Evaluation of bully-proofing your school: Final report

Menard, Scott; Grotpeter, Jennifer K.; Gianola, Danielle; O'Neal, Maura

doi:10.1037/e423382008-001

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The time is ripe to mount a new program of research on the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs, based on our findings. (7) Transtheoretical-based Tailored Anti-bullying Program [Evers et al 2007]; category 6 (8) Social Skills Training (SST) Program [Fox and Boulton 2003]; category 5 (9) Stare bene a scuola: Progetto di prevenzione del bullismo [Gini et al 2003]; category 5 (10) Viennese Social Competence (ViSC) Training [Gollwitzer et al 2006]; category 5 (11) Conflict Resolution Program [Heydenberk et al 2006]; category 6 => excluded due to lack of data (12) Granada Anti-bullying Program [Martin et al 2005]; category 5 (13) South Carolina Program; implementation of OBPP [Melton et al 1998;Limber et al 2004]; category 6 (14) 'Bullyproofing your School' Program [Menard et al 2008]; category 6 (15) Befriending Intervention Program [Menesini and Benelli 1999;Menesini et al 2003]; category 5 (16) New Bergen Project against Bullying; 'Bergen 2' [1997][1998]; category 6 (17) Toronto Anti-bullying Program [Pepler et al 2004 Age-cohort designs…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs in schools. Studies were included if they evaluated the effects of an anti-bullying program by comparing an intervention group who received the program with a control group who did not. Four types of research design were included: a) randomized experiments, b) intervention-control comparisons with before-and-after measures of bullying, c) other interventioncontrol comparisons, and d) age-cohort designs. Both published and unpublished reports were included. All volumes of 35 journals from 1983 up to the end of May 2009 were hand-searched, as were 18 electronic databases. Reports in languages other than English were also included. A total of 622 reports concerned with bullying prevention were found, and 89 of these reports (describing 53 different program evaluations) were included in our review. Of the 53 different program evaluations, 44 provided data that permitted the calculation of an effect size for bullying or victimization. The meta-analysis of these 44 evaluations showed that, overall, school-based anti-bullying programs are effective: on average, bullying decreased by 20-23% and victimization decreased by 17-20%. Program elements and intervention components that were associated with a decrease in bullying and victimization were identified, based on feedback from researchers about the coding of 40 out of 44 programs. More intensive programs were more effective, as were programs including parent meetings, firm disciplinary methods, and improved playground supervision. Work with peers was associated with an increase in victimization. It is concluded that the time is ripe to mount a new program of research on the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs based on these findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…‘Bully‐Proofing Your School’ (BPYS) was a comprehensive, school‐based intervention program for the prevention of bullying, with three major components: a) Heightened awareness of the problem of bullying, involving a questionnaire to measure the extent of bullying and the creation of classroom rules related to zero tolerance for bullying; b) Teaching students protective skills for dealing with bullying, resistance to victimization and providing assistance to potential victims by teaching assertiveness skills; and c) Creation of a positive school climate where students were encouraged to work as positive and supportive bystanders (Menard et al, 2008, p. 7). The primary targets of BPYS were elementary and middle school students.…”

Section: Descriptions Of Included Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We followed the researchers in the way they split up their results for analysis. Baldry and Farrington (2004) presented results separately for younger (age 11‐12) and older (age 13‐14) children; Frey et al (2007) presented results separately for direct and indirect bullying; Evers et al (2007) and Menard et al (2008) presented results separately for different categories of schools; Menard et al (2008) also presented results separately for physical and relational bullying; Ertesvag and Vaaland (2007) and Salmivalli et al (2005) presented results separately for different grades; Salmivalli et al (2005) also presented results separately for different implementation conditions; Sprober et al (2006) presented results separately for different types of bullying (mean scores for verbal and physical bullying) and for two different experimental conditions; and Meyer and Lesch (2000) presented data separately for different schools. The methods used to combine two or more effect sizes presented in a study into a single effect size are specified in the Technical Appendix.…”

Section: Analysis Of Included Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jenson and Dieterich (2007) did not report prevalence or means but reported coefficients (logarithms of odds ratios) in logistic regression models. Menard et al (2008) reported phi correlations between experimental/control and bully/non‐bully (or victim/non‐victim). Where question marks are shown after numbers, we have estimated them.…”

Section: Analysis Of Included Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

School‐Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization

Farrington

Ttofi²

2009

Campbell Systematic Reviews

362

376

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Campbell Collaboration was founded on the principle that systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services. Campbell offers editorial and methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review. A number of Campbell's editors, librarians, methodologists and external peer reviewers contribute. Plain language summaryInterventions to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability are effectiveThere are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Interventions to address homelessness seem to be effective, though better quality evidence is required. What is this review about?There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Recent estimates are over 500,000 people in the USA, 100,000 in Australia and 30,000 in Sweden. Efforts to combat homelessness have been made on national levels as well as at local government levels.This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions combining housing and case management as a means to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. What is the aim of this review?This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. Forty-three studies were included in the review, 37 of which are from the USA. What studies are included?Included studies were randomized controlled trials of interventions for individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless, and which measured impact on homelessness or housing stability with follow-up of at least one year.A total of 43 studies were included. The majority of the studies (37) were conducted in the United States, with three from the United Kingdom and one each from Australia, Canada, and Denmark. 6The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org What are the main findings of this review?Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability. What do the findings of this review mean?A range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services.However, there is uncertainty in this finding as most the studies have risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization or allocation concealment of participants. In addition to the general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research with respect to: 1) disadvantaged youth; 2) abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) non-abstinence contingent housing comparing group vs independent living; 4) Hous...

show abstract

“…In addition, diverse antibullying programs have decreased aggressive behavior outside of the classroom, disruptive behaviors in the classroom ( Fonagy et al, 2005 ; Twemlow et al, 2005 ), the perception of aggressiveness in class, fights ( Heydenberk et al, 2006 ), aggressiveness ( Grossman et al, 1997 ; McMahon et al, 2000 ; Ortega and Lera, 2000 ; Orpinas et al, 2003 ), reinforcement of aggressive behavior ( Olweus, 2004 ; Kärnä et al, 2009 ; Williford et al, 2012 ), antisocial and violent behavior ( Olweus, 1991 ; Menard et al, 2008 ; Olweus and Limber, 2010a , b ), and bullying (assisting and reinforcing the bully; Kärnä et al, 2013 ). Therefore, there is some evidence that antibullying programs decrease aggressiveness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Cyberprogram 2.0 on Different Types of School Violence and Aggressiveness

Garaigordobil

Martínez-Valderrey

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some antibullying interventions have shown positive outcomes with regard to reducing violence. The aim of the study was to experimentally assess the effects on school violence and aggressiveness of a program to prevent and reduce cyberbullying. The sample was comprised of a randomly selected sample of 176 adolescents (93 experimental, 83 control), aged 13–15 years. The study used a repeated measures pre-posttest design with a control group. Before and after the program, two assessment instruments were administered: the “Cuestionario de Violencia Escolar-Revisado” (CUVE-R [School Violence Questionnaire – Revised]; Álvarez-García et al., 2011) and the “Cuestionario de agresividad premeditada e impulsiva” (CAPI-A [Premeditated and Impulsive Aggressiveness Questionnaire]; Andreu, 2010). The intervention consisted of 19 one-hour sessions carried out during the school term. The program contains 25 activities with the following objectives: (1) to identify and conceptualize bullying/cyberbullying; (2) to analyze the consequences of bullying/cyberbullying, promoting participants’ capacity to report such actions when they are discovered; (3) to develop coping strategies to prevent and reduce bullying/cyberbullying; and (4) to achieve other transversal goals, such as developing positive variables (empathy, active listening, social skills, constructive conflict resolution, etc.). The pre-posttest ANCOVAs confirmed that the program stimulated a decrease in: (1) diverse types of school violence—teachers’ violence toward students (ridiculing or publicly humiliating students in front of the class, etc.); students’ physical violence (fights, blows, shoves… aimed at the victim, or at his or her property, etc.); students’ verbal violence (using offensive language, cruel, embarrassing, or insulting words… toward classmates and teachers); social exclusion (rejection or exclusion of a person or group, etc.), and violence through Information and Communication Technologies (ICT; violent behaviors by means of electronic instruments such as mobile phones and the Internet)—; and (2) premeditated and impulsive aggressiveness. Pre-posttest MANCOVA revealed differences between conditions with a medium effect size. This work contributes an efficacious intervention tool for the prevention and reduction of peer violence. The conclusions drawn from this study have interesting implications for educational and clinical intervention.

show abstract

Evaluation of bully-proofing your school: Final report

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review

Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review

School‐Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization

Impact of Cyberprogram 2.0 on Different Types of School Violence and Aggressiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About