USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Bullying and victimization in middle school

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Bullying and victimization in middle school the role of individual characteristics, family functioning, and school contexts
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Totura, Christine Marie Wienke
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
school violence
aggression
school climate
assessment
adolescence
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The present study examined the relationship between individual, family, and school variables and both bullying and victimization. Approximately equal numbers of males and females (N = 1185 and 1174, respectively) were randomly selected from classrooms in 11 middle schools across 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Students completed questionnaires including items from each domain. Questionnaires assessed bullying and victimization, internalizing and externalizing behaviors, family factors, and school variables. In addition, teachers of the selected classrooms completed a brief rating scale on each of the students, which assessed student moodiness, behavioral difficulties, and learning problems. Achievement and discipline records data were obtained. Based on their responses to critical items, participants were categorized into Bully, Victim, Bully/Victim, and comparison Control groups. Multivariate analyses, with follow-up univariate and discriminant function analyses, tested the association of variables within the individual, family, teacher report, and school domains with bullying group membership. Analyses were examined by grade and gender effects as well. Results indicated that variables within each of the domains significantly contributed to differences between bullying groups, by grade and gender. Specifically, bullies and bully/victims appeared to have the poorest reported adjustment in terms of behavioral difficulties, family functioning, and school variables, while both victims and bully/victims experienced greater internalizing difficulties. Bullies and bully/victims tended to have the poorest outcomes; however, victims reported poorer peer relationships and perceptions of school. Overall, depression, anxiety, and the expression of anger accounted for the majority of group differences. School variables, particularly peer relationships, a sense of school spirit, and perceptions of climate and adult availability at school, played a secondary role in explaining differences among groups. These findings varied by gender and grade. Illustratively, bullying intervention programs could, in part, focus on those characteristics that are more strongly related to certain groups of students (i.e., anger expression for females and school conditions for younger students).
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Christine Marie Wienke Totura.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 132 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001441477
oclc - 53994038
notis - AJM5917
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000150
usfldc handle - e14.150
System ID:
SFS0024846:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Bullying and Victimization in Middle School: The Role of Individual Characteristics, Family Functioning, and School Contexts by Christine Marie Wienke Totura A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Ellis L. Gesten, Ph.D. Vicky Phares, Ph.D. Michael Brannick, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 27, 2003 Keywords: school violence, aggression, sc hool climate, assessment, adolescence Copyright 2003, Christine Marie Wienke Totura

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my faculty advisor, Dr. Ellis Gesten, and the members of my Master’s committee, Dr. Vicky Phares and Dr Michael Brannick, for their time, support, and constructive comments. I particularly appreciate Dr. Michael Brannick’s assistance with data analysis. I am deeply grateful to Demy Kamboukos, M.A. for her friendship, support, guidance, and insight in the developm ent of this project, and to Nathan Totura, Marianne Wienke, and Dr. H. Richard Wienke for th eir never-ending patience, sensitivity, and support throughout the process. This study would not have been possible without the assistance and coordination of Ray Gadd, M.A. in Pasco County Student Services. His confidence that the study w ould improve middle schools in the area made the process a rewarding and remarkable ex perience. Additionally Sherri Dunham and Amelia Van Name Larson have been integral to the success of the study. I am furthermore indebted to th e teachers, students, and administrators in Pasco County Middle Schools for their participation in provi ding information and helping coordinate data collection. Finally, I would like to ac knowledge and thank those who helped in the time consuming and, at times, fru strating tasks of data collec tion and data entry and/or verification: Vounette Deus, Laurel Jorgens on, Gina DiPasqua, Lisa Strother, Danielle Short, and Kelly Genske.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Chapter One Introduction 1 Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization 1 Categorizing Children and Correlates of Bullying and Victimization 2 Bullies 2 Victims 4 Bully/Victims 5 Age and Gender Differences 6 Summary 7 Hypothesis 1 8 Hypothesis 2 8 Hypothesis 3 9 Hypothesis 4 9 Hypothesis 5 9 Chapter Two Method 10 Participants 10 Measures 10 Child Report Surveys 10 Teacher Report Surveys 12 Records Data 13 Procedure 13 Data Reduction 14 Chapter Three Results and Discussion 15 Results 15 Individual Domain Variables 16 Anxiety, Depression, Anger, and

PAGE 4

ii Behavioral Misconduct 16 Family Domain Variables 16 Family Cohesion and Adaptability 16 School Domain Variables 17 School Adjustment 17 School Environment 17 Achievement 18 Teacher Report Domain Variables 18 Acting-Out, Moodiness, and Learning 18 Discriminant Function Analysis 19 Discussion 27 References 34 Appendices 47 Appendix A: Definitions of Bullying Behaviors 48 Appendix B: Assessment of Bullyin g Behaviors 51 Appendix C: Hypothesis 1 54 Appendix D: Hypothesis 2 55 Appendix E: Hypothesis 3 56 Appendix F: Hypothesis 4 57 Appendix G: Olweus Bully/Victim Ques tionnaire-Revised 58 Appendix H: Center for Epidemio logical Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) 67 Appendix I: State-Trait Anxiety Inventor y for Children (STAIC) 69 Appendix J: State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory for Children and Adolescents (STAXI-C/A) 70 Appendix K: School Adjustment Survey (SAS) 72 Appendix L: Middle School/High School Student Survey (MS/HS Student Survey) 75 Appendix M: Adult Supervision at School (ASAS) 77 Appendix N: Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES-II) 78 Appendix O: Acting-Out, Moodiness, and Learning Scale-Revised (AML-R) 81 Appendix P: Florida Comprehensive Achi evement Tests (FCAT) 83 Appendix Q: Multivariate and Follow-Up Univariate Analysis Tables 84 Appendix R: Discriminant Function An alysis Matrices 111 Appendix S: Multivariate, Univariate, and Post Hoc Study Findings by Domain and Hypotheses 123 Appendix T: Number (and Percentage) of Categorized Students per School 124

PAGE 5

iii List of Tables Table 1: Group Frequencies (a nd Percentages) by Grade and Gender 42 Table 2: Intercorrelations be tween Scales for Total Sample 43 Table 3: Group Means (and Standard Devia tions) for Survey Data with MANOVA, ANOVA, and Group Post Hoc Findings 44 Table 4: Means (and Standard Deviations ) by Gender and Grade for Significant Interactions 45 Table 5: Means (and Standard Devi ations) by Grade for Significant Interactions 46

PAGE 6

iv List of Figures Figure 1: Group Centroids by Function fo r Total Sample 20 Figure 2: Group Centroids by Function for Males 21 Figure 3: Group Centroids by Function for Females 22 Figure 4: Group Centroids by Function for 6th Graders 23 Figure 5: Group Centroids by Function for 7th Graders 24 Figure 6: Group Centroids by Function for 8th Graders 25

PAGE 7

v Bullying and Victimization in Middle School: The Role of Individual Characteristics, Family Functioning, and School Contexts Christine Marie Wienke Totura ABSTRACT The present study examined the relationship between individual, family, and school variables and both bully ing and victimization. Approx imately equal numbers of males and females (N = 1185 and 1174, respectively) were randomly selected from classrooms in 11 middle schools across 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Students completed questionnaires including items from each dom ain. Questionnaires assessed bullying and victimization, internalizing a nd externalizing behaviors, family factors, and school variables. In addition, teachers of the sel ected classrooms complete d a brief rating scale on each of the students, which assessed stude nt moodiness, behavior al difficulties, and learning problems. Achievement and discip line records data were obtained. Based on their responses to critical items, participan ts were categorized into Bully, Victim, Bully/Victim, and comparison Control groups. Multivariate analyses, with follow-up univariate and discriminant function analyses, tested the association of variables within the individual, family, teacher report, and school domains with bullying group membership. Analyses were examined by grade and gender effects as well. Results indicated that variables within each of the domains significantly contributed to differences between bullying groups, by gr ade and gender. Specifically, bullies and bully/victims appeared to have the poorest re ported adjustment in terms of behavioral difficulties, family functioni ng, and school variables, while both victims and bully/victims experienced greater internalizing difficulties. Bullies and bully/victims

PAGE 8

vi tended to have the poorest outco mes; however, victims reporte d poorer peer relationships and perceptions of school. Ov erall, depression, anxiety, and the expression of anger accounted for the majority of group differences School variables, particularly peer relationships, a sense of school spirit, and perceptions of clima te and adult availability at school, played a secondary role in explaini ng differences among groups. These findings varied by gender and grade. Illustratively, bullying intervention programs could, in part, focus on those characteristics that are more st rongly related to certa in groups of students (i.e., anger expression for females and school conditions for younger students).

PAGE 9

1 Chapter One Introduction Prevalence of Bullying and Victimization Bullying behaviors and their contexts ha ve been assessed in several countries demonstrating that exposure to and involvement in bullying be haviors are significant risk factors to healthy psychological and physi cal development (Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu, & Simons-Morton, 2001; Olweus, 1997; Roland, 2000). Multiple variables influence the frequency of bullying behaviors, and the lik elihood of a student becoming a bully and/or victim of bullying (H aynie et al., 2001; Nans el, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, and Schiedt, 2001). St udies have identified variables in three general domains-individual, family relationships, and school-which contribute to students’ involvement in and experience of bullying behavi or. Research, however, has generally focused on a few variables from each domain, and most examine variables in a single domain (Haynie et al., 2001; Kumpulainen et al., 1998; Nansel et al., 2001; Rigby, 1993). Estimates of bullying problems, either experienced as the perpetrator or the victim, vary across nations and studies. Percentages range from 15% in Norway (Olweus, 1997) to 18%-20% in Engla nd (Boulton & Underwood, 1992) to 25% in Australia (Slee, 1994). Within the United St ates, studies report di ffering frequencies of victimization, with 15% to 20% of students in the U.S. re porting being bullied (Batsche & Knoff, 1994). More current estimates of bu llying frequency report hi gher levels than those in past studies, suggesting that bullying and victimization are on the rise in certain populations. A recent study, using somewhat different criteria, found much different

PAGE 10

2 proportions of middle school population involve ment in bullying situations. Seven percent of students were categorized as bullies, bullied others three or more times in the past year, while 31% of 6th through 8th grade students were considered victims, bullied three or more times in the past year (Hayni e et al., 2001). Nansel and associates (2001) found that 30% of 6th through 10th grade students were involve d in moderate to frequent bullying. Of those students, 13% were classified as bullies, 11% were classified as victims, and 6% were classified as both bullies and victims. Categorizing Children and Correlate s of Bullying and Victimization When assessing bullying behaviors, stude nts were traditionally classified into three major groups: bully, victim, and uninvol ved. More recent literature suggests the inclusion of an additional category, bully/victims, who are both perpetrators and victims of bullying (Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Bullies At the individual level, bullies tend to have more impaired psychosocial functioning (with regard to problem behavior, attitudes toward deviancy, and competency) compared with victims and students uninvolved in bullying behavior (Haynie et al., 2001). They exhibit more hos tile intentions and little anxiety in general (Olweus, 1995). A common misconception is th at bullies are inadequate or anxious, and that their behavior is an attempt to compensate for these feelings. In fact, bullies do not have above average levels of anxiety rega rding their bullying behavior, and moreover, view their interactions with peers as reas onable and not “wrong” in some sense (Boulton & Underwood, 1992). Also, bullies tend to have higher levels of depressive symptoms than students not involved in bullying, and lower levels than victims (Haynie et al ., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001, Slee, 1995). Similarly, bullies report more externalizing beha viors and victims report more internalizing diffi culties (Kumpulainen et al., 1998). In fact, greater feelings of anger were found to be a powerful predic tor of high levels of bullying (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999). In addition, bullies a nd their friends engage in more deviant and problem behaviors and ha ve greater acceptance for misconduct than victims and

