Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 8 (8 total).

Brown, E. C., Low, S., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2011). Outcomes from a school randomized controlled trial of steps to respect: A bullying prevention program. School Psychology Review, 40(3), 423–443.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087707

NPM: 7-1: Child Safety/Injury (0-9 years) 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, Identification and Monitoring of/Increased Supervision in Targeted Areas

Intervention Results:

Model-implied pretest and post-test means and standard deviations (by intervention condition), and tests of intervention effects for SES measures from the multilevel analyses, are presented in Table 4. Significant intervention effects were present for five of the six examined SES outcome measures, with results indicating greater increases in school antibullying policies and strategies, t(29) 3.33, p .01; student climate, t(29) 3.25, p .01; and staff climate, t(29) 2.91, p .01; less decrease in student bullying intervention, t(29) 3.42, p .01; and a larger decrease in school bullying-related problems, t(29) 2.91, p .01, for intervention schools relative to control schools. The average effect size across these five outcomes was 0.296 (range 0.212 for staff climate to 0.382 for antibullying policies and strategies). No intervention effect was found for staff bullying intervention. Among the pretest covariate effects, school staff who held administrative positions in schools reported higher levels of student climate, student bullying intervention, and school antibullying policies and strategies than did teachers, t(2,588) 2.00, 2.58, and 7.48, p values .05, respectively. Teachers reported higher levels of school bullying-related problems than did either administrative personnel, t(2,588) 3.67, p .001, or school staff from nonacademically related positions, t(2,588) 2.20, p .05. Teachers also reported higher levels of staff bullying intervention, t(2,588) 2.06, p .05, and lower levels of school antibullying policies and strategies than did nonacademic staff, t(2,588) 5.15, p .001, respectively. Older staff reported greater staff climate and school antibullying policies and strategies, t(2,588) 2.49 and 4.17, p values .05, respectively; and less school bullying-related problems, t(2,588) 4.98, p .001, than younger staff. Staff members’ length of employment was related positively to higher levels of student bullying intervention, t(2,588) 2.19, p .05; and negatively to school antibullying policies and strategies, t(2,588) 3.29, p .01. Conditional ICCs (i.e., including staff and school characteristics as covariates) corresponding to betweenschool variation averaged .096 and ranged from 5% of variance in the student bullying intervention to 16% of variance in antibullying policies and strategies being attributable to participants’ schools. Teacher Perception of Student Behavior Model-implied pretest and post-test means and standard deviations and tests of intervention effects from the multilevel analyses are presented in Table 5 by intervention condition. Two of the five assessed teacher outcomes demonstrated significant intervention effects in the conditional HLMs. Whereas teachers from control schools reported declines in mean levels of social competency from pretest to post-test, teachers from intervention schools reported little change in this outcome, t(29) 2.16, p .05. In addition, although the prevalence of physical bullying perpetration increased during the school year in both control and intervention schools, the increase was smaller in intervention schools, t(29) 3.12, p .01. Effect sizes associated with these intervention effects were 0.131 for the standardized difference in Social Competency means and adjusted odds ratio 0.609, indicating a reduction of 31% in the likelihood of Physical Bullying Perpetration in intervention schools relative to control schools. No significant differences were found between intervention and control schools for nonphysical bullying perpetration, academic competency, or academic achievement. Pretest covariate effects indicated that males were reported to be more likely to engage in physical bullying than females, t(2,789) 5.69, p .001; and to have lower levels of social competency and academic competency than females, t(2,789) 5.26 and t(2789) 6.28, p values .01, respectively. African American students were reported to be more likely to engage in physical bullying and to have lower levels of social competency, academic competency, and academic achievement than White students, t(2,789) 2.56, 2.87, and 2.79, p values .05, respectively. Hispanic students also were reported to have lower levels of academic achievement than non-Hispanic students, t(2,789) 4.47, p .001. Older students were reported to