An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression and victimization in school settings.

Abstract

Methods of identifying aggressive/bullying and victimized youngsters in a middle school sample were compared. First, the authors compared teachers' and research associates' ratings of students' aggression and found that the 2 measures were significantly correlated. Second, direct observations of youngsters' aggression and victimization were compared with indirect, diary measures kept by youngsters of the same behaviors. The measures were not interrelated, but the diary measures were related to the peer and self-report measures, whereas the direct observations were related to peer and teacher measures. Third, the authors compared the ability of different peer and self-report measures to identify youngsters at different levels of aggression and victimization severity. All measures were associated, even at low levels of severity. Results are discussed in terms of different instruments that provide information on public and private behavior.

Observing bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status.

“…Notwithstanding, rates of perpetration and victimization were higher than other studies conducted at secondary school levels: 25% and 39%, respectively (see Juvonen et al, 2003;Nansel et al, 2001;Smith, Mortia, Junger-Tas, Olweus, Catalano, & Slee, 1999). Although some researchers have questioned the use of self-reports in estimating the prevalence of bullying without peer and teacher nomination strategies (Juvonen & Graham, 2001;Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000), it is not always the case, particularly with indirect bullying, that teachers or other students are aware of it taking place (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000;Van der Wal, de Wit, & Hirasing, 2003). In addition, while we acknowledge that in some studies participants who complete self-report questionnaires may underreport the prevalence of bullying, or provide socially desirable answers, in this study we took care to ensure that rapport and trust were established among the local authority officers, teachers, students, and the research team.…”

Different Measurement Approaches as Sources of Differences in Data on the Prevalence of Peer Violence

“…However, certain studies suggest that these measures do not yield the most accurate data on peer violence (Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988). The critics of this method state that the use of self-report instruments usually underestimates the actual prevalence because the bullies, with the aim of maintaining a socially desirable image of themselves, are reluctant to identify themselves as such, while the victims are prone to disclaim and deny their victimization (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000). Also, for many self-report instruments and questionnaires on peer violence, information about psychometric characteristics, particularly about the reliability and validity are missing.…”

“…The prevalence of peer violence is higher when the definitional approach is used as compared to the behavioral approach, while when the behavioral approach is used, there is a higher prevalence of victims and provocative victims. When using different methods, the prevalence of peer violence is equal when using self-ratings and peer nominations, especially when the public expression of violent behavior is assessed (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000).…”

Social Integration and Students’ Perceptions of the Transition to Middle School

“…The presence or lack of hierarchy in peer groups can affect individual peer group members' social experiences in middle school. Members of hierarchical groups tended to be more aggressive, particularly members who were particularly prominent (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000). Students in egalitarian groups, on the other hand, tended to experience more positive student outcomes including increased academic achievement (Wilson et al, 2011) and greater endorsement of academic effort and achievement (Hamm, Lambert, Agger, & Farmer, 2013).…”