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.
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): 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.