be more likely to engage in physical and nonphysical bullying, t(2,789) 2.51 and 3.31, p values .01, respectively; and to have lower levels social competency and academic achievement than younger students, t(2,789) 3.42 and 3.48, p values .01, respectively. Finally, class size was associated positively with levels of social competency, t(2,789) 1.98, p .05, and negatively with the prevalence of nonphysical bullying, t(2,789) 3.70, p .01. Conditional ICCs for between-classroom variation averaged .095 and ranged from 8% to 11% of variation among classrooms for academic achievement and social competency measures, respectively. Conditional ICCs variation among schools averaged .042 across the five outcomes, ranging from 4% to 5% for academic achievement and social competency, respectively. Student Perceptions Model-implied pretest and post-test means and standard deviations for intervention and control schools, and tests from the multilevel analysis of covariance model assessing intervention effects, are presented in Table 6. Significant intervention effects were found for 5 of the 13 student outcomes across the range of proximal and distal outcomes. For example, whereas students from intervention schools reported higher mean levels of student climate at post-test than at pretest, students from control schools reported lower post-test levels of this outcome than at pretest, t(29) 2.39, p .05. Students from intervention schools reported significantly less of a decline in teacher/staff bullying prevention during the school year, t(29) 2.22, p .05; and greater increases in student bullying intervention, teacher/staff bullying intervention, and positive bystander behavior, than did students from control schools, t(29) 2.35, 2.54, and 2.62, p values .05, respectively. No significant differences between intervention and control schools were found for Student Support, Student Attitudes Against Bullying, Student Attitudes Toward Bullying Intervention, School Bullying-Related Problems, Bullying Perpetration, Bullying Victimization, School Connectedness, and Staff Climate. Effect sizes associated with standardized differences in adjusted means between intervention and control schools for significant outcomes ranged from 0.115 for Student Bullying Intervention to 0.187 for Student Climate. For the ordinal teacher/staff bullying prevention outcome, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.27, indicating that the incremental likelihood of being more in agreement that teachers and staff were doing the right things to prevent bullying was 27% greater for students from intervention schools than students from control schools. Pretest covariate effects indicated that male students reported lower levels of school connectedness, student attitudes against bullying, teacher/staff bullying intervention, and positive bystander behavior than female students, t(2,836) 2.46, 4.25, 3.79, and 3.10, p values .05, respectively. Male students also reported more bullying perpetration that did female students, t(2,684) 3.13, p .05. African American students reported lower levels of student climate, t(278) 2.49, p .05, and higher levels of school bullying-related problems and bullying perpetration than White students, t(3,035) 3.08 and 2.61, p values .01, respectively. Similarly, students from other (non-African American) minority groups also reported higher levels of school bullying-related problems, t(2,201) 3.70, p .001, and lower levels of school connectedness and teacher/staff bullying prevention than White students, t(712) 2.47 and 3.29, p values .05, respectively. Hispanic students reported lower levels of positive bystander behavior, teacher/staff bullying intervention, and bullying victimization than non-Hispanics, t(2,089) 2.97, 2.29, and 1.96, p values .05, respectively, and higher levels of bullying perpetration than non-Hispanic students, t(1,468) 2.35, p .05. Younger students reported higher levels of student climate, staff climate, and school connectedness than did older students, t(1,644) 3.09, 2.20, and 1.98, p values .05, respectively. Older students reported higher levels of student attitudes toward bullying intervention, bullying victimization, and bullying perpetration that did younger students, t(2,684) 3.12, 2.93, and 3.12, p values .05, respectively. Finally, the number of students in the classroom was associated positively with students’ perceptions of school bullying-related problems and student attitudes against bullying, t(126) 2.40 and 2.06, p values .05, respectively. Conditional ICCs for variation among classrooms averaged .022 and ranged from 1% for student bullying intervention to 4% for teacher/staff climate. Conditional ICCs for variation among schools averaged .019 and ranged from 2% for teacher/staff bullying prevention to 2% for bullying-related problems.