PAGE 11

3 students uninvolved in bullying (Haynie et al., 2001, Nansel et al., 2001). Perhaps surprisingly, bullies often have a greater ability to make friends than students who are victimized (Nansel et al., 2001). While in earlier grades bullies tend to be somewhat popular amongst their classmat es, as they progress throug h school bullies become less popular (Olweus, 1997). Many bullies demonstrate social cognitive information processing deficits, such that they believe the actions of potential victims are hostile in nature (Dodge & Crick, 1990). In addition, many may exhibit an inform ation processing defic it in which they are not as likely to identify prosocial alternatives to what are perceived as threatening situations. Bullies are generally more easily angered than other students and are more likely to use force in response to their an ger (Bosworth, et al., 1999; Edmonson, 1988). Researchers have found that students who bully others at school are more likely to have difficult family environments (Rigby 1993). Bullies usually come from families where parents prefer physical and harsh discipline, are more authoritarian, are less warm and involved, are inconsistent in their pa renting practices, and advocate aggressive behaviors from their children. Bullies’ families tend to be less cohesive and characterized by disengagement and conflict. Supervision of child activity is minimal and parents typically lack em pathy and problem-solving skills (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1992; Carney, 2000; Hazler, 1996; Oliver, Oaks, & Hoover, 1994; Olweus, 1978; Olweus, 1991a, 1991b). It is suspected that these students learn poor coping and socialization skills from their home environment, and use them in social settings (Carney & Merrell, 2001) Parents do not present as good role models for learning how to get along with others a nd solve problems (Hazler, 1996). Parental maltreatment places children at-risk for bot h bullying and victimization (Shields & Cicchetti, 2001). In school, bullies are less likely to be bonded and engaged in education and the school environment than vic tims and students uninvolved in bullying. Bullies tend to dislike school, are less popular with peers and teachers than those uninvolved in bullying, and have higher levels of behavioral misconduct (Rigby & Slee, 1991; Slee & Rigby,

PAGE 12

4 1993). Academically, students recognized as bullies are usually disengaged with schoolwork, even though they present with average intellectual abilities (Lagerspetz, 1982). Engagement in bullying behaviors is further associated with poorer academic outcomes for students (Nansel et al., 2001). Bu llies generally have poor er perceptions of their school climate (Nansel et al., 2001). Bullies are more likely to take part in delinquent behaviors both in a nd outside school, such as va ndalism, truancy, substance use, and stealing (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999). Victims Victims usually have exploitable individual characteristics (Carney & Merrell, 2001). Physically, these students tend to be younger, smaller, and weaker than their counterparts. Psychologically, they are mo re anxious, depressed, withdrawn, and have lower self-esteem (Craig, 1998; Haynie et al., 2001; Olweus, 1995; Rigby & Slee, 1991). Male victims are generally exploitable due to their physical stature, while female victims are typically exploited by peers due to thei r style of dress and attractiveness (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992). Student victims tend to have more interpersonal difficulties and poorer social skills than other students (Bes ag, 1989; Haynie et al., 2001). Victims are less popular in school than other students, including bullies (Smith, 1991). Compared to students uninvolved in bullying, victims bond and adjust more poorly to school and classmates, although more positively than bu llies (Haynie et al., 2001). Students who are victims often are isolated, shy, and uninvolve d or uninterested in others (Besag, 1989; Hazler, 1996). Victims also report more behavioral misconduct of themselves and acceptance of misconduct than students uninvol ved in bullying, although not to the degree as bullies (Haynie et al., 2001). Victims may experience inconsistent parenting, abuse, and overprotectiveness of family members (Oliver, Oaks & Hoover, 1994; Stephenson & Smith, 1989). However, some victims could also have parents who are more invol ved and supportive than other students, but their parents are not as appropr iately involved and s upportive as the parents of students uninvolved in bullying situations (Haynie et al., 2001). In particular, an association has been found be tween male victimization and maternal overprotectiveness

PAGE 13

5 (Olweus, 1991a). This patte rn of familial support could pr event children from building adaptive interpersonal skills and becoming independent individuals, consequently increasing the potential for victimization by others (Baldry & Farrington, 1998). Bully/Victims Recent studies have found that the bully /victim represents a distinct group of children, although typically much smaller in size and frequency (Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Bully/victims are st udents who frequently engage in bullying behaviors as well as regularly experience vi ctimization and were f ound to have greater behavioral misconduct, poorer so cial and emotional functioni ng, and less parental support than bullies, victims, and uni nvolved students (Haynie et al ., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001; Solberg & Olweus, 2002). Bully/victims have lower sc holastic competency, beha vioral conduct, social acceptance, and self-worth than bullies, vi ctims, and students uninvolved in bullying. Academically, bully/victims also have the poorest functioning (Nansel et al., 2001). Bully/victims have poor adjus tment and bonding with school, teachers, and classmates (Austin & Joseph, 1996; Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Similar to bullies, bully/victims were found to demonstrate greater levels of aggressi on, both verbally and physically, compared with noninvolved childre n and victims (Craig, 1998). However, bully/victims are involved in more problem be haviors and misconduct, such as cigarette and alcohol use and cutting classes, and ha ve more deviant peer influences and acceptance of involvement in deviant beha viors than bullies, victims, and uninvolved students (Haynie et al., 2001). They also repor t increased levels of depressive symptoms and loneliness and tend to feel more saddened and moody th an other students (Austin & Joseph, 1996; Nansel et al., 2001). Bully/victims experience the least parental support and involvement in their daily lives and increased difficulties with thei r parents (Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1994; Haynie et al., 2001). In fact, bully/victims report higher frequency of overprotective as well as neglectful parents who display lower warmth, involve ment, and supervision than other students’ parents (S mith & Myron-Wilson, 1998). Ot her researchers have found

PAGE 14

6 that bully/victims receive more parental involvement in school issues, although the nature of the involvement is unclear whether due to positive or negative events (Nansel et al., 2001). The parental involvement experienced by these students may be in response to their negative behaviors at sc hool. Overall, bully/victims ar e believed to have the poorest reported family functioning compared with their peers (Rigby, 1993). Overall, much less is known about the psychosocial, school, and familial factors related to bully/victims compared with the magnitude, diversity, and importance of correlates found for bullies and victims. Children who are id entified as both bullies and victimized may seemingly be the most at-risk group for future maladjustment, especially considering their increased likelihood to befrie nd others who engage in deviant behaviors (Haynie et al., 2001). Age and Gender Differences Bullying occurs at all age levels, but peaks in late childhood to middle adolescence, ages 9-15, and begins to decreas e after these peak periods (Hazler, 1996). Usually, younger students are victimized by older students (Carney & Merrell, 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Bullying and vic timization are more prevalent among boys (Haynie et al., 2001). Bullying behavior varies across gender as well as by age and grade. Baldry & Farrington (1998) found that vic tims were primarily girls, bullies were primarily boys, and bully/victims and uninvolve d students were evenly di stributed between boys and girls. Haynie et al. (2001) suggest that boys and girls may engage in and experience different types of bullying behavi or. Girls tend to organize their bullying in a more social manner, around rumor spreading and manipula tion of friendships, while boys exhibit more physically aggressive activities (verbal abuse, physical attacks, and threats). The only form of bullying that is more prevalent among girls is that of social intimidation (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Carney & Merrell, 2001). Additionally, female victims are more concerned with being ig nored at school and negativel y evaluated by peers than male victims (Slee, 1995). In general though, less is known about the characteristics of female bullies (Baldry & Farrington, 2000).

PAGE 15

7 Several studies examined the correlation between bullying and victimization and other adjustment variables, both by gende r and age. Mood, family environment, and social interactions were found to differ by gender and grade for students in various bullying groups. Middle school males showed a greater positive relationship between loneliness and bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). High school girls did not demonstrate a relationship between being bullied and inability to make friendships; however, students in other grades did demonstrate this relations hip (Nansel et al., 2001). For both middle and high school boys, parental involvement wa s related to victimiza tion and concurrent bullying/victimization, but not for females. Mo re specifically, lower levels of parental involvement were relate d to being a bully for high school males (Nansel et al., 2001). A greater correlation between poor family functioning and the experience of victimization existed for female than for male experience of victimization (Rigby, 1993) In families with low warmth and support, boys are likely to become bullies and girls are likely to become bullies or victims (Rigby, 1996). Bullies and bully/victims who were mostly boys, differed from non-bullies in being less pro-social, havi ng more authoritarian and punitive parents, and having parents who were less suppor tive and more disagreeable with each other (Baldry & Farrington, 1998). Pure bullies differe d from non-bullies by being male and less prosocial in their actions. Victims and bully/victims differed from non-victims in being younger (in first year of middle school), havi ng low self-esteem, and having authoritarian parent s. Pure victims compared to non-victims were more likely to be female and have low self-esteem and authoritarian parents (Baldry & Farrington, 1998). Bully/victims compared to uninvolved stude nts were more likely to be in the first year of middle school, to be less pro-social, and to have low self-e steem and parents who are authoritarian, punitive, and unsupportive (Baldry & Farrington, 1998). Some risktaking behaviors are also associated with bullying involvement, depending on grade. Smoking is related to being bully or bu lly/victim for middle school students, while alcohol use is related to being a high school bully/victim (Nansel et al., 2001). Summary This study examined behavioral, academic, and psychosocial variables in the

PAGE 16

8 individual, family, and school domains and de termined variables or combinations of variables most relevant to bullying and victimization (see Appendices A and B for more information). Within the individual domain, variables were examined that measured specific child internalizing and externalizing difficulties. Variables related to family support, bonding, and cohesion we re assessed within the family domain. Of particular importance was the addition of the school environment variab les, many of which have not been assessed in combination with individual and family variables to determine their contribution to bullying and victimization. W ithin the school domain, variables were also examined that were directly related to academic achiev ement and the quality of the learning environment. Finally, teacher ratings were obtained as an additional measure of child internalizing, externalizing, and lear ning difficulties (Gelle spie & Durlak, 1995). For the present study, student reports may be more useful in assessing emotionality and psychosocial dysfunction, while teacher report is a valid measure of externalizing problems. A unique aspect of the present study is the inclusion of differential sources of data that assess severa l dimensions, a method which past studies have suggested is ideal (Holmbeck, Westhoven, Shapera Phillips, Bowe rs, Gruse, Nikolopoulos, Wienke Totura, & Davison, 2003; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). A dditionally, the present study built on past research by identifying those variables which discriminate bullies and victims from bully/victims (Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Hypothesis 1 A main effect for bullying groups (Bu lly, Victim, Bully/V ictim, and uninvolved students/comparison Control) was expected on domain combin ations of the dependent variables (Individual, Family, School, and T eacher Report) and on separate dependent variables in each domain (see Appendix C). Hypothesis 2 An interaction between gender and bully ing group membership was hypothesized for domain combinations of dependent variab les and for separate dependent variables within each domain (see Appendix D).

PAGE 17

9 Hypothesis 3 An interaction between grade and bullying group was expected on domain combinations of the dependent variables and on separate dependent variables in each domain. Research has often examined diffe rences across middle school and high school on few of the dependent variable s presented in the current study ; therefore, the nature of grade effects on several indivi dual, family, and school variable s as a function of bullying group membership was unclear for students in 6th through 8th grade. Some effects could be hypothesized, although analyses were genera lly exploratory for most of the individual, family, school, and teacher report va riables (see Appendix E). Hypothesis 4 A three-way interaction was expected among bullying group, gender, and grade on domain combinations of the dependent vari ables and on separate dependent variables in each domain. As an expansion of Hypothe ses 2 and 3, the nature of the three-way interaction for specific depende nt variables was uncertain a nd explored in the current study (see Appendix F). Hypothesis 5 A distinct linear combination of the dependent variables (Individual, Family, School, and Teacher Report ratings) was expected to describe differences among bullying groups. It was expected that the linear comb ination of dependent va riables may differ by gender and grade.

