An interventional study of Fast Track in Conduct Disorder and Anti-Social Behavior, sponsored by Duke University. Active, not recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 6 Years to 8 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-02-18.
Sponsored by Duke University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
The primary aim of this project is to evaluate the effects of a comprehensive intervention to prevent severe and chronic conduct problems in a sample of children selected as high-risk when they first entered school. It is hypothesized that the intervention will have positive effects on proximal child behavior in middle school, and high school affecting long-term adolescent outcomes such as conduct disorder, juvenile delinquency, school dropout, substance use, teen pregnancy, relational competence with peers, romantic partners and parents, education and employment and social and community integration.
This study is a comprehensive intervention project designed to look at how children develop across their lives by providing academic tutoring and lessons in developing social skills and regulating their behaviors. There can be multiple stressors and influences on children and families that increase their risk levels. In such contexts, some families that experience marital conflict and instability can cause inconsistent and ineffective parenting. These children can sometimes enter school poorly prepared for the social, emotional, and cognitive demands of this setting. Often the child will then attend a school with a high number of other children who are similarly unprepared and are negatively influenced by disruptive classroom situations and punitive teacher practices. Over time, children in these circumstances tend to demonstrate particular behaviors, are rejected by families and peers, and tend to receive less support from teachers, further increasing aggressive exchanges and academic difficulties. Thus, this project is based on the hypothesis that improving child competencies, parenting effectiveness, school context and school-home communications will, over time, contribute to preventing certain behaviors across the period from early childhood through adolescence.
Four geographic sites were selected for the study: Durham, NC, a small city with a large low-income population that is primarily African American; Nashville, TN, a moderated-sized city with a mix of low-to-middle income and African American and European-American population; Seattle, WA, a moderate-sized city with a low-to-middle ethnically diverse population; and central PA, a mostly rural area with low-to-middle income European American population. These sites varied widely in ethnicity (most minorities were African American, with some Latino) and poverty (as measured by free/reduced lunch rates) as follows: Durham, NC, 90% minority and 80% reduced lunch; Nashville, TN, 54% minority and 78% reduced lunch; rural PA; 1% minority and 39% reduced lunch; and Seattle, WA, 52% minority and 46% reduced lunch. "High risk" schools within each site (12 in Durham, 9 in Nashville, 18 in PA, and 16 in Seattle) were selected based on crime and poverty statistics of the communities that they served. Within each site, schools were divided into one to three paired sets matched for demographics (size, percentage free or reduced lunch, and ethnic composition), and one set within each pair was randomly assigned to intervention and one to control condition. Students at these elementary schools moved into middle school at grade 5, 6 or 7. A multiple-gating screening procedure that combined teacher and parent ratings of disruptive behavior was applied to all kindergarteners across three cohorts (1991-93) in these 55 schools. Children were screened initially for classroom conduct problems by teachers, using the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment-Revised (TOCA-R) Authority Acceptance Score. Those children scoring in the top 40% within cohort and site were then solicited for the next stage of screening for home behavior problems by the parents, using a novel 22-item instrument that included items from the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991a), the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist, and novel items that we created for this study. 91% (n=3,274) completed the home-behavior screen. The teacher and parent screening scores were then standardized within site, based on screening a representative sample of approximately 100 children within each site (which also served as a normative comparison), and then summed to yield a total severity-of-risk screen score. Children were selected for inclusion into this study based on this screen score, moving from the highest score downward until desired sample sizes were reached within sites, cohorts, and conditions. Exceptions to this inclusion rule were made when a child failed to matriculate in the first grade at a core school (n=59) or refused to participate (n=75), or to accommodate a superceding rule that no child would be the only female in an intervention group. The outcome was that three successive cohorts were recruited in 1991, 1992, and 1993 to yield a sample of 891 children (445 in the intervention group and 446 in the control group).
101 studies on the registry are indexed under Conduct Disorder; 15 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 891 is above the median of 124 across 80 interventional studies indexed under Conduct Disorder.
Browse Conduct Disorder studies →Duke University is the lead sponsor of 2,063 studies on the registry; 273 are open to participants now.
Of its 204 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 167 (82%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants in the Experimental group received the "Fast Track" intervention. Intervention included school-based curriculum attended by high-risk children, parents, program staff, and occasionally teachers, home visiting, the the in-class PATHS prevention program.
Behavioral: Fast Track
Participants in the Control group were not eligible to receive the Fast Track intervention. These children received other services as usual, and served as the randomized comparison group for examining Fast Track program impacts
First grade intervention included a weekly two-hour curriculum-based day that was attended by high-risk children, parents, program staff, and teachers of the high-risk children. During each session, the staff modeled academic tutoring with target children in the presence of their parents. In 3rd and 4th grades, intervention consisted of monthly parent and child curriculum-based sessions during the academic year, home visiting, and teachers implementing the in-class PATHS prevention program. In 5th and 6th grades, intervention included monthly parent and child groups and home visiting. In grades 8, 9 and 10 staff developed sessions on an as needed basis to cover topics like transition to high school, note-taking, and study skills.
Also known as: Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group
Anti-Social Behaviors
Assessment of participant rates of anti-social behaviors (e.g., fighting, criminal activity)
Time frame: Grades 1-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Substance Usage
Assessment of participant drug, alcohol, and tobacco use (e.g., any use, frequency of use).
Time frame: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Sexual Activity
Assessment of participant engagement in various sexual activities (e.g., sexual intercourse).
Time frame: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, and 32
Psychiatric Disorders
Assessment of participant rates of psychiatric disorders (e.g., clinical depression).
Time frame: Grades 6-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, and 34
Academic Achievement
Assessment of participant academic achievement (e.g., grades, standardized test scores) in grade 1-12. Post-secondary educational attainment collected at ages 19, 20, 25, 32, and 34.
Time frame: Grades 1-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, and 34
Financial Well-Being
Assessment of participants employment history, income, assets, and utilization of government services.
Time frame: Grades 10-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Physical Health
Self-reported assessments of the participants physical health.
Time frame: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Family Formation and Romantic Partnerships
Assessments of participants marital/partnership status and children in their households.
Time frame: Grades 10-12 and Ages 19, 20, 25, 32, 34, 41
Parenting Behaviors
Assessments of participants own parenting behaviors, among participants with children.
Time frame: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Characteristics/Behaviors of Participants' Offspring
Participant-reported information about the behavior and health of their own children.
Time frame: Ages 25, 32, 34, 41
Plan to share: Yes — The Fast Track Project is committed to a policy of allowing the research community access to data, under conditions that strictly protect the rights and privacy of Fast Track participants. The research design that has guided Fast Track data collection over the entire study period requires a restricted-use mechanism for sharing the data with the research community. As noted, the restricted-use data policy currently applies to data collected in grades K-12 and at ages 19, 20, 25, 32 and 34. The full terms of the Fast Track data sharing plan and access criteria exceed the 1000 character limit. Full information about the data-use policy and application forms can be found at http://fasttrackproject.org/request-use-data.php
Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form
Time frame: Time Frames will vary, depending on the individual research plan.
Access criteria: Eligibility of Investigators and Receiving Institutions In order to be considered eligible to receive Fast Track data, an investigator must have a Ph.D. or other terminal degree, and hold a faculty appointment or other research position at the receiving institution. Graduate students who wish to use Fast Track data for dissertation research must apply through their faculty advisors. Eligible receiving institutions include not-for-profit research organizations, government agencies, and institutions of higher education. Receiving institutions must have established protocols for reviewing research using sensitive data, through an Institutional Review Board or equivalent body.
Data sharing details ↗ · fasttrackproject.org
The record gives a start of Mar 1991, a primary completion of Aug 2029 and a completion of Aug 2029. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Feb 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.