New Participant Role Scales: comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for their validity

Abstract

The present study was set up with two aims in mind. First, to assess the psychometric characteristics of a peer-report measure of bullying in a Dutch sample, and second, to compare relative and absolute ways of assigning roles in the bullying process. The sample consisted of 242 children (51% boys; mean age approximately 10 years) at T1. Two years later, there were 247 children (49% boys).We made use of an adaptation of the original Participant Role Scales (PRS) Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjo¨rkqvist et al., 1996;Salmivalli, Lappalainen and Lagerspetz, 1998) and of the Aggression and Victimization Scale [Perry, Kusel and Perry, 1988]. This scale, called the New PRS, consisted of 32 items in total. Five highly reliable scales were distinguished with the help of CFA, one for leader-like bullying behavior, one for follower-like bullying behavior, and scales for outsider, defender and victim. We computed the roles according to four criteria, that is, z-scores (a relative measure) and three different percentage scores (10%, 15% and 20%; each an absolute measure). Sociometric status was also assessed. The concordance between the various methods was moderate. Test-retest stability was also moderate. Test-retest coefficients for the scale scores were considerably higher. Links were found between the roles and sociometric status, irrespective of the method used for assigning roles. Victims were rejected, as were bullies, but defenders were popular. Gender differences indicated that boys were more often bullies or followers, and girls were more often outsiders or defenders. Absolute methods for assigning bullying roles produced fewer unclassifiable children and brought to light substantial differences between classes. Aggr. Behav. 32:343-357, 2006. r

Self-perception but not peer reputation of bullying victimization is associated with non-clinical psychotic experiences in adolescents

“…Previous research has established the validity of this nomination procedure (Goossens et al 2006). Further details of the procedure can be found elsewhere (Olthof et al 2011).…”

Peer and self-reported victimization: Do non-victimized students give victimization nominations to classmates who are self-reported victims?

“…Scholars agree that bullying is a group phenomenon in which almost all classmates are in some way involved (Goossens, Olthof, & Dekker, 2006;Huitsing & Veenstra, 2012;O'Connell et al, 1999;Salmivalli et al, 1996). Salmivalli et al (1996) described five roles (apart from victims) that students may take during bullying episodes: bullies, assistants (students who do not initiate the bullying but join after someone else has initiated it), reinforcers (students who support the bully by laughing or cheering), outsiders (students who actively shy away from the bullying), and defenders (students who help and support victims).…”

Surveying bullyng using peer nominathion methods

“…This study contributes to literature on class level research into bullying (15,16,17). The approach adopted makes use of previous research recommendations of peer nomination methodology (19,20,26), by selecting groups which shared a considerable period of learning time. Although bullying may also occur outside of the classroom setting, tutor groups present a potentially supportive environment where such issues can be addressed (21).…”

“…Students were identified as bullies or victims (for example, a student nominated as a bully by classmates would be allocated the role of bully), the role of bully/victim was assigned when the peer nominations for bully and victim were both high, and those with a low number of nominations were assigned to the no role category (a student identified by peers as not involved in bullying). The decision rule to retain roles with 25% of the class nominations was based on previous research, where absolute criteria between 10% and 50% have been applied to nomination data (16,17,26), in this instance 20% was considered lenient and 30% was deemed stringent (increasing or reducing the total number of nominations in the whole dataset by almost one quarter).…”