Social ExclusionDIYNCT05619523
Developing Inclusive Youth: Promoting Intergroup Friendships and Inclusive Classrooms in Childhood
A study testing Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) in people with Social Exclusion and Prejudice, Racial, run by University of Maryland, College Park at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to test the beneficial impacts of a web based intervention program called Developing Inclusive Youth for children in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade. The main questions it aims to answer are: Does the Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) program, which is a web-based curriculum tool with a… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 7 to 12 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Social Exclusion, Prejudice, Racial, Prejudice
- What is being tested?
- Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 885 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 27 Sep 2022to 31 Jan 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 7 to 12 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- children with parental consent in grades 3, 4, or 5 at participating schools
- be between the ages of 7 and 12 years
- children who need assistance sitting at their desk or reading the text can participate provided that an adult mentor is assigned to them to assist with the protocol
- For Teacher Participants:
- teachers of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 at participating schools and who provide assent
- no age limits for teacher participation
Who cannot join
- school has identified the student as unable to participate due to disability status.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland, 20742
About this study
Official title: An Intervention to Promote Positive Peer Relationships and Reduce Prejudice and Bias in Childhood
The goal of this clinical trial is to test the beneficial impacts of a web based intervention program called Developing Inclusive Youth for children in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Does the Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) program, which is a web-based curriculum tool with a teacher-led classroom discussion, reduce prejudicial attitudes and biases as well as increase intergroup friendships for a sample of 8 -11 year old children enrolled in 3rd , 4th, and 5th grade U.S. classrooms?
- Does the Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) program lead to grade-related, gender-related and ethnic-related differences regarding reducing prejudicial attitudes and increasing intergroup friendships?
- Does the Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) program change teacher attitudes regarding the malleability of prejudice, the importance of intergroup friendships, and comfort levels with discussing social inclusion and exclusion experiences in the classroom?
Read more
Student participants will take 15-20 minutes to use a Chrome notebook and headphones to access the online tool and the teacher will then lead a classroom discussion lasting 25-30 minutes. The intervention program will occur once a week for eight weeks.
The student outcome measures, given at pretest and posttest, are also assessed with Chrome notebooks while children are sitting at their desks in the classroom. The outcome measures take 25-30 minutes. Researchers will compare children in the intervention classes to children in other classes of the same grade at their school to see if the tool promotes positive peer relationships and reduces prejudice and bias.
Teacher participants will take a 25-minute online pretest and posttest survey in their classroom to assess their theories of prejudice, their awareness of their students' intergroup friendships, comfort with discussing peer social inclusion and exclusion in class, and their awareness of student experiences of exclusion.
Read the detailed description
A within school randomized control trial intervention design will be implemented to promote intergroup relationships and reduce prejudice in childhood for children between 7 and 12 years of age, enrolled in grades 3, 4, and 5 in U.S. elementary public schools. The intervention students watch an online tool for 15 minutes accompanied by a 30-minute teacher-led classroom discussion. Students in the control condition will be business as usual. There will be 720 students and 36 teachers, reflecting an ethnically diverse population. The outcome measures assess school belonging, peer and teacher classroom support, trait attributions of diverse peers, social evaluations about intergroup exclusion as well as the likelihood of exclusion, and math and science competency beliefs of diverse peers. All teachers participate in a 2-hour training session prior to the start of the school semester. All participating students have active parental consent. All teachers take a survey about their theories of prejudice, awareness of student experiences with exclusion, and strategies for talking about peer conflict in the classroom prior to the beginning of the program and provide their assent. There is high fidelity of the program due to the delivery of the information which is online. There are many steps in place to ensure fidelity of the teacher component which involves leading the classroom discussion. Multi-level analyses will be employed to determine whether the students in the intervention improve in their desire for intergroup friendships and experiences of classroom support relative to the students in the control condition. Novel data will be collected regarding intergroup attitudes held by children across a range of target groups and grade levels. The information from this project is expected to improve peer relationships due to the more positive classroom environment and an increase of social inclusion among peers. All children are expected to benefit by their participation in the program with a goal of improving academic engagement and healthy child development.
- Conditions
- Social Exclusion, Prejudice, Racial, Prejudice, Sexism, Peer Group
- Being tested
- Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY)
- Keywords
- intergroup attitudes, prejudice, bias, sexism, racism, exclusion, classroom intervention, moral reasoning, intergroup friendships, child development
- Medical subject headings
- Social Isolation, Racism, Prejudice, Sexism
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY)Behavioural
Also called Developing Inclusive Youth, DIY
Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) is a web-based curriculum tool that serves as the intervention program. The animated and narrated tool displays eight peer social exclusion scenarios in a range of familiar everyday social contexts (such as the playground and school). Children enter their responses while watching the scenarios. Responses include making decisions about inclusion and exclusion, evaluating the actions as okay or not okay, attributing feelings to includers, excluders, and excluded characters, and selecting reasons that best match their justification for their decisions and evaluations. The program includes teacher-guided group discussions following use of the tool in which teachers facilitate discussions about children's interpretations of the scenarios, evaluations, reflections regarding their own experiences of exclusion, and solutions. Participants will view and discuss 8 scenarios and engage in a discussion for each one over the course of 8 weeks.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Experimental | Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) classrooms complete a pretest and posttest survey in addition to completing 8 scenarios using the DIY online tool and a class discussion for each scenario. Receives: Behavioral: Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) |
| Control: Business As Usual Classrooms | No intervention | The control group follows a Business-As-Usual plan (no "alternative" program is implemented for the control group.) They complete a pretest and posttest in the same weeks as the experimental group. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
School Belonging Scale
The School Belonging Scale is an 8-item self-report measure consisting of a rating scale ranging from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). The average of all items creates a final score of perceived school belonging in which higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived school belonging. The original Psychological Sense of School Membership scale (PSSM) (Goodenow, 1999) measure has been found to have internal consistency reliability for both suburban (0.875) and urban (0.803) elementary school populations. We modified this measure for length. Pilot testing revealed that this new, shorter version was also found to have high internal reliability (0.714). The construct validity of the scale was also indicated through a significant relationship with teacher-ratings of student social standing (Goodenow, 1993).
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Classroom Life Scale: Peer Personal Support Subscale Personal Support Subscale
This is a five-item measure including items about whether other students in my class care about me and other students in my class like me for who I am. The measure has been found to produce reliability figures of .92 (Van Ryzin, Gravely, \& Roseth, 2009) and our modified version utilizing a 6-point response scale in place of the original 5-point scale found similar reliability scores (0.896). The rating scale ranged from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). The average of all items creates a score of perceived peer personal support in which higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived peer support. Performance on the Van Ryzin et al. (2009) scale has been demonstrated to have an independent positive effect on engagement in learning and has been validated by connections to academic engagement (Collie, Martin, Papworth, and Gins, 2016).
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Classroom Life Scale: Teacher Personal Support Subscale
The degree to which students perceive their teachers as personally supportive will be assessed using this 4-item measure. Items include statements such as my teacher cares about me and my teacher likes me for who I am. This measure was also modified from the original rating scale to a 6-point rating scale, which ranged from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). Van Ryzin et al. (2009) reported an internal consistency reliability of .91, and our pilot testing found a similar internal consistency reliability, 0.893.
A composite score was computed using the mean of all items in the scale. Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score indicated higher teacher support, the more desirable outcome.
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Trait Attributions for Gender, Race, & Ethnicity
An adaptation of the Child Occupations and Traits (COAT) scale (Liben \& Bigler, 2002; 0.99) measures stereotypes re: gender and race intergroup categories. Participants respond to three types of items (e.g., how smart or not smart; how hardworking or lazy; or friendly or mean) and this measure was also modified to utilize a 6 point rating scale. There are two sub-categories, gender and race. The questions probe the degree to which children assign traits to specific groups. The version we utilized contained 12 items, 6 about race and 6 about gender and pilot testing revealed that this version had a high internal reliability for the full scale (0.919), as well as for the gender and the race subcomponents (0.859 and 0.849, respectively).
Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score indicates more positive (better) trait attributions about peers.
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
High Status Occupation Expectations
This set of items is adapted from Liben \& Bigler (2002). These items probe participant perceptions of the likelihood of group members obtaining high status occupations. Participants were asked "Which kid do you think will grow up to be a [pilot/doctor/lawyer/scientist]?" with one item for each profession. Participants selected which child of 8 possible choices they thought would become the profession. The 8 choices included a boy and a girl of each of the following racial groups: Asian, Black, Latine, White. The measure was made binary by whether participants selected an underrepresented minority (URM) (Black or Latine) in high status professions, or whether they selected a race group that is not underrepresented (White or Asian). The goal of the intervention was that more students in the treatment condition selected a URM student after the intervention program. Therefore in the fields below, the category Underrepresented Minority (URM) indicates the number of participants who select
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Reported Contact Scale
The diversity of friendships will be assessed using an adaptation of the Friendship Questionnaire (Bierman \& McCauley, 1987). The original measure has been widely utilized to assess the quality and quantity of children's peer interactions and has proven to be reliable (ranges from .72 to .82). The adaptation consisted of adding the intergroup categories of gender and race/ethnicity. This adapted version was also found to be internally reliable (0.659). Using gender, racial, and ethnic background, we will record how often they play with outgroup peers to determine the proportion of cross-gender, cross-race, and cross-ethnic playmate interactions.
Scores on the scale ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a higher level of reported cross-group contact, which is the more desirable outcome.
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Desire for Intergroup Contact
This assessment consists of 5 separate items about how much the child wants to play with X, where X refers to pictures of girls, boys, and kids who are depicted as African American, European American, and Asian American). Response choices are provided on a 6 point rating scale ranging from 1 (really do not want to) to 6 (really want to). During pilot testing this measure was found to have a high internal consistency reliability (0.767). Using students' gender, ethnic, and racial background, we will record their desire to play with outgroup peers to determine the proportion of cross-gender, cross-race and cross-ethnic playmate preferences.
Scores on the scale ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a higher desire for intergroup contact, the more desirable outcome.
Measured: change, one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Personal Experiences With Exclusion
This assessments consists of 8 items about whether the child experiences exclusion in a school context. Response choices are provided on a 5 point Likert-type rating scale ranging from "Never" to "Always." This measure has been validated in previous research (Killen et al., 2022).
Scores on the scale range from a minimum score of 1 and maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher levels of personal experiences of exclusion, which is the less desirable outcome. Thus the goal of the intervention is to result in lower scores in the treatment group at posttest.
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Evaluations of Exclusion in Intergroup and Same Group Contexts
This assessment consists of 2 items repeated 4 times to reflect different race and gender combinations for a total of 8 items. This measure is adapted from Cooley et al., 2019. The items ask participants to evaluate exclusion in an intergroup and same group social context. Responses were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (really not okay) to 6 (really okay).
Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score on this scale indicates viewing exclusion as more acceptable and a lower score indicates viewing exclusion as less acceptable. The goal of the intervention is to promote lower scores, indicating participants are less accepting of exclusion.
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Likelihood of Inclusion in Intergroup and Same Group Contexts
This assessment consists of 5 items repeated 4 times to reflect different race and gender combinations for a total of 20 items. This measure is adapted from Cooley et al., 2019. The items ask participants to predict the likelihood of a child inviting someone to their birthday party, where the children they can invite may be of the same or a different race. Responses were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very likely).
Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate participants expect intergroup inclusion to be more likely, which is the more desirable outcome.
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Stereotypes About Inclusivity
This scale is adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). The scale probes participant perceptions of the inclusivity levels of different groups. These scales were created consistent with the literature on gender stereotypes (Berenbaum, Martin, \& Ruble, 2015; Mulvey, Rizzo, \& Killen, 2016). A 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (all) indicates the proportion of children within a hypothetical target group whom participants believe fit into a categorization. Pilot testing revealed 0.800 for the 5-item measure of inclusivity levels of different groups.
Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5. Higher scores indicate more positive beliefs about peers' inclusive behavior, the more desirable outcome.
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Stereotypes About Math & Science Competence
This scale is adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). The scale probes participant perceptions of the math and science abilities of different groups. This scale was created consistent with the literature on gender stereotypes (Berenbaum, Martin, \& Ruble, 2015; Mulvey, Rizzo, \& Killen, 2016). A 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (all) indicates the proportion of children within a hypothetical target group whom participants believe fit into a categorization. Pilot testing revealed 0.796 for the 5-item measure of math and science abilities of different groups.
Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5. Higher scores indicate more positive beliefs about peers' math and science abilities, which is the more desirable outcome.
Measured: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Nov 2022
- Study start27 Sep 2022
- Primary completion23 Dec 2023
- Study completion31 Jan 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Social ExclusionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 885 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Maryland, College Park
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Melanie Killen, University of Maryland, College Park
- Investigators
- Wendy Montgomery, Study chair, University of Maryland, College Park
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05619523
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Developing Inclusive Youth
- Other IDs
- 5R01HD093698-04
- Acronym
- DIY
- Status last verified
- Aug 2025
- First submitted
- 27 Oct 2022
- Last updated
- 2 Sep 2025
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79-90. DOI:10.1002/1520-6807.
Van Ryzin MJ, Gravely AA, Roseth CJ. Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. J Youth Adolesc. 2009 Jan;38(1):1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4. Epub 2007 Nov 30.
PubMed 19636787Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., Papworth, B. & Gins, P., (2016). Students' interpersonal relationships, personal best (PB) goals, and academic engagement, Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.002
Liben LS, Bigler RS. The developmental course of gender differentiation: conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2002;67(2):i-viii, 1-147; discussion 148-83.
PubMed 12465575Mulvey KL, Rizzo MT, Killen M. Challenging gender stereotypes: Theory of mind and peer group dynamics. Dev Sci. 2016 Nov;19(6):999-1010. doi: 10.1111/desc.12345. Epub 2015 Sep 22.
PubMed 26395753Bierman, K. L., & McCauley, E. (1987). Children's descriptions of their peer interactions: Useful information for clinical child assessment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1601_2
Grutter J, Gasser L, Zuffiano A, Meyer B. Promoting Inclusion Via Cross-Group Friendship: The Mediating Role of Change in Trust and Sympathy. Child Dev. 2018 Jul;89(4):e414-e430. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12883. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
PubMed 28626994Killen M, Burkholder AR, D'Esterre AP, Sims RN, Glidden J, Yee KM, Luken Raz KV, Elenbaas L, Rizzo MT, Woodward B, Samuelson A, Sweet TM, Stapleton LM. Testing the effectiveness of the Developing Inclusive Youth program: A multisite randomized control trial. Child Dev. 2022 May;93(3):732-750. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13785. Epub 2022 May 25.
PubMed 35612354
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Sep 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- An Intervention to Promote Positive Peer Relationships and Reduce Prejudice and Bias in Childhood
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05619523
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- DIY / Developing Inclusive Youth
- Conditions
- Social Exclusion, Prejudice, Racial, Prejudice, Sexism, Peer Group
- Keywords
- intergroup attitudes, prejudice, bias, sexism, racism, exclusion, classroom intervention, moral reasoning
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 885 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Maryland, College ParkUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Study start
- 27 Sep 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 23 Dec 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Jan 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 2 Sep 2025
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this clinical trial is to test the beneficial impacts of a web based intervention program called Developing Inclusive Youth for children in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Does the Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) program, which is a web-based curriculum tool with a teacher-led classroom discussion, reduce prejudicial attitudes and biases as well as increase intergroup friendships for a sample of 8 -11 year old children enrolled in 3rd , 4th, and 5th grade U.S. classrooms?
- Does the Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) program lead to grade-related, gender-related and ethnic-related differences regarding reducing prejudicial attitudes and increasing intergroup friendships?
- Does the Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) program change teacher attitudes regarding the malleability of prejudice, the importance of intergroup friendships, and comfort levels with discussing social inclusion and exclusion experiences in the classroom?
Student participants will take 15-20 minutes to use a Chrome notebook and headphones to access the online tool and the teacher will then lead a classroom discussion lasting 25-30 minutes. The intervention program will occur once a week for eight weeks.
The student outcome measures, given at pretest and posttest, are also assessed with Chrome notebooks while children are sitting at their desks in the classroom. The outcome measures take 25-30 minutes. Researchers will compare children in the intervention classes to children in other classes of the same grade at their school to see if the tool promotes positive peer relationships and reduces prejudice and bias.
Teacher participants will take a 25-minute online pretest and posttest survey in their classroom to assess their theories of prejudice, their awareness of their students' intergroup friendships, comfort with discussing peer social inclusion and exclusion in class, and their awareness of student experiences of exclusion.
Detailed description
A within school randomized control trial intervention design will be implemented to promote intergroup relationships and reduce prejudice in childhood for children between 7 and 12 years of age, enrolled in grades 3, 4, and 5 in U.S. elementary public schools. The intervention students watch an online tool for 15 minutes accompanied by a 30-minute teacher-led classroom discussion. Students in the control condition will be business as usual. There will be 720 students and 36 teachers, reflecting an ethnically diverse population. The outcome measures assess school belonging, peer and teacher classroom support, trait attributions of diverse peers, social evaluations about intergroup exclusion as well as the likelihood of exclusion, and math and science competency beliefs of diverse peers. All teachers participate in a 2-hour training session prior to the start of the school semester. All participating students have active parental consent. All teachers take a survey about their theories of prejudice, awareness of student experiences with exclusion, and strategies for talking about peer conflict in the classroom prior to the beginning of the program and provide their assent. There is high fidelity of the program due to the delivery of the information which is online. There are many steps in place to ensure fidelity of the teacher component which involves leading the classroom discussion. Multi-level analyses will be employed to determine whether the students in the intervention improve in their desire for intergroup friendships and experiences of classroom support relative to the students in the control condition. Novel data will be collected regarding intergroup attitudes held by children across a range of target groups and grade levels. The information from this project is expected to improve peer relationships due to the more positive classroom environment and an increase of social inclusion among peers. All children are expected to benefit by their participation in the program with a goal of improving academic engagement and healthy child development.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms | Experimental | Behavioral: Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY)Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) classrooms complete a pretest and posttest survey in addition to completing 8 scenarios using the DIY online tool and a class discussion for each scenario. |
| Control: Business As Usual Classrooms | No intervention | –The control group follows a Business-As-Usual plan (no "alternative" program is implemented for the control group.) They complete a pretest and posttest in the same weeks as the experimental group. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 7 to 12 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- children with parental consent in grades 3, 4, or 5 at participating schools
- be between the ages of 7 and 12 years
- children who need assistance sitting at their desk or reading the text can participate provided that an adult mentor is assigned to them to assist with the protocol
- teachers of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 at participating schools and who provide assent
- no age limits for teacher participation
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- school has identified the student as unable to participate due to disability status.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY)Also: Developing Inclusive Youth, DIYDeveloping Inclusive Youth (DIY) is a web-based curriculum tool that serves as the intervention program. The animated and narrated tool displays eight peer social exclusion scenarios in a range of familiar everyday social contexts (such as the playground and school). Children enter their responses while watching the scenarios. Responses include making decisions about inclusion and exclusion, evaluating the actions as okay or not okay, attributing feelings to includers, excluders, and excluded characters, and selecting reasons that best match their justification for their decisions and evaluations. The program includes teacher-guided group discussions following use of the tool in which teachers facilitate discussions about children's interpretations of the scenarios, evaluations, reflections regarding their own experiences of exclusion, and solutions. Participants will view and discuss 8 scenarios and engage in a discussion for each one over the course of 8 weeks. | Behavioural | Intervention: DIY Tool Classrooms |
Primary outcome
School Belonging Scale
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
The School Belonging Scale is an 8-item self-report measure consisting of a rating scale ranging from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). The average of all items creates a final score of perceived school belonging in which higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived school belonging. The original Psychological Sense of School Membership scale (PSSM) (Goodenow, 1999) measure has been found to have internal consistency reliability for both suburban (0.875) and urban (0.803) elementary school populations. We modified this measure for length. Pilot testing revealed that this new, shorter version was also found to have high internal reliability (0.714). The construct validity of the scale was also indicated through a significant relationship with teacher-ratings of student social standing (Goodenow, 1993).
Classroom Life Scale: Peer Personal Support Subscale Personal Support Subscale
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
This is a five-item measure including items about whether other students in my class care about me and other students in my class like me for who I am. The measure has been found to produce reliability figures of .92 (Van Ryzin, Gravely, \& Roseth, 2009) and our modified version utilizing a 6-point response scale in place of the original 5-point scale found similar reliability scores (0.896). The rating scale ranged from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). The average of all items creates a score of perceived peer personal support in which higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived peer support. Performance on the Van Ryzin et al. (2009) scale has been demonstrated to have an independent positive effect on engagement in learning and has been validated by connections to academic engagement (Collie, Martin, Papworth, and Gins, 2016).
Classroom Life Scale: Teacher Personal Support Subscale
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
The degree to which students perceive their teachers as personally supportive will be assessed using this 4-item measure. Items include statements such as my teacher cares about me and my teacher likes me for who I am. This measure was also modified from the original rating scale to a 6-point rating scale, which ranged from 1 (really not true) to 6 (really true). Van Ryzin et al. (2009) reported an internal consistency reliability of .91, and our pilot testing found a similar internal consistency reliability, 0.893. A composite score was computed using the mean of all items in the scale. Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score indicated higher teacher support, the more desirable outcome.
Trait Attributions for Gender, Race, & Ethnicity
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
An adaptation of the Child Occupations and Traits (COAT) scale (Liben \& Bigler, 2002; 0.99) measures stereotypes re: gender and race intergroup categories. Participants respond to three types of items (e.g., how smart or not smart; how hardworking or lazy; or friendly or mean) and this measure was also modified to utilize a 6 point rating scale. There are two sub-categories, gender and race. The questions probe the degree to which children assign traits to specific groups. The version we utilized contained 12 items, 6 about race and 6 about gender and pilot testing revealed that this version had a high internal reliability for the full scale (0.919), as well as for the gender and the race subcomponents (0.859 and 0.849, respectively). Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score indicates more positive (better) trait attributions about peers.
High Status Occupation Expectations
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
This set of items is adapted from Liben \& Bigler (2002). These items probe participant perceptions of the likelihood of group members obtaining high status occupations. Participants were asked "Which kid do you think will grow up to be a [pilot/doctor/lawyer/scientist]?" with one item for each profession. Participants selected which child of 8 possible choices they thought would become the profession. The 8 choices included a boy and a girl of each of the following racial groups: Asian, Black, Latine, White. The measure was made binary by whether participants selected an underrepresented minority (URM) (Black or Latine) in high status professions, or whether they selected a race group that is not underrepresented (White or Asian). The goal of the intervention was that more students in the treatment condition selected a URM student after the intervention program. Therefore in the fields below, the category Underrepresented Minority (URM) indicates the number of participants who select
Reported Contact Scale
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
The diversity of friendships will be assessed using an adaptation of the Friendship Questionnaire (Bierman \& McCauley, 1987). The original measure has been widely utilized to assess the quality and quantity of children's peer interactions and has proven to be reliable (ranges from .72 to .82). The adaptation consisted of adding the intergroup categories of gender and race/ethnicity. This adapted version was also found to be internally reliable (0.659). Using gender, racial, and ethnic background, we will record how often they play with outgroup peers to determine the proportion of cross-gender, cross-race, and cross-ethnic playmate interactions. Scores on the scale ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a higher level of reported cross-group contact, which is the more desirable outcome.
Desire for Intergroup Contact
Time frame: change, one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
This assessment consists of 5 separate items about how much the child wants to play with X, where X refers to pictures of girls, boys, and kids who are depicted as African American, European American, and Asian American). Response choices are provided on a 6 point rating scale ranging from 1 (really do not want to) to 6 (really want to). During pilot testing this measure was found to have a high internal consistency reliability (0.767). Using students' gender, ethnic, and racial background, we will record their desire to play with outgroup peers to determine the proportion of cross-gender, cross-race and cross-ethnic playmate preferences. Scores on the scale ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate a higher desire for intergroup contact, the more desirable outcome.
Personal Experiences With Exclusion
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
This assessments consists of 8 items about whether the child experiences exclusion in a school context. Response choices are provided on a 5 point Likert-type rating scale ranging from "Never" to "Always." This measure has been validated in previous research (Killen et al., 2022). Scores on the scale range from a minimum score of 1 and maximum score of 5. Higher scores indicate higher levels of personal experiences of exclusion, which is the less desirable outcome. Thus the goal of the intervention is to result in lower scores in the treatment group at posttest.
Evaluations of Exclusion in Intergroup and Same Group Contexts
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
This assessment consists of 2 items repeated 4 times to reflect different race and gender combinations for a total of 8 items. This measure is adapted from Cooley et al., 2019. The items ask participants to evaluate exclusion in an intergroup and same group social context. Responses were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (really not okay) to 6 (really okay). Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. A higher score on this scale indicates viewing exclusion as more acceptable and a lower score indicates viewing exclusion as less acceptable. The goal of the intervention is to promote lower scores, indicating participants are less accepting of exclusion.
Likelihood of Inclusion in Intergroup and Same Group Contexts
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
This assessment consists of 5 items repeated 4 times to reflect different race and gender combinations for a total of 20 items. This measure is adapted from Cooley et al., 2019. The items ask participants to predict the likelihood of a child inviting someone to their birthday party, where the children they can invite may be of the same or a different race. Responses were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very likely). Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6. Higher scores indicate participants expect intergroup inclusion to be more likely, which is the more desirable outcome.
Stereotypes About Inclusivity
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
This scale is adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). The scale probes participant perceptions of the inclusivity levels of different groups. These scales were created consistent with the literature on gender stereotypes (Berenbaum, Martin, \& Ruble, 2015; Mulvey, Rizzo, \& Killen, 2016). A 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (all) indicates the proportion of children within a hypothetical target group whom participants believe fit into a categorization. Pilot testing revealed 0.800 for the 5-item measure of inclusivity levels of different groups. Scores on this scale range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 5. Higher scores indicate more positive beliefs about peers' inclusive behavior, the more desirable outcome.
Stereotypes About Math & Science Competence
Time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention
This scale is adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). The scale probes participant perceptions of the math and science abilities of different groups. This scale was created consistent with the literature on gender stereotypes (Berenbaum, Martin, \& Ruble, 2015; Mulvey, Rizzo, \& Killen, 2016). A 5 point rating scale ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (all) indicates the proportion of children within a hypothetical target group whom participants believe fit into a categorization. Pilot testing revealed 0.796 for the 5-item measure of math and science abilities of different groups. Scores ranged from a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5. Higher scores indicate more positive beliefs about peers' math and science abilities, which is the more desirable outcome.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Sep 2025.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- BackgroundGoodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79-90. DOI:10.1002/1520-6807.
- Background: PubMed 19636787Van Ryzin MJ, Gravely AA, Roseth CJ. Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. J Youth Adolesc. 2009 Jan;38(1):1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4. Epub 2007 Nov 30.
- BackgroundCollie, R. J., Martin, A. J., Papworth, B. & Gins, P., (2016). Students' interpersonal relationships, personal best (PB) goals, and academic engagement, Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.002
- Background: PubMed 12465575Liben LS, Bigler RS. The developmental course of gender differentiation: conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2002;67(2):i-viii, 1-147; discussion 148-83.
- Background: PubMed 26395753Mulvey KL, Rizzo MT, Killen M. Challenging gender stereotypes: Theory of mind and peer group dynamics. Dev Sci. 2016 Nov;19(6):999-1010. doi: 10.1111/desc.12345. Epub 2015 Sep 22.
- BackgroundBierman, K. L., & McCauley, E. (1987). Children's descriptions of their peer interactions: Useful information for clinical child assessment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1601_2
- Background: PubMed 28626994Grutter J, Gasser L, Zuffiano A, Meyer B. Promoting Inclusion Via Cross-Group Friendship: The Mediating Role of Change in Trust and Sympathy. Child Dev. 2018 Jul;89(4):e414-e430. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12883. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
- Background: PubMed 35612354Killen M, Burkholder AR, D'Esterre AP, Sims RN, Glidden J, Yee KM, Luken Raz KV, Elenbaas L, Rizzo MT, Woodward B, Samuelson A, Sweet TM, Stapleton LM. Testing the effectiveness of the Developing Inclusive Youth program: A multisite randomized control trial. Child Dev. 2022 May;93(3):732-750. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13785. Epub 2022 May 25.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Social Exclusion
Recruiting
Does Attachment Anxiety Moderate the Influence of Social Rejection on Alcohol Use Among Young Adults?
Social Rejection, Attachement Style
Not yet recruiting
Neural Mechanisms of Social Feedback Evaluation in Young Adults Across the Schizotypy Spectrum: An EEG Social Judgment Study
Schizotypy
Recruiting
Teen Brain Online II: Understanding How Social Media Affects the Teen Brain
Depression
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Seeking Treatment for Gambling - a 10-year Retrospective Clinical and Register Study of Gambling Patterns and Physical and Psychiatric Comorbidity in Patients With Gambling Disorder
Gambling Disorder
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of Cognitive Behavioral Model-Based Psychoeducation on Social Exclusion, Hopelessness, and Relapse Levels in Individuals Diagnosed With Substance Use Disorder
Substance Use Disorder (SUD)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Wendy Montgomery study chair
University of Maryland, College Park
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Developing Inclusive Youth (DIY) in people with Social Exclusion and Prejudice, Racial, run by University of Maryland, College Park at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Sep 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 2 Sep 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
School Belonging Scale (time frame: one week following completion of the 8-week intervention). The study lists 12 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05619523, which also lists 8 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Sep 2025.