treatment of Relapse or Refractory T-cell Lymphoma
Recurrent Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma, Recurrent Enteropathy-Associated T-Cell Lymphoma
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Inhibition of Aggressive Behavior in Participants With Fragile X Syndrome
Aggressive Behavior in Fragile X Syndome
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Lifestyle Behaviors and Their Associations With Mental Health, Aggressive Behaviors and Academic Performance Among Assiut University Students
Lifestyle Behaviors
Not yet recruiting
Virtual Reality to Advance Dementia Care and Quality of Life
Dementia, Agitation
Recruiting
Virtual Reality Intervention (VR-GINSO) for Reducing Aggression in Young Offenders
Aggression
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Friend to Friend (F2F) with Coaching in people with Aggression, run by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia 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 12 inclusion and 16 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 1 Jun 2026. 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?
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?
Change in hostile attribution biases (time frame: Given two times throughout the study, first at baseline (early in the school year, October/November) and up to 8 months later). The study lists 6 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 NCT04164472, which also lists 15 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 1 Jun 2026.