Press "Enter" to skip to content

Data Collection Description

Conceptual Framework and Instruments

The long-term goal of the Fast Track Project is to test the effectiveness of a developmentally based sequence of interventions designed to prevent antisocial and related behavior problems. By June of 2003, all three cohorts at each of the four research sites had completed the full intervention program scheduled through the tenth grade. Annual assessment of each cohort included multiple measures of functioning to assess reduction of negative outcomes, as well as improvement in the protective factors targeted in the intervention model. A variety of strategies were used to assess behavioral development, including parent and teacher reports, direct behavioral observation, peer ratings, child and youth self-reports, test performance, and archival school, police, and court records. The impact of the program on behavior problems involving conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, delinquent behavior, and other major adjustment problems were evaluated using standard psychiatric interviews with high-risk youth and their parents at the end of grades 3, 5, 6, 9, and 12. Measures of other problem behaviors, program implementation measures, measures of predictors of change, and family and school context were assessed for both the high-risk study sample and the normative sample at the same cohort-specific time points.

Details describing the data collection for each cohort over time are provided in the Data Collection History section of this website, including the age of participants, school grade, school calendar year for each cohort, and the approximate data collection period for each cohort.

As much as possible, the same instruments have been maintained over time in order to track the developmental course of behavior. However, some instruments have been discontinued and others have been added over time, as appropriate to the developmental stages of the study sample. The Instrument Administration History section describes which instruments were given over time and includes links to the more detailed information about each instrument.  The Data Instruments section lists the instruments alphabetically with links to more detailed information about each instrument.

In the discussion and tables below, instruments are listed categorically, in terms of the conceptual categories identified in the project’s research design. The goals and research strategies have evolved in accordance with the changing nature of behavior outcomes, age-appropriate intervention strategies, and the coordination of instruments in the adolescent phase with other longitudinal studies and with the Fast Track benefit-cost analysis. Therefore, the instruments are described separately for the elementary-school age and adolescent phases of the project in Tables 1 and 2 below.

Instruments Used During the Elementary-School Phase of the Fast Track Project

  1. Child behavior at home and in the neighborhood, and parent-child relationships
    1. Parent-child interactions, parental acceptance/rejection of child
      1. Parent-report: Conflict Tactics Scale, Parent Daily Report, Values Questionnaire, Family Expressiveness Questionnaire, Parent Questionnaire, Life Changes Interview
      2. Direct observation: Parent-child Interaction Task (PCIT), Behavioral Coding System (BCS), Interpersonal Process Code (IPC), Interaction Rating Scales (IRS), Coder Impressions Inventory (CII), Post-Visit Inventory
      3. Child-report: Child Report of Parental Monitoring, People in My Life
    2. Child Behavior
      1. Parent-report: Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Parent Daily Report, ADHD Rating Scale-P, Life Changes Interview, Parents’ Checklist
      2. Direct observation: PCIT-BCS, IPC, IRS, CII, Post-Visit Inventory
    3. Family Ecology
      1. Parent-report: Conflict Tactics Scale, Relationship Adjustment Scale, Inventory of Parent Experiences, Feelings Scale, Family Information Form, Life Changes Interview, Being a Parent, Parent Opinion Questionnaire, Neighborhood Questionnaire, Financial Stress Questionnaire
      2. Direct observation: Post-Visit Inventory
  2. Child behavior at school and classroom support for appropriate behavior
    1. Teacher behavior: Classroom Atmosphere Ratings, MOOSES Observation System
    2. Child behavior:
      1. Teacher-report: CBCL-TRF, Social Health Profile (SHP), Social Competence Scale-T, Teacher Checklist, Teacher Practices, ADHD Rating Scale-T
      2. Direct observation: MOOSES Observation System, Minnesota Affect Rating Form, Classroom Atmosphere Rating, CBCL Direct Observation Form
      3. Peer-report: Sociometric Interview
  3. Social Information Processing and Affect Regulation
    1. Child report: Home Interview, Emotion Recognition Questionnaire, Social Problem-Solving Measure, About Me, Things That Happen to Me, Feelings Scale, Seattle Personality Questionnaire, Interview on Emotional Experience, What Do You Think?
    2. Parent-report: Social Competence Scale-P
    3. Teacher-report: Social Competence Scale-T
    4. Direct observation: Minnesota Affect Rating Form
  4. Child inter-personal relationships: peer directed aggression and peer relations
    1. Parent-report: CBCL, Social Competence Scale-P
    2. Teacher-report: TRF, SHP, Social Competence Scale-T
    3. Peer-report: Sociometric Interview
    4. Direct observation: Minnesota Affect Rating, MOOSES, Classroom Atmosphere Rating
  5. Academic Achievement, ability, attitudes and behavior toward school
    1. Standardized tests: Woodcock-Johnson reading and math, school administered achievement tests (e.g., CAT), WISC-III
    2. School records: grades, grade retention, special class referrals, absenteeism, School Records Form
    3. Teacher-report: CBCL-TRF
    4. Child-report: Seattle Personality Questionnaire
  6. Family-School Relations and Parental Involvement in School
    1. Parent-report: Parent and Teacher Involvement Questionnaire-P, Life Changes Interview
    2. Teacher-report: Parent and Teacher Involvement Measure-T
  7. Conduct disorder, oppositional/defiant disorder, and other behavior disorders
    1. Child-report: Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC)
    2. Parent-report: DISC, CBCL, ADHD-P
    3. Teacher-report: ADHD-T



Instruments Used During the Adolescent Phase of the Fast Track Project

  1. Problem behaviors targeted by the Fast Track intervention
    1. Antisocial behavior, delinquency, substance use, sexual activity, school dropout
      1. Self-report: DISC, Self-Report on Delinquency, Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs, Romantic Relationships Questionnaire, Pregnancy, SA-C School Adjustment, Suicide, Police Contact
      2. Parent-report: DISC/CBCL, Parent Daily Report, Parent Checklist, Parental Report on Child’s Delinquency
      3. Teacher-report: Teacher Report Form/externalizing, TRCP, Social Health Profile
      4. Archival: Court and School Records, School Records Form (SRF)
    2. Psychiatric disorders and mental health services utilization
      1. Self-report: DISC/Youth Self-Report, Mental Health Services Utilization (SACA)
      2. Parent-report: Psychopathy Screening Device, Life Changes, DISC, Mental Health Services Utilization (SACA), Vanderbilt Mental Health Services Efficacy Questionnaire
  2. Protective factors targeted by the Fast Track intervention
    1. Peer Relations: Involvement in prosocial acts, peer affiliations/deviance, peer delinquency, gang involvement, peer victimization
      1. Self-report: Religiosity, Close Friends, Adolescent Stories, Guns and Gangs, Police Contact, Things That You Have Done, Things That Your Friends Have Done
      2. Parent-report: Parental Report on Child’s Delinquency, Parent Report on Child’s Close Friends
      3. Teacher-report: Social Health Profile, Social Competence
    2. Parent and other adult monitoring/communication/involvement
      1. Self-report: Parent/Child Communication/Involvement (PCCS-C), About My Parent, Supervision, People in My Life, Problem Solving Discussion Rating
      2. Parent-report: Parent/Child Communication/Involvement (PCCS-P), Parent Questionnaire, Parent Issues Checklist, Parenting Practices Inventory, Parent-Teacher Involvement, Parenting-Primary Caregiver, Conflict Tactics Scale, Supervision, Problem Solving Discussion Rating
      3. Direct observation: Observer Impressions on Parent-Child Interaction Task (PCIT)
    3. Academic achievement and orientation
      1. Self-report: SA-C School Adjustment, Self-Efficacy in School
      2. Teacher-report: Teacher Report Form, Teacher Rating of Student Adjustment
      3. Parent-report: SA-P School Adjustment
      4. Archival: School Records Form
    4. Social Cognition and Identity Development (Norms, Attitudes, Values, and Social Information Processing)
      1. Self-report: Adolescent Stories, About Myself, Expectations/Aspirations, Possible Selves, Attitudes About Behavior, Problem Solving Discussion Ratings, Relationship Conflict Tactics Scale, Ethnic Identity Scales, Teenager Experience of Racial Socialization, Handling Race Experiences, Race Coping Measure, Suicide
      2. Teacher-report: Social Competence, Social Health Profile
  3. Moderators of Outcomes
    1. Family/Neighborhood Ecology
      1. Self-report: Religiosity, My Exposure to Violence, Feelings about Neighborhood, Fear of Crime, Neighborhood Questionnaire; Guns and Gangs
      2. Parent-report: Questions on Parent Health, Financial Stress Questionnaire, Life Changes Interview, Family Information Form, Relationship Adjustment Scale, Conflict Tactics Scale
    2. Youth Factors: physical development, work/employment, involvement in other activities (self-reported): Recent Growth, NLS-Y Youth Employment, Youth Finances, Training other than Schooling, Questions Regarding Driving, Extracurricular Activities

