|
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.
|
