WWC review of this study

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.

  • Randomized controlled trial
     examining 
    860
     Students
    , grade
    K
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: October 2014

Emotional/internal behavior outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Emotion Recognition Questionnaire

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Kindergarten

Grade 1;
827 students

12.79

12.14

Yes

 
 
11
More Outcomes

Interview of Emotional Experience (IEE)

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Kindergarten

Grade 1;
855 students

1.18

1.06

Yes

 
 
7
External behavior outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Child Behavior Change: Teacher Rating

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. Business as usual

Grade 3

Grade 1;
552 students

1.33

1

Yes

 
 
14
More Outcomes

Child Behavior Change: Parent Rating

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Grade 1

Grade 1;
553 students

1.62

1.37

Yes

 
 
13

Home Interview with Child (HIWC): Aggressive Retaliation

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Kindergarten

Grade 1;
847 students

0.3

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;
843 students

0.5

0.62

Yes

 
 
8

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL): Externalizing scale

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Kindergarten

Grade 1;
854 students

62.35

62.76

No

--

Home Interview with Child (HIWC): Hostile Attributions

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Grade 3

Grade 1;
847 students

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;
846 students

0.5

0.51

No

--

Teachers' Report Form, Externalizing Scale

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Grade 3

Grade 1;
750 students

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;
860 students

1.95

1.92

No

--

Observed Acts of Aggression

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Kindergarten

Grade 1;
843 students

0.1

0.09

No

--

Peer Nominations of Aggression and Disruption Behaviors

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Grade 3

Grade 1;
809 students

0.79

0.66

No

--
Reading achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Spache Diagnostic Reading Scale (DRS)

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Grade 3

Grade 1;
551 students

0.15

-0.15

Yes

 
 
13
More Outcomes

Woodcock-Johnson Pscyho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R): Letter-Word Identification subtest

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Kindergarten

Grade 1;
296 students

22.59

22.11

No

--
Social outcomes outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Social problem solving

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Grade 3

Grade 1;
844 students

0.72

0.67

Yes

 
 
11
More Outcomes

Time in positive peer interaction

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
843 students

0.5

0.46

Yes

 
 
8

Peer social preference

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Grade 3

Grade 1;
809 students

-0.47

-0.63

Yes

 
 
7

Peer-Nominated prosocial

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Grade 3

Grade 1;
809 students

-0.35

-0.43

No

--

Social Competence Scale- Parent Version

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Kindergarten

Grade 1;
830 students

2.41

2.44

No

--

Social Competence Scale- Teacher Version

Fast Track: Elementary School vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
487 students

40.3

42.25

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 31%
    Male: 69%
  • Race
    Black
    51%
    White
    47%

  • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington

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.

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.

  • Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2010b). The difficulty of maintaining positive intervention effects: A look at disruptive behavior, deviant peer relations, and social skills during the middle school years. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(4), 593–624.

  • 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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top