Cross-informant agreement about bullying and victimization among eight-year-olds: whose information best predicts psychiatric caseness 10–15 years later?
- 411 Downloads
To examine cross-informant agreement and whose information (parents, teachers, children) about childhood bullying and victimization carry the strongest weight to late adolescent psychiatric outcome. The importance of frequency of bullying in such predictions is addressed.
Information from 2,713 boys about bullying and victimization at the age of eight was correlated with information about psychiatric disorder at 18–23.
Agreement between informants was poor. Teachers reported higher levels of frequent bullying than others, whereas children reported the highest percentage of victimization. All three informant groups’ reports of “frequent bullying” predicted later psychiatric disorder. Teachers’ reports of “frequent victimization” was the strongest predictor of later psychiatric disorder. Informants’ report about “infrequent bullying” showed at most a rather low risk of adverse outcome. When the associations between bullying/victimization and psychiatric outcome were adjusted with total psychopathology score at age 8, none of the associations remained significant.
“Frequent bullying” behaviour of boys is a marker of present and later psychopathology. The education system and school health-care service in mid- childhood are of great importance for the early detection of bullying and prevention of later adverse outcomes. A closer integration of these systems in the context of school should be promoted.
Keywordsbullying victimization cross-informant agreement prediction psychopathology
- 5.Boulton MJ, Smith PK (1994) Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions, and peer acceptance. Br J Dev Psychol 12:315–329Google Scholar
- 18.Loeber R, Gree SM, Lahey BB (1990) Mental health professionals’ perception of the utility of children, mothers, and teachers as informants on childhood psychopathology. J Clin Psychol 19:136–143Google Scholar
- 19.Mishna F, Scarcello I, Pepler D, Wiener J (2005) Teachers’ understanding of bullying. Can J Educ 28:718–738Google Scholar
- 21.Morita Y, Soeda H, Soeda K, Taki M (1999) Japan. In: Smith PK, Morita Y, Junger-Tas J, Olweus D, Catalano R, Slee P (eds) The nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective. Routledge, London, pp 309–323Google Scholar
- 23.Olweus D (1991) Bullying/victim problems among schoolchildren: basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention programme. In: Pepler D, Rubin K (eds) The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Erlbaumm, Hillsdale pp. 411–448Google Scholar
- 30.Rutter M, Tizard J, Whitmore K (1970) Education, health and behaviour. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 34.Smith JD, Cousins JB, Stewart R (2005) Antibullying interventions in schools: ingredients of effective programs. Can J Educ 28:739–762Google Scholar
- 36.Smith PK, Morita Y, Junger-Tas J, Olweus D, Catalano R, Slee P (eds) (1999) The nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 39.Sourander A, Jensen P, Rønning JA, Elonheimo H, Niemela S, Helenius H, Kumpulainen K, Piha J, Tamminen T, Moilanen I, Almqvist F (2007) Are childhood bullies and victims at risk of criminality in late adolescence? The Finnish “From a boy to a man” study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161:546–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Sourander A, Multimäki P, Nikolakaros G, Haavisto A, Ristkari T, Helenius H., Parkkola K, Piha J, Tamminen T, Moilanen I, Kumpulainen K, Almqvist F (2005) Childhood predictors of psychiatric disorders among boys: a prospective community-based follow-up study from age 8 years to early adulthood. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 44:756–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar