Abstract
The present study used the 2009–2010 sample of the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Survey (N = 12,642) to investigate the incremental validity of four competing bullying involvement classification schemas, which differ as a function of relative rates of endorsing victimization and perpetration behaviors at school: the standard four-group model, an alternative four-group model, a nine-group model, and a sixteen-group model. The prevalence rates and associations with concurrent mental health and school functioning outcomes were explored for each of the four bullying involvement classification schemas, which were derived using a categorical analytic approach that relied on the same two self-report items—one targeting victimization and one targeting perpetration—in the HBSC self-report survey. Results indicated substantially different prevalence rates among the four schemas and that schemas which differentiated between higher frequencies of perpetration and victimization involvement were associated with greater odds of being at risk of psychological distress, psychological well-being, academic performance, and attitudes toward school. Findings also suggested that a continuous approach to deriving bullying involvement classifications may be useful, yet preliminary post hoc analyses indicated that this approach would yield redundant results given the parameters of the present study. Implications for school mental health practice and future research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youth and mental health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing?’. Psychological Medicine, 40, 717–729. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991383.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). Indicators of school crime and safety. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=8
Carifio, L., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50 year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, 42, 1150–1152. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65–83. doi:10.1037/a0020149.
Cornell, D., & Cole, J. (2012). Assessment of bullying. In S. Jimerson, A. Nickerson, M. Mayer, & M. Furlong (Eds.), The Handbook of School Violence and School Safety: International Research and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 289–303). London: Routledge.
Farmer, T. W., Petrin, R. A., Robertson, D. L., Fraser, M. W., Hall, C. M., Day, S. H., & Dadisman, K. (2010). Peer relations of bullies, bully-victims, and victims: The two social worlds of bullying in second-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 110, 364–392. doi:10.1086/648983.
Felix, E., Sharkey, J., Green, J., Furlong, M. J., & Tanigawa, D. (2011). Getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of bullying: The development of the California Bullying Victimization Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 234–247. doi:10.1002/ab.20389.
Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13.
Glover, T. A., & Albers, C. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117–135. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.005.
Greif Green, J., Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Furlong, M. J., & Kras, J. E. (2013). Identifying bully victims: Definitional versus behavioral approaches. Psychological Assessment, 25, 651–657. doi:10.1037/a0031248.
Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., & Jarrett, R. B. (1987). The treatment utility of assessment: A functional approach to evaluating assessment quality. American Psychologist, 42, 963–974. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.42.11.963.
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullies, victims and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 29–49. doi:10.1177/0272431601021001002.
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying. American Psychologist, 70, 293–299. doi:10.1037/a0038928.
Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Health behavior in school-aged children (HBSC), 2009–2010 (ICPSR34792-v1). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34792.v1
Jimerson, S. R., Nickerson, A. B., Mayer, M. J., & Furlong, M. J. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of school violence and school safety: International research and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jimerson, S. R., Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause of consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305–1317. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01797.x.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Haynie, H. L., Ruan, W. J., & Scheidt, P. C. (2003). Relationship between bullying and violence among U.S. youth. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 157, 348–353. doi:10.1001/archpedi.157.4.348.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625–632. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.
Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 196–200. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772640.
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Critical issues. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 9–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Renshaw, T. L., & Bolognino, S. J. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Psychological Wellbeing and Distress Screener: A brief measure of youths’ bidimensional mental health. Unpublished manuscript.
Sharkey, J. D., Dowdy, E., Twyford, J., & Furlong, M. J. (2012). An overview of measurement issues in school violence and school safety research. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), The Handbook of School Violence and School Safety: International Research and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 259–273). London: Routledge.
Stoiber, K. C. (2014). A comprehensive framework for multitiered systems of support in school psychology. In P. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and collaborative decision making (pp. 41–70). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010a). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38–47. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357622.
Swearer, S. M., Siebecker, A. B., Frerichs, L. J., & Wang, C. (2010b). Assessment of bullying/victimization: The problem of comparability across studies and across methodologies. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 305–327). New York, NY: Routledge.
Vailancourt, T., Trinh, V., Mcdougal, P., Duku, E., Cunningham, L., Cunningham, C., et al. (2010). Optimizing population screening of bullying in school-aged children. Journal of School Violence, 9, 233–250. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.483182.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, and bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672–682. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.672.
World Health Organization. (2014). Health behavior in school-aged children: World Health Organization collaborative cross-national survey. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/en/
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Ronald J. Iannotti for making available the Health Behavior in School-aged Children Survey datasets and their codebooks for public use.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Renshaw, T.L., Roberson, A.J. & Hammons, K.N. The Functionality of Four Bullying Involvement Classification Schemas: Prevalence Rates and Associations with Mental Health and School Outcomes. School Mental Health 8, 332–343 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-015-9171-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-015-9171-y