An interventional study of Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) in Social Exclusion, Prejudice, Racial and Prejudice, sponsored by University of Maryland, College Park. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 7 Years to 12 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-09-02.
Sponsored by University of Maryland, College Park · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science
The goal of this clinical trial is to test the beneficial impacts of a web based intervention program called Developing Inclusive Youth for children in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Student participants will take 15-20 minutes to use a Chrome notebook and headphones to access the online tool and the teacher will then lead a classroom discussion lasting 25-30 minutes. The intervention program will occur once a week for eight weeks.
The student outcome measures, given at pretest and posttest, are also assessed with Chrome notebooks while children are sitting at their desks in the classroom. The outcome measures take 25-30 minutes. Researchers will compare children in the intervention classes to children in other classes of the same grade at their school to see if the tool promotes positive peer relationships and reduces prejudice and bias.
Teacher participants will take a 25-minute online pretest and posttest survey in their classroom to assess their theories of prejudice, their awareness of their students' intergroup friendships, comfort with discussing peer social inclusion and exclusion in class, and their awareness of student experiences of exclusion.
A within school randomized control trial intervention design will be implemented to promote intergroup relationships and reduce prejudice in childhood for children between 7 and 12 years of age, enrolled in grades 3, 4, and 5 in U.S. elementary public schools. The intervention students watch an online tool for 15 minutes accompanied by a 30-minute teacher-led classroom discussion. Students in the control condition will be business as usual. There will be 720 students and 36 teachers, reflecting an ethnically diverse population. The outcome measures assess school belonging, peer and teacher classroom support, trait attributions of diverse peers, social evaluations about intergroup exclusion as well as the likelihood of exclusion, and math and science competency beliefs of diverse peers. All teachers participate in a 2-hour training session prior to the start of the school semester. All participating students have active parental consent. All teachers take a survey about their theories of prejudice, awareness of student experiences with exclusion, and strategies for talking about peer conflict in the classroom prior to the beginning of the program and provide their assent. There is high fidelity of the program due to the delivery of the information which is online. There are many steps in place to ensure fidelity of the teacher component which involves leading the classroom discussion. Multi-level analyses will be employed to determine whether the students in the intervention improve in their desire for intergroup friendships and experiences of classroom support relative to the students in the control condition. Novel data will be collected regarding intergroup attitudes held by children across a range of target groups and grade levels. The information from this project is expected to improve peer relationships due to the more positive classroom environment and an increase of social inclusion among peers. All children are expected to benefit by their participation in the program with a goal of improving academic engagement and healthy child development.
236 studies on the registry are indexed under Social Isolation; 61 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 885 is above the median of 80 across 198 interventional studies indexed under Social Isolation.
Browse Social Isolation studies →University of Maryland, College Park is the lead sponsor of 62 studies on the registry; 15 are open to participants now.
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.
For Child Participants
Inclusion Criteria:
For Teacher Participants:
Exclusion Criteria:
Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) classrooms complete a pretest and posttest survey in addition to completing 8 scenarios using the DIY online tool and a class discussion for each scenario.
Behavioral: Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY)
The control group follows a Business-As-Usual plan (no "alternative" program is implemented for the control group.) They complete a pretest and posttest in the same weeks as the experimental group.
Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) is a web-based curriculum tool that serves as the intervention program. The animated and narrated tool displays eight peer social exclusion scenarios in a range of familiar everyday social contexts (such as the playground and school). Children enter their responses while watching the scenarios. Responses include making decisions about inclusion and exclusion, evaluating the actions as okay or not okay, attributing feelings to includers, excluders, and excluded characters, and selecting reasons that best match their justification for their decisions and evaluations. The program includes teacher-guided group discussions following use of the tool in which teachers facilitate discussions about children's interpretations of the scenarios, evaluations, reflections regarding their own experiences of exclusion, and solutions. Participants will view and discuss 8 scenarios and engage in a discussion for each one over the course of 8 weeks.
