Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling the Bullying Prevention Program Preferences of Educators: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment

  • Published:
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We used discrete choice conjoint analysis to model the bullying prevention program preferences of educators. Using themes from computerized decision support lab focus groups (n = 45 educators), we composed 20 three-level bullying prevention program design attributes. Each of 1,176 educators completed 25 choice tasks presenting experimentally varied combinations of the study’s attribute levels. Latent class analysis yielded three segments with different preferences. Decision Sensitive educators (31%) preferred that individual schools select bullying prevention programs. In contrast, Support Sensitive educators (51%) preferred that local school boards chose bullying prevention programs. This segment preferred more logistical and social support at every stage of the adoption, training, implementation, and long term maintenance processes. Cost Sensitive educators (16%) showed a stronger preference for programs minimizing costs, training, and implementation time demands. They felt prevention programs were less effective and that the time and space in the curriculum for bullying prevention was less adequate. They were less likely to believe that bullying prevention was their responsibility and more likely to agree that prevention was the responsibility of parents. All segments preferred programs supported by the anecdotal reports of colleagues from other schools rather than those based on scientific evidence. To ensure that the bullying prevention options available reflect the complex combination of attributes influencing real world adoption decisions, program developers need to accommodate the differing views of the Decision, Support, and Cost Sensitive segments while maximizing the support of parents and students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sometimes referred to by market researchers as part-worth utility values (Orme 2006)

References

  • Allenby, G. M., Arora, N., & Gintner, J. L. (1995). Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 152–162. doi:10.2307/3152044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. doi:10.1348/014466601164939.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problems in young children: a nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics, 118(1), 130–138. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. S. (1999). The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 4(1), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, E. M., Rahnev, D. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Using conjoint analysis to detect discrimination: revealing covert preferences from overt choices. Social Cognition, 27(1), 128–137. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coast, J. (1999). The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. Health Economics, 8(4), 345–353. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199906)8:4<345::AID-HEC432>3.0.CO;2-Q.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22–36. doi:10.1177/0143034300211002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. E., Deal, K., Rimas, H., Buchanan, D. H., Gold, M., Sdao-Jarvie, K., et al. (2008). Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 7(36), 1128–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. E., Vaillancourt, T., Cunningham, L. J., & Short, K. (2009). The bullying prevention attitudes scale. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Cunningham, C. E., Cunningham, L. J., Martorelli, V., Tran, A., Young, J., & Zacharias, R. (1998). The effects of primary division, student-mediated conflict resolution programs on playground aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 39(5), 653–662. doi:10.1017/S0021963098002558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., et al. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: a longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 377–392. doi:10.1348/096317902321119637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6(2), 137–147. doi:10.1007/BF00994929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 303–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, A. A., & Mihalic, S. (2003). Strategies for enhancing the adoption of school-based prevention programs: lessons learned from the blueprints for violence prevention replications of the life skills training program. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 235–253. doi:10.1002/jcop.10045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2006). Effects of antibullying school program on bullying and health complaints. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(6), 638–644. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.6.638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. V., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: an experimental trial of the steps to respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41(3), 479–490. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gamage, J., & Weerahandi, S. (1998). Size performance of some tests in one-way anova. Communications in Statistics Simulation and Computation, 27(3), 625–640. doi:10.1080/03610919808813500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. T. (2004). Current and future challenges in school-based prevention: the researcher perspective. Prevention Science, 5(1), 5–13. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013976.84939.55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. The American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 466–474. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, A., Henry, D. B., & Schoeny, M. E. (2007). School climate and implementation of a preventive intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3–4), 250–260. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9142-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2007). Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement (pp. 3–34). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis A primer. New York-U.S.A.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoagwood, K., & Johnson, J. (2003). School psychology: a public health framework I. From evidence-based practices to evidence-based policies. Journal of School Psychology, 41(1), 3–21. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00141-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., Orme, B., & Miller, R. (2007). Dealing with product similarity in conjoint simulations. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: methods and applications (4th ed., pp. 347–362). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallestad, J. H. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the olweus bullying prevention program: a multilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, 6, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh, Y. J., Hubbard, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2006). School bullying and youth violence: causes or consequences of psychopathologic behavior? Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(9), 1035–1041. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.9.1035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, P. J., DeSarbo, W. S., Green, P. E., & Young, M. R. (1996). Hierarchical bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Science, 15(2), 173–192. doi:10.1287/mksc.15.2.173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochman, J. E. (2003). Commentary: school contextual influences on the dissemination of interventions. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 174–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2007). Conjoint preference elicitation methods in the broader context of random utility theory preference elicitation methods. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement-methods and applications (4th ed., pp. 167–197). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrell, K. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 26–42. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midthassel, U. V. (2008). Is the sustainability of reduction in bullying related to follow-up procedures? Educational Psychology, 28(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/01443410701449278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mytton, J., DiGuiseppi, C., Gough, D., Taylor, R., & Logan, S. (2006). School-based secondary prevention programmes for preventing violence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), 3. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004606.pub2.

  • Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171–1190. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orme, B. K. (2006). Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M., & Chrzan, K. (2004). Partial profile discrete choice: what’s the optimal number of attributes? (pp. 173–185). San Antonio, TX: 2003 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2006). School predictors of the intensity of implementation of school-based prevention programs: results from a national study. Prevention Science, 7(2), 225–237. doi:10.1007/s11121-006-0029-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, M. B., Jensen, P. S., Jaccard, J., Gollwitzer, P., Oettingen, G., Pappadopulos, E., et al. (2007). Applying theory-driven approaches to understanding and modifying clinicians’ behavior: what do we know? Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 58(3), 342–348. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.58.3.342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, K. A., Johnson, F. R., & Maddala, T. (2002). Measuring what people value: a comparison of “attitude” and “preference” surveys. Health Services Research, 37(6), 1659–1679. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.01116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (2007). Latent class models for conjoint analysis. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmanm & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement methods and applications (4th ed., pp. 295–320). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringeisen, H., Henderson, K., & Hoagwood, K. (2003). Context matters: schools and the “research to practice gap” in children’s mental health. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rones, M., & Hoagwood, K. (2000). School-based mental health services: a research review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 223–241. doi:10.1023/A:1026425104386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (2007). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., Scott, D. A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E. R., Russell, E. M., et al. (2001). Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment, 5(5), 1–186.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sawtooth Software Inc. (2004a). The CBC/HB system for hierarchical bayes estimation version 4.0 technical paper. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Retrieved from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/hbtech.pdf

  • Sawtooth Software Inc. (2004b). The CBC latent class technical paper (version 3). Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Retrieved from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/lctech.pdf

  • Schoenwald, S. K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: what matters when? Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 52(9), 1190. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.52.9.1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D., & Brett, J. (2005). What is the role of control in organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 155–178). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, M. (2003). Understanding implementation of programs in multilevel systems. Prevention & Treatment, 6(1), 22. doi:10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.622c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community-university partnership model for public education systems: capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5(1), 31–39. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013979.52796.8b.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (1993). Identifying program preferences through conjoint analysis: illustrative results from a parent sample. American Journal of Health Promotion, 8(2), 124–133.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(1), 78–88. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vriens, M., Wedel, M., & Wilms, T. (1996). Metric conjoint segmentation methods: a Monte Carlo comparison. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 73–85. doi:10.2307/3152014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster Children’s Hospital, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8P 1B3

    Charles E. Cunningham

  2. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Tracy Vaillancourt

  3. Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    Tracy Vaillancourt

  4. McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    Heather Rimas, Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen

  5. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, Hamilton, Canada

    Lesley Cunningham & Kathy Short

Authors
  1. Charles E. Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tracy Vaillancourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heather Rimas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ken Deal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lesley Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kathy Short
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yvonne Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles E. Cunningham.

Additional information

Dr. Cunningham is Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, and the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centred Health Care. Dr. Vaillancourt is Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair, Faculty of Education and School of Psychology. Dr. Deal is Associate Professor of Strategic Market Leadership and Health Services Management. This project was supported by a Community University Research Alliance Grant form the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Jack Laidlaw Chair in Patient-Centred Health at McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences. The authors would like to express their appreciation to the school boards and educators that supported this project and for the editorial assistance provided by Donna Bohaychuk, Stephanie Mielko, and Jenna Ratcliff. Address correspondence to Charles E. Cunningham, McMaster Children’s Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 1B3. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to cunnic@hhsc.ca

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cunningham, C.E., Vaillancourt, T., Rimas, H. et al. Modeling the Bullying Prevention Program Preferences of Educators: A Discrete Choice Conjoint Experiment. J Abnorm Child Psychol 37, 929–943 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9324-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9324-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation