Colleges and universities are increasingly concerned about respect for diversity and tolerance of individual differences on their campuses. Nevertheless, no comprehensive measure of peer victimization has been developed and validated for use with college student populations. The Peer Victimization in College Survey (PVIC) is the first such measure. Study 1 (N ϭ 733) reports how PVIC items were empirically derived to ensure construct coverage. Study 2 (N ϭ 100) reports how intuitive PVIC subscales were established to distinguish between subtypes of college peer victimization. Study 3 (N ϭ 520) provides evidence of convergent, discriminant, and construct validity for the PVIC, including its relations to risk factors and to outcomes such as depressive symptoms, anxiety, stress, and college sense of belonging. Study 4 (N ϭ 633) validates several PVIC scaling methods and provides evidence of incremental validity of the measure over current (unvalidated) measures. The PVIC can assess subtypes of peer victimization on college campuses, evaluate the effectiveness of campus intervention efforts, and test hypotheses about the causes and effects of peer victimization. Public Significance StatementThis study introduces the first validated measure of peer-on-peer victimization among college students, the Peer Victimization in College (PVIC) Survey. Derived from college students' own personal experiences, the study identifies 10 broad types of peer victimization that occur on college campuses. The PVIC can be used both by researchers who study bullying and by college officials who want to understand peer victimization or the effectiveness of interventions on their campuses.

Objective: Types and subtypes of peer victimization (PV) behaviors have long been identified among school-age children and adolescents. The present study aims to establish such typologies for older adolescents and young adults who are still in school given the fact that colleges and universities are increasingly concerned about such behaviors among their students. Method: The present study develops a PV typology for college students via network psychometrics. Through Qualtrics Panels, a nationwide sample of 520 college students completed questionnaires concerning PV in college. As PV in younger populations has been associated with internalizing problems, the current participants also completed measures of depression, anxiety, and stress. Results: Four major results emerged. First, cluster and tetrad analyses revealed two broad formative types (personal/relational PV and abusive/exploitative PV) that effectively encompassed various subtypes. Second, PV subtypes constituted a small-world system in which verbal aggression, broken trust, and stereotyping were associated with risks of polyvictimization. Third, the two broad PV types were associated with depression-, anxiety-, and stress-related symptoms. Finally, results also showed that PV subtypes are better regarded as indicators of formative, not reflective, constructs. Conclusions: Results suggest that broadband social interventions could impact all PV subtypes except physical and sexual victimization. Future researchers should carefully consider when and when not to use factor-analytic approaches in studying PV.

An increasing number of studies are applying multilevel modeling (MLM) to daily diary assessments of emotional and cognitive reactivity (ER and CR). Despite their generation of promising results, these methods have yet to be validated. The current study, consisting of 449 participants from over 90 different colleges and universities, had 2 goals: (a) to assess the convergent validity of these methods in relation to more conventional measures, and (b) to assess the construct validity of these methods in relation to depressive symptoms. Results support the extraction of within-versus between-person aspects of both constructs from daily diary data. Evidence of convergent validity derives from the association of MLM-based estimates of ER and CR with established self-report questionnaire methods. Evidence of construct validity derives from the relation of these estimates to symptoms of depression. The value of distinguishing within-from between-person aspects of ER and CR is discussed. Public Significance StatementThis study explicates and validates a multilevel modeling method for the assessment and analysis of emotion and cognitive reactivity data derived from daily diaries. Evidence of convergent, discriminant, and construct validity supports the use of these methods.

No abstract

Previous theory and research show that, compared with nondepressed people, depressed individuals are more likely to have (a) negative thoughts when they are sad, and (b) qualitatively different emotional reactions to stressful situations. In the current article, a novel methodology for assessing these characteristics is introduced in order to facilitate such research in college students.