Sample Description

Schools within each of four sites (Durham, NC; Nashville, TN; rural central PA; and Seattle, WA) were selected as high risk based on crime and poverty statistics of the neighborhoods that they served. Within each site, the schools were divided into multiple sets matched for demographics (size, percentage free or reduced lunch, ethnic composition), and the sets were randomly assigned to intervention and control conditions. Using a multiple-gating screening procedure that combined teacher and parent ratings of disruptive behavior (Lochman & CPPRG, 1995), all 9,594 kindergarteners across three cohorts (1991-93) in these 54 schools were screened initially for classroom conduct problems by teachers, using the Teacher Observation of Child Adjustment-Revised (TOCA-R) Authority Acceptance Score (Werthamer-Larsson, Kellam, & Wheeler, 1991). Those children scoring in the top 40% within cohort and site were then solicited for the next stage of screening for home behavior problems by the parents, using items from the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991a) and similar scales, and 91% agreed (n=3,274). The teacher and parent screening scores were then standardized and combined into a sum score, based on screening a representative sample of approximately 100 children within each site (which also served as a normative comparison) and then summed to yield a total severity-of-risk screen score. Children were selected for inclusion into the study based on this screen score, moving from the highest score downward until desired sample sizes were reached within sites, cohorts, and conditions. Deviations were made when a child failed to matriculate in the first grade at a core school (n=59) or refused to participate (n=75), or to accommodate a rule that no child would be the only girl in an intervention group. The outcome was that 891 children (n’s = 445 for intervention and 446 for control) participated. Note that these levels of problems are defined relative to other children in these high-risk schools. On the kindergarten Teacher’s Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (TRF; Achenbach, 1991b), which provides national norms, the average Externalizing T-score (available for 88% of the high risk sample) was 66.4, and 76% of these children scored in the clinical range (T-scores of 60 or higher). Children’s screen scores in kindergarten have been found to be predictive of their externalizing behaviors in first grade (Lochman & CPPRG, 1995) and at the end of elementary school (Hill et al., 2004). The screening score had sufficient sensitivity and specificity in predicting externalizing behaviors five years later, at the end of elementary school, that it met criteria for identifying high risk children for preventive intervention (Hill et al, 2004).

The mean age of participants was 6.5 years (SD = 0.48) at the time of identification. Across all sites, the sample was primarily comprised of African American (51%) and European American (47%) participants, with 2% of other ethnicity ( e.g., Pacific Islander and Hispanic), and was gender mixed (69% boys). The sample was skewed toward socioeconomic disadvantage: 58% were from single-parent families, 29% of parents were high school dropouts, and 40% of the families were in the lowest socioeconomic class (representing unskilled workers) as scored by Hollingshead (1975). Only 32% of the sample was within the middle-class range (Hollingshead categories 2 and 3), in comparison to rates of up to 75% in these two categories in some community samples (e.g., Reinherz, Tanner, Berger, Beardslee, & Fitzmaurice, 2006).

In addition to the high risk sample, a stratified normative sample of 387 children was identified from the control schools to represent the population-normative range of risk scores (based on teacher ratings only) and was followed over time.

Using the Fast Track Data Catalog

The Instrument Administration History and Data Instruments sections of the Fast Track Project website contain searchable catalogs of the data collected and compiled as part of the Fast Track Project. The instruments are listed alphabetically, and arrayed according to the years that each instrument was administered to each cohort. The title of each instrument links directly to an abstract describing the instrument in terms of its source, variable definitions and response values, scaling procedures, and the characteristics of the resulting scales. The abstract also summarizes the Fast Track Data Center’s recommendations for use of these scales in analyzing datasets derived from the instrument.

The instrument’s abstract page provides a link to the corresponding technical report, which contains a description of the study sample administered for this instrument during each year of the study. The technical report also provides a summary analysis comparing the high-risk control group with the normative (low-risk) group. The analysis includes evaluation of differences between groups, item and scale means and standard deviations, and item and scale correlations.

Catalog information for instruments developed by the Fast Track Project includes either a screen image of the instrument as administered by laptop computer, or a listing of the contents of the scored dataset. Source information is given for measures developed outside of the project and adapted for use within Fast Track.

A key word search option is also available on in then Publications section .

Citing Information from the Fast Track Project

Example Citations of Online Information from the Website Would Include the Following:

Example of a Technical Report:

Godwin, J. (2004). Guns and Gangs Revised (Fast Track Project Technical Report). Available from the
Fast Track Project website:

Example of an Instrument:

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1995). Guns and gangs. Instrument created for the Child Development Project. Unpublished, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Example of the Data Collection:

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group and the Fast Track Project. Fast Track Study Cumulative Data Files, 1992-2007 [Computer Files]. Durham, North Carolina: Fast Track Data Center, Duke University.

Furthermore, all written reports and publications using Fast Track data should contain the following acknowledgement:

This research is based on data from the study entitled [“Fast Track,” or “Multi-Site Prevention of Adolescent Problem Behaviors,” or “Multisite Prevention of Conduct Disorder”], supported by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Grants R18 MH48043, R18 MH50951, R18 MH50952, R18 MH50953, R01 MH062988, R01 MH117559, K05 MH00797, and K05 MH01027; National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Grants R01 DA016903, R01 DA036523, R01 DA11301, K05 DA15226, RC1 DA028248, and P30 DA023026; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant R01 HD093651; and Department of Education Grant S184U30002. The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention also provided support through a memorandum of agreement with the NIMH. Additional support for this study was provided by a B. C. Children’s Hospital Research Institute Investigator Grant Award and a Canada Foundation for Innovation award (to Robert J. McMahon). The study was designed by the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, which has grown to include, in alphabetical order, Karen L. Bierman, Pennsylvania State University; John D. Coie, Duke University; Daniel Max Crowley, Pennsylvania State University; Kenneth A. Dodge, Duke University; Mark T. Greenberg, Pennsylvania State University; John E. Lochman, University of Alabama; Robert J. McMahon, Simon Fraser University; and Ellen E. Pinderhughes, Tufts University.