Also known as: Developing Inclusive Youth, DIY
School Belonging Scale
The School Belonging Scale is an 8-item self-report measure consisting of a rating scale ranging from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). The average of all items creates a final score of perceived school belonging in which higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived school belonging. The original Psychological Sense of School Membership scale (PSSM) (Goodenow, 1999) measure has been found to have internal consistency reliability for both suburban (0.875) and urban (0.803) elementary school populations. We modified this measure for length. Pilot testing revealed that this new, shorter version was also found to have high internal reliability (0.714). The construct validity of the scale was also indicated through a significant relationship with teacher-ratings of student social standing (Goodenow, 1993).
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Classroom Life Scale: Peer Personal Support Subscale Personal Support Subscale
This is a five-item measure including items about whether other students in my class care about me and other students in my class like me for who I am. The measure has been found to produce reliability figures of .92 (Van Ryzin, Gravely, \& Roseth, 2009) and our modified version utilizing a 6-point response scale in place of the original 5-point scale found similar reliability scores (0.896). The rating scale ranged from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). The average of all items creates a score of perceived peer personal support in which higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived peer support. Performance on the Van Ryzin et al. (2009) scale has been demonstrated to have an independent positive effect on engagement in learning and has been validated by connections to academic engagement (Collie, Martin, Papworth, and Gins, 2016).
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Classroom Life Scale: Teacher Personal Support Subscale
The degree to which students perceive their teachers as personally supportive will be assessed using this 4-item measure. Items include statements such as my teacher cares about me and my teacher likes me for who I am. This measure was also modified from the original rating scale to a 6-point rating scale, which ranged from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). Van Ryzin et al. (2009) reported an internal consistency reliability of .91, and our pilot testing found a similar internal consistency reliability, 0.893. A composite score was computed using the mean of all items in the scale. Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score indicated higher teacher support, the more desirable outcome.
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Trait Attributions for Gender, Race, & Ethnicity
An adaptation of the Child Occupations and Traits (COAT) scale (Liben \& Bigler, 2002; 0.99) measures stereotypes re: gender and race intergroup categories. Participants respond to three types of items (e.g., how smart or not smart; how hardworking or lazy; or friendly or mean) and this measure was also modified to utilize a 6 point rating scale. There are two sub-categories, gender and race. The questions probe the degree to which children assign traits to specific groups. The version we utilized contained 12 items, 6 about race and 6 about gender and pilot testing revealed that this version had a high internal reliability for the full scale (0.919), as well as for the gender and the race subcomponents (0.859 and 0.849, respectively). Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score indicates more positive (better) trait attributions about peers.
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
High Status Occupation Expectations
This set of items is adapted from Liben \& Bigler (2002). These items probe participant perceptions of the likelihood of group members obtaining high status occupations. Participants were asked "Which kid do you think will grow up to be a \[pilot/doctor/lawyer/scientist\]?" with one item for each profession. Participants selected which child of 8 possible choices they thought would become the profession. The 8 choices included a boy and a girl of each of the following racial groups: Asian, Black, Latine, White. The measure was made binary by whether participants selected an underrepresented minority (URM) (Black or Latine) in high status professions, or whether they selected a race group that is not underrepresented (White or Asian). The goal of the intervention was that more students in the treatment condition selected a URM student after the intervention program. Therefore in the fields below, the category Underrepresented Minority (URM) indicates the number of participants who select
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Reported Contact Scale
The diversity of friendships will be assessed using an adaptation of the Friendship Questionnaire (Bierman \& McCauley, 1987). The original measure has been widely utilized to assess the quality and quantity of children's peer interactions and has proven to be reliable (ranges from .72 to .82). The adaptation consisted of adding the intergroup categories of gender and race/ethnicity. This adapted version was also found to be internally reliable (0.659). Using gender, racial, and ethnic background, we will record how often they play with outgroup peers to determine the proportion of cross-gender, cross-race, and cross-ethnic playmate interactions. Scores on the scale ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a higher level of reported cross-group contact, which is the more desirable outcome.
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Desire for Intergroup Contact
This assessment consists of 5 separate items about how much the child wants to play with X, where X refers to pictures of girls, boys, and kids who are depicted as African American, European American, and Asian American). Response choices are provided on a 6 point rating scale ranging from 1 (really do not want to) to 6 (really want to). During pilot testing this measure was found to have a high internal consistency reliability (0.767). Using students' gender, ethnic, and racial background, we will record their desire to play with outgroup peers to determine the proportion of cross-gender, cross-race and cross-ethnic playmate preferences. Scores on the scale ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a higher desire for intergroup contact, the more desirable outcome.