PAGE 18

10 Chapter Two Method Participants Each of the eleven middle schools in a large school district (approximately 55,000 students), which included urban, suburban, and rural areas, was recruited for participation. The total numbe r of participants (N = 2509) was divided into bullying group, gender, and grade subgroups. Participants were deleted from analyses if they had missing grade and/or gender data. The re sulting number of participants (N = 2359) included 6th (N = 760, 32.2%), 7th (N = 899, 38.1%), and 8th (N = 701, 29.7%) grade students and their teachers. There were approximately equal numbers of males and females (N = 1174, 1185). Within each sc hool, four classes per grade, with approximately 30 students each, we re randomly selected to co mplete student and teacher surveys. Teachers provided completed behavi or surveys on a subgroup of 1474 students. The majority of the sample was White /Caucasian (N = 1751, 74.3%), while 11.1% was Latino/Latina/Hispanic (N = 261), 3.9% Black/African-American (N = 93), 2.0% Asian/Indian (N = 48), and 8.6% as other (N = 203). Measures Child Report Surveys The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) is a 39-item scale covering aspects of bully/victim problems (see Appendix G). Following convention, two items were used from the questionnaire to determine bullying group membership (i.e., “How often have you been bullied at sc hool in the past couple of months,” and “How often have you taken part in bullying ot her students at school in the

PAGE 19

11 past couple of months”). Bullie s indicated that they have taken part in bullying “2 to 3 times a month” or more, without indicating ha ving been bullied. Victims indicated that they have been bullied at school “2 or 3 times a month” or more, without indicating having bullied others. Bully/victims indicated that they have taken part in bullying others “2 to 3 times a month” or more and that they have been bullied “2 to 3 times a month” or more. Comparison control, or uninvolved, students are those students who responded that they have been bullied/bullied others “ only once or twice” or less. Cronbach’s alpha for the victimization items scale from this sample is .87, while alpha for the bullying items scale is .71. The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977) is a 20item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .86) used to measure self-re ported depressive symptomotology (see Appendix H). The State/Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) (Spielberger, 1973) is a 40-item questionnaire that asse sses self-reported anxiety (s ee Appendix I). Two 20-item scales comprise the questionnair e: State, related to current estimated levels of anxiety, and Trait, related to consistent and cross-situational levels of anxiety. Only the Trait Anxiety subscale was used in order to remain consistent with past literature’s assessment of child mood in relation to beha vior (Cronbach’s alpha = .93). The State/Trait Anger Expression Inven tory for Children and Adolescents (STAXI-C/A) (Spielberger, Jacobs, Brunner, & Luns ford, 2002) is a 53-item survey that assesses self-reported anger (see Appendix J) The STAXI-C/A was developed based on the adult version of the Revised State/Tr ait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI-2), which contains six major scales: State Anger, Trait Anger, Anger Out, Anger In, Anger Control/Out, and Anger-Control/I n (Spielberger, 1998). For this study, the Trait Anger (Cronbach’s alpha = .86) and Anger Expressi on (Cronbach’s alpha = .77) scales were used. The School Adjustment Survey (SAS) (Santa Lucia & Gesten, 2000) is a 34-item scale assessing self-reported student bonding and adjustment to school, classmates, and teachers (see Appendix K). The scale consists of five scal es: School Spirit (Cronbach’s

PAGE 20

12 alpha = .85), Goal-Orientation (Cronbach ’s alpha = .79), Child-Peer Relations (Cronbach’s alpha = .63), Child-Teacher Re lations (Cronbach’s alpha = .84), and Alienation (Cronbach’s alpha = .63). The Middle School/High School Student Survey (Safe Community-Safe School Project, 2002) is a 131-item ques tionnaire that measures vari ous components of parental influences, peer relationships, exposure to school violence, teacher relations, beliefs about aggression and substance use, risk taking behaviors, and school bonding (see Appendix L). The 22 items used for the presen t study were grouped into scales assessing Diversity, Condition of Campus, Knowledg e of Fairness and Discipline Policies, Presence of Gangs, Witnessing Fighting at School, Staff Response to Bullying, and Witnessing Other Problem Behavi ors. Some of the above scal es were further aggregated into the factors used: School C limate (Diversity, Presence of Gangs, Witnessing Fighting, and Witnessing Other Problem Behavior s; Cronbach’s alpha = .53) and Adult Intervention (Knowledge of Fairness and Di scipline Policies and Staff Response to Bullying; Cronbach’s alpha = .64). Conditi on of Campus remained its own factor (Cronbach’s alpha = .56). The Adult Supervision in School scale (see Appendix M) is comprised of six items (Cronbach’s alpha = .49) developed for this study, and added to a ssess adult supervision within schools (e.g., “in my school teachers ar e in the hall when we change classes,”). The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES-II) (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983) is a 30-item m easure assessing familial bonding, support, involvement, and environment (see Appendix N) Two scales comprise the FACES-II: Adaptability, a family’s adaptive capacity and flexibility during times of stress, and Cohesion, the degree of emotional bonding and individuality within a family unit. This study’s Cronbach’s alpha for the Cohesion s cale was .80, while alpha for the Adaptability scale was .83. Teacher Report Surveys The AML Behavior Rating Scale – Revised (AML-R) is a 12-item survey, revised from the original 11-item scale (Cowen et al., 1973) used to assess elementary school

PAGE 21

13 student maladjustment (see Appe ndix O). Three scales comp rise the AML-R: Acting-out (A), Moodiness (M), and Learning (L). Cronb ach’s alpha for the s cales are as follows: .91 for Acting-Out, .87 for Moodiness, and .93 for Learning. Records Data The standardized Florida Comprehensive Achievement Tests (FCAT) were included in the present study as a measure of academic achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics (see Appendix P). Internal reliabilities for the total test battery range from .86 to .91 for grades 4 through 10 (Flori da Department of Education, 2000). The Developmental Scale Scores for reading comp rehension and math pr oblem solving tests were used as an assessment of academic ach ievement that could be compared across school years. The range of FCAT Developmental Scale Scores is 86-3008. Total number of Discipline Referrals was obtained for each participant as a measure of student behavioral misconduct. Referrals are an indicator of misbehavior in schools by means of a disciplinary report for individual students sent to school administration and aggregated by the district. Procedure This study was developed in collaboration with the school district as part of a broader assessment of school e nvironment. Students were administered survey packets by teachers with the help of school psyc hologists, guidance counselors, and study research assistants in a group format within randomly selected cl asses during the second half of the school year. The following definiti on of bullying was read to guide responses: “We define or explain the word bullying. We say a student is being bullied when another student, or severa l other students € Say mean and hurtful things or make fun of him or he r or call him or her mean and hurtful names € Completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends or leave him or her out of things on purpose € Hit, kick, push, shove around, or lo ck him or her inside a room

PAGE 22

14 € Tell lies or spread false rumors about h im or her or send mean notes and try to make other students dislike him or her € And other hurtful things like that. When we talk about bullying, these thin gs happen repeatedly, and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend himself or herself We also call it bullying, when a student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. But we don’t call it bullying when the teasing is done in a friendly and playful way. Also, it is not bullying when two students of about equa l strength or power argue or fight (Olweus, 1991, pg. 7).” This definition was also included in written format in the student survey packets. Student and teacher surveys were coded to maintain child c onfidentiality. Since this survey was part of a district mandate d needs assessment, cons ent procedures were determined by the school adminis tration consistent with distri ct policy. A letter was sent to their parent or guardian informing them th at their child will be involved in a survey to improve school climate. Those who chose to decline partic ipation in the study were asked to contact the school. Data Reduction Prior to conducting any analyses, the data was verified and cleaned. Impossible scores outside of scale ranges were correct ed. Participants with missing data were eliminated from analyses on a case-wise basis. Participants were cl assified into groups: Bullies (N = 164, 6.7%), Victims (N = 295, 12.0%), Bully/Victims (N = 44, 1.8%), Controls (N = 2006, 81.4%). Table 1 presen ts frequencies for group membership by grade and gender. Older students and males were more likely categorized as bullies, younger males as victims, and roughly equal numbers of male s and females across grades as bully/victims. Middle school of attendance was entered into preliminary multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) to test the data’s adhere nce to the assumption of independence of observations and assess dependence of stude nt responses on school of attendance. Each follow-up univariat e design was nested within school.

PAGE 23

15 Chapter Three Results and Discussion Results Pearson Product-Moment correlation analys es were conducted between dependent variables in order to assess the degree of a ssociation among the individual, family, school environment, school adjustme nt, achievement, and teacher report variables. Several associations among variables were noted (see Table 2). Generally, each domain was significantly related to each other. More specifically, individual mood and externalizing factors were highly correlated with all measured aspects of students’ lives, family functioning, perceptions of school, and teach er perceptions of student adjustment. Achievement data had fewer associati ons with the other domain variables. Factorial Multivariate Analyses of Va riance (MANOVA) were used to test for differences among the Bully, Victim, Bully /Victim and comparison Control groups by gender and grade on subsets of the dependent variables. This included by domain: Individual (Depression, Anxiety, Anger, and Discipline Referrals), Family (Cohesion and Adaptability), School Environment (School Climate, Condition of Campus, Adult Intervention, and Adult Supervision in Sc hool), adjustment toward school (GoalOrientation, School Spirit, Child-Peer Relations, Child-Teach er Relations, and Alienation), Achievement (FCAT standardized test scores), and Teacher Report (ActingOut, Moodiness, and Learning difficulties). In order to correct for heterogeneous covariance matrices, a robust statistic, Pillai-Bar tlett Trace was used. Due to extreme sample size differences, ha rmonic means were used for follow-up analyses. Table 3 presents the multivariate and follow-up univariate results.

PAGE 24

16 Individual Domain Variables Anxiety, depression, anger, and behavioral misconduct. A main effect for bullying group membership occurred on the co mbination of the Individual variables, F (15, 5601) = 23.45, p = .000, as well as the gender by group interaction, F (15, 5601) = 2.57, p = .001. A follow-up main effect fo r bullying group resulted on Depression, F (33, 1936) = 6.60, p = .000, Anxiety, F (33, 1734) = 4.44, p = .000, Trait Anger, F (33, 2101) = 4.98, p = .000, Anger Expression, F (33, 2107) = 3.26, p = .000, and Discipline Referrals, F (33, 2134) = 2.25, p = .000. The Control group had lower Depression than the Bully, Victim, and Bully/Victim groups. The Bully gr oup also had lower le vels of Depression than those in the Victim group. For Anxiety, the Bully, Victim, and Bully/Victim groups reported significantly higher levels of anxiety than the Control group. The Victim and Bully/Victim groups also had greater Anxiety le vels than the Bully group. For Trait Anger, the Control group reported significantly lower levels of anger than the Bully, Victim, and Bully/Victim groups. Both the C ontrol and Victim groups had significantly lower levels of reported Anger Expression than those in the Bully and Bully/Victim groups. Bully/Victims have lo wer reported levels of Ange r Expression than Bullies, although these findings are not significant. For Discipline Referrals, the Control group had lower levels of behavi oral misconduct than Bullies a nd Bully/Victims. Bullies and Bully/Victims have higher levels of referrals than Victims. Family Domain Variables Family cohesion and adaptability. A main effect for bullying group membership occurred on the combination of the Cohesion and Adaptability variables, F (6, 3890) = 7.44, p = .000. The two-way interaction of ge nder and bullying group membership was also significant, F (6, 3890) = 4.19, p = .000. On each variable, bullying group membership had significant main effects, F (43, 1864) = 2.01, p = .000 for Cohesion and F (43, 1777) = 1.44, p < .05 for Adaptability. The gender by bullying group two-way interaction was significant for Adaptability, F (33, 1777) = 1.68, p = .01. For Cohesion, those in the Control group reported greater leve ls of Cohesion compared with those in the

PAGE 25

17 Victim group. Members of the Control and Victim groups reported higher levels of connectedness, or Cohesion, with in families than those in the Bully group. Overall, the Control group reported higher levels of Adaptability than the Bully group. More specifically, male Controls (see Table 4) had greater Adaptability in their families, while female Bullies reported the least. School Domain Variables School adjustment. A main effect for bullying group membership occurred on the combination of the School Adjustment variables, F (15, 6480) = 17.23, p = .000. The two-way interaction of bu llying group membership and gender was significant, F (15, 6480) = 2.10, p < .01. A bullying group main eff ect occurred for School Spirit, F (43, 2026) = 2.79, p = .000, Goal-Orientation, F (43, 1987) = 2.37, p = .000, Child-Peer Relations, F (43, 2051) = 5.13, p = .000, Child-Teacher Relations, F (43, 2046) = 2.74, p = .000, and Alienation, F (43, 2050) = 2.38, p = .000. The interaction between bullying group and gender was significant for Goal-Orientation, F (38, 1987) = 1.54, p < .05, and Child-Teacher Relations, F (38, 2046) = 1.44, p < .05. For School Spirit, members of the Control group reported greater means than thos e in the other groups. Those in the Victim group reported significantly greater levels of school spirit compared with those in the Bully group. Overall for Goal-Orientati on, the Control and Victim groups reported greater levels compared with Bullies. Female Control students (see Table 4) had the highest Goal-Orientation, while male Bullies had the lowest. For Child-Peer Relations, those in the Victim group reported the lowest levels compared with the Bully, Control, and Bully/Victim groups. Bullie s reported lower levels of Child-Teacher Relations compared with Control and Victim group memb ers. Female Controls had the highest levels of Child-Teacher Relations (see Table 4), while female Bullie s have the lowest levels. For Alienation, those in the Bu lly, Victim, and Bully /Victim groups reported greater levels compared with those in the Control group. School environment. A main effect for bullying group membership occurred on the combination of the Condition of Cam pus, School Climate, A dult Intervention, and Adult Supervision at School variables, F (12, 5421) = 10.66, p = .000. The two-way

PAGE 26

18 interaction of bullying group member ship and grade was significant, F (24, 7232) = 1.53, p < .05. Finally, the three-way interaction of bullying group membership, grade, and gender was also significant, F (24, 7232) = 1.94, p < .01. Significant main effects for the nested group variable occurred for seve ral variables: Condition of Campus, F (32, 1660) = 1.66, p < .05; School Climate, F (33, 1674) = 3.08, p = .000; Adult Intervention F (32, 1680) = 1.97, p = .001; and Adult Supervision, F (33, 2054) = 1.75, p < .01. The two-way interaction between bullying group and grade was significant for Condition of Campus, F (44, 1660) = 1.76, p = .002), and Adult Supervision, F (50, 2054) = 1.43, p < .05. For School Climate, those in the Control group reported fewer difficu lties with diversity, gang presence, and other problem behaviors co mpared with members of the other groups. Overall for Condition of Campus, Control stude nts reported higher le vels of Condition of Campus compared with other students. Si xth grade students in the Control group (see Table 5) reported the most positive C ondition of Campus, while sixth grade Bully/Victims reported the lowest. For Adult Intervention, the Control group reported greater levels of adult intervention compared with all of the other groups. For Adult Supervision, the Control group reported greater levels of supervision at school compared with the other groups. The Bully and Vi ctim group members repor ted significantly greater levels of supervision compared w ith those in the Bully/Victim group. For the two-way interaction, 8th grade Bully/Victims reported the lowest levels of supervision, while 8th grade Control students reported the highest levels. Achievement. No significant hypothesized multivariate effects occurred. Teacher Report Domain Variables Acting-out, moodiness, and learning. A main effect for bullying group membership occurred on the combination of the AML-R variables, F (9, 4110) = 3.29, p = .001. The three-way interaction of bullyin g group membership, grade, and gender was significant, F (18, 4110) = 1.67, p < .05. For Acting-Out, a main effects for bullying group, F (33, 1220) = 1.82, p < .01, as well as a three-way interaction among group, grade, and gender, F (11, 1220) = 2.72, p < .01, occurred. For Moodiness, a main effect occurred for group, F (33, 1220) = 2.38, p = .000. For the Learning variable, only the

PAGE 27

19 three-way interaction was significant, F (11, 1220) = 2.31, p < .01. Teachers reported greater levels of Acting-Out behaviors for students in the Bully group compared with those in the Control and Victim group. Bully /Victims had greater le vels of Acting-Out behaviors than Control students. Male Bullies in the 7th grade (see Table 4) were reported to have the gr eatest levels of actingout behaviors, while 8th grade female Bully/Victims had the lowest le vels. For Moodiness, the Bully group had greater levels of reported mood disruptions compared with the Control and Victim students. For Learning, 8th grade female Bully/Victims had the lowest reported levels of Learning problems. Seventh grade male Bullies had the highest reported levels of Learning difficulties. Discriminant Function Analysis A descriptive Discriminant Function Analysis revealed that three function equations explained the di fference among bullying groups on the combination of Individual domain, Family domain, School domai n, and Teacher Report domain variables for the total sample. The canonical correlati on that assessed the re lationship between the first discriminant function and the set of dependent variab les is .388, while the canonical correlation between the second di scriminant function and the set of dependent variables is .324 (Wilk’s Lambda = .741, p = .000 for the test of functions 1 through 3). The first function accounted for the majority of the variance, specifically 55.3%, while the second function accounted for 36.7%. Examination of the first function structure matrix revealed that Depression ( r = .668), Trait Anger ( r = .632), Anxiety ( r = .614), Child-Peer Relations ( r = -.540), School Climate ( r = .499), School Spirit ( r = -.469), Adult Intervention ( r = -.459), Cohesion ( r = -.387), Adult Supervision ( r = -.386), Alienation ( r = .359), Child-Teacher Relations ( r = -.353), and Moodiness ( r = .273) had significant associations with the discriminant function (see Appendix R). Examination of the structure matrix for function 2 re vealed that Anger Expression ( r = .634), Referrals ( r = .372), Acting-Out ( r = .321), Goal-Orientation ( r = -.263), and Learning ( r = .193) had significant associations with the functi on (see Appendix R). Group centroids were graphed on both Function 1 (Control = -.201, Bully = .784, Victim = .872, and

PAGE 28

20 Bully/Victim = 1.18) and 2 (Control = -.0037, Bully = .947, Victim = -.705, and Bully/Victim = .491). Figure 1: Group Centroids by Function for Total Sample For males, three discriminant functions resulted, the first two as significant. The canonical correlation that assesse d the relationship between th e first discriminant function and the set of dependent va riables was .447, while the canoni cal correlation between the second discriminant function and the set of dependent variables was .344 (Wilk’s Lambda = .674, p = .000 for the test of functions 1 through 3). The first function accounted for the majority of the varian ce (58.2%) and the second accounted for 31.2% of the variance. Examination of the firs t function structure matrix revealed that Depression ( r = -.666), Child-Peer Relations ( r = -.665), Anxiety ( r = .629), ChildTeacher Relations ( r = .397), Adult Supervision ( r = .305), and School Spirit ( r = -.263) had the largest correlations with the discr iminant function. Examination of the second function revealed that Goal-Orientation ( r = .629), Cohesion ( r = .579), Adaptability ( r = .461), Adult Intervention ( r = .416), Condition of Campus ( r = .383), FCAT Math ( r = .368), FCAT Reading ( r = .358), Trait Anger ( r = -.305), Moodiness ( r = -.235), and Function 2 Function 1 B V B/V C 0 | 1 1--

PAGE 29

21 Anger Expression ( r = .168) had the greatest associ ation with the function. Group centroids were graphed on both Function 1 (Control = .219, Bully = -.038, Victim = 1.298, and Bully/Victim = -.772) and 2 (Cont rol = -.106, Bully = 1.224, Victim = -.172, and Bully/Victim = .305). Figure 2: Group Centroids by Function for Males For females, three discr iminant functions explained group differences with the first two functions being significant. The canonical correlation that assessed the relationship between the first discriminant function and the set of dependent variables is .439, while the canonical correlation between the second discriminant function and the set of dependent variables is .319 (Wilk’s Lambda = .683, p = .000 for the test of functions 1 through 3). The first function accounted for 57.6% of the variance, while the second function accounted for 27.3% Examination of the firs t function structure matrix revealed that Anger Expression ( r = .716), Cohesion ( r = .621), School Spirit ( r = .525), Goal-Orientation ( r = .518), Trait Anger ( r = -.518), Adaptability ( r = ,516), Acting-Out ( r = -.490), Alienation ( r = -.457), Adult Intervention ( r = -.416), Adult Supervision ( r = -.408), Child-Teacher Relations ( r = .390), Learning ( r = -.336), Condition of Function 2 Function 1 B V B/V C | 1 1-0

PAGE 30

22 Campus ( r = .325), Depression ( r = .269), and Anxiety ( r = .228) had the largest associations with the discriminant function (see Appendix S). The structure matrix for function 2 revealed that Child-Peer Relations ( r = -.551), School Climate ( r = .470), Discipline Referrals ( r = .298), and Moodiness ( r = .173) had the largest significant associations with the function. Group cen troids were graphed on both Function 1 (Control = -.180, Bully = 1.458, Victim = .332, and Bully/Victim = 2.053) and 2 (Control = -.074, Bully = -.435, Victim = 1.076, and Bully/Victim = -.055). Figure 3: Group Centroids by Function for Females For 6th graders, the first and second discr iminant functions were significant in explaining group differences. The canonical correlation that assessed the relationship between the first discriminan t function and the set of de pendent variables was .428 and the canonical correlation for the second function was .301 (Wilk’s Lambda = .683, p = .000 for the test of functions 1 through 3). The first function accounted for the majority of the variance, specifically 59.0%. Examina tion of the first function structure matrix revealed that Depression ( r = .727), Anxiety ( r = .571), Cohesion ( r = -.503), Condition Function 2 Function 1 B V B/V C 0 | 1 1--

PAGE 31

23 of Campus ( r = .478), FCAT Reading ( r = -.447), Adult Intervention ( r = .418), ChildPeer Relations ( r = -.276), Goal-Orientation ( r = -.276), Child-Teacher Relations ( r = .219), and Moodiness ( r = -.169) had the largest correla tions with the discriminant function. Examination of the second function revealed that Adult Supervision at School ( r = -.542), Anger Expression ( r = .491), Acting-Out ( r = -.411), Trait Anger ( r = .400), Alienation ( r = .302), and School Climate ( r = -.195) had a significant relationship with the function. Group centroids were graphe d on both Function 1 (Control = -.202, Bully = .294, Victim = 1.073, and Bully/Victim = 1.600) and 2 (Control = -.0372, Bully = 1.701, Victim = -.222, and Bully/Victim = .230). Figure 4: Group Centroids by Function for 6th Graders For the 7th grade sample, three discriminant functions resulted. The first and second discriminant functions were significant in explai ning group differences. The canonical correlation that assesse s the relationship between th e first discriminant function and the set of dependent va riables was .495 and the canonical correlation for the second function was .421 (Wilk’s Lambda = .586, p = .000 for the test of functions 1 through 3). The first function accounted for the majority of the variance, specifically 54.2%, while Function 2 Function 1 B V B/V C 1-| 1 0

PAGE 32

24 the second accounted for 35.8% of the varian ce. Examination of the first function structure matrix revealed that Anxiety ( r = .682), Depression ( r = .474), Child-Peer Relations (r = -.499), Trait Anger ( r = .472), Adult Intervention ( r = -.390), Adult Supervision ( r = -.320), Alienation ( r = .318), Moodiness ( r = .286), and Acting-Out ( r = .266) had the largest correlations with the discriminant function. Examination of the second function revealed that Anger Expression ( r = .546), Cohesion ( r = -.357), FCAT Math ( r = -.323), FCAT Reading ( r = -.250), and Learning ( r = .242) had significant relationships with the function. Group cen troids were graphed on both Function 1 (Control = -.287, Bully = .772, Victim = 1.216, and Bully/Victim = 1.695) and 2 (Control = -.0347, Bully = 1.061, Victim = -.994, and Bully/Victim = .604). Figure 5: Group Centroids by Function for 7th Graders For the 8th grade sample, the canonical correla tion that assesses the relationship between the first discriminan t function and the set of de pendent variables was .417 and the canonical correlation between the second f unction and the set of dependent variables was .305 (Wilk’s Lambda = .692, p = .000 for the test of functions 1 through 3). The first function accounted for the majority of the variance, specifically 53.3%, while the second Function 2 Function 1 B V B/V C 0 | 1 1--

PAGE 33

25 accounted for 26.0%. Examination of the first function structure matrix revealed that Child-Peer Relations ( r = .744), Depression ( r = .517), School Climate ( r = -.422), Adult Supervision at School ( r = -.385), School Spirit ( r = -.370), Anxiety ( r = .360), ChildTeacher Relations ( r = .358), Cohesion ( r = .353), Adaptability ( r = .340), Learning ( r = .331), Anger Expression ( r = -.319), and Alienation ( r = .127) had the largest associations with the discriminant function. Examination of the second f unction revealed that Trait Anger ( r = -.628), Goal-Orientation ( r = .642), and Adult Intervention ( r = .558) had significant relationships with the func tion. Group centroids were graphed on both Function 1 (Control = -.181, Bully = 1.465, Victim = .300, and Bully /Victim = .295) and 2 (Control = -.0762, Bully = -.320, Vi ctim = 1.014, and Bully/Victim = .0614). Figure 6: Group Centroids by Functions for 8th Graders In summary, the combination of variables for the whole sample appeared to pull the Control group apart from the Bully, Victim, and Bully/Victim groups. Those variables that had the most influence in describing differences among the Bully, Victim, Bully/Victim, and Control groups were inte rnalizing (depression and anxiety) and Function 2 Function 1 B V B/V C 0 | 1 1--

