Changes to the original protocol

Amendment 1

The team suggested changes to the process evaluation section of the original protocol [1]. These changes were endorsed by our Trial Steering Committee (TSC) and approved by UCL Research Ethics Committee (5/10/2015, ref 5248/001).

The deviations from the original protocol and rationales for these changes are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Changes to the original protocol approved in Amendment 1

The main reason for changing the protocol is to limit the data collection’s burden imposed on schools and re-direct the resources to in-depth data analysis and additional data collection collected from intervention schools.

Amendment 2

The study executive team thought it would be in the interest of the study to add a question on bullying perpetration. The change was supported by our TSC and has been approved by UCL Research Ethics Committee (23/03/2016, ref 5248/001). This added a new secondary outcome to the study and an additional question in the students’ questionnaire delivered in the year 2 and year 3 follow-up surveys. The protocol has been amended accordingly in the secondary outcome section, and with a minor correction in the statistical section.

The question is taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance document on bullying measures [2]. The only measure that it recommends that focuses on specific occasions of recent bullying perpetration is the Modified Aggression Scale Bullying subscale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83) [3]. This is an existing, established measure with evidence of reliability.

Amendment 4

The current approved protocol (v1.5) had some details missing in the Process Evaluation section of the protocol. These details were in our Process Evaluation (PE) protocol, approved by our TSC, so the team thought it important to align the main protocol with the PE protocol by adding more details in the main section, new version 1.6. The amendment was approved on 10/10/2016.

The additional details added:

  • Section Trial arm fidelity: “termly (from year 3 annual) restorative practice surveys (n = 20)” and “We will also draw on administrative documents (e.g. minutes, attendance sheets, training satisfaction feedback)”

  • Section Reception and responsiveness: “We will also interview n = 2 students involved in restorative practice sessions per year in each case study school.”