Time frame: change, one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Personal Experiences With Exclusion
This assessments consists of 8 items about whether the child experiences exclusion in a school context. Response choices are provided on a 5 point Likert-type rating scale ranging from "Never" to "Always." This measure has been validated in previous research (Killen et al., 2022). Scores on the scale range from a minimum score of 1 and maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher levels of personal experiences of exclusion, which is the less desirable outcome. Thus the goal of the intervention is to result in lower scores in the treatment group at posttest.
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Evaluations of Exclusion in Intergroup and Same Group Contexts
This assessment consists of 2 items repeated 4 times to reflect different race and gender combinations for a total of 8 items. This measure is adapted from Cooley et al., 2019. The items ask participants to evaluate exclusion in an intergroup and same group social context. Responses were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (really not okay) to 6 (really okay). Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score on this scale indicates viewing exclusion as more acceptable and a lower score indicates viewing exclusion as less acceptable. The goal of the intervention is to promote lower scores, indicating participants are less accepting of exclusion.
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Likelihood of Inclusion in Intergroup and Same Group Contexts
This assessment consists of 5 items repeated 4 times to reflect different race and gender combinations for a total of 20 items. This measure is adapted from Cooley et al., 2019. The items ask participants to predict the likelihood of a child inviting someone to their birthday party, where the children they can invite may be of the same or a different race. Responses were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very likely). Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate participants expect intergroup inclusion to be more likely, which is the more desirable outcome.
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Stereotypes About Inclusivity
This scale is adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). The scale probes participant perceptions of the inclusivity levels of different groups. These scales were created consistent with the literature on gender stereotypes (Berenbaum, Martin, \& Ruble, 2015; Mulvey, Rizzo, \& Killen, 2016). A 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (all) indicates the proportion of children within a hypothetical target group whom participants believe fit into a categorization. Pilot testing revealed 0.800 for the 5-item measure of inclusivity levels of different groups. Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5. Higher scores indicate more positive beliefs about peers' inclusive behavior, the more desirable outcome.
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Stereotypes About Math & Science Competence
This scale is adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). The scale probes participant perceptions of the math and science abilities of different groups. This scale was created consistent with the literature on gender stereotypes (Berenbaum, Martin, \& Ruble, 2015; Mulvey, Rizzo, \& Killen, 2016). A 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (all) indicates the proportion of children within a hypothetical target group whom participants believe fit into a categorization. Pilot testing revealed 0.796 for the 5-item measure of math and science abilities of different groups. Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5. Higher scores indicate more positive beliefs about peers' math and science abilities, which is the more desirable outcome.
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
We recruited elementary schools in the local public school district by sending an email invitation to every school in the district. Once the schools elected to participate, families received hard copy or electronic consent forms in English, Spanish, and/or Mandarin. Students who returned consent forms received an eraser. Participating schools received $1500 and teachers with students in the intervention group received $150 to compensate for their time administering the program.
| Milestone | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Started | 522 | 363 |
| Completed | 522 | 363 |
| Not completed | 0 | 0 |
The School Belonging Scale is an 8-item self-report measure consisting of a rating scale ranging from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). The average of all items creates a final score of perceived school belonging in which higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived school belonging. The original Psychological Sense of School Membership scale (PSSM) (Goodenow, 1999) measure has been found to have internal consistency reliability for both suburban (0.875) and urban (0.803) elementary school populations. We modified this measure for length. Pilot testing revealed that this new, shorter version was also found to have high internal reliability (0.714). The construct validity of the scale was also indicated through a significant relationship with teacher-ratings of student social standing (Goodenow, 1993).
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| School Belonging Scale | 4.72 ± .07 | 4.72 ± .09 |
This is a five-item measure including items about whether other students in my class care about me and other students in my class like me for who I am. The measure has been found to produce reliability figures of .92 (Van Ryzin, Gravely, \& Roseth, 2009) and our modified version utilizing a 6-point response scale in place of the original 5-point scale found similar reliability scores (0.896). The rating scale ranged from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). The average of all items creates a score of perceived peer personal support in which higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived peer support. Performance on the Van Ryzin et al. (2009) scale has been demonstrated to have an independent positive effect on engagement in learning and has been validated by connections to academic engagement (Collie, Martin, Papworth, and Gins, 2016).