PAGE 34

26 externalizing (anger and referrals) factors, primarily, followed by relationships with peers, bonding with school (school spirit, rela tionships with teache rs, and feelings of belonging at school), school environmental factors (adult intervention and supervision and perception of school clima te), and connectedness with family members. Linear combinations were then created by gender a nd group. The profile for female varied from that of the total sample, Bullies and Bully/Victims differentiated from Control and Victim students. While similar individual (depression, anxiety, and mostly expression of anger) and school variables continue d to be primarily responsib le for defining the group differences, family flexibility, and appearan ce of school campuses also emerged as important in explaining group differences For males, Bullies were strikingly discriminated from the other groups, which a ppeared to be due to mainly depression, anxiety, family connectedness and flexibility, orientation toward educational goals, quality of peer and teacher relationships teacher reported mood difficulties, and performance on standardized tests. Functions that resulted for 6th and 8th grade students presented a patterns of group differences in which Bullies were sepa rated from Controls, Victims, and Bully/Victims. Functions for 7th grade participants appeared to separate Bullies, Victims, and Bully/V ictims from Control students. Depression, anger, and anxiety continued to play a primary role in differentiating among groups, while familial adaptability became important for 8th grade students. Academic achievement emerged as responsible for discrimination among groups for both 6th and 7th grade students. School adjustment variables appeared to be less important for 7th grade students, while the condition of school campus played a significant role for 6th graders. The presence of and intervention on the part of adults at school we re important in descri bing group differences across the board. Interestingly, while ange r and teacher reported behavioral difficulties were significant in describing bullying group differences at all gr ade levels, discipline referrals were not. However, referral data was significant for female and total sample group differences.

PAGE 35

27 Discussion The present study examined variables related to bullying and victimization in middle school. Several factor s within the individual, fa mily, and school domains were related to bullying and vic timization. Group effects accounted for the majority of the associations. As expected, the participants who were categorized as comparison Control had the best outcomes with respect to individual characteristics, family functioning, and school adjustment. Contrary to past resear ch, those categorized as bully/victims did not consistently have the poorest psychosocial and academic adju stment in comparison with bullies and victims (Haynie et al ., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Specifically, within the Individual domai n, group differences generally did not vary as a function of grade or gender. Overall, the multivariate tests of significance revealed group differences, as well as gender by group interaction, for the combination of individual variables (Depression, Anxiety, Tr ait Anger, Anger Expression, and Discipline Referrals). However, the gender by group in teractions did not reach significance in follow-up univariate analyses. Bullies, victims, bully/victims, and comparison control participants differed on each individual variab le, with the comparison controls generally having the best adjustment. Victims were more likely to report symptoms of depression and anxiety compared with bullies, while bullies and bully/victims presented with externalizing profiles (trait anger, anger ex pression, and referrals). In part, these findings are supported by past research, w ith the unique addition of anger variables (Bosworth et al., 1999; Haynie et al., 2001; Kumpulainen, et al., 1998; Nansel et al., 2001, Olweus, 1995). While statistical si gnificance was not achieved for all hypothesized findings, a trend in bully/victim reports emerged. Bully/victims appeared similar to victims with respect to depression and anxiety reports. However, bully/victim externalizing reports were more similar to that of bullies. Bully/victims presented the same individual characteristics as both victims and bullies. Interestingly, anger was reported by each group; however, bullies and bully /victims were more lik ely to express it. Research should further examine the speci fic function of anger with bullying and victimization.

PAGE 36

28 With respect to family functioning, th e group effects were significant on the Cohesion and Adaptability variables. Vic tims reported lower c onnectedness in their families compared with comparison control participants; however, victims felt their families were more cohesive than bullies’ families. These findings are consistent with literature that suggests victims have more involved, even ove rprotective, parents (Haynie et al., 2001). For Adaptability, the trends of student reports su ggested poorer family functioning for bullies compared with victims and bully/victims. Female bullies reported the least flexibility within their families. Overall, victims and bully/victims reported similar levels of connectedne ss and adaptability within their families. The specific constructs of Cohesion and Adaptability have not previously been studied in relation to bullying and victimization; yet, parental involvement, support, and practices have been found to be associated with bullying and victimization (Bowers et al., 1992; Carney, 2000; Hazler, 1996; Oliver et al., 1994; Ol weus, 1991a; 1991b). These results suggest that the degree of intimacy, connection, a nd flexibility among family members may be important in explaining di fferences among groups of students involved in bullying situations. A number of significant findings resulte d in the school domain. Specifically, control participants reported greater adjustment toward school than other students. Victims, too, tended to repor t more bonding with school, except for quality of peer relationships. Consistent with the literature, victims had increased difficulty with peer interactions, yet relationships with teachers appeared positiv e (Besag, 1998; Nansel et al., 2001). Bullies, as expected, were less bonded to school and repor ted more difficulties with teachers. Overall, female comparis on control students typically had positive goal directed perceptions and rela tionships with teachers, while male bullies generally had poor perceptions of each. Interestingly, both bullies and vic tims reported feeling alienated from school. This findi ng is contrary to past res earch that suggests victims may bond less successfully to school than control students, but do adjust to school more readily than bullies (Haynie et al., 2001). Th e Alienation factor in this study, however, includes a number of items salient to bullies and victims. While Alienation is defined on

PAGE 37

29 the one hand by student-teacher relationships, on the other hand, the factor also includes a perception of safety and bel onging at school. Bullies may report feeling alienated at school due to poorer teacher relationships, a nd victims may report f eeling alienated due to safety and peer group issues at school. Bully/victims also had s imilar alienation scores with bullies and victims indicating considerable teacher, peer, and safety concerns. The comprehensive assessment of school environment relationships within a multivariate design was another unique contribution of this study to the current body of literature. A main effect for group, as well as a two-way interac tion between group and grade and the group by gender by grade three-way interaction, resulted for the combination of environmental factors (C ondition of Campus, Sc hool Climate, Adult Intervention, and Adult Supervision). In univariate follow-up analyses, control participants reported the most positive school climates with re gard to witnessing problem behaviors, gang activity, or diversity tensions, and reporte d to experience the greatest frequency of supervision and in tervention by adults at school. In addition, both bullies and victims indicated that adults are more readily available and actively supervising their school campuses than bully/victims. Bully/vic tims in the sixth grade reported the most negative conditions in their schools. This finding, as well as the finding for adult supervision, is consistent w ith past research, which indi cates that bully/victims, and younger students, may have th e poorest perceptions of their schools (Haynie et al., 2001). Interestingly, no significant findings re sulted for academic ach ievement, although bully/victims tended to have the lowest standardized test scores. This contradicts past studies that have typically re ported considerable differences in achievement within this type of sample. Notably, the present study used statewide composite achievement test scores as the academic achievement construct. Course grades were not used due to their dependence on school and teacher factors, and their far less standardized application. Past studies have reported the importance of scholastic differences among bullies, victims, and bully/victims (Austin & Jose ph, 1996; Lagerspetz, 1982; Nansel et al., 2001). However, many of these studies ex amined academic achieve ment in terms of students’ perceptions of ability in, competency in, or engagement toward academics. The

PAGE 38

30 current findings suggest that when an alternate method for measuring academic achievement is used (i.e., standardized test scores), the associations with bullies, victims, and bully/victims may not hold up. In fact, it ma y be students’ perceptions of their ability that differs, while their actual performance remains equivalent. This implies that all students, regardless of their bullying status can succeed in school (Lagerspetz, 1982). Yet, when examined in combination with other variables, FCAT scores became important in describing group diffe rences for males and 6th and 7th grade students. Another significant contribution of th e present study was the use of crossinformant data, specifically from teachers. Bullies were reporte d to have greater externalizing behavior difficu lties than victims and controls although they did not differ from the reported behavior of bully/victims. As for internalizing problems, bullies were reported to have more than controls and victims, yet were not significant when compared with bully/victims. Overall, group differences varied by gender and grade for reported Acting-Out behaviors. Not surprising, female s had the lowest levels of teacher reported behavior difficulties and males had the greatest. Specifically, 8th grade female bully/victims had the lowest levels of problem behaviors, while 7th grade males had the highest levels. For learning difficulties, a gender by grade by group interaction also occurred. Seventh grade male bullies were reported to have the greatest problems, while female bully/victims had the least. As was suggested by the achievement results, perceptions of behavior can diverge vas tly from each other. While bully/victims appeared like victims in term s of self-reported in ternalizing and m ood, teacher reports suggested that bully/victims looked much mo re like bullies in both internalizing and externalizing behavioral realms. This may speak to t eachers’ difficulties in adequately identifying mood related characteristics, esp ecially with respect to those students who engage in behavioral misc onduct (Gillespie & Durlak, 1995; Green at al., 1980). These findings did not generally hold up when teach er reports were examined by gender and grade given that older female bully/victims had the lowest levels of behavioral and learning problems. However, female bully/victims constituted a considerably small portion of the total sample of students, at times only 2-3 students.

PAGE 39

31 Examination of the linear combinations of the dependent variables from the discriminant function analyses identified the domains and variables most responsible for group differences. Generally, i ndividual factors were most re sponsible for differentiating among groups, independent of gender and grad e, followed by certain school factors. Anger and expression of anger, as well as sc hool adjustment and e nvironmental factors, emerged as significantly associated with group differences. Both anger and school environment variables have not previously been examined in the literature in this type of design (Bosworth et al., 1999; Boulton & Smit h, 1994; Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001; Pellegrini et al., 1999; Pellegrini & Long, 2002; Simon-Morton et al., 1999). However, achievement, family flexibility and the quality of campus conditions minimally related to group diffe rences overall, but did cont ribute when special groups were examined (i.e., fema les and younger students). These contributions to understanding the differences among students involved in bullying and victimization are considerable. The addition of family factors added another facet of student life for the purpose of further evaluation and interventi on. The inclusion of family connectedness and flexibility has shown the important seconda ry relationships between child adjustment and functioning at home and at school, and su ggests that child experiences at home have an impact on experiences at school. Other studies have further suggested that both gender and grade may play an important ro le in the understanding of bullying and victimization (Haynie et al., 2001). The pr esent study found that, depending on gender and grade, the importance of significant cons tructs in describing group profiles varies. Male and older st udent, primarily 8th grade, group differences were driven more by mood, peer relationships, and achievement variables. Fe male group differences were described primarily by anger, discipline re ferrals, and teacher reported behavior and mood problems. The experience of behavior difficulties appeared to distinguish among students involved in bullying, while mood diffi culties and relationships with peers drove differences for males and older students. Both 6th and 8th grade student group differences were described best by school climate and condition. The present study has several strengths and represents a compilation of unique

PAGE 40

32 assessments that help further the field of bulling and school violen ce research. Several previous studies examined a single factor in separate studies wher e the contributions of each factor could not be measured with each other (Baldry & Farrington, 1998; 2000; Craig, 1998; Rigby, 1993; Simons-Morton et al ., 1999). Those studies that have included various domains of child development s till failed to examine the impact of school environment on child behavior (Boulton & S mith, 1994; Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001, Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Sample sizes w ithin this study were larger than most clinical studies, which indicat ed adequate representation of both district and national phenomena as well as allowed the feasibility of assessing numerous variable associations. Group frequencies for bullies, victims, and bully/victims in particular, were representative of national le vels (Olweus et al., 1999; Solberg & Olweus, 2002). Of most importance, this study assessed a number of factors in children’s lives in multiple dimensions with separate raters and data collected in various formats (Holmbeck et al., 2003; Pellegrini & Long, 2003). Typically past research has focused on obtaining student self-report for individua l, family, and school factors (Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Within the present study’s comp rehensive design, vari ables that were not previously examined were incl uded and resulted in significant relationships in describing group differences. Specifically, trait anger, anger expression, and school environment were among those that emerged in unique pa tterns of prediction. Additionally, teacher report and records data were collected to stre ngthen the study design. Both teacher report and records data resulted in associations contrary to the literature, suggesting that obtaining information from othe r sources can produce an altern ate pattern of influences, thus emphasizing the need for a multi-inform ant evaluation. Analyses were conducted by grade and gender, which added further understa nding to the profiles of bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Just as the examination of grade and gende r was a strength, it also presented as a limitation. The percentage of st udents categorized as bully/v ictims was small, given the strict Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire cr iteria for forming groups, and became even further reduced when broken down into six gr ade by gender categories (Olweus, 1996).

PAGE 41

33 The difference among group sample sizes within analyses was large, which could have negative implications in examination of gr oup comparisons and especially interaction effects. In addition, the study was limited in terms by its cross-sec tional nature. While several significant relations hips were found in understandi ng bullying and victimization, causality could not be assumed. The present study could not answer the question of which comes first, child adjustment variable s or bullying involveme nt. Recent literature has begun to examine longitudinal aspects of bullying and victimization, suggesting the importance of examining trends of behavior across time (P ellegrini & Long, 2002). The present study only assessed be havior and perceptions fro m in middle school children, while other studies have looked at trans itions from grad school to middle school or middle school to high school (Nansel et al., 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). The results in this study have important implications in terms of understanding school violence, specifically bullying and vi ctimization, and speculatin g the direction of preventive interventions. The most fundamental finding is that of group differences, by gender and grade, for associations of variab les. This speaks to the need to tailor intervention and prevention programming in order to address the specific characteristics of each category of students. For example, programs should be developed to focus on those individual, family, and school factors th at are related to being categorized as a middle school male victim of bu llying. This type of focus has the potential to bring school violence intervention programming outside the school and into students’ homes. This method of intervention can improve communication and s upport between families and school personnel and emphasi ze the continuity of care among each system children encounter. Several results speak to the importance of maintaining positive home and school environments. Although some unique fi ndings emerged, the contradictions of few associations with results previously reported in the literature begs further examination of multi-informant and multi-method data that would provide a dditional explanations to several of these conflicting fi ndings. Future research should explore the assessment of various constructs by rater to furthe r comprehend differen tial associations.

PAGE 42

34 References Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Teacher’s report fo rm for ages 5-18. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Center for Children, Youth, & Families. Arora, C.M.J. (1996). Defining Bullying. School Psychology International, 17, 317-329. Austin, S. & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessm ent of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 447-456. Baldry, A.C. & Farrington, D.P. (1998). Parenting influences on bullying and victimization. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 237-254. Baldry, A. & Farrington, D.P. (2000) Bullies and deli nquents: Personal characteristics and parental styles Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 17-31. Batsche, G.M. & Knoff, H.M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23(2), 165-174. Besag, V.E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Bjorkvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims. Their ego picture, ideal ego picture, and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 307-313. Bosworth, K., Espelage, D.L., & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(3), 341362. Boulton, M.J. (1993). A comparison of adults' and children's abilities to distinguish between aggressive and playful fighting in middle school pupils: Implications for playground supervision a nd behavior management. Educational Studies, 19(2), 193203.

PAGE 43

35 Boulton, M.J. & Smith, P.K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions, and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315-329. Boulton, M.J. & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87. Bowers, L.S., Smith, P.K., & Binney, V. (1992). Cohesion and power in the families of children involved in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Family Therapy, 14(4), 371-387. Carberry, A., & Handel, P.J. (1980). The use of the AML Scale with a Headstart population: Normative and validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology. 8(3), 353-363 Carney, J.V. (2000). Bullied to death. School Psychology International, 21(2), 213-223. Carney, A.G. & Merrell, K.W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22(3), 364-382. Cowen, E.L., Dorr, D., Clarfield, S.P., Kreling, B., McWilliams, S.A., Pokracki, F., Pratt, D.M., Terrell, D.L., & Wilson, A. B. (1973). The AML: A quick screening device for early identificati on of school ma ladaptation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 12-35. Craig, W.M. (1998). The relationship among bullyin g, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality & Individual Differences, 24(1), 123-130. Craig, W.M., Pepler, D ., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21(1), 22-36 Crick, N.R. & Dodge, K.A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74-101. Dodge, K.A. (1991). The structure and function of reac tive and proactive aggression. In D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.). The development and treatment of childhood aggression. (pp. 201-216). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawetance Erlbaum.

PAGE 44

36 Dodge, K.A. & Crick, N.R. (1990). Soci al information-processing bases of aggressive behavi or in children. Personality and Social Ps ychology Bulletin, 16(1) 8-22. Dorr, D., Stephens, J., Pozner, r., & Klodt W. (1980). Use of the AML scale to identify adjustment problems in fourth -, fifth-, and sixth-grade children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 341-352. Durlak, J. A. & Jason, L. A. (1984). Preventive programs for school-aged children and adolescents. In M. C. Roberts & L. Peterson (Eds.), Prevention of problems in childhood: Psychological research and applications (pp. 103-132). New York: Wiley. Durlak, J.A., Stein, M.A., & Mannarino, A.P. (1980). Behavioral validity of a brief teacher rating scale (the AML) in id entifying high-risk acting-out schoolchildren. American Journal of Comm unity Psychology, 8(1), 101-115. Edman, S.O., Cole, D.A., & Howard, G.S. (1990). Convergent and discriminant validity of FACES-III: Fa mily adaptability and cohesion. Family Process, 29(1), 95-103. Edmonson, B. (1988). Disability and sexual adjustment. In Van Hasselt, Vincent B., Strain, & Phillip S., et al. (Eds.) Handbook of developmental and physical disabilities. (pp. 91-106) Pergamon general psychology series, 148. Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A, & Williams, K.R. (1999). Violence in American schools: A new perspective. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Florida Department of Education (2000). Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment [On-line]. Available: www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat. Gesten, E.L., Cowen, E.L., DeStephano, M.A., Weisz, P.V., & Milling, L.S. (1979). A teacher measure for the assessmen t of primary grade class environments. American Journal of Co mmunity Psychology, 7(1) 117-122. Gillespie, J. F. & Durlak, J. A. (1995). Screening children at risk for school maladjustment: Further evidence for the value of the AML. Journal of Community Psychology, 23 18-27. Glover, D., Gough, G., Johnson, M., & Ca rtwright, N. (2000). Bullying in 25 secondary schools: Incidence, impact, and intervention. Educational Research, 42(2), 141-156. Green, S. (2001). Systemic vs. indivi dualistic approaches to bullying. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(7), 787-788.

PAGE 45

37 Green, K.D., Beck, S.J., Forehand, R., & Vosk, B. (1980). Validity of teacher nominations of child behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8(3), 397-404. Haynie, D.L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Cr ump, A.D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & SimonsMorton, B. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/v ictims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 29-49. Hazler, R.J. (1996). Breaking the Cycle of Violence: Interventions for Bullying and Victimization. Athens, OH: Ohio University. Holmbeck, G.N., Westhoven, V.C., Shapera Phillips, W., Bowers, R., Gruse, C., Nikolopoulos, T., Wienke Totura, C.M., & Davison, K. (2003). A multimethod, multiinformant, and multi-dimensional perspective on psychosocial adjustment in preadolescents with spina bifida. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 782-796. Hoover, J.H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5-16. Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E ., Henttonen, I., Almqvist F., Kresanov, K., Linna, S.L., Moilanen, I., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., & Puura, K (1998). Bullying and psychiatric symptoms among elementary school-aged children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 705717. Lagerspetz, K.M., Bjoerkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23(1), 45-52. Lane, D.A. (1989). Bullying in school: Th e need for an integrated approach. School Psychology International, 10, 211-215. Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Pr evalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 20942100. Oliver, R., Oaks, I.N., & Hoover, J.H. ( 1994). Family issues and interventions in bully and victim relationships. The School Counselor, 41, 199-202. Olson D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D.H. (1983). Circumplex Model of marital and family system s: VI. Theoretical update Family Process, 22, 69-83

PAGE 46

38 Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere (Wiley). Olweus, D. (1991a). Bully/victim probl ems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based in tervention program. In D. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1991b). Victimization among school children. In R. Baenniger (Ed.), Targets of violence and aggression (pp. 45-102). Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among school children: Intervention and prevention. In R.D. Peters, R.J. McMahon, & V.L. Quincy (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span (pp.100-125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Olweus, D. (1993b). Bully/victim probl ems among schoolchildren: Long-term consequences and effective interventi on program. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 317-349). Newbur y Park, CA: Sage. Olweus, D. (1993c). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K.H. Rubin & J.B. Asendorpf (Ed.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315-341). Hillsdale, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates. Olweus, D. (1994a). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171-1190. Olweus, D. (1994b). Bullying at school: Long-term outcomes for the victims and an effective school-based intervention program. In L.R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives. New York: Plenum Press. Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer a buse at school: Facts and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(6), 196-200. Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bu lly/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL), University of Bergen, N-5015 Bergen, Norway Olweus, D. (1997a). Bully/victim problem s in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495-510.

PAGE 47

39 Olweus, D. (1997b). Bully/victim probl ems in school: Knowledge base and effective intervention program. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 170-190. Olweus, D., Limber, S. & Mihalic, S.F. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention, book nine: Bullying prevention program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Pearce, J. (1991). What can be done about the bully? In M. Elliot (Ed.), Bullying: A practical gui de to coping for schools. Harlow: Longman. Pellegrini, A.D. (1998). Bullies and victims in schoo l: A review and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 165-176. Pellegrini, A.D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bu llies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 216-224. Pellegrini, A.D., & Long, J.D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280. Perry, D.G., Kusel, S.J., & Perry, L.C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 807-814. Radloff, L.S. (1977). A CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. Rigby, K. (1993). School children’s per ceptions of their families & parents as a function of peer relations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(4) 501-513. Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools and what to do about it. London: Jessica Kingsley. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1991). Bully ing among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(5), 615-627. Robert, R.E., Lewinsohn, P.M., & Seeley, J.R. (1991). Screening for adolescent depression: A comparison of depression scales. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 58-66. Roland, E. (2000). Bullying in school: Th ree national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15 years. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 135-143.

PAGE 48

40 Safe Community-Safe Sc hool Project (2002). The middle school/high school survey revised The Center for the Study and Prev ention of Violence, University of Colorado, Boulder. Santa Lucia, R.C. & Gesten E.L. (2000) Adjustment across the middle school transition: Gender and race considerations. Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington D.C. Santa Lucia, R.C., Gesten, E.L., Rendina -Gobioff, G., Epstein, M., Kaufmann, D., Salcedo, O., & Gadd, R. (2000) Children’s school adju stment: A developmental transactional systems perspective. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21 (4), 429-446. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S ., & Bates, J.E. (1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68(4), 665-675. Sheilds, A. & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltrea tment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bully ing and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(3), 349-363. Simons-Morton, B.G., Crump, A.D., Hayn ie, D.L., & Saylor, K.E. (1999). Student-school bonding and adol escent problem behavior. Health Education Research: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 99-107. Slee, P.T. (1994). Situati onal and interpersonal correla tes of anxiety associated with peer victimization. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 25(2), 97-107. Slee, P.T. (1995). Peer victimization a nd its relationship to depression among Australian primary school students. Personality & Individual Differences, 18, 57-62. Slee, P.T. & Rigby, K. (1993). The rela tionship of Eysenck’ s personality factors and self-esteem to bully-victims beha vior in Australian school boys. Personality & Individual Differences, 14, 371-373. Smith, P.K. (1991). The silent nightma re: Bullying and vic timization in school peer groups, The Psychologist. Smith, P.K. & Myron-Wilson, R. (1998). Parenting and school bullying. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3(3), 405-417. Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying—insights and perspectives. London, Routledge.

PAGE 49

41 Solberg, M.E. & Olweus, D. (2002). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully /victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior (in print). Spielberger, C.D. (1973). Preliminary test manual fo r the state-trait anxiety inventory for children Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Spielberger, C.D. (1998). The revised state-trait anger expression inventory-2 (STAXI-2). Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Spielberger, C.D., Jacobs, G.A., Brunne r, T.M., & Lunsford, G.D. (2002). The state-trait anger expression inventory for children and adolescents (STAXI-C/A). Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Stanford Achievement Test Series: Techni cal data report. (1999). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement. Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Bully ing in the junior school. In D.P. Tattum & D.A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 45-57). Strokeon-Trent, England: Trentham. Swain, J. (1998). What does bullying really mean? Educational Research, 40(3), 358-364. Tattum, D. & Tattum, E. (1992). Bullying: A whole-school response. In N. Jones & E.B. Jones (Eds.), Learning to behave: Curriculu m and whole school management approaches to discipline (pp. 68-84). London: Kogan Page. Verhulst, F. C. & Van Der Ende, J. (1991). Four-year follow-up of teacherreported problem behaviours. Psychological Medicine, 21 965-977. Whitney, I., Nabuzoka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1992). Bullying in schools: Mainstream and special needs. Support for Learning, 7(1), 3-7. Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., & Karstadt, L. (2000). The association between direct and relationa l bullying and behavior pr oblems among primary school children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 41(8), 9891002.

PAGE 50

42 Table 1 Group Frequencies (and Pe rcentages) by Grade and Gender Gender Grade Group Males Females 6th 7th 8th Bully 87(7.4) 64(5.4) 28(3.7) 68(7.6) 55(7.8) Victim 169(14.4) 106(8.9) 98(12.9) 119(13.2) 59(8.4) Bully/Victim 20(1.7) 22(1.9) 13(1.7) 16(1.8) 13(1.9) Control 898(76.5) 993(83.8) 621(81.7) 696(77.4) 574(81.9) Note. Total N = 2359.

PAGE 51

Table 2 Intercorrelations between Scales for Total Sample Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Individual Domain 1. Depression 1.0 .57 .45 .21 .08 -.13 -.11 -.26 .37 -.25 -.18 -.24 -.31 -.28 -.37 .38 -.41 -.27 .11 .15 .13 2. Anxiety 1.0 .49 .09 -.01 -.07 -.04 -.13 .22 -.14 -.04 -.01 .07 -.06 -.27 .20 -.26 -.17 .02 .09 .04 3. Trait Anger 1.0 .35 .13 -.02 .03 -.18 .30 -.23 -.15 -.09 -.25 -.20 -.24 .25 -.27 -.17 .19 .16 .12 4. Anger Expression 1.0 .18 -.16 -.17 -.16 .26 -.21 -.22 -.37 -.39 -.33 -.19 .23 -.31 -.25 .26 .21 .21 5. Referrals 1.0 -.13 -.14 -.08 .16 -.10 -.11 -.18 -.17 -.16 -.06 .11 -.11 -.07 .38 .27 .32 School Domain 6. FCAT-Math 1.0 .72 -.03 -.06 -.08 .03 -.17 .00 .03 -.10 -.10 .11 .08 -.21 -.19 -.41 7. FCAT-Reading 1.0 .01 -.10 -.06 .03 .20 .03 .05 .10 -.13 .13 .09 -.21 -.18 -.42 8. Condition of Campus 1.0 -.44 .50 .26 .24 .41 .38 .26 -.29 .27 .18 -.04 -.06 -.06 9. School Climate 1.0 -.44 -.32 -.30 -.40 -.40 -.27 .33 -.31 -.16 .24 .18 .17 10. Adult Intervention 1.0 .34 .23 .43 .43 .24 -.29 .29 .20 -.09 -.08 -.04 11. Adult Supervision 1.0 .33 .45 .42 .27 -.21 .23 .18 -.08 -.04 -.07 12. Goal-Orientation 1.0 .61 .54 .34 -.35 .41 .33 -.21 -.20 -.23 13. School Spirit 1.0 .76 .36 -.38 .40 .33 -.21 -.15 -.16 14. Child-Teacher Relations 1.0 .37 -.41 .38 .31 -.20 -.17 -.20 15. Child-Peer Relations 1.0 -.39 .29 .24 -.05 -.11 -.10 16. Alienation 1.0 .34 -.19 .14 .16 .17 Family Domain 17. Cohesion 1.0 .71 -.13 -.16 -.16 18. Adaptability 1.0 -.07 -.12 -.10 Teacher Report Domain 19. Acting-Out 1.0 -.68 .67 20. Moodiness 1.0 .67 21. Learning 1.0 Note. Underlined correlations are significant at the p = .05 level. Bolded correlations are significant at the p = .01 level. N’s range from 1245 to 2473 for analyses (N for Total Sample = 2509). 43

PAGE 52

44 Table 3 Group Means (Standard Deviations) for Survey Data with MANOVA, ANOVA, and Group Post Hoc Findings Group Statistical Test Variable B V B/V C Multi Uni Individual Domain G***, GxS*** Depression 17.83 (11.25)C,V 22.30 (12.99)C,B19.84 (10.17)C 13.09 (9.35) G*** Anxiety 33.53 (9.40)C,V 37.96 (10.32)C,B38.68 (10.39)C,B31.19 (8.84) G*** Trait Anger 25.14 (5.43)C 23.92 (5.56)C 25.90 (5.29)C 20.75 (5.30) G*** Anger Expression 52.73 (8.31)C,V 44.09 (9.06)B,B/V52.58 (8.86)C,V 44.16 (8.69) G*** Referrals 4.27 (3.92)C,V 2.10 (3.49) B,B/V 4.73 (3.88)C,V 2.01 (3.48) G*** Family Domain G***, GxS*** Cohesion 48.73 (9.67)V,C 52.59 (11.15)B,C52.16 (8.49) 54.74 (10.49) G*** Adaptability 38.99 (10.28)C 40.94 (11.55) 41.78 (9.86) 42.54 (10.09) G*, GxS**† Achievement ns FCAT Reading DSS 1762.0 (285.2) 1733.5 (327.4) 1701.0 (337.2) 1743.0 (285.2) FCAT Math DSS 1770.5 (206.0) 1756.2 (229.6) 1699.4 (250.4) 1768.1 (214.3) School Adjustment G***, GxS** School Spirit 2.72 (0.83)C,V 3.13 (0.85)C,B 2.90 (0.98)C 3.38 (0.81) G*** Goal-Orientation 3.47 (0.84)C,V 3.82 (0.88)B 3.68 (1.00) 3.96 (0.77) G***, GxS*† Child-Peer Relations 3.51 (0.51)V 3.04 (0.61)B,B/V,C3.39 (0.74)V 3.58 (0.57) G*** Child-Teacher Relations 2.92 (0.74)V,C 3.24 (0.74)B 3.13 (0.76) 3.38 (0.72) G***, GxS*† Alienation 2.57 (0.62)C 2.51 (0.65)C 2.57 (0.66)C 2.27 (0.65) G*** School Environment G***, GxY*, GxYxS** Condition of Campus 2.64 (0.65)C 2.67 (0.72)C 2.39 (0.92) C 2.83 (0.69) G*,GxY*† School Climate 1.70 (0.53)C 1.62 (0.52)C 1.81 (0.61)C 1.37 (0.47) G*** Adult Intervention 2.66 (0.63)C 2.72 (0.67)C 2.53 (0.60)C 2.95 (0.61) G*** Adult Supervision 3.06 (0.55)C,B/V 3.09 (0.56)C,B/V 2.66 (0.61)C,B,V 3.23 (0.55) G**, GxY*† Teacher Report Domain G***, GxYxS* Acting-Out 9.27 (4.64)V,C 7.78 (4.00)B 9.20 (3.30)C 7.01 (3.50) G**, GxSxY**† Moodiness 8.56 (4.04)C,V 7.43 (3.42)B 8.24 (3.88) 6.91 (3.04) G** Learning 9.85 (4.52) 8.93 (4.30) 9.68 (4.20) 8.23 (3.95) GxSxY**† ________________________________________________________________________ Note. B = Bully; V = Victim; B/V = Bully/Victim; C = Control; Multi = Multivariate; Uni/Post = Univariate/Post Hoc; G = group; Y = grade/year; S = gender/sex; FCAT = Florida Comprehensive Achievement Tests; DSS = Developmental Scale Score. Superscripts indicate Post Hoc group differences. p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. N’s range from 1394 to 2202 for analyses. † See text and Tables 4 and 5 for Post Hoc interactions.

PAGE 53

Table 4 Means (and Standard Deviations) by Gender and Grade for Significant Interactions Males Females Grd B V B/V C Male M B V B/V C Female M Grand M Adaptability 6th 46.47(10.58) 42.75(15.51) 40.50(17.74) 43. 37(10.62) 43.39(11.56) 31.43(8.64) 41.39(9. 26) 39.33(4.93) 43.37(9.97) 42.87(9.98) 43.12(10.78) 7th 40.48(7.80) 39.98(9.69) 42.00(8.08) 42. 27(10.74) 41.79(10.33) 34.07(10.33) 43.14(11. 86) 41.86(6.18) 42.22(9.87) 41.67(10.26) 41.73(10.29) 8th 41.71(9.75) 39.66(10.25) 43.00(15.49) 41. 88(9.99) 41.65 (10.09) 36.80(9.84) 36.45(8. 65) 42.40(6.35) 42.13(9.35) 41.44(9.45) 4 1.54(9.76) M 42.19(9.36) 40.92(12.27) 42.00(12. 63) 42.51(10.47) 42.26(10.69) 34. 71(9.96) 40.97(10.47) 41.53(5.72) 42.57(9.75) 41.98(9.93) 42 .12(10.31) Goal-Orientation 6th 3.83 (.739) 3.82 (.834) 4.15 (.526) 3.92 (.784) 3.91 (.786) 3. 47 (1.02) 4.16 (.639) 3.60 (1. 48) 4.19 (.688) 4.16 (.717) 4.04 (.762) 7th 3.21 (.848) 3.50 (1.02) 4.17 (1.01) 3.68 (.922) 3.62 (.942) 3.66 (.827) 3.97 (.726) 3.60 (.812) 4.05 (.669) 4.00 (.698) 3.82 (.847) 8th 3.42 (.722) 3.71 (1.02) 3.33 (1.26) 3.82 (.764) 3.76 (.812) 3.46 (.952) 4.07 (.671) 3.43 (.533) 4.08 (.679) 4.03 (.713) 3.90 (.775) M 3.41 (.804) 3.67 (.960) 3.81 (1.09) 3.80 (.835) 3.76 (.862) 3. 56 (.891) 4.06 (.681) 3.56 (.920) 4.11 (.681) 4.06 (.712) 3.91 (. 804) Child-Teacher Relations 6th 2.94 (.801) 3.26 (.613) 3.28 (1.39) 3.35 (.741) 3.32 (.736) 2.36 (.807) 3.46 (.699) 3.56 (.850) 3.56 (.693) 3.52 (.720) 3.42 (.734) 7th 2.91 (.587) 3.12 (.714) 3.46 (.603) 3.19 (.734) 3.16 (.720) 2.99 (.722) 3.40 (.741) 3.01 (.529) 3.46 (.694) 3.41 (.708) 3.29 (.725) 8th 3.00 (.715) 2.97 (.836) 2.71 (.730) 3.26 (.656) 3.19 (.693) 2.92 (.899) 3.29 (.892) 3.04 (.525) 3.43 (.715) 3.39 (.746) 3.29 (.726) M 2.95 (.674) 3.14 (.715) 3.11 (.880) 3.26 (.715) 3.22 (.720) 2.87 (.815) 3.40 (.756) 3.16 (.636) 3.48 (.701) 3.44 (.725) 3.33 (. 730) Condition of Campus 6th 2.78 (.783) 2.68 (.704) 2.08 (1.32) 2.89 (.718) 2.84 (.733) 2.07 (.863) 3.14 (.612) 1.67 (.577) 2.97 (.687) 2.96 (.703) 2.90 (.720) 7th 2.60 (.629) 2.59 (.766) 2.62 (.821) 2.79 (.701) 2.74 (.708) 2.58 (.655) 2.41 (.650) 2.94 (.905) 2.83 (.662) 2.77 (.676) 2.76 (.691) 8th 2.73 (.595) 2.67 (.684) 2.48 (.900) 2.76 (.661) 2.74 (.662) 2.72 (.614) 2.53 (.661) 1.83 (.577) 2.75 (.667) 2.72 (.670) 2.73 (.665) M 2.68 (.639) 2.64 (.717) 2.44 (.934) 2.81 (.695) 2.77 (.703) 2.57 (.674) 2.71 (.715) 2.31 (.928) 2.85 (.677) 2.82 (.690) 2.79 (. 696) Adult Supervision 6th 3.04 (.611) 2.95 (.551) 2.78 (.786) 3.11 (.691) 3.07 (.669) 3. 15 (.693) 3.26 (.597) 2.79 (1.16) 3.34 (.514) 3.32 (.535) 3.20 (.616) 7th 2.92 (.496) 3.03 (.559) 2.66 (.644) 3.04 (.533) 3.02 (.537) 3.08 (.567) 3.07 (.539) 2.90 (.348) 3.29 (.480) 3.25 (.498) 3.14 (.529) 8th 3.17 (.591) 3.00 (.531) 2.41 (.619) 3.19 (.527) 3.15 (.549) 3.06 (.512) 3.37 (.513) 2.50 (.270) 3.34 (.473) 3.32 (.487) 3.24 (.524) M 3.04 (.561) 2.99 (.546) 2.59 (.644) 3.11 (.589) 3.08 (.587) 3.08 (.551) 3.21 (.563) 2.75 (.571) 3.33 (.489) 3.29 (.507) 3.19 (. 558) Acting-Out 6th 10.00 (4.11) 7.97 (3.70) 7.25 (2.50) 7.86 (3.85) 7.97 (3.83) 6.40 (4.83) 6.79 (2.72) 11.20 (3. 35) 6.03 (2.63) 6.22 (2.79) 7.0 9 (3.46) 7th 11.57 (.511) 7.50 (4.11) 9.33 (1.53) 7.95 (4.01) 8.25 (4.24) 7.08 (3. 55) 9.04 (5.15) 10.86 (3.13) 6.43 (2.93) 6.85 (3.40) 7.5 0 (3.87) 8th 9.33 (4.28) 8.42 (4.44) 9.33 (2.08) 7. 78 (3.90) 8.02 (3.98) 10.00 (5.06) 6.75 (.3. 44) 4.33 (.577) 6.41 (3.17) 6.60 (3.38) 7.2 8 (3.74) M 10.35 (4.62) 7.90 (4.00) 8.50 (2. 17) 7.86 (.391) 8.08 (4.01) 7.85 (4.32) 7.63 (4. 05) 9.67 (3.89) 6.28 (2. 91) 6.56 (3.21) 7.29 ( 3.69) Learning 6th 10.75 (4.99) 9.61 (4.36) 10.50 (1.29) 9. 00 (3.91) 9.20 (4.01) 9.40 (6.50) 8.46 (4. 05) 10.80 (6.06) 7.64 (3.66) 7.82 (3.83) 8. 51 (3.98) 7th 11.05 (4.88) 8.00 (3.87) 9.33 (2.08) 8. 83 (4.14) 8.93 (4.20) 9.00 (4.09) 10.21 (4. 92) 10.71 (4.96) 7.89 (3.92) 8.39 (4.12) 8. 58 (4.17) 8th 9.05 (4.44) 9.42 (4.60) 9.00 (4.36) 8.81 (4.24) 8.89 (4.27) 10.17 (3.64) 7.44 (3.67) 5.33 (1. 15) 7.47 (3.70) 7.59 (3.71) 8.21 (4.04) M 10.20 (4.74) 8.98 (4.26) 9.70 (2. 50) 8.89 (4.08) 9.02 (4.15) 9.39 (4.21) 8.86 (4.39) 9.67 (5.12) 7.67 (3.76) 7.91 (3.91) 8.44 ( 4.06) Note. B = Bullies, V = Victims, B/V = Bu lly/Victims, C = Control, Grd = Grade, M = Mean. 45

