Remote Training in Rural Schools

NCT05034198 | Completed DMC

• 2 other identifiers: 20-017895R18HS027755
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 174
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Rural areas have fewer, and less well trained, health care providers than non-rural areas. Schools have become more involved in the delivery of mental health services and hold great potential for increasing access to children and adolescents. Innovations in training and service delivery are needed to improve mental health care quality and availability in rural schools. Evidence-based practices (EBPs) can be incorporated into school-wide multi-tiered systems that are currently used to improve school climate and safety. School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a service-delivery strategy based on the public health model is one example. Investigators will use an iterative process (Rapid Prototyping) to develop and evaluate the appropriateness, feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a remote training strategy that provides resources to support use of Tier 2 EBPs and effective support for care coordination practices in rural schools.

Conditions

Behavior Disorders

Keywords

Positive-behavior Interventions and Supports; Evidence-based Practices; Tier 2; Mental Health; Rural Schools

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

• Content Fidelity of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS) Implementation

  The Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS) Content Fidelity Checklist (CFC) measures implementer adherence to required components of each CATS group session based on audio-recorded sessions. A separate 4-item checklist is completed for each of the eight CATS sessions, with session-specific items scored using a yes/no format to indicate whether required content was delivered. Fidelity is calculated as the percentage of items scored "Yes" out of the total items on the checklist/expected, with scores ranging from 0% to 100%. Higher scores indicate greater fidelity of implementation.

  Across the 8-session CATS intervention period (approximately 8 weeks)

• Content Fidelity of Coping Power Program (CPP) Implementation

  The Coping Power Program (CPP) Content Fidelity Checklist (CFC) measures implementer adherence to required components of each CPP group session based on audio-recorded sessions. A separate checklist is completed for each of the 12 CPP sessions, with session-specific items (ranging from 4 to 8 items depending on the session) scored using a yes/no format to indicate whether required content was delivered. Fidelity is calculated as the percentage of items scored "Yes" out of the total items on the checklist, with scores ranging from 0% to 100%. Higher scores indicate greater fidelity of implementation.

  Across the 12-session CPP intervention period (approximately 12 weeks)

• Process Fidelity of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS) and Coping Power Program (CPP) Implementation

  The Process Fidelity Checklist (PFC) measures the quality of intervention delivery during the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS) and Coping Power Program (CPP) group sessions, including organization, use of active learning strategies, clarity of presentation, engagement of students, and relevance of examples. The checklist includes 10 items rated on a 0 to 5 scale (0=Not at all to 5=Very Often). Scores are calculated as the mean rating across items and sessions, with possible scores ranging from 0 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater fidelity of implementation.

  Across intervention session periods (approximately 8 to 12 weeks of intervention delivery)

• Content and Process Fidelity of Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) Implementation

  The Implementation Guide Fidelity Checklist (IGF) - Content and Process measure assesses both content and process fidelity of implementation of the Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) intervention. Content fidelity is assessed using 40 items scored as "Yes," "No," or "Not Applicable" across key components (e.g., roles, logistics, motivation system, training, and data monitoring). Content fidelity scores are calculated as the percentage of items scored "Yes" out of applicable items (excluding "Not Applicable"), ranging from 0% to 100%, with higher percentages indicating greater adherence. Within the same checklist, process fidelity is assessed using quality indicator items rated 0 to 3 reflecting the comprehensiveness, clarity, and feasibility of implementation procedures. Process fidelity scores are calculated as the average quality rating across items, ranging from 0 to 3. Higher scores indicate greater fidelity of implementation.

  Once, at the completion of Check-In/Check-Out (CICO) implementation guide development (within the first year of implementation)

• Penetration of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS) and Coping Power Program (CPP) Implementation

  The Penetration Inventory (PI) is an Excel tracking tool used to document teacher referrals for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS) and Coping Power Program (CPP) interventions among students in grades 4-8 and the number of students who received one of the evidence-based practices (EBPs). Penetration is calculated as the proportion of referred students who received an EBP, expressed as a percentage, with higher scores indicating greater penetration of Tier 2 services.

  Throughout the intervention implementation period (up to approximately 5 years from study start)

Secondary Outcomes (3)

• Change in Behavioral and Emotional Functioning (The Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition [BASC-3])

  From pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 8-12 weeks)

• Change in Behavioral and Emotional Symptoms (Behavior and Feelings Scale - Youth Self-Report)

  From pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 8-12 weeks)

• Change in Student Academic Engagement (Engagement Versus Disaffection with Learning - Teacher Report [EvsD-TR])

  From pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 8-12 weeks)

Other Outcomes (4)

• Acceptability of Remote Training Strategy (Acceptability of Intervention Measure [AIM])

  Immediately after review of training modules during the pre-trial prototype evaluation phase (approximately 4 months after study start)

• Appropriateness of Remote Training Strategy (Intervention Appropriateness Measure [IAM])

  Immediately after review of training modules during the pre-trial prototype evaluation phase (approximately 4 months after study start)

• Feasibility of Remote Training Strategy (Feasibility of Intervention Measure [FIM])

  Immediately after review of training modules during the pre-trial prototype evaluation phase (approximately 4 months after study start)

Study Arms (3)

Video (TV)

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Behavioral health staff (BHS, intervention implementers) received an initial synchronous and asynchronous training and ongoing access to asynchronous videos of intervention implementation.

Behavioral: Coping Power Program (CPP); Behavioral: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS); Behavioral: Check-in/Check-out (CI/CO)

Video Plus Consultation (TVC)

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

BHS (intervention implementers) received an initial synchronous and asynchronous training, ongoing access to asynchronous videos of intervention implementation, and regular synchronous consultation from project staff.

Behavioral: Coping Power Program (CPP); Behavioral: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS); Behavioral: Check-in/Check-out (CI/CO)

Control Condition (T)

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

BHS (intervention implementers) received an initial synchronous and asynchronous training only.

Behavioral: Coping Power Program (CPP); Behavioral: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS); Behavioral: Check-in/Check-out (CI/CO)

Interventions

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for Anxiety Treatment in Schools (CATS) BEHAVIORAL

CATS is an adaptation of Friends for Life (FRIENDS). The adapted protocol retains the core elements of evidence-based CBT for anxiety and the FRIENDS group format. Investigators implemented planned adaptations to the protocol based on collective experience. Changes were made to the language, cultural methods, number of sessions, and activities while maintaining the 5 essential components of the treatment. This resulted in a briefer (8-session) and more feasible, engaging and culturally appropriate protocol for urban under-resourced schools than the original FRIENDS.

Control Condition (T); Video (TV); Video Plus Consultation (TVC)

Coping Power Program (CPP) BEHAVIORAL

CPP is an evidence-based intervention designed for students with externalizing behavior disorder. CPP consists of twelve 45-minute sessions. This EBP has been found to be effective at reducing aggressive behavior, covert delinquent behavior and substance abuse among aggressive boys, with gains maintained at one-year follow-up. Growth curve analyses showed that CPP had linear effects for three years after intervention on reductions in aggressive behavior and academic behavior problems.

Control Condition (T); Video (TV); Video Plus Consultation (TVC)

Check-in/Check-out (CI/CO) BEHAVIORAL

CI/CO is a targeted, Tier 2 intervention for students at risk of developing externalizing and internalizing mental health disorders. CI/CO is designed to provide immediate feedback (i.e., at the end of each class period) to students, based on the use of a daily report card. This feedback is developmentally sensitive. CI/CO implementers meet individually with students for a brief 'check-in' in the morning and a brief 'check-out' in the afternoon. Research on the use of CI/CO has shown it to be effective in reducing externalizing and internalizing problems with elementary school students. CI/CO will be offered to individual students for a three-month period of time, which is the same time-frame needed for the implementation of CPP.

Control Condition (T); Video (TV); Video Plus Consultation (TVC)

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 99 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may not qualify if:

• Phase 2 (pilot RCT)
• Administrator: Any school principal or assistant principal from participating schools implementing PBIS.
• Behavioral Health Staff: Any counselor, social worker, or teacher from participating schools implementing PBIS who work with students in grades 4-8.
• Students:
• Attending one of the participating schools
• Being in grades 4-8
• Identified by the Tier 2 team as not responding to Tier 1 intervention, thus needing Tier 2 support
• Scoring ≥ 1 SD above the mean on the Emotional Symptoms or Conduct Problems scales of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) 54 completed by a parent or a teacher (determined based on existing literature and demographic for which EBP was designed)
• Administrator: School staff who are not principals or assistant principals.
• Behavioral Health Staff: School staff who are not part of the PBIS team and who do not work with students in grades 4-8.
• Students: Students who do not meet screening or group participation criteria. Students with a history of intellectual disability or serious developmental delays according to school records will not be included because they would be unlikely to benefit from the interventions used in the study. Students with a history of psychotic or autistic spectrum disorders as reported by parents will not be included because these interventions are not appropriate for that demographic.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Children's Hospital of Philadelphia: lead
• Devereux Center for Effective Schools: collaborator
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, United States

Location

Related Publications (1)

• Eiraldi R, McCurdy BL, Khanna MS, Goldstein J, Comly R, Francisco J, Rutherford LE, Wilson T, Henson K, Farmer T, Jawad AF. Development and evaluation of a remote training strategy for the implementation of mental health evidence-based practices in rural schools: pilot study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Jun 17;8(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s40814-022-01082-4.

  PMID: 35710520 DERIVED

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Mental Disorders; Psychological Well-Being

Interventions

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Schools

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Personal Satisfaction; Behavior

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Behavior Therapy; Psychotherapy; Behavioral Disciplines and Activities; Non-Medical Public and Private Facilities

Study Officials

• Ricardo Eiraldi, PhD

  Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Model Details: Phase 1: Using semi-structured interviews, we obtain input from school behavioral health staff to gather feedback about the feasibility, acceptability, and the appropriateness of the remote training strategies being developed. Phase 2: Informed by preliminary studies and Phase/Aim 1 data, we developed a synchronous (interactive) and asynchronous (non-interactive) remote training strategy. We implemented these training protocols through a pilot randomized controlled trial, whereby participating schools were randomized to one of three conditions: (a) initial remote (synchronous) training, (b) initial remote (synchronous) training, plus access to asynchronous training videos, or (C) initial remote (synchronous) training, access to asynchronous training video, plus synchronous remote coaching.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: September 1, 2021
• First Posted: September 5, 2021
• Study Start: September 30, 2020
• Primary Completion: July 1, 2025
• Study Completion: July 1, 2025
• Last Updated: February 19, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-02

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

US (1)