Cross, D., Waters, S., Pearce, N., Shaw, T., Hall, M., Erceg, E., et al. (2012). The Friendly Schools Friendly Families programme: Three-year bullying behaviour outcomes in primary school children. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 394–406.

Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035512000444?via%3Dihub

NPM: 7-1: Child Safety/Injury (0-9 years) 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, School Rules, Teacher/Staff Training, PARENT/FAMILY, Training (Parent/Family), Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), PATIENT/CONSUMER, Educational Material, Motivational Interviewing, Other Education

Intervention Results:

The baseline values for the outcome variables are presented for the Grades 4 and 6 cohorts in Table 5. The frequencies of being bullied and telling if bullied were equivalent for each of the study conditions at baseline. Whilst similar percentages of students in the Grade 4 cohort in the high to low groups reported they had bullied others, differences existed at baseline in the Grade 6 cohort (x2 (4, n = 1248) = 11.7, p = .020). Students in the low group at baseline were less likely to report having bullied others (3% had bullied others frequently (every few weeks or more often) compared with 8% and 7% of the high and moderate groups respectively). Group effects were found for the Grade 4 cohort (Table 6) at posttest 1 (p = .004) (i.e., at the end of the first year of the intervention). At posttest 1, students in the low group were 1.8 times more likely to be bullied frequently than those in the high group (OR = 1.76, effect size ES = .31). Whilst not significant at the Bonferroni adjusted level of .025, the Grade 4 low group compared to the high group were 1.4 times more likely at posttest 2 (OR = 1.39, p = .039, ES = .18) and 1.6 times more likely at posttest 3 (OR = 1.64, p = .026, ES = .27) to be bullied than not at all. Similarly, for the Grade 6 cohort, the high group was also less likely to be bullied at the first and the second posttest measurement. In particular, at the end of Grade 6 the low group was 1.5 times more likely (OR = 1.54, p = .005, ES = .24) than the high group to be bullied than not at all, and had 1.5 times greater odds (OR = 1.48, p = .047, ES = .22) of being bullied frequently than the high group, although this was not significant at the Bonferroni adjusted level of .025. After two years of the intervention (when the students were in Grade 7), the moderate group were more than twice as likely (OR = 2.13, p = .011, ES = .42) to be bullied frequently when compared with the high group. Based on students’ self-report of how often they bullied others in the previous term, intervention effects were observed for the Grade 4 but not the Grade 6 cohort (Table 7). For the Grade 4 cohort, at the end of Grade 5 (p = .014) and at the end of Grade 6 (p = .021), the high group were less likely to report they bullied others. In particular, the moderate group had higher odds of bullying others frequently at the end of Grade 5 (OR = 2.79, ES = .57), and the low group had higher odds of bullying others at the end of Grade 6 (OR = 1.74, ES = .31) than did the high group. One of the objectives of the intervention was to encourage students to seek help by speaking to someone if they were bullied. Whilst no significant intervention effects were found for the Grade 4 cohort, differences were observed for the Grade 6 cohort. As shown in Table 8, at the end of the first study year, the Grade 6 students in the low group were approximately 1.6 times more likely than the high group to report not telling anyone if they were bullied (OR = 1.56, p = .015, ES = .25). At the end of the second year ofthe study (when the students were in their final year of primary school, Grade 7), the students in the low group were even less likely to tell if they were bullied, than those in the high group (OR = 1.78, p = .003, ES = .32). The moderate and low intervention groups were also compared for each of the outcome variables (results not given) and no statistically significant differences were found for either the Grade 4 or the Grade 6 cohort. The implementation of the school level, classroom level and family level components of this intervention were measured using multiple sources in each of the three study years to avoid Type III error. Our process data show the average percentage of the intervention implemented by the high and moderate groups at the school level was about 63%, with 55% of the classroom intervention implemented, and 22% ofthe family intervention implemented in students’ homes by the high group. A detailed explanation of these process data is beyond the scope of this paper and will be reported elsewhere.

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed reductions on school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 466–481.

Link: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-04640-018

NPM: 7-1: Child Safety/Injury (0-9 years) 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Training, Teacher/Staff Meeting, CAREGIVER, Outreach (caregiver), YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, School Rules, Reporting & Response System, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Intervention students showed 2-year declines in playground bullying, victimization, nonbullying aggression, destructive bystander, and argumentative behavior. Grade-equivalent contrasts indicated group differences in all problem behaviors. Problem behaviors in the control group increased or remained stable across grades. Intervention group students reported less difficulty responding assertively to bullying compared with control students. Within both groups, older students perceived themselves to be more aggressive and less frequently victimized than younger students. Perceived Bystander Responsibility decreased over time, with significant differences found between pretest and the 12- and 18-month posttests. Perceived Adult Responsiveness regarding bullying problems dropped in the second year. The 12- and 18-month posttests indicated that students perceived adults to be less responsive than at pretest, particularly in the fall of the second year (12-month posttest).

