Johander E, Turunen T, Garandeau CF, Salmivalli C. Different Approaches to Address Bullying in KiVa Schools: Adherence to Guidelines, Strategies Implemented, and Outcomes Obtained. Prev Sci. 2021 Apr;22(3):299-310. doi: 10.1007/s11121-020-01178-4. Epub 2020 Oct 24. Erratum in: Prev Sci. 2021 Jan 14;: PMID: 33098542; PMCID: PMC8032636.
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CLASSROOM_SCHOOL, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Multicomponent Schoo-Based Program, Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training
Intervention Description: This study examined the extent to which school personnel implementing the KiVa® antibullying program systematically employed the program-recommended approaches (confronting or non-confronting), used one or the other depending on the bullying case (case-specific approach), or used their own adaptation when talking to perpetrators of bullying, and whether they organized follow-up meetings after such discussions. In addition to investigating adherence to program guidelines, researchers tested how effective these different approaches were in stopping bullying. Finally, this study tested the contribution of follow-up meetings and the number of years KiVa had been implemented in a school to the effectiveness of the interventions, using reports from both school personnel and victimized students.
Intervention Results: The school personnel were more likely to use the confronting approach than the non-confronting approach. Over time, rather than sticking to the two program-recommended approaches, they made adaptations (e.g., combining the two; using their own approach). Two-level regression analyses indicated that the discussions were equally effective, according to both personnel and victimized students, when the confronting, non-confronting, or a case-specific approach had been used.
Conclusion: The discussions were less effective when the personnel used their own adaptation or could not specify the method used. Perceived effectiveness was higher in primary school and when follow-up meetings were organized systematically after each intervention, but unrelated to the number of years KiVa had been implemented.
Study Design: Pre-post design with follow-up
Setting: Primary and secondary schools
Population of Focus: School personnel
Sample Size: 1221 primary and secondary schools
Age Range: n/a
Access Abstract