NCT05267236

Brief Summary

This study uses an RCT design with repeated measures to test the impact of two different delivery formats for the TYRO Couples curriculum. Eligible study participants are males or females who are at least 18 years of age and within 9 months of release from incarceration. Incarcerated participants randomly assigned to the treatment group receive the TYRO Couples curriculum in-person, whereas those assigned to the comparison group experience an on-demand format. Study results that show no discernable differences in outcomes between groups will make it easier to serve more participants because service delivery formats can accommodate different life circumstances and preferences.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
820

participants targeted

Target at P75+ for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Apr 2023

Typical duration for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

February 23, 2022

Completed
9 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

March 4, 2022

Completed
1.1 years until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

April 11, 2023

Completed
1.6 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

November 30, 2024

Completed
9 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

August 15, 2025

Completed
4 days until next milestone

Results Posted

Study results publicly available

August 19, 2025

Completed
Last Updated

September 19, 2025

Status Verified

September 1, 2025

Enrollment Period

1.6 years

First QC Date

February 23, 2022

Results QC Date

July 1, 2025

Last Update Submit

September 9, 2025

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

  • Primary Outcome Measure 1: Employment Attitudes

    What is the impact of on-demand delivery (treatment) compared to in-person delivery of the TYRO Couples curriculum (control) on employment attitudes six-months after enrollment? * 4 survey items independently measure the reported frequency of agreement with key co-parenting behaviors using categories on a 5-point scale (1 'Strongly Disagree', 2 'Disagree', 3 'Neither Agree nor Disagree', 4 'Agree', 5 'Strongly Agree'). * Higher scores on 4 items indicate better outcomes (ex. - I can overcome almost any challenge to get a decent job.) Subscales were formed to add the four survey items together and were divided by four. The subscale ranges from 1-5 (the lowest someone can score is 1, the highest someone can score is 5-which is most favorable.

    baseline to 6-month follow-up

  • Primary Outcome Measure 2: Healthy Financial Attitudes

    What is the impact of on-demand delivery (treatment) compared to in-person delivery of the TYRO Couples curriculum (control) on financial attitudes six months after enrollment? * 3 survey items measure the reported agreement for key financial attitudes using categories on a 5-point employment attitudes scale (1 'Strongly Disagree', 2 'Disagree', 3 'Neither Agree Nor Disagree', 4 'Agree', 5 'Strongly Agree'). * Higher scores on 3 items are negative (ex. - I am overwhelmed when I think about my financial situation.) Subscales were formed to add the three survey items together and were divided by three. The subscale ranges from 1-5 (the lowest someone can score is 1-which is most favorable, the highest someone can score is 5.

    baseline to 6-month follow-up

Secondary Outcomes (2)

  • Secondary Outcome Measure 1: Partner Relationship Attitudes

    baseline to immediately after program completion, up to 5 weeks

  • Primary Outcome Measure 2: Relationship With Partner Behaviors

    baseline to 6-month follow-up

Study Arms (2)

Treatment-On Demand Format

EXPERIMENTAL

Treatment group participants receive TYRO Couples curriculum in an on-demand format that is delivered in five 2-hour weekly sessions for a total of 10 hours.

Other: Intervention #1: Treatment Group Receiving On-Demand TYRO Services

Control-Virtual or In-Person Format

EXPERIMENTAL

Control group participants receive TYRO Couples curriculum in a live format (virtual or in-person) that is delivered in five 2-hour weekly sessions for a total of 10 hours.

Other: Intervention #2: Control Group Receiving In-Person TYRO Services

Interventions

Treatment group participants receive TYRO Couples curriculum in an on-demand format that is delivered in five 2-hour weekly sessions for a total of 10 hours.

Treatment-On Demand Format

Control group participants receive TYRO Couples curriculum in a live format (virtual or in-person) that is delivered in five 2-hour weekly sessions for a total of 10 hours.

Control-Virtual or In-Person Format

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years+
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Male or Female Adult (age 18 and older)
  • Incarcerated
  • Within 9 months of release in OH

You may not qualify if:

  • Minor (under the age of 18)
  • Not incarcerated
  • Incarcerated but not within 9 months of release in OH

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

The RIDGE Project

McClure, Ohio, 43534, United States

Location

Related Publications (15)

  • Allred, S. L., Harrison, L. D., & O'Connell, D. J. (2013). Self-Efficacy: An important aspect of prison-based learning. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 211 - 233. doi:10.1177/0032885512472964

    BACKGROUND
  • Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191. No abstract available.

    PMID: 847061BACKGROUND
  • Chou, S., & Liu, C. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: A learner-control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 65 - 76.

    BACKGROUND
  • Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Routledge.

    BACKGROUND
  • Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2009). The Mass Incarceration of Parents in America: Issues of Race/ Ethnicity, Collateral Damage to Children, and Prisoner Reentry. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 179-194. doi:10.1177/0002716208331123

    BACKGROUND
  • Frisco ML, Muller C, Frank K. Parents' Union Dissolution and Adolescents' School Performance: Comparing Methodological Approaches. J Marriage Fam. 2007 Aug 1;69(3):721-741. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00402.x.

    PMID: 20300482BACKGROUND
  • Johnson, B., Wubbenhorst, W., Schroeder, C., & Corcoran, K. E. (2014). Stronger Families, Stronger Society: An Analysis of the RIDGE Project, Inc. Baylor University. Waco, TX: Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion.

    BACKGROUND
  • La Vigne, N. G., Naser, R., Brooks, L. E., & Castro, J. L. (2005, November). Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(4), 314 - 335. doi:10.1177/1043986205281727

    BACKGROUND
  • Miller, S. L., Nunnally, E. W., & Wackman, D. B. (1976). A communication training program for couples. Social Casework, 57(1), 9 - 18.

    BACKGROUND
  • Manning WD. Cohabitation and Child Wellbeing. Future Child. 2015 Fall;25(2):51-66. doi: 10.1353/foc.2015.0012.

    PMID: 26929590BACKGROUND
  • Shepherd, M. (2011). A statistical Analysis of Client Data from the Keeping Families and Inmates Together in Harmony (Keeping FAITH) Program for the RIDGE Project. Emporia, KS: Midwest Evaluation and Research.

    BACKGROUND
  • Siennick SE, Stewart EA, Staff J. EXPLAINING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INCARCERATION AND DIVORCE. Criminology. 2014 Aug;52(3):371-398. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12040.

    PMID: 25598544BACKGROUND
  • Visher, C. A., Debus-Sherrill, D., & Yahner, J. (2011). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly, 28(5), 698 - 718. doi:10.1080/07418825.2010.535553

    BACKGROUND
  • Western B, Braga AA, Davis J, Sirois C. Stress and Hardship after Prison. AJS. 2015 Mar;120(5):1512-47. doi: 10.1086/681301.

    PMID: 26421345BACKGROUND
  • Wildeman, C. (2014). How the criminal justice system shapes social inequality and the capacity of citizens: Parental Incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences of mass imprisonment. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651(1), 74-296.

    BACKGROUND

Results Point of Contact

Title
Midwest Evaluation and Research
Organization
Midwest Evaluation and Research

Study Officials

  • Matt D Shepherd, PhD

    Midwest Evaluation & Research

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Publication Agreements

PI is Sponsor Employee
Yes

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
NONE
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Model Details: Treatment vs. Control Group Standard services delivered as primary services to participants in both study groups under a shared condition are: 20 hours of TYRO Dads curricula and 6 hours of Core Communication curricula. Optional services available to both study groups by selecting 1-3 hours of coursework from menu of courses that address a variety of needs.
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

February 23, 2022

First Posted

March 4, 2022

Study Start

April 11, 2023

Primary Completion

November 30, 2024

Study Completion

August 15, 2025

Last Updated

September 19, 2025

Results First Posted

August 19, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-09

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

All participant data will be confidential and aggregated. No individual participant data will be released unless requested by the courts. This study looks at data as a whole.

Locations