BACKGROUND: Bullying is a significant problem in schools and measuring this concept remains problematic. The purposes of this study were to (1) identify the published self-report measures developed to assess youth bullying; (2) evaluate their psychometric properties and instrument characteristics; and (3) evaluate the quality of identified psychometric papers evaluating youth bullying measures. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using 4 electronic databases. Data extraction and appraisal of identified instruments were completed using a standardized method and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles describing 27 self-report instruments were evaluated in our analysis. Quality assessments ranged from 18% to 91%, with 6 papers reaching or exceeding a quality score of 75%. Limited evidence supporting the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of existing youth bullying measures was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supporting the psychometric soundness of the instruments identified was limited. Many measures were in early development and additional evaluation is necessary to validate their psychometric properties. A pool of instruments possesses acceptable initial psychometric dependability for selected assessment purposes. These findings have significant implications for assessing youth bullying and designing and evaluating school-based interventions.
BACKGROUND: Bullying is a significant problem in schools and measuring this concept remains problematic. The purposes of this study were to (1) identify the published self-report measures developed to assess youth bullying; (2) evaluate their psychometric properties and instrument characteristics; and (3) evaluate the quality of identified psychometric papers evaluating youth bullying measures. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using 4 electronic databases. Data extraction and appraisal of identified instruments were completed using a standardized method and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles describing 27 self-report instruments were evaluated in our analysis. Quality assessments ranged from 18% to 91%, with 6 papers reaching or exceeding a quality score of 75%. Limited evidence supporting the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of existing youth bullying measures was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supporting the psychometric soundness of the instruments identified was limited. Many measures were in early development and additional evaluation is necessary to validate their psychometric properties. A pool of instruments possesses acceptable initial psychometric dependability for selected assessment purposes. These findings have significant implications for assessing youth bullying and designing and evaluating school-based interventions.
Authors: Alina Cosma; Sophie D Walsh; Kayleigh L Chester; Mary Callaghan; Michal Molcho; Wendy Craig; William Pickett Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Jana Holubcikova; Peter Kolarcik; Andrea Madarasova Geckova; Sijmen A Reijneveld; Jitse P van Dijk Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2015-07-04 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Karol Johanna Briñez Ariza; Clara Virginia Caro Castillo; María Elena Echevarría-Guanilo; Marta Lenise Do Prado; Silvana Silveira Kempfer Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2018-05-17
Authors: Jorge Gaete; Daniela Valenzuela; María Inés Godoy; Cristian A Rojas-Barahona; Christina Salmivalli; Ricardo Araya Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-04-12