Transforming Adolescent Mental Health Through Accessible, Scalable, Technology-supported Small-group Instruction

September 29, 2025 updated by: University of Oregon
Adolescence is a developmental period of significant risk for anxiety, depressive symptoms, and suicidality, and the investigators propose to target key peer-based risk and protective factors using Cooperative Learning (CL). CL is a small-group instructional approach that can enhance peer relations and reduce peer-related risks, as well as promote academic engagement and achievement and reduce racial disparities. CL will be delivered with the aid of technology that automates the design and delivery of CL lessons, promoting rapid implementation, scalability, high fidelity, accessibility, and sustainability.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Active, not recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Internalizing symptoms (i.e., anxiety, depressive symptoms, suicidality) are alarmingly common among adolescents. In 2019, nearly 37% of high school students reported feeling anxious, sad, or hopeless, representing an increase from 2017 (i.e., 31%), and nearly 19% seriously considered suicide, an increase from 2017 (17%). The coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated this problem, with research finding that social isolation resulting from the pandemic was linked to higher levels of stress, fear, loneliness, anxiety, depression, and suicide ideation among adolescents. Importantly, ethnic/racial disparities have been documented in internalizing symptoms, with more negative outcomes for Latinas and Black males. Current universal school-based approaches to prevention have reported uneven or limited effects, or no effects at all. Questions have also been raised regarding cost and accessibility. Despite the uneven track record of universal school-based (Tier 1) approaches, which has led some to recommend an emphasis on targeted (Tier 2) approaches, Tier 1 programs possess several advantages. First, given the demographic heterogeneity in risk factors, as well as disparate access to high-quality, culturally-sensitive health care, schools remain attractive as Tier 1 programs can ensure equitable access to primary prevention services. Second, universal programs avoid the difficulty of identifying adolescents at risk, and third, Tier 1 programs minimize the risk of stigmatizing adolescents who seek out or are referred to services. In this project, submitted to the Transformative Research Award initiative, the investigators will use cooperative learning (CL) as a universal (Tier 1) school-based prevention program to target malleable peer-based risk factors and subsequently evaluate how change in these mechanisms can reduce adolescent internalizing symptoms. CL targets various forms of maladaptive peer relations that create stress and comprise a significant risk factor for internalizing symptoms in adolescence; CL also promotes peer protective factors that can reduce the likelihood of internalizing symptoms (e.g., peer acceptance). CL has also been found to promote more cross-race interaction and interracial attraction, greater cross-ethnic academic support, and more frequent cross-ethnic friendships. To support teachers in implementing CL, the investigators will use a Web-based software platform that provides an accessible, high-fidelity mechanism to deliver CL lessons. The investigators will not only test for intervention effects, but will also evaluate the relative strength of specific, theoretically-derived change mechanisms, and uncover key issues/barriers related to implementation that will allow the investigators to dynamically adjust our implementation approach to achieve maximum impact during subsequent scale-up. This project is designed to establish feasibility with teachers and schools and counter potential threats to implementation fidelity while also creating a roadmap to enhanced scalability and sustained implementation. Significant results from this project could inspire broad uptake of this approach in educational contexts, potentially addressing a significant public health need during a time of crisis due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
1200

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Arizona
      • Tempe, Arizona, United States, 85281
        • Arizona State University
    • Oregon
      • Eugene, Oregon, United States, 97401
        • U of Oregon
    • Wisconsin
      • Madison, Wisconsin, United States, 53706
        • U of Wisconsin

