Prevalence Rates of Bullying: A Comparison Between a Definition-Based Scale and a Behavior-Based Scale.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1177/08862605241262216
Björn Sjögren, Ylva Bjereld, Robert Thornberg, Jun Sung Hong, Dorothy L Espelage
{"title":"Prevalence Rates of Bullying: A Comparison Between a Definition-Based Scale and a Behavior-Based Scale.","authors":"Björn Sjögren, Ylva Bjereld, Robert Thornberg, Jun Sung Hong, Dorothy L Espelage","doi":"10.1177/08862605241262216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-reported measures of school bullying can be divided into two subtypes. Definition-based measures present a bullying definition followed by one question about being bullied and one question about bullying others, while behavior-based measures avoid using terms like \"bully\" and \"bullying,\" do not provide an explicit bullying definition, include items describing specific bullying behaviors, and respondents are asked to rate how often they have engaged in or have been a target of each behavior. The current study aimed to compare bullying perpetration and victimization prevalence rates between a definition-based scale and a behavior-based scale. The current study was part of a 4-year longitudinal research project, where students in Sweden completed an annual web-based survey at five waves starting with the school year of 2015 to 2016 (Wave 1; approximately age = 10.5 years) and ending in the school year of 2019 to 2020 (Wave 5; approximately age = 14.5 years). Because they responded to both measurement conditions, the study controlled for their possible individual differences. In this study, data from 1,469 to 1,715 students were analyzed. Findings revealed that the behavior-based scale displayed higher bullying perpetration and victimization prevalence than the definition-based scale. The behavior-based scales used in this study offer researchers and practitioners a self-report bullying measurement that includes power imbalance, concrete, and specific negative behaviors, and the ability to estimate repetition, but without using bullying terminology. Still, pros and cons of both approaches can be further discussed, and both definition-based and behavior-based self-report measures are vulnerable to a number of biases while they provide estimates or approximations-not exact pictures-of bullying prevalence.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241262216","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-reported measures of school bullying can be divided into two subtypes. Definition-based measures present a bullying definition followed by one question about being bullied and one question about bullying others, while behavior-based measures avoid using terms like "bully" and "bullying," do not provide an explicit bullying definition, include items describing specific bullying behaviors, and respondents are asked to rate how often they have engaged in or have been a target of each behavior. The current study aimed to compare bullying perpetration and victimization prevalence rates between a definition-based scale and a behavior-based scale. The current study was part of a 4-year longitudinal research project, where students in Sweden completed an annual web-based survey at five waves starting with the school year of 2015 to 2016 (Wave 1; approximately age = 10.5 years) and ending in the school year of 2019 to 2020 (Wave 5; approximately age = 14.5 years). Because they responded to both measurement conditions, the study controlled for their possible individual differences. In this study, data from 1,469 to 1,715 students were analyzed. Findings revealed that the behavior-based scale displayed higher bullying perpetration and victimization prevalence than the definition-based scale. The behavior-based scales used in this study offer researchers and practitioners a self-report bullying measurement that includes power imbalance, concrete, and specific negative behaviors, and the ability to estimate repetition, but without using bullying terminology. Still, pros and cons of both approaches can be further discussed, and both definition-based and behavior-based self-report measures are vulnerable to a number of biases while they provide estimates or approximations-not exact pictures-of bullying prevalence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欺凌的流行率:基于定义的量表与基于行为的量表之间的比较。
自我报告的校园欺凌测量可分为两个子类型。基于定义的量表给出了欺凌的定义,然后是一个关于被欺凌的问题和一个关于欺凌他人的问题;而基于行为的量表则避免使用 "欺凌 "和 "欺凌 "等术语,不提供明确的欺凌定义,但包含描述具体欺凌行为的项目,并要求受访者对自己参与或成为每种行为目标的频率进行评分。本研究旨在比较基于定义的量表和基于行为的量表之间的欺凌实施率和受害率。本研究是一项为期 4 年的纵向研究项目的一部分,瑞典的学生从 2015 至 2016 学年(第 1 波,年龄约为 10.5 岁)开始,到 2019 至 2020 学年(第 5 波,年龄约为 14.5 岁)结束,每年分 5 波完成基于网络的调查。由于他们对两种测量条件都做出了回答,因此研究控制了他们可能存在的个体差异。本研究分析了 1,469 至 1,715 名学生的数据。研究结果显示,基于行为的量表比基于定义的量表显示出更高的欺凌实施率和受害率。本研究中使用的基于行为的量表为研究人员和从业人员提供了一种自我报告的欺凌测量方法,其中包括权力不平衡、具体和特定的负面行为,以及估计重复性的能力,但不使用欺凌术语。不过,这两种方法的利弊还可以进一步讨论,基于定义和基于行为的自我报告测量方法都很容易出现一些偏差,因为它们提供的是欺凌发生率的估计值或近似值,而不是准确的图片。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
期刊最新文献
Lifetime Abuse: Theoretical and Empirical Research. Interpersonal Violence Against Indigenous Sámi and Non-Sámi Populations in Arctic Sweden and the Mediating Effect of Historical Losses and Discrimination. Rethinking Lifetime Abuse in Old Age. Childhood Maltreatment, Revictimization, and Partner Violence Victimization Through Midlife: A Prospective Longitudinal Investigation. Trauma Theory and Abuse, Neglect and Violence Across the Life Course.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1