Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05891067

The Effectiveness of a Classroom-based Intervention Promoting a Prosocial Classroom Climate in Children

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a classroom-based program promoting a prosocial classroom climate is more effective than treatment-as-usual (control condition).

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Utrecht University

Utrecht, 3584CS, Netherlands

About this study

A positive, prosocial classroom climate is associated with improved social competence and academic achievement, as well as decreased internalizing and externalizing problems and antisocial behavior in children. It is expected that motivation to behave prosocially is needed to achieve a prosocial climate in the classroom, and that such motivation can be enhanced through three components of self-determination theory (SDT): competence, relatedness, and autonomy. The goal of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a classroom-based program based on SDT that aims to promote prosocial classroom climate, through a cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). SterkWerk is hypothesized to be more effective than treatment-as-usual (TAU) in creating more prosocial classrooms, through improving prosocial (intrinsic) motivation and behavior, social autonomy, social competence, and social relatedness.

The design of the current study is a cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) with two conditions: the intervention condition and a waitlist control condition (TAU: treatment-as-usual). Schools in the intervention condition receive the materials and training to implement the intervention in the school year 2023/2024. Schools in the control group do not receive the intervention (do not receive material or training), and function as normal (TAU). Control schools are requested to not start any social-emotional program during the school year 2023/2024.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Primary school children of grades 5-8 (mostly aged between 8-12 years)
  • Teachers and school leaders of participating schools (no age limit)

Exclusion criteria

  • No exclusion criteria

Treatment and study plan

SterkWerk

Behavioral

Classroom-based intervention program

Treatment-as-usual

Behavioral

Active control group

Other names: TAU

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in prosocial behavior as an injunctive form assessed with three items specifically developed for this study

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    It is a self-reported instrument rated on a 3-point scale from 1 (not true) to 3 (definitely true), measuring children's attitudes towards prosocial behavior that are on average held in the classroom. Higher scores reflect a higher injunctive norm of the group towards prosocial behavior.

  2. Change in individual prosocial behavior assessed with four items based on the subscale prosocial behavior of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    The adapted SDQ subscale prosocial behavior is a self-reported instrument rated on a 4-point scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always). Higher scores reflect more prosocial behavior.

  3. Change in prosocial relations in the classroom assessed with sociometric nominations

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    Children see a list with the names of all classmates and select the classmates that fit the question best according to them. Two items are used, assessing the child's prosocial behavior according to classmates. The number of received nominations is devided by the number of possible nominations, resulting in a proportion score for prosocial relations.

  4. Change in cooperation and conflict in the classroom assessed with the Classroom Peer Context Questionnaire (CPCQ), subscales cooperation and conflict.

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    The CPCQ is a self-reported instrument. The cooperation subscale consists of four items assessing the extent to which children experience positive behavior. The conflict subscale consists of two items assessing the extent to which children experience negative behavior. The items are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 4 (completely true). Higher scores on the cooperation subscale reflects more positive behavior, while for the conflict subscale it reflects more negative behavior.

  5. Change in intrinsic (prosocial) motivation assessed with four items specifically developed for this study

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    This instrument is a self-reported instrument, rated on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 3 (definitely true). Higher scores reflect more intrinsic (prosocial) motivation.

  6. Change in social competence assessed with five items based on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    The adapted RSES is a self-reported istrument, rated on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 3 (definitely true). Higher scores reflect more social competence.

  7. Change in social autonomy assessed with five items based on the School as a Caring Community Profile-II (SCCP-II) and the Child Development Project

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    It is a self-reported instrument, rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). Higher scores reflect more autonomy.

  8. Change in social relatedness assessed with the Classroom Peer Context Questionnaire (CPCQ), subscales comfort and cohesion.

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    The CPCQ is a self-reported instrument. The comfort subscale consists of four items assessing the extent to which children feel at ease in the classroom. The cohesion subscale consists of two items assessing the extent to which the children in the classroom spend time together. The items are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 4 (completely true). Higher scores on both subscales reflect more positive behavior.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in school wellbeing assessed with seven items specifically developed for this study

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    This is a self-reported instrument. School belonging is measured with 7 items, rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). Higher scores reflect positive school wellbeing.

  2. Change in school wellbeing assessed with one item specifically developed for this study

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    This is a self-reported instrument. School safety is measured with 1 item, rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very unsafe) to 7 (very safe). Higher scores reflect positive school wellbeing.

  3. Change in social position (kindness, leadership, unkindness, popularity, best friends) assessed with sociometric nominations

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    Children see a list with the names of all classmates and select the classmates that fit the question best according to them. Five items are used, assessing the child's social position according to classmates. The number of received nominations is devided by the number of possible nominations, resulting in a proportion score for each social position (kindness, leadership, unkindness, popularity, best friends).

  4. Change in bullying and bullying victimization assessed with the Olweus Bully-Victim Questionnaire (OB-VQ)

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    The OB-VQ is a self-reported instrument, consisting of items related to bullying, bullying victimization and the perceived behavior and attitudes of the teacher. Nine items related to bullying and victimization are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I did not bully / I was not bullied) to 5 (several times a week). Higher scores reflect more bullying and victimization.

  5. Change in bullying and bullying victimization (where child is victimized) assessed with the Olweus Bully-Victim Questionnaire (OB-VQ)

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    The OB-VQ is a self-reported instrument, consisting of items related to bullying, bullying victimization and the perceived behavior and attitudes of the teacher. One item asks where the child is bullied. with answer options such as: in the halway, on the way to school, in the classroom (with the teacher present).

  6. Change in bullying and bullying victimization assessed with the Olweus Bully-Victim Questionnaire (OB-VQ)

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    The OB-VQ is a self-reported instrument, consisting of items related to bullying, bullying victimization and the perceived behavior and attitudes of the teacher. Three items relate to the perceived behavior and attitude of the teacher. Higher scores reflect more negative attitudes/behavior of the teacher.

  7. Change in bullying and bullying victimization assessed with sociometric nominations

    Time frame: T1 (baseline); T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention; T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    Regarding sociometric nominations,10 questions related to bullying victimization and one question related to bullying will be asked to children. Children see a list with the names of all classmates and select the classmates that fit the question best according to them. The number of received nominations is devided by the number of possible nominations, resulting in a proportion score for bullying.

Other outcomes

  1. Child characteristics assessed with items specifically developed for this study

    Time frame: T1 (baseline)

    Child characteristics include age, gender, romantic attraction , grade, and ethnic identity (9 items).

  2. Teacher characteristics assessed with items specifically developed for this study

    Time frame: T1 (baseline)

    Teacher characteristics include age, gender, years of experience (as a teacher in general, and as a teacher at the specific school) and experience with implementing social safety programs (10 items).

  3. School characteristics assessed with items specifically developed for this study

    Time frame: T1 (baseline)

    School characteristics include location, number of participating grades and students in the classrooms, and years of experience with a social safety program (e.g., KiVa) (15 items).

  4. Working elements (i.e., meaningful roles, weekly meetings and compliments) assessed with items specifically developed for this stuy

    Time frame: T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention

    Children fill in questionnaires related to the three main components of the program: 1) meaningful roles (e.g., "How much did you like the role(s)" (12 items), 2) classroom meetings (e.g., "The weekly meetings were done independently by the class", 4 items), and 3) compliments (e.g., "I have received compliments from my classmates", 7 items). Higher scores reflect a more positive or greater adherence of the working elements.

  5. Working elements (i.e., meaningful roles, weekly meetings and compliments) assessed with items specifically developed for this stuy

    Time frame: T3 (postintervention) approximately 10 months after the start of the intervention

    Teachers fill in questionnaires related to the three main components of the program: 1) meaningful roles (e.g., "Which roles were the most popular?", 9 items), 2) classroom meetings (e.g., "How often has a meeting been held?", 5 items), and 3) compliments (e.g., "How many times a week has attention been paid to the compliments?", 6 items). Higher scores reflect a more positive or greater adherence of the working elements.

  6. Program integrity assessed with items specifically developed for this study

    Time frame: T2 (mid-intervention) approximately 5 months after the start of the intervention

    Teachers and school leaders fill in questionnaires related to the implementation of the program, divided into the domains training and material (e.g., "How often have you used the manual?", 9 items), child questionnaires (e.g., "Where there any questions that the children struggled with?", 2 items), time investment (e.g., "How did you feel about the time you had to implement the program properly?", 3 items), and global impression (e.g., "What is your general impression of the degree of success of the implementation of the program?", 6 items). Higher scores reflect a more positive or greater adherence of the program.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Utrecht University

Other

Collaborators

  • KiVa B.V.
  • Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research

Registry information

Official study title

The Effectiveness of a Classroom-based Intervention Promoting Proscial Classroom Climate in Children

Important dates

Study start
2023
Primary completion
2024
Study completion
2025
First posted
Jun 6, 2023
Registry last updated
May 12, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.