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • All students and teachers in target grades in participating schools.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Implementation of PeerLearning.net
Teachers in implementation schools will be given access to training and resources to implement PeerLearning.net as a core component of instruction. Investigators will not create specific requirements of teachers but will ask that they deliver lessons with PeerLearning.net at least four times per month. Investigators will monitor all teacher usage and thus will be able to promote greater usage by (1) publicly acknowledging teachers that are using it frequently and experiencing success, and (2) targeting teachers who use it infrequently with additional resources and support to encourage more frequent use.
Behavioral: PeerLearning.net
PeerLearning.net provides an easy-to-use, scalable, and widely accessible means to support teachers in effectively designing and delivering high-fidelity Cooperative Learning (CL) lessons and, in turn, it has the potential to amplify the positive effects of CL found in previous research. Using PeerLearning.net, teachers design their lesson by selecting from among a set of typical CL lesson templates (e.g., jigsaw, peer tutoring, group projects) which they can customize and populate with their own curriculum and materials. These design templates represent the optimal, high-fidelity design that is required in order for CL to be successful. During lesson delivery, PeerLearning.net manages membership in learning groups, distributes instructional materials, directs student activities according to a pre-specified timetable, supports teacher observations of student behavior, and delivers post-lesson group activities and reviews.
No Intervention: Pre-Intervention
Teachers in pre-intervention schools will continue with business as usual (i.e., typical instruction). Based upon previous experience in conducting research in school settings, teachers in pre-intervention schools will likely use CL very infrequently, and without the benefit of technology support.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Anxiety (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Anxiety (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Anxiety (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Anxiety (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Anxiety (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Anxiety (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Anxiety (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Anxiety (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Patient Health Questionnaire
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Depressive symptoms (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Patient Health Questionnaire
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Depressive symptoms (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Patient Health Questionnaire
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Depressive symptoms (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Patient Health Questionnaire
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Depressive symptoms (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Patient Health Questionnaire
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Depressive symptoms (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Patient Health Questionnaire
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Depressive symptoms (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Patient Health Questionnaire
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Depressive symptoms (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Patient Health Questionnaire
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Depressive symptoms (scores zero to 3, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Youth Risk and Behavior Survey
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Suicide ideation (scores zero to 6, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Youth Risk and Behavior Survey
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Suicide ideation (scores zero to 6, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Youth Risk and Behavior Survey
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Suicide ideation (scores zero to 6, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Youth Risk and Behavior Survey
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Suicide ideation (scores zero to 6, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Youth Risk and Behavior Survey
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Suicide ideation (scores zero to 6, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Youth Risk and Behavior Survey
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Suicide ideation (scores zero to 6, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Youth Risk and Behavior Survey
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Suicide ideation (scores zero to 6, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Youth Risk and Behavior Survey
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Suicide ideation (scores zero to 6, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Service utilization (scores zero to 20, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Service utilization (scores zero to 20, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Service utilization (scores zero to 20, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Service utilization (scores zero to 20, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Service utilization (scores zero to 20, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Service utilization (scores zero to 20, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Service utilization (scores zero to 20, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Service Assessment for Children and Adolescents
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Service utilization (scores zero to 20, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 4

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Discrimination (scores zero to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Discrimination (scores zero to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Discrimination (scores zero to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Discrimination (scores zero to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Discrimination (scores zero to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Discrimination (scores zero to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Discrimination (scores zero to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Everyday Discrimination Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Discrimination (scores zero to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 4
University of Illinois Bully Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Bullying and victimization (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 1
University of Illinois Bully Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Bullying and victimization (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 1
University of Illinois Bully Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Bullying and victimization (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 2
University of Illinois Bully Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Bullying and victimization (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 2
University of Illinois Bully Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Bullying and victimization (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 3
University of Illinois Bully Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Bullying and victimization (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 3
University of Illinois Bully Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Bullying and victimization (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 4
University of Illinois Bully Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Bullying and victimization (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Child Peer Social Skills Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Peer acceptance (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Child Peer Social Skills Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Peer acceptance (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Child Peer Social Skills Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Peer acceptance (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Child Peer Social Skills Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Peer acceptance (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Child Peer Social Skills Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Peer acceptance (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Child Peer Social Skills Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Peer acceptance (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Child Peer Social Skills Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Peer acceptance (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Child Peer Social Skills Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Peer acceptance (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Perceived Stress Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Stress (scores 0 to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Perceived Stress Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Stress (scores 0 to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Perceived Stress Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Stress (scores 0 to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Perceived Stress Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Stress (scores 0 to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Perceived Stress Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Stress (scores 0 to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Perceived Stress Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Stress (scores 0 to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Perceived Stress Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Stress (scores 0 to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Perceived Stress Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Stress (scores 0 to 4, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Adolescent Stress Questionnaire
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Social stress (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Adolescent Stress Questionnaire
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Social stress (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Adolescent Stress Questionnaire
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Social stress (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Adolescent Stress Questionnaire
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Social stress (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Adolescent Stress Questionnaire
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Social stress (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Adolescent Stress Questionnaire
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Social stress (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Adolescent Stress Questionnaire
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Social stress (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Adolescent Stress Questionnaire
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Social stress (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply worse outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Classroom Life Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Peer academic support (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Classroom Life Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Peer academic support (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Classroom Life Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Peer academic support (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Classroom Life Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Peer academic support (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Classroom Life Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Peer academic support (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Classroom Life Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Peer academic support (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Classroom Life Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Peer academic support (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Classroom Life Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Peer academic support (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 4
School Attendance
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Degree of truancy (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 1
School Attendance
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Degree of truancy (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 1
School Attendance
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Degree of truancy (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 2
School Attendance
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Degree of truancy (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 2
School Attendance
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Degree of truancy (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 3
School Attendance
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Degree of truancy (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 3
School Attendance
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Degree of truancy (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 4
School Attendance
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Degree of truancy (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Reasons for Non-Attendance
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Social issues causing non-attendance (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Reasons for Non-Attendance
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Social issues causing non-attendance (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Reasons for Non-Attendance
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Social issues causing non-attendance (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Reasons for Non-Attendance
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Social issues causing non-attendance (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Reasons for Non-Attendance
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Social issues causing non-attendance (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Reasons for Non-Attendance
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Social issues causing non-attendance (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Reasons for Non-Attendance
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Social issues causing non-attendance (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Reasons for Non-Attendance
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Social issues causing non-attendance (scores 0 to 4, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 4
UCLA Loneliness Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Loneliness (scores 1 to 3, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 1
UCLA Loneliness Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Loneliness (scores 1 to 3, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 1
UCLA Loneliness Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Loneliness (scores 1 to 3, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 2
UCLA Loneliness Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Loneliness (scores 1 to 3, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 2
UCLA Loneliness Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Loneliness (scores 1 to 3, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 3
UCLA Loneliness Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Loneliness (scores 1 to 3, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 3
UCLA Loneliness Scale
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Loneliness (scores 1 to 3, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 4
UCLA Loneliness Scale
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Loneliness (scores 1 to 3, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Secondary School Readiness Inventory
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
School engagement (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Secondary School Readiness Inventory
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
School engagement (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Secondary School Readiness Inventory
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
School engagement (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Secondary School Readiness Inventory
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
School engagement (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Secondary School Readiness Inventory
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
School engagement (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Secondary School Readiness Inventory
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
School engagement (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Secondary School Readiness Inventory
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
School engagement (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Secondary School Readiness Inventory
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
School engagement (scores 1 to 5, higher scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 4
Substance use
Time Frame: Fall of Year 1
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (scores 1 to 5, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 1
Substance use
Time Frame: Spring of Year 1
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (scores 1 to 5, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 1
Substance use
Time Frame: Fall of Year 2
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (scores 1 to 5, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 2
Substance use
Time Frame: Spring of Year 2
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (scores 1 to 5, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 2
Substance use
Time Frame: Fall of Year 3
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (scores 1 to 5, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 3
Substance use
Time Frame: Spring of Year 3
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (scores 1 to 5, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 3
Substance use
Time Frame: Fall of Year 4
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (scores 1 to 5, lower scores imply better outcome)
Fall of Year 4
Substance use
Time Frame: Spring of Year 4
Use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (scores 1 to 5, lower scores imply better outcome)
Spring of Year 4

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
University of Oregon

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Arizona State University
Oregon Research Institute

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
September 1, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
June 15, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
June 15, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
March 20, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
May 12, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
May 16, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimated)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
October 3, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 29, 2025

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
September 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • STUDY00000719

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Investigators will ensure that project data is submitted according to the NIH Data Sharing Regimen (i.e., descriptive/raw data will be submitted semi-annually, and submission of all other data will occur at the time of publication, or prior to the end of the grant, whichever occurs first). Consent forms will reflect this submission of data to be shared. Investigators will store study data as Excel datasets. Research staff will document the study protocol and datasets on a publicly accessible website that will include surveys, names and labels for all variables and values, and calculations for composite scores. Investigators will remove personal identifiers from datasets and replace them with randomly assigned identifiers.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

As noted above, descriptive/raw data will be submitted semi-annually, and submission of all other data will occur at the time of publication, or prior to the end of the grant, whichever occurs first.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

There is no criteria.

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • ICF

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings