Advertisement

School Mental Health

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 332–343 | Cite as

The Functionality of Four Bullying Involvement Classification Schemas: Prevalence Rates and Associations with Mental Health and School Outcomes

  • Tyler L. Renshaw
  • Anthony J. Roberson
  • Kelsie N. Hammons
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Bullying Classification Mental health School functioning 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying. American Psychologist, 70, 293–299. doi: 10.1037/a0038928.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Health behavior in school-aged children (HBSC), 20092010 (ICPSR34792-v1). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34792.v1
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Jimerson, S. R., Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. World Health Organization. (2014). Health behavior in school-aged children: World Health Organization collaborative cross-national survey. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/en/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler L. Renshaw
    • 1
  • Anthony J. Roberson
    • 1
  • Kelsie N. Hammons
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations