Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 20 (33 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.

Baldry AC, Farrington DP. Evaluation of an intervention program for the reduction of bullying and victimization in schools. Aggress Behav. 2004;30(1):1-15.

Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ab.20000

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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Data were analyzed by looking at the differences between younger students (1st and 2nd year of middle schools) versus older students (3rd year of middle school and 1st year of high school).
  • For the single item question about victimization (‘Have you been bullied at school in the previous three months?’), there was a significant decrease in the intervention group compared to the control group for older students (p<0.01). For younger students, there was a significant increase in the intervention group compared to the control group (p<0.01).
  • For the composite measure of total victimization, there was a decrease in the intervention group compared to the control group for older students (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the intervention and control group for younger students.
  • For the item related to physical victimization (‘I was physically hurt, e.g. hit and kicked’), no significant effects were found for younger or older students.
  • With regard to items related to verbal victimization, for ‘I was called nasty names,’ there was a decrease in the intervention group compared to the control group for older students (p<0.05), and no significant effect for younger students. For ‘I was threatened,’ no significant effects were observed for younger or older students.
  • With regard to items related to relational victimization, no significant effects were found for ‘Others did not talk to me on purpose’ and ‘Others spread rumors about me’ for younger or older students. For ‘No one would stay with me at recess time,’ there was a decrease in the intervention group compared to the control group for younger students (p<0.05), and no significant effect for older students.
  • For the item related to damage to property (‘I had my belongings stolen or ruined’), there was a significant decrease in the intervention group compared to the control group for older students (p<0.01), and no significant effect for younger students.

Perpetration/Agggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Data were analyzed by looking at the differences between younger students (1st and 2nd year of middle schools) versus older students (3rd year of middle school and 1st year of high school).
  • For the single item question about bullying (‘Have you bullied others in the previous three months?’), there was a significant increase in the reported level of bullying in the intervention group compared to the control group for younger students (p<0.01), and no significant effect for older students.
  • For the composite measure of total bullying, no significant effects were found for younger or older students.
  • For the item related to physical bullying (‘I physically hurt, e.g. hit and kicked’), there was a significant increase in the intervention group compared to the control group for younger students (p<0.01). For older students, the intervention group decreased compared to the control group (p<0.01).
  • With regard to items related to verbal bullying, for ‘I called someone nasty names,’ there was a significant increase in the intervention group compared to the control group for younger students (p<0.01), and no significant effect for older students. For ‘I threatened,’ no significant effects were found for younger or older students.
  • For both items related to relational bullying (‘I did not talk to someone on purpose’ and ‘I spread rumors about someone’), no effects were found for younger or older students.
  • For the item related to damage to property (‘I stole or ruined belongings’), there was an increase in the intervention group compared to the control group for younger students (p<0.05), and no significant effect for older students.

Athanasiades C, Kamariotis H, Psalti A, Baldry AC, Sorrentino A. Internet use and cyberbullying among adolescent students in greece: The 'tabby' project. Hellenic Journal of Psychology. 2015;12(1):14-39.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281202048_Internet_use_and_cyberbullying_among_adolescent_students_in_Greece_The_tabby_project

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

Intervention Results:

After the intervention, students in the intervention group scored significantly lower at the set of questions about the forms of cybervictimization they had experienced during the last six months (p=0.016).

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).

Tanrikulu T, Kınay H, Arıcak OT. Sensibility development program against cyberbullying. New Media Soc. 2015;17(5):708-719.

Link: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444813511923

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

Intervention Results:

There was no significant difference in the cyberbullying scale between the pretest and posttest scores of the intervention group.

Boulton MJ, Flemington I. The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school pupils' involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying. Sch Psychol Int. 1996;17(4):331-345.

Link: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143034396174003

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

Intervention Results:

The mean (SE) scores on the “Tendency to bully others” scale in the intervention group were 9.0 (2.1) and 9.3 (2.2) for Time 1 and Time 2 respectively, and 14.8 (5.3) and 14.8 (5.1) for the control group respectively. Since none of the interactions that involved time and condition factors were significant, there was no evidence that the intervention led students to report less bullying of others.

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.

Connolly J, Josephson W, Schnoll J, et al. Evaluation of a youth-led program for preventing bullying, sexual harassment, and dating aggression in middle schools. J Early Adolesc. 2014:0272431614535090.

Link: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0272431614535090

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CLASSROOM, Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training

Intervention Results:

Reports of bullying victimization did not change significantly for students in the intervention or control group.

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.

Espelage DL, Low S, Polanin JR, Brown EC. The impact of a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual violence. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(2):180-186.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23643338

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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • The results indicated no significant intervention effect for peer victimization.
  • There was no significant intervention effect for homophobic name-calling victimization.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • The results indicated no significant intervention effect for verbal/relational bullying perpetration.
  • Relative to students in control schools, students from intervention schools were 42% less likely to report physical aggression (p<0.05).
  • There was no significant intervention effect for homophobic name-calling perpetration

Espelage DL, Low S, Polanin JR, Brown EC. Clinical trial of second step© middle-school program: Impact on aggression & victimization. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2015;37:52-63.

Link: https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/clinical-trial-of-second-step-middle-school-program-impact-on-agg

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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Overall, no significant intervention effect was found for peer victimization (OR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.75-1.18). No reductions were found for Illinois or Kansas schools.
  • Overall, there was no significant intervention effect for homophobic namecalling victimization (OR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.66-1.08). However, results indicated that students in Illinois schools were 53% less likely to be victimized by homophobic name-calling (OR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.50- 0.82) when compared to students in control schools; results were non-significant for students in Kansas schools.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Overall, no significant intervention effect was found for verbal/relational bullying perpetration (OR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.63- 1.15). No reductions were found for Illinois or Kansas schools.
  • Overall, there was no significant intervention effect for physical aggression (OR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.59-1.08). No reductions were found for Illinois or Kansas schools.
  • Overall, there was no significant intervention effect for homophobic namecalling perpetration (OR=0.92, CI: 0.73-1.16). No reductions were found for Illinois or Kansas schools.

Fekkes M, van de Sande M, Gravesteijn J, et al. Effects of the dutch skills for life program on the health behavior, bullying, and suicidal ideation of secondary school students. Health Educ. 2016;116(1):2-15.

Link: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/HE-05-2014-0068

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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • At the end of the first year, students who received the intervention reported less often being bullied compared to those in the control schools (OR=0.30, 95% CI: 0.10-0.92, p=0.03); the difference was not significant at the end of the second year (p=0.20).

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • At the end of the first year, more students in the intervention group reported being digitally bullied compared to the control group (OR=20.19, 95% CI: 1.20-338.92, p=0.03); the difference was not significant at the end of the second year (p=0.13).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • At the end of the first year, no difference was found between the students in the intervention group and the control group (p=0.90). At the end of the second year, fewer students in the intervention group reported that they bullied other students compared to the control group (OR=0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.30, p<0.01).
  • Stratified analyses in subgroups of educational level showed that lower educational level students in the intervention group indicated that they were less likely to bully other students compared to the control group at the end of the second year (OR=0.05, 95% CI: 0.01- 0.25). This effect was not present among the higher educational level students.

Garaigordobil M, Martínez-Valderrey V. Effects of cyberprogram 2.0 on" face-to-face" bullying, cyberbullying, and empathy. Psicothema. 2015;27(1):45-51.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25633769

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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • The intervention group significantly decreased while the control group increased in bullying victimization. The mean difference was statistically significant (p=0.024).

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • The intervention group significantly decreased while the control group increased in cyberbullying victimization. The mean difference was statistically significant (p=0.000).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • The intervention group significantly decreased while the control group increased in bullying perpetration. The mean difference was statistically significant (p=0.021).

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • The intervention group significantly decreased while the control group increased in cyberbullying perpetration. The mean difference was statistically significant (p=0.000).

Gradinger P, Yanagida T, Strohmeier D, Spiel C. Prevention of cyberbullying and cyber victimization: Evaluation of the ViSC social competence program. J Sch Violence. 2015;14(1):87-110.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15388220.2014.963231

NPM: 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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Controlling for traditional aggression and victimization (Model 1), cybervictimization did not change between pre- and posttest in the control group (p=0.259), while it significantly decreased in the intervention group (p<0.01). The mean difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p<0.01). With the addition of age as a covariate (Model 2), the results did not differ substantially, only the effect size estimates.
  • Subgroup analyses for girls showed similar results as Model 1 and Model 2 for cybervictimization; comparing the intervention group to the control group showed that the intervention significantly decreased cybervictimization (p<0.01). However, among boys, no statistical change was found in the differences between the control and intervention group

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Controlling for traditional aggression and victimization as covariates (Model 1), cyberbullying increased in the control group (p<0.01), but decreased in the intervention group (p<0.01). The mean difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p<0.001). With the addition of age as a covariate (Model 2), the results did not differ substantially, only the effect size estimates.
  • Subgroup analyses for girls and boys showed similar results as Model 1 and Model 2 for cyberbullying. Comparing the intervention group to the control group showed that the intervention significantly decreased cyberbullying in both girls (p<0.01) and boys (p<0.001).

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).

Swaim RC, Kelly K. Efficacy of a randomized trial of a community and school-based anti-violence media intervention among small-town middle school youth. Prev Sci. 2008;9(3):202- 214.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18607726

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CLASSROOM, Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Assembly, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media), Distribution of Promotional Items, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Training, Event, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Radio, TV), Distribution of Promotional Items

Intervention Results:

  • Students in the intervention group reported a significantly higher rate of decline in verbal victimization compared to control students. The difference was only significant among males.
  • For physical victimization, the decline in the intervention group compared to the control group was in the expected direction but did not reach statistical significance (p=0.069). This near significant difference was accounted for by males.

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).

Houlston C, Smith PK. The impact of a peer counselling scheme to address bullying in an all‐girl london secondary school: A short‐term longitudinal study. Br J Educ Psychol. 2009;79(1):69-86.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18435867

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Peer-led Mentoring/Support Counseling, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, School Rules

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Across all grade levels, there was no significant difference between pretest and posttest in the number of students who reported recent victimization (p=0.54).
  • Examining the results by grade level showed that reported recent victimization remained the same in year 7 (p=1), year 8 (p=0.24), and year 9 (p=0.82).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Across all grade levels, there was no significant difference between pretest and posttest in the number of students who reported recent bullying behavior (P<0.127).
  • Examining the results by grade level showed that reported recent bullying remained the same in year 7 (p=0.53) and year 9 (p=0.81), but increased significantly in year 8 (p<0.05).

Nixon CL, Werner NE. Reducing adolescents' involvement with relational aggression: Evaluating the effectiveness of the creating A safe school (CASS) intervention. Psychol Sch. 2010;47(6):606-620.

Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pits.20494

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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Students were classified into the nonvictimized, average, or high-victimized group based on their pretest relational victimization scores.
  • Results showed that the intervention effect was significant for all three groups of students for both physical and relational victimization. Students in the nonvictimized and average groups reported increasing levels of physical and relational victimization from pretest to posttest, while students in the high-victimized group reported decreases in both forms of victimization over time.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Students were classified into the nonaggressive, average, or high-aggressive based on their pretest relational aggression scores.
  • The intervention effect was significant for all three groups of students for both physical aggression and relational aggression with one exception: reports of physical aggression among students in the high-aggressive group did not change significantly from pretest to posttest. Students in the non-aggressive and average groups reported increases in physical aggression. Results showed that students in the non-aggressive and average groups reported increasing levels of relational aggression from pretest to posttest, whereas students in the high-aggressive group reported decreases in relational aggression over time.
  • Results showed that although males reported higher levels of aggression than females did, both males and females reported slight increases in aggression between pretest and posttest.
    Next Page »

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.