PAGE 54

46 Table 5 Means (and Standard Deviations) by Grade for Significant Interactions Grade B V B/V C Adaptability 6th 41.68 (12.14) 42.20 (13.27) 40.00 (12.88) 43.37 (10.26) 7th 37.28 (9.64) 41.28 (10.69) 41.93 (6.91) 42.24 (10.27) 8th 39.78 (9.98) 38.42 (9.71) 42.73 (11.67) 42.02 (9.65) M 38.99 (10.28) 40.94 (11.55) 41.78 (9.86) 42.54 (10.09) Goal-Orientation 6th 3.69 (.854) 3.96 (.777) 3.84 (1.13) 4.07 (.747) 7th 3.42 (.862) 3.69 (.937) 3.85 (.919) 3.88 (.818) 8th 3.44 (.814) 3.85 (.914) 3.37 (1.01) 3.96 (.732) M 3.47 (.843) 3.82 (.881) 3.68 (1.00) 3.97 (.772) Child-Teacher Relations 6th 2.94 (.801) 3.26 (.613) 3.28 (1.39) 3.46 (.723) 7th 2.91 (.587) 3.12 (.714) 3.46 (.603) 3.33 (.725) 8th 3.00 (.715) 2.97 (.836) 2.71 (.730) 3.35 (.693) M 2.95 (.673) 3.14 (.715) 3.11 (.880) 3.38 (.716) Condition of Campus 6th 2.57 (.848) 2.87 (.702) 1.90 (1.01) 2.94 (.702) 7th 2.59 (.636) 2.51 (.719) 2.77 (.840) 2.81 (.681) 8th 2.72 (.595) 2.61 (.671) 2.24 (.831) 2.76 (.663) M 2.64 (.653) 2.67 (.717) 2.39 (.918) 2.83 (.686) Adult Supervision 6th 3.07 (.616) 3.08 (.587) 2.79 (.871) 3.23 (.614) 7th 3.00 (.534) 3.05 (.547) 2.77 (.523) 3.18 (.521) 8th 3.13 (.560) 3.15 (.550) 2.44 (.504) 3.27 (.503) M 3.06 (.554) 3.09 (.562) 2.66 (.610) 3.23 (.548) Acting-Out 6th 8.94 (4.51) 7.50 (3.37) 9.44 (3.50) 6.89 (3.38) 7th 9.18 (4.86) 8.16 (4.61) 10.40 (2.76) 7.11 (3.54) 8th 9.58 (4.51) 7.66 (4.04) 6.83 (3.06) 7.03 (3.58) M 9.27 (4.64) 7.78 (4.00) 9.20 (3.30) 7.01 (3.50) Learning 6th 10.35 (5.30) 9.15 (4.25) 10.67 (4.36) 8.28 (3.84 ) 7th 9.96 (4.54) 8.95 (4.44) 10.30 (4.22) 8.31 (4.04 ) 8th 9.45 (4.15) 8.51 (4.26) 7.17 (3.49) 8.08 (4.00) M 9.85 (4.52) 8.93 (4.30) 9.68 (4.20) 8.23 (3.95) Note. B = Bullies, V = Victims, B/V = Bully/Victims, C = Control, and M = Mean.

PAGE 55

47 Appendices

PAGE 56

48 Appendix A Definitions of Bullying Behavior Several studies have focused primarily on defining behaviors that constitute bullying. Early definitions concentrate on individual or group violence toward an unpopular individual that begins and ends s uddenly. One of the field’s prominent researchers initially suggested that bullies are males who physically and emotionally harass their victims, whether the victims are males or females (Olw eus, 1978). Olweus was the first to introduce the notion of emotional, or “mental” bullying, making it considerably more difficult to observe a nd agree upon all forms of definable bullying behaviors. Since his early de finition, several other definiti ons of bullying also have included the notion of mental or psychological attacks in addition to physical behaviors. Besag (1989) stressed the importance of long-term and systematic violence as integral in considering bullyin g behaviors. However, other researchers have not always found this element to be necessary. Arora (1996) argues that a single event of a physical or psychological attack or threat delivered to a less powerful individual for the purpose of frightening and upsetting that individual is no less bullying than long-term and sustained attacks or threats. This definition al so builds upon others by introducing a power differential between perpetrator and victim. Scandinavian researchers Bjorkvist, Ekman, and Lage rspetz (1982) emphasize that the long-term nature of bullying beha viors is indicative of the social system occurring amongst students, which tends to be resistant to change. They suggest that bullying is a social form of aggression that occurs among individuals who encounter each other regularly. The emphasis in this defi nition is on the ongoing interaction between members in the group of students within which the bullying takes place. Other researchers, however, continue to consider the long-term aspect to be an important characteristic of bullying beha viors while also emphasizing the social and psychological aspects. For instance, Hazler (1996) defined bullying as repeated behaviors that affect individuals physically, emotionally, and psycholog ically through words, attacks, or social isolation. Some of the literatu re discusses the effect of th e long-term element of bullying on the victims, in addition to the severity and duration of the single bullying act. Perhaps the accumulation of bullying beha viors over time may be as rele vant as or more relevant to the experience of victimization than the impact of each individual bullying behavior. Besag (1989) introduced the concept of in tentionality to bullying, which suggests a moral dimension to the behavior. Bullyin g by this definition is intended to cause distress to others for the purpose of gratifying the aggressor. This definition suggests that it is not just the nature of the behavior that is important in determining what is bullying; the physical, psychological, and emotional imp act of the behavior on others is of particular concern as well. Olweus (1996) recently developed a more comprehensive definition of bullying and victimization that has been widely used in international studies. This definition identifies several concepts established in earlier definitions and reads as follows: “We define or explain the word bullying. We say a student is being bullied when another student,

PAGE 57

49 Appendix A (Continued) or several other students € Say mean and hurtful things or make fun of him or her or call him or her mean and hurtful names € Completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends or leave him or her out of things on purpose € Hit, kick, push, shove around, or lo ck him or her inside a room € Tell lies or spread false rumors about him or her or send mean not es and try to make other students dislike him or her € And other hurtful things like that. When we talk about bullying, these things happen repeatedly, and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend himself or herself We also call it bullying, when a student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way. But we don’t call it bullying when the teasing is done in a friendly and playful way. Also, it is not bullying when two students of about equa l strength or power argue or fight (Olweus, 1991, pg. 7)” Smith and Sharp (1994) adap ted and translated Olweus’s definition of bullying into English as a preface to their self-re port evaluation of bully ing and victimization (Olweus, 1996) for the Sheffield/DES Bully ing Project in the United Kingdom, an intervention program that takes a whole sc hool approach to st udent behavior and adjustment. Olweus (1996) emphasizes th at behavior is considered bullying if it (1) occurs frequently either one -on-one or in a group, (2) invol ves a range of behaviors from physical aggressiveness to spreading rumo rs, and (3) involves a power differential between aggressor and victim. The gender of perpetrators is not specified by Olweus, as it had been in previous definitions, suggesting that both girls and boys can be bullies. Olweus’s current definition has been used to guide self-report of behaviors for the U.S. National Blueprints Model Bullying Prevention Program, which aims at decreasing bully and victim problems among prima ry and secondary school child ren through techniques to increase awareness of students, school adminis trators, and parents of difficulties within the school environment (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999). Of note, Olweus’s definition considers t easing a form of bullying behavior as well. He indicates that rep eated teasing, name-calling, or generally saying unpleasant things to others constitutes a form of bullyin g. Pearce (1991) also developed a definition for bullying that incorporates teasing behavior Teasing could be considered bullying if it includes methods of intimidation that lead to distress in victims. Therefore, it is appropriate to suggest that racist and sexist attacks w ould be considered bullying behaviors, as long as they have deliberate intent to harm others are unprovoked, and are

PAGE 58

50 Appendix A (Continued) frequent (Swain, 1998). In other words, vi ctims are not believed to induce bullying behavior against them. No single definition has been clearly established as the gold standard for determining bullying behavior However, several common elements emerge: physical, verbal or psychological aggression intended to hurt others and cause distress in a victim, the existence of a power differential between bully and victim, and that the bullying typically is not provoked by a ggressive acts (Swain, 1998). Each definition is ultimately based on individual researchers’ opinions of what constitutes bullying behavior, thus confounding the interpretation of results between studies. In searching for a more complete definition, types of behaviors have been further categorized as direct and indirect forms of bullying (Olweus, 1996). Direct bullying behaviors are considered those overtly focused at a victim, and which tend to be easily observed. These behaviors include hitting, pushing, verbal abuse, stealing, and threats. Indirect bullying behaviors are those that are covert in their focus on the victim. These behaviors include spreading rumors, ostracizing students, and purposefully ignoring or excluding students (Olweus, 1996). This distinction between direct and indