Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 13 (13 total).

Stevens V, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Oost P. Bullying in flemish schools: An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. Br J Educ Psychol. 2000;70:195- 210.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Stevens%20V%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=10900778

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Class Rules, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Study only reported significant effects.
  • A significant difference was found for the Treatment with Support group vs. the Treatment Without Support group, showing an increase in mean scores in the Treatment with Support group at posttest 1 and no change at posttest 2 and a small decrease in the Treatment without Support group at posttest 1 and 2.
  • Students in the control group did not differ from students in both condition groups.

Pepetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Study only reported significant effects.
  • A significant difference was found for the Treatment with Support group vs. Treatment without Support group (p<0.004), showing an increase at posttest 1 and 2 for the Treatment with Support group and a decrease at posttest 2 for Treatment without Support group.
  • Students in the control group did not differ from students in both condition groups.

Splett JD, Maras MA, Brooks CM. GIRLSS: A randomized, pilot study of a multisystemic, school-based intervention to reduce relational aggression. J Child Fam Stud. 2015;24(8):2250-2261.

Link: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-33264-001

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, Training, Consultation

Intervention Results:

As reported by the school counselors, intervention participants demonstrated a statistically significant change in relational aggression in the desired direction compared to control participants (p=0.038). No significance was found for both selfreport (p=0.991) and teacher report (p=0.283). The averaged teacher and school counselor report showed a significant change in the desired direction for the intervention group compared to the control group (p=0.038).

Chaux E, Velásquez AM, Schultze‐Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H. Effects of the cyberbullying prevention program media heroes (medienhelden) on traditional bullying. Aggress Behav. 2016;42(2):157-165.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26879895

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Overall results- N/A (Pairwise comparisons significance tests were not conducted for this variable, given that no significant interactions were found in the main analyses).
  • Subgroups analyses were conducted based on students’ initial status in terms of their level of victimization and perpetration. For victimization, students were categorized as cybervictim only, traditional victim only, both cyber- and traditional victim, and non-victim. Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences for traditional victims only, cybervictims only, and non-victims. For traditional victims, there was a decrease for the short (p=0.01) and long (p=0.02) interventions, while the control group did not change significantly (p=0.62). For cybervictims, the control (p=0.19) and long (p=0.72) intervention conditions did not change significantly; the short intervention showed an increase (p=0.00) in traditional victimization after the intervention. For non-victims, there was an increase for both the control (p=0.04) and short (p=0.03) intervention conditions, while the long intervention did not change significantly (p=0.30).

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Overall results- NA (Pairwise comparisons significance tests were not conducted for this variable, given that no significant interactions were found in the main analyses).
  • Subgroups analyses were conducted based on students’ initial status in terms of their level of victimization and perpetration. For victimization, students were categorized as cybervictim only, traditional victim only, both cyber- and traditional victim, and nonvictim. No significant interactions were found for cyberbullying victimization.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • For traditional bullying, a significant decrease was found for students in the long intervention group, but students in the control group and in the short intervention group did not significantly change in this behavior after the implementation of the intervention.
  • Subgroups analyses were conducted based on students’ initial status in terms of their level of victimization and perpetration. For perpetration, students were categorized as cyberbully only, traditional bully only, both cyber- and traditional bully, and nonbully. Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences for cyber- and traditional bullies and non-bullies. For cyber- and traditional bullies, there was a decrease in both short (p=0.00) and long (p=0.00) interventions, while the control group did not change significantly (p=0.24). For the non-bullies, both the control (p=0.01) and short (p=0.04) intervention conditions showed an increase in traditional bullying perpetration, while the long intervention did not change significantly (p=0.21).

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • For cyberbullying, students in the control group increased significantly in this behavior, while students in the long intervention group showed a significant decrease. Students in the short version group did not show a significant change.
  • Subgroups analyses were conducted based on students’ initial status in terms of their level of victimization and perpetration. For perpetration, students were categorized as cyberbully only, traditional bully only, both cyber- and traditional bully, and non-bully. No significant interactions were found for cyberbullying perpetration.

Cross D, Shaw T, Hadwen K, et al. Longitudinal impact of the cyber friendly schools program on adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior. Aggress Behav. 2016;42(2):166-180.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351263

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training, Training (Parent/Family), SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • The intervention was associated with a steeper decline in the log odds of cybervictimization (p=0.028) between pretest and the first posttest. Trends in the log odds between the first posttest and the second posttest were similar (p=0.380). For involved students, the intervention had no impact on the frequency or extent of cyberbullying exposure.

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • The intervention was associated with a steeper decline in the log odds of cyber perpetration (p=0.012) between pretest and the first posttest. Trends in the log odds between the first posttest and the second posttest were similar (p=0.165). For involved students, the intervention had no impact on the frequency or extent of cyberbullying perpetration.

Hunt C. The effect of an education program on attitudes and beliefs about bullying and bullying behaviour in junior secondary school students. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2007;12(1):21-26.

Link: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-04478-004

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Meeting

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • No significant main or interaction effects were found.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Students in the intervention schools reported a significantly greater reduction in bullying others than students in the control groups with regard to bullying others alone (p<0.01).
  • Boys showed greater reductions in their reported bullying others when alone (p<0.01). Significant intervention by sex interactions were also found for bullying others alone (p<0.01). Boys in the intervention group showed significant reduction in their reports of bullying compared to boys in the control schools and compared to girls in both conditions. The effect size of this decrease was large (0.90), but represented a small number of boys (n=25) in a single intervention school. For boys bullying others as part of a group, the main and interaction effects were significant at 0.05.

Kärnä A, Voeten M, Little TD, Alanen E, Poskiparta E, Salmivalli C. Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. J Educ Psychol. 2013;105(2):535.

Link: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1007951

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, Peer-led Mentoring/Support Counseling, PARENT/FAMILY, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Reporting & Response System, Teacher/Staff Training, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • The intervention showed no statistically significant effects on self-reported victimization. \
  • The intervention reduced peer-reported victimization (p<0.001) with an interaction with age of student (p<0.01). Victimization decreased significantly for younger students (at or below the average for students in Grade 8), but did not have an effect for older students (at the average age for Grade 9) (p=0.670).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • The intervention showed no statistically significant effects on self-reported bullying.
  • The intervention effect on peer-reported bullying was not statistically significant (p=0.854). Due to interaction effects, this result only applies to girls in classrooms with an average proportion of boys. At the student level, there was a significant interaction with gender (p<0.01), and the interaction was significantly stronger at the classroom than at the individual level (p=0.008). Through these interactions, bullying was found to be reduced for boys and the effect was stronger when the proportion of boys in the classroom was higher. Bullying was not reduced for girls, but the effect approached statistical significance when a girl was in a classroom with a high proportion of boys (p=0.060).

Allen KP. A bullying intervention system in high school: A two-year school-wide follow-up. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2010;36(3):83-92.

Link: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ916977

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Assembly, Reporting & Response System

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Before the intervention, 15.2% of students reported victimization; after the intervention, 18.3% reported victimization. The difference was not statistically significant (p=0.092).
  • Stratifying the results by gender revealed that males reported more victimization after the intervention (21.0%) than before (15.9%), and the difference approached significance (p=0.065). There was no statistically significant difference in selfreported victimization for females after the intervention as compared to before the intervention (p>0.05).
  • Stratifying the results by grade level indicated a statistically significant increase in reporting of victimization for ninth graders (p=0.009) with 26.0% reporting victimization after as compared to 16.3% before.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Results showed a statistically significant difference between the before- and afterintervention groups (p=0.001) with 7.3% of students reporting that they had bullied others after the intervention compared with 13.6% before.
  • Stratifying the results by gender showed that the difference was statistically significant for both males and females (p<0.05).
  • Stratifying by grade level also showed that the differences were statistically significant for every grade (p<0.05).

Bauer NS, Lozano P, Rivara FP. The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40(3):266-274.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321428

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Enforcement of School Rules, SCHOOL, Assembly, Reporting & Response System, Bullying Committee, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, Identification and Monitoring of/Increased Supervision in Targeted Areas, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Radio, TV)

Intervention Results:

  • Overall, there was no difference in relational (RR=0.96, 95% CI: 0.86-1.08) or physical (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.87-1.17) victimization comparing the intervention schools to the control schools over the two-year period.
  • When stratified by race/ethnicity, white students in intervention schools were 27.5% less likely to report relational (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.53-0.98) and 36.6% less likely to report physical victimization (RR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.97) compared to white students in control schools. No statistically significant results were found for students of other race/ethnicity groups.
  • No significant effects were found when results were stratified by gender or grade.

Del Rey R, Casas JA, Ortega R. Impact of the ConRed program on different cyberbulling roles. Aggress Behav. 2016;42(2):123-135.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351131

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Training (Parent/Family), CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Training, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Comparing the intervention to the control group of cyber-victims, significant reductions were observed for traditional bullying victimization (p=0.008).
  • For cyberbully/victims, significant reductions were observed in traditional bullying victimization among boys (p=0.007).

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention to the control group of cyber-victims, significant reductions were observed for cyberbullying victimization (p=0.03).
  • For cyberbully/victims, significant reductions were observed in cyberbullying victimization among boys (p=0.05).

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention to the control group of cyber-aggressors, significant decrease was observed for cyberbullying aggression among boys (p=0.04).
  • Comparing the intervention to the control group of cyberbully/victims, significant decrease was observed for cyberbullying aggression (p=0.007).

Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R, Casas JA. Knowing, building and living together on internet and social networks: The ConRed cyberbullying prevention program. Int J Conf Violence. 2012;6(2):302-312.

Link: http://www.ijcv.org/index.php/ijcv/article/view/250

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Training (Parent/Family), CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, the level of traditional bullying victimization decreased significantly (p=0.011). This decrease occurred among both boys and girls (p<0.05), although the decrease was much greater among boys (p<0.01).

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, the level of cyberbullying victimization decreased significantly (p=0.019). Subgroups analyses by sex showed no significant effects.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, the level of traditional bullying aggression did not change significantly (p=0.882). However, subgroup analyses showed that the decrease was significant in boys (p<0.01), but not girls.

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, the level of cyberbullying aggression decreased significantly (p=0.014). Subgroups analyses by sex showed no significant effects.

Wölfer R, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Zagorscak P, Jäkel A, Göbel K, Scheithauer H. Prevention 2.0: Targeting cyberbullying@ school. Prev Sci. 2014;15(6):879-887.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24122481

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training

Intervention Results:

In comparison to the total sample, cyberbullying increased in the control group, remained stable in the shortintervention group, and decreased in the long-intervention group. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the control group differed on cyberbullying compared to the long-intervention group, while both intervention groups did not differ significantly from each other.

Bowllan NM. Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive, school‐wide bullying prevention program in an urban/suburban middle school. J Sch Health. 2011;81(4):167-173.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21392008

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Enforcement of School Rules, SCHOOL, Bullying Committee, Assembly, Reporting & Response System, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, Identification and Monitoring of/Increased Supervision in Targeted Areas, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Radio, TV)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • The study only reported significant findings and findings with percentile changes of 15% or more.
  • With regard to composite victimization, comparing 7th grade females postintervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 31.1% decrease in reports of being bullied (p=0.022). Comparing 8th grade females post-intervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 25.0% increase in reports of the frequency of being bullied (p=0.038).
  • With regard to physical victimization, comparing 8th grade females postintervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 20.0% increase in reports of being physically bullied (p=0.035).
  • With regard to verbal victimization, comparing 8th grade females post-intervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 35.0% decrease in reports of being indirectly verbally bullied (p=0.035).
  • With regard to relational victimization, comparing 7th grade females postintervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 34.4% decrease in reports of being excluded (p=0.009).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • The study only reported significant findings and findings with percentile changes of 15% or more.
  • With regard to composite victimization, comparing 8th grade females postintervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 35.6% increase in reports of taking part in bullying others (p=0.003). For 7th grade males, there was a 21.8% increase in reports of taking part in bullying others; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Schroeder BA, Messina A, Schroeder D, et al. The implementation of a statewide bullying prevention program: Preliminary findings from the field and the importance of coalitions. Health Promot Pract. 2012;13(4):489-495.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422258

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Enforcement of School Rules, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), SCHOOL, Bullying Committee, Reporting & Response System, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Presentation/Meeting with Community Officials (School Boards, Administrators, Police), Media Campaign (Print Materials, Radio, TV)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Schools that agreed to district-wide implementation became part of HALT!, while districts that chose to implement at the building level became part of PA CARES. Results were reported separately for the different sites.
  • Results from 999 high school students in 3 schools in Cohort 1 after 2 years of program implementation of HALT! showed a statistically significant decrease in reports of being bullied.
  • Results from 6048 high school students in 7 schools after 1 year of program implementation of PA CARES showed a significant decrease in reports of being bullied.

Pepetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Schools that agreed to district-wide implementation became part of HALT!, while districts that chose to implement at the building level became part of PA CARES. Results were reported separately for the different sites.
  • Results from 999 high school students in 3 schools in Cohort 1 after 2 years of program implementation of HALT! showed a statistically significant decrease in reports of bullying others. Results from 7446 high school students in 13 schools in Cohort 2 after 1 year of program implementation of HALT! showed statistically significant fewer reports of bullying others and fewer reports of students who could join in bullying. Results from 12972 middle school students in 15 schools in Cohort 2 after 1 year of program implementation of HALT! showed statistically significant fewer reports of students who could join in bullying.
  • Results from 9899 middle school students in 13 schools after 1 year of program implementation of PA CARES showed a slight but non-significant decrease in the reports of students bullying others. Results from 6048 high school students in 7 schools showed a significant decrease in reports of bullying others.
   

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.