Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: I.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999a). The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 631–647.
-
examining860Students, gradeK
Fast Track: Elementary School Intervention Report - Children Identified With Or At Risk For An Emotional Disturbance
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2014
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Fast Track: Elementary School.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Emotion Recognition Questionnaire |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Kindergarten |
Grade 1;
|
12.79 |
12.14 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Interview of Emotional Experience (IEE) |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Kindergarten |
Grade 1;
|
1.18 |
1.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Child Behavior Change: Teacher Rating |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. Business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
1.33 |
1.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Behavior Change: Parent Rating |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 1 |
Grade 1;
|
1.62 |
1.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Home Interview with Child (HIWC): Aggressive Retaliation |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Kindergarten |
Grade 1;
|
0.30 |
0.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaption-Revised (TOCA-R): Authority Acceptance Scale, Observer Rating |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
0.50 |
0.62 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Externalizing scale |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Kindergarten |
Grade 1;
|
62.35 |
62.76 |
No |
-- | |
|
Home Interview with Child (HIWC): Hostile Attributions |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
0.66 |
0.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Parent Daily Report (PDR): Aggressive and Oppositional Behavior |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 7 |
Grade 1;
|
0.50 |
0.51 |
No |
-- | |
|
Teachers' Report Form, Externalizing Scale |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
64.53 |
64.55 |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation-Revised (TOCA-R): Authority Acceptance Scale, Teacher Rating |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
1.95 |
1.92 |
No |
-- | |
|
Observed Acts of Aggression |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Kindergarten |
Grade 1;
|
0.10 |
0.09 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peer Nominations of Aggression and Disruption Behaviors |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
0.79 |
0.66 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Spache Diagnostic Reading Scale (DRS) |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
0.15 |
-0.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Pscyho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Kindergarten |
Grade 1;
|
22.59 |
22.11 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social problem solving |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
0.72 |
0.67 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Time in positive peer interaction |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
0.50 |
0.46 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Peer social preference |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
-0.47 |
-0.63 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Peer-Nominated prosocial |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Grade 3 |
Grade 1;
|
-0.35 |
-0.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Competence Scale- Parent Version |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Kindergarten |
Grade 1;
|
2.41 |
2.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Competence Scale- Teacher Version |
Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
40.30 |
42.25 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 31%
Male: 69% -
Rural, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington
-
Race Black 51% White 47%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in four locations: (a) Durham, North Carolina, a small city with a predominantly African-American school population; (b) Nashville, Tennessee, a moderate-sized city with a predominantly African-American and European-American school population; (c) Seattle, Washington, a moderate-sized city with an ethnically-diverse school population; and (d) central Pennsylvania, a rural area with a predominantly European-American school population.
Study sample
Selection of the school sample. The sample included 54 schools in high-risk neighborhoods; high-risk status was based on the crime and poverty statistics of neighborhoods. Within each site, schools were matched into paired sets based on demographics (school size, percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, ethnic composition, and student achievement scores); the schools within each matched pair were then randomly assigned to either the intervention or comparison condition. Selection of the student sample. The analytic student sample in these schools was identified through a multi-stage screening process based on teacher and parent behavioral ratings. In the spring of the students’ kindergarten school year, the aggressive and oppositional behaviors of all kindergarteners in the 54 participating schools were rated using the TOCA-R, Authority Acceptance Scale, Teacher Rating. The parents of children who scored in the top 40% of each site were contacted by the researchers to rate their children’s behavior using a 24-item instrument, including items drawn from the Child Behavior Checklist and the Revised Problem Behavior Checklist. The teacher and parent scores were averaged to compute a behavioral score. Students whose average scores were in the top 10% of their site were asked to participate in the study. This process was used to recruit three successive cohorts of high-risk students at the end of their kindergarten year, starting in 1991. The analytic student sample included 445 students in 191 intervention classrooms and 446 students in 210 comparison classrooms.8 Characteristics of the student sample. The mean age of the student sample during the first year of the study was 6.5 years. Fifty-one percent of the sample were African American, 47% were European American, and 2% were another ethnicity. Boys represented 69% of the student sampl
Intervention Group
Program delivery in grades 1–5. During grades 1–5, the multi-component intervention included: (a) a classroom-based curriculum, (b) small-group enrichment, (c) home visits and telephone contact with parents, and (d) school-based student tutoring. Program delivery in grades 6–10. During grades 6–10, the components of the intervention included: (a) the middle school transition program, (b) parent and youth groups, (c) youth forums, and (d) individualized support.
Comparison Group
The students in the comparison classrooms received their regular curriculum. There was no effort to encourage or discourage comparison classrooms or schools from implementing other prevention programs. The authors do not provide any information on whether, or what, other prevention programs may have been implemented in comparison classrooms/schools.
Outcome descriptions
This study included measures of aggression, authority acceptance, oppositional behavior, emotion recognition, social skills, and reading achievement after 1 year of implementation, and after 3–9 years of implementation. The study also included measures of arrests and other offenses 2 years after the 10-year intervention program ended. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.1. Because the most intense phase of the intervention occurs in the first year of implementation, the intervention ratings in this report are based on the impacts of Fast Track after 1 year of implementation (Appendices C.1–C.4). Additional references that examined the effect of the intervention after 3 years of implementation (Appendices D.1, D.2a, D.2c, D.2d, D.3), 4 years of implementation (Appendices D.2a, D.3, D.4a), 5 years of implementation (Appendices D.2a, D.3, D.4a), 6 years of implementation (Appendices D.2a, D.2c, D.2d, D.3), 7 years of implementation (Appendices D.2a, D.3), 8 years of implementation (Appendices D.2a, D.3), 9 years of implementation (Appendices D.2c, D.2d), and 2 years after the 10-year implementation ended (Appendices D.2b, D.2c, D.2d, D.4b) are also presented. Detailed descriptions of outcome measures used to measure the impacts of Fast Track after 1 year of implementation are provided in Appendix B.1. Descriptions of measures used for the supplemental findings are provided in Appendix B.2.
Support for implementation
The Fast Track EC and FC staff attended a 3-day workshop, observed training videos, and received instructional manuals. Intervention staff also participated in weekly meetings with program developers where they discussed the goals and activities of upcoming sessions, talked about the receptivity of children and parents to activities, were observed by the clinical supervisor and co-principal investigators, and were given feedback on adherence to the program. Teachers at intervention schools attended a 2.5-day training workshop. Fast Track staff also spent, on average, 1.5 hours each week in each teachers’ classroom conducting observations, modeling lessons, and team teaching. Weekly meetings were held with the intervention teachers to provide coaching and feedback on their delivery of the curriculum and classroom management and behavior issues.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Bierman, K. L., Coie, J., Dodge, K., Greenberg, M., Lochman, J., McMohan, R., Pinderhughes, E., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2013). School outcomes of aggressive-disruptive children: Prediction from kindergarten risk factors and impact of the Fast Track prevention program. Aggressive Behavior, 39(2), 114–130.
-
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2004). The effects of the Fast Track program on serious problem outcomes at the end of elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(4), 650–661.
-
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002a). Evaluation of the first 3 years of the Fast Track prevention trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(1), 19–35.
-
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002c). Using the Fast Track randomized prevention trial to test the early-starter model of the development of serious conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology, 14(4), 925–943.
-
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2007). Fast Track randomized controlled trial to prevent externalizing psychiatric disorders: Findings from grades 3 to 9. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(10), 1250–1262.
-
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2010a). Fast Track intervention effects on youth arrests and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(2), 131–157.
-
Lochman, John E.; Bierman, Karen L.; Coie, John D.; Dodge, Kenneth A.; Greenberg, Mark T.; McMahon, Robert J.; Pinderhughes, Ellen E. (2010). The Difficulty of Maintaining Positive Intervention Effects: A Look at Disruptive Behavior, Deviant Peer Relations, and Social Skills during the Middle School Years. Journal of Early Adolescence, v30 n4 p593-624.
-
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2011). The effects of the Fast Track preventive intervention on the development of conduct disorder across childhood. Child Development, 82(1), 331–345.
-
Dodge, K. A., Godwin, J., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2013). Social-information-processing patterns mediate the impact of preventive intervention on adolescent antisocial behavior. Psychological Science, 24(4), 456–465.
-
Foster, E. M. (2010). Costs and effectiveness of the Fast Track intervention for antisocial behavior. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 13(3), 101–119.
-
Rabiner, D. L., Malone, P. S., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2004). The impact of tutoring on early reading achievement for children with and without attention problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(3), 273–284.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).