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Classroom Life Scale: Peer Personal Support Subscale Personal Support Subscale | 4.35 ± .08 | 4.40 ± .11 |
The degree to which students perceive their teachers as personally supportive will be assessed using this 4-item measure. Items include statements such as my teacher cares about me and my teacher likes me for who I am. This measure was also modified from the original rating scale to a 6-point rating scale, which ranged from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). Van Ryzin et al. (2009) reported an internal consistency reliability of .91, and our pilot testing found a similar internal consistency reliability, 0.893. A composite score was computed using the mean of all items in the scale. Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score indicated higher teacher support, the more desirable outcome.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Classroom Life Scale: Teacher Personal Support Subscale | 5.12 ± .06 | 5.03 ± .09 |
An adaptation of the Child Occupations and Traits (COAT) scale (Liben \& Bigler, 2002; 0.99) measures stereotypes re: gender and race intergroup categories. Participants respond to three types of items (e.g., how smart or not smart; how hardworking or lazy; or friendly or mean) and this measure was also modified to utilize a 6 point rating scale. There are two sub-categories, gender and race. The questions probe the degree to which children assign traits to specific groups. The version we utilized contained 12 items, 6 about race and 6 about gender and pilot testing revealed that this version had a high internal reliability for the full scale (0.919), as well as for the gender and the race subcomponents (0.859 and 0.849, respectively). Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score indicates more positive (better) trait attributions about peers.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Trait Attributions for Gender, Race, & Ethnicity | 4.83 (4.45 to 5.36) | 4.82 (4.39 to 5.25) |
This set of items is adapted from Liben \& Bigler (2002). These items probe participant perceptions of the likelihood of group members obtaining high status occupations. Participants were asked "Which kid do you think will grow up to be a \[pilot/doctor/lawyer/scientist\]?" with one item for each profession. Participants selected which child of 8 possible choices they thought would become the profession. The 8 choices included a boy and a girl of each of the following racial groups: Asian, Black, Latine, White. The measure was made binary by whether participants selected an underrepresented minority (URM) (Black or Latine) in high status professions, or whether they selected a race group that is not underrepresented (White or Asian). The goal of the intervention was that more students in the treatment condition selected a URM student after the intervention program. Therefore in the fields below, the category Underrepresented Minority (URM) indicates the number of participants who select
| Participants | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Doctor — Underrepresented Minority (URM) | 204 | 131 |
| Doctor — Highly represented group (non-URM) | 295 | 211 |
| Lawyer — Underrepresented Minority (URM) | 269 | 185 |
| Lawyer — Highly represented group (non-URM) | 230 | 157 |
| Pilot — Underrepresented Minority (URM) | 215 | 143 |
| Pilot — Highly represented group (non-URM) | 284 | 199 |
| Scientist — Underrepresented Minority (URM) | 185 | 138 |
| Scientist — Highly represented group (non-URM) | 314 | 204 |
The diversity of friendships will be assessed using an adaptation of the Friendship Questionnaire (Bierman \& McCauley, 1987). The original measure has been widely utilized to assess the quality and quantity of children's peer interactions and has proven to be reliable (ranges from .72 to .82). The adaptation consisted of adding the intergroup categories of gender and race/ethnicity. This adapted version was also found to be internally reliable (0.659). Using gender, racial, and ethnic background, we will record how often they play with outgroup peers to determine the proportion of cross-gender, cross-race, and cross-ethnic playmate interactions. Scores on the scale ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a higher level of reported cross-group contact, which is the more desirable outcome.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Reported Contact Scale | 3.34 (3.00 to 3.67) | 3.31 (3.00 to 3.67) |
This assessment consists of 5 separate items about how much the child wants to play with X, where X refers to pictures of girls, boys, and kids who are depicted as African American, European American, and Asian American). Response choices are provided on a 6 point rating scale ranging from 1 (really do not want to) to 6 (really want to). During pilot testing this measure was found to have a high internal consistency reliability (0.767). Using students' gender, ethnic, and racial background, we will record their desire to play with outgroup peers to determine the proportion of cross-gender, cross-race and cross-ethnic playmate preferences. Scores on the scale ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a higher desire for intergroup contact, the more desirable outcome.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Desire for Intergroup Contact | 3.99 (3.33 to 4.67) | 3.92 (3.17 to 4.58) |
This assessments consists of 8 items about whether the child experiences exclusion in a school context. Response choices are provided on a 5 point Likert-type rating scale ranging from "Never" to "Always." This measure has been validated in previous research (Killen et al., 2022). Scores on the scale range from a minimum score of 1 and maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher levels of personal experiences of exclusion, which is the less desirable outcome. Thus the goal of the intervention is to result in lower scores in the treatment group at posttest.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Personal Experiences With Exclusion | 2.02 ± .06 | 1.96 ± .08 |
This assessment consists of 2 items repeated 4 times to reflect different race and gender combinations for a total of 8 items. This measure is adapted from Cooley et al., 2019. The items ask participants to evaluate exclusion in an intergroup and same group social context. Responses were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (really not okay) to 6 (really okay). Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score on this scale indicates viewing exclusion as more acceptable and a lower score indicates viewing exclusion as less acceptable. The goal of the intervention is to promote lower scores, indicating participants are less accepting of exclusion.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluations of Exclusion in Intergroup and Same Group Contexts | 3.05 ± .07 | 2.96 ± .09 |
This assessment consists of 5 items repeated 4 times to reflect different race and gender combinations for a total of 20 items. This measure is adapted from Cooley et al., 2019. The items ask participants to predict the likelihood of a child inviting someone to their birthday party, where the children they can invite may be of the same or a different race. Responses were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very likely). Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate participants expect intergroup inclusion to be more likely, which is the more desirable outcome.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of Inclusion in Intergroup and Same Group Contexts | 4.53 ± .05 | 4.54 ± .06 |
This scale is adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). The scale probes participant perceptions of the inclusivity levels of different groups. These scales were created consistent with the literature on gender stereotypes (Berenbaum, Martin, \& Ruble, 2015; Mulvey, Rizzo, \& Killen, 2016). A 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (all) indicates the proportion of children within a hypothetical target group whom participants believe fit into a categorization. Pilot testing revealed 0.800 for the 5-item measure of inclusivity levels of different groups. Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5. Higher scores indicate more positive beliefs about peers' inclusive behavior, the more desirable outcome.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Stereotypes About Inclusivity | 3.70 (3.17 to 4.08) | 3.75 (3.17 to 4.17) |
This scale is adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). The scale probes participant perceptions of the math and science abilities of different groups. This scale was created consistent with the literature on gender stereotypes (Berenbaum, Martin, \& Ruble, 2015; Mulvey, Rizzo, \& Killen, 2016). A 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (all) indicates the proportion of children within a hypothetical target group whom participants believe fit into a categorization. Pilot testing revealed 0.796 for the 5-item measure of math and science abilities of different groups. Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5. Higher scores indicate more positive beliefs about peers' math and science abilities, which is the more desirable outcome.
| score on a scale | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms |
|---|---|---|
| Stereotypes About Math & Science Competence | 4.89 (4.58 to 5.39) | 4.89 (4.50 to 5.25) |
Collected over 10 weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | 0/522 (0%) | 0/522 (0%) | 0/522 (0%) |
| Control: Business As Usual Classrooms | 0/363 (0%) | 0/363 (0%) | 0/363 (0%) |
| Age, Categorical(Participants) | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| <=18 years | 522 | 363 | 885 |
| Between 18 and 65 years | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| >=65 years | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Age, Continuous(years) | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 9.67 ± .95 | 9.72 ± 1.01 | 9.69 ± .98 |
| Sex: Female, Male(Participants) | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 251 | 180 | 431 |
| Male | 271 | 183 | 454 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants) | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asian | 74 | 59 | 133 |
| Black | 62 | 42 | 104 |
| Latine | 74 | 45 | 119 |
| Multiracial | 68 | 59 | 127 |
| White | 191 | 122 | 313 |
| Other/Unknown | 53 | 36 | 89 |
| Region of Enrollment(participants) | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Control: Business As Usual Classrooms | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 522 | 363 | 885 |
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 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.
University of Maryland, College Park