Chelvakumar, G., Sheehan, K., Hill, A. L., Lowe, D., Mandich, N., & Schwebel, D. C. (2010). The stamp-in-safety programme, an intervention to promote better supervision of children on child care centre playgrounds: an evaluation in an urban setting. Injury Prevention, 16(5),352– 354. Howard et al., 2009

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20587809

NPM: 7-1: Child Safety/Injury (0-9 years)
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): SCHOOL, YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, Teacher/Staff Training, Identification and Monitoring of/Increased Supervision in Targeted Areas

Intervention Results:

Primary outcome measures were teacher verbalisations (warnings, explanations, redirects), teacher location (core, outskirt, or fringe of playground), child risk-taking behaviours (using equipment appropriately) and the number of injuries on the playground. Analyses revealed that the intervention had a modest positive effect in promoting safer teacher and child playground behaviours.

Olsen, H., Hudson, S., & Thompson, D. (2010). Strategies for playground injury prevention: an overview of a playground project. American Journal of Health Education, 41, 187-192.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19325037.2010.10598861

NPM: 7-1: Child Safety/Injury (0-9 years)
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Training

Intervention Results:

This paper highlights the importance of injury prevention awareness and outlines different strategies that health educators can take for preventing playground injuries. In addition, this paper examines a project that was conducted in the state of Iowa in relation to what effects playground surfacing materials and staff training may have on injury prevention on school playgrounds. The results of the project concluded that with the addition of proper surfacing material and staff training, playground injuries could be reduced.

Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S.W., Vernberg, E.M., Nelson, J.M., Dill, E.J., Little, T.D., & Sargent, J.A. (2009). A cluster randomized controlled trial of child-focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems-focused intervention to reduce aggression. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, online first.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19207633

NPM: 7-1: Child Safety/Injury (0-9 years)
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Training, Teacher/Staff Meeting

Intervention Results:

CAPSLE moderated the developmental trend of increasing peer-reported victimization (p<.01), aggression (p<.05), self-reported aggression (p<.05) and aggressive bystanding (p<.05), compared to TAU schools. CAPSLE also moderated a decline in empathy and an increase in the percent of children victimized compared to SPC (p<.01) and TAU conditions (p<.01). Results for self-reported victimization, helpful bystanding, and beliefs in the legitimacy of aggression did not suggest significantly different changes among the study conditions over time. CAPSLE produced a significant decrease in off-task (p<.001) and disruptive classroom behaviors (p<.01), while behavioral change was not observed in SPC and TAU schools. Superiority with respect to TAU for victimization (p<.05), aggression (p<.01), and helpful (p<.05) and aggressive bystanding (p<.01) were maintained in the follow-up year

Hoglund,W. L., Hosan, N. E., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2012). Using your WITS: A 6-year follow up of a peer victimization prevention program. School Psychology Review, 41(2), 193–214.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087520

NPM: 7-1: Child Safety/Injury (0-9 years)
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Training, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Presentation/meeting/information Session (Classroom)

Intervention Results:

There were significant and meaningful effects of the WITS Primary Program on linear changes in physical victimization (Cohen's d = .17), relational victimization (Cohen's d = .20), and social competence (Cohen's d = .20); significant and small effects on physical aggression (Cohen's d = .09); and nonsignificant effects for help seeking and internalizing (Cohen's d values = .04 and .10, respectively) during elementary school. Following the transition into middle school, the program effects faded, with the exception of some subgroups in high-risk contexts.

Li, K., Washburn, I., DuBois, D. L., Vuchinich, S., Ji, P., Brechling, V., et al. (2011). Effects of the Positive Action programme on problem behaviours in elementary school students: A matched-pair randomized control trial in Chicago. Psychology and Health, 26, 187–204.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21318929

NPM: 7-1: Child Safety/Injury (0-9 years)
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): Teacher/Staff Training, CLASSROOM_SCHOOL, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training

Intervention Results:

Findings indicated that students in the intervention endorsed 31% fewer substance use behaviours (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.69), 37% fewer violence-related behaviours (IRR = 0.63) and 41% fewer bullying behaviours (IRR = 0.59), respectively, compared to students in the control schools. Reduction in reported disruptive behaviours was of a similar magnitude (27%, IRR = 0.73), but was not statistically significant.
   

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.