Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Bullying Prevention: Assessing Existing Meta-Evaluations

  • Maria M. TtofiEmail author
  • Manuel Eisner
  • Catherine P. Bradshaw
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_585



In this entry contemporary methodological issues in bullying prevention research are considered. The findings of extant systematic reviews and meta-analyses of school-based bullying prevention programs are assessed and integrated, with the aim of drawing clearer and more differentiated conclusions regarding their efficacy. Conclusions are drawn based on six reports, of which two included a systematic review but no meta-analysis, two included a systematic review and a meta-analysis, and two were not based on systematic searches of the literature but included some level of meta-analytic assessment. Based on a careful screening of all available meta-analytic investigations, it is concluded that bullying prevention programs are effective in reducing bullying and victimization. However, research users should be careful in identifying those intervention components and...

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

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T, CONSORT GROUP (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134(8):663–694Google Scholar
  2. Bagley C, Pritchard C (1998) The reduction of problem behaviours and school exclusion in at-risk youth: an experimental study of school social work with cost-benefit analyses. Child Fam Soc Work 3:219–226Google Scholar
  3. Baldry AC, Farrington DP (2007) Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bullying. Vict Offender 2(2):183–204Google Scholar
  4. Bradshaw, CP, Ttofi MM, Eisner M (submitted) A public health approach to bullying prevention: translating the research to practice. Am PsycholGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE (2009) Measuring and changing a culture of bullying. Sch Psychol Rev 38:356–361Google Scholar
  6. Bradshaw C, Waasdorp T (2011) Effective strategies in combating bullying. White paper prepared for the 2011 white house conference on bullying, Washington, DC. http://www.stopbullying.gov/references/white_house_conference/index.html
  7. Cowie H, Olafsson R (2000) The role of peer support in helping the victims of bullying in a school with high levels of aggression. School Psychol Int 21:79–94Google Scholar
  8. Eisner M (2009) No effects in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? J Exp Criminol 5:163–183Google Scholar
  9. Eisner M, Humphreys D (2011) Measuring conflict of interest in prevention and intervention research: a feasibility study. In: Bliesener T, Beelmann A, Stemmler M (eds) Antisocial behavior and crime: contributions of developmental and evaluation research to prevention and intervention. Hogrefe Publishing, Cambridge, MA, pp 165–180Google Scholar
  10. Eisner M, Malti T, Ribeau D (2011) Large-scale criminological field experiments: the Zurich project on the social development of children. In: Gadd D, Karstedt S, Messner SF (eds) Sage handbook of criminological research methods. Sage, London, pp 410–424Google Scholar
  11. Farrington DP (2003) Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 587(1):49–68Google Scholar
  12. Farrington DP (2006) Methodological quality and the evaluation of anti-crime programs. J Exp Criminol 2(3):329–337Google Scholar
  13. Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2009) School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization (Campbell systematic reviews No. 6). Campbell Corporation, Oslo. doi:10.4073/csr.2009.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrington DP, Weisburd DL, Gill CE (2011) The Campbell collaboration crime and justice group: a decade of progress. In: Smith CJ, Zhang SX, Barberet R (eds) Routledge handbook of international criminology. Routledge, New York, pp 53–63Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson CJ, Miguel CS, Kilburn JC, Sanchez P (2007) The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs: a meta-analytic review. Crim Justice Rev 32(4):401–414Google Scholar
  16. Flay BR, Biglan A, Boruch RF, Gonzalez Castro F, Gottfredson D, Kellam S, Moscicki EK, Schinke S, Valentine JC, Ji P (2005) Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prev Sci 6(3):151–175Google Scholar
  17. Karna A, Voeten M, Little TD, Poskiparta E, Alanen E, Salmivalli C (2011) Going to scale: a non-randomized nationwide trial of the KiVa antibullying program for grades 1–9. J Consult Clin Psychol 79(6):796–805Google Scholar
  18. Merrell KW, Gueldner BA, Ross SW, Isava DM (2008) How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. Sch Psychol Q 23(1):26–42Google Scholar
  19. Mueller EE, Parisi MJ (2002) Ways to minimize bullying. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Saint Xavier University, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Munthe E (1989) Bullying in Scandinavia. In: Roland E, Munthe E (eds) Bullying: an international perspective. David Fulton, London, pp 66–78Google Scholar
  21. Olweus D (1994) Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 35:1171–1190Google Scholar
  22. Olweus D (2005) A useful evaluation design, and effects of the olweus bullying prevention program. Psychol Crime Law 11(4):389–402Google Scholar
  23. Orpinas P, Horne AM, Staniszewsld D (2003) School bullying: changing the problem by changing the school. School Psychol Rev 32:431–444Google Scholar
  24. Pepler DJ, Craig WM, Ziegler S, Charach A (1994) An evaluation of an antibullying intervention in Toronto schools. Can J Commun Ment Health 13:95–110Google Scholar
  25. Perry A, Johnson M (2008) Applying the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) to studies of mental health provision for juvenile offenders: a research note. J Exp Criminol 4(2):165–185Google Scholar
  26. Peterson L, Rigby K (1999) Countering bullying at an Australian secondary school. J Adolesc 22:481–492Google Scholar
  27. Petrosino A (2003) Standards for evidence and evidence for standards: the case of school-based drug prevention. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 587(1):180–207Google Scholar
  28. Pitts J, Smith P (1995) Preventing school bullying. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Roland E (2000) Bullying in school: three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15 years. Aggress Behav 26:135–143Google Scholar
  30. Smith PK, Cowie H, Olafsson RF, Liefooghe APD (2002) Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a 14-country international comparison. Child Dev 73(4):1119–1133Google Scholar
  31. Smith JD, Schneider B, Smith PK, Ananiadou K (2004) The effectiveness of whole-school anti-bullying programs: a synthesis of evaluation research. Sch Psychol Rev 33:548–561Google Scholar
  32. Swearer SM, Espelage DL, Vaillancourt T, Hymel S (2010) What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educ Res 39(1):38–47Google Scholar
  33. Tierney T, Dowd R (2000) The use of social skills groups to support girls with emotional difficulties in secondary schools. Support Learn 15:82–85Google Scholar
  34. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP (2011) Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic meta-analytic review. J Exp Criminol 7:27–56Google Scholar
  35. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Loeber R (2011a) Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Aggress Confl Peace Res 3(2):63–73Google Scholar
  36. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Loeber R (2011b) The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: a systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Crim Behav Ment Heal 21:80–89Google Scholar
  37. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F (2012) School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggress Violent Behav 17:405–418Google Scholar
  38. Vreeman RC, Carroll AE (2007) A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161(1):78–88Google Scholar
  39. Waasdorp TE, Bradshaw CP, Leaf PJ (2012) The impact of School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) on bullying and peer rejection: a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 166(2):149–156Google Scholar
  40. Wilson DB (2009) Missing a critical piece of the pie: simple document search strategies inadequate for systematic reviews. J Exp Criminol 5(4):429–440Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria M. Ttofi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuel Eisner
    • 1
  • Catherine P. Bradshaw
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Johns Hopkins Center for the Prevention of Youth ViolenceJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA