» Articles » PMID: 19266281

Antibullying Programs in Schools: How Effective Are Evaluation Practices?

Overview
Journal Prev Sci
Specialty Science
Date 2009 Mar 7
PMID 19266281
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Bullying is a problem for schools around the world, and is an important topic for research because it has been associated with negative outcomes on numerous social, psychological, and academic measures. Antibullying prevention and intervention programs have varied greatly in their outcomes, with some studies reporting positive results while others have reported little or no positive impacts. Prompted by accountability demands, many agencies have developed standards with which to assess whether social programs are effective. Antibullying program evaluations have not been systematically reviewed to determine whether these types of standards are being applied. The purpose of this study was to assess the rigor of recent peer-reviewed antibullying program evaluations. Thirty-one peer-reviewed evaluations of antibullying programs, published within the last 10 years, were identified and coded for study characteristics. Shortcomings were identified in many of these program evaluations. In order to improve evaluation practices, researchers should consider using more rigorous designs to identify cause-effect relationships, including control conditions and random assignment, using more appropriate pre-post intervals, using more advanced methods of analyses such as hierarchical linear modeling, and systematically verifying program integrity to obtain dosage data that can be used in the outcome analyses.

Citing Articles

Corrigendum: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to decrease cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: an in-depth analysis within the Asia Pacific region.

Kamaruddin I, Marof A, Nashriq Mohd Nazan A, Ab Jalil H Front Psychiatry. 2023; 14:1226698.

PMID: 37547214 PMC: 10400711. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1226698.


A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to decrease cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: An in-depth analysis within the Asia Pacific region.

Kamaruddin I, Marof A, Nashriq Mohd Nazan A, Ab Jalil H Front Psychiatry. 2023; 14:1014258.

PMID: 36778634 PMC: 9911532. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1014258.


The Free2B Multi-Media Bullying Prevention Experience: An Exemplar of Scientific Edutainment.

Leff S, Waasdorp T, Paskewich B, Bevans K, Winston F Front Psychiatry. 2020; 11:679.

PMID: 32765319 PMC: 7378812. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00679.


SET-bullying: presentation of a collaborative project and discussion of its internal and external validity.

Chalamandaris A, Wilmet-Dramaix M, Eslea M, Ertesvag S, Piette D BMC Res Notes. 2016; 9:211.

PMID: 27067839 PMC: 4828821. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-016-2014-6.


Predicting Aggression among Male Adolescents: an Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior.

Zinatmotlagh F, Ataee M, Jalilian F, Mirzaeialavijeh M, Aghaei A, Karimzadeh Shirazi K Health Promot Perspect. 2014; 3(2):269-75.

PMID: 24688977 PMC: 3963670. DOI: 10.5681/hpp.2013.031.


References
1.
Stevens V, Van Oost P, De Bourdeaudhuij I . The effects of an anti-bullying intervention programme on peers' attitudes and behaviour. J Adolesc. 2000; 23(1):21-34. DOI: 10.1006/jado.1999.0296. View

2.
Edwards D, Hunt M, Meyers J, Grogg K, Jarrett O . Acceptability and student outcomes of a violence prevention curriculum. J Prim Prev. 2005; 26(5):401-18. DOI: 10.1007/s10935-005-0002-z. View

3.
Flay B, Biglan A, Boruch R, Castro F, Gottfredson D, Kellam S . Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prev Sci. 2005; 6(3):151-75. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-005-5553-y. View

4.
Dane A, Schneider B . Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control?. Clin Psychol Rev. 1998; 18(1):23-45. DOI: 10.1016/s0272-7358(97)00043-3. View

5.
Crick N, Bigbee M . Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: a multiinformant approach. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998; 66(2):337-47. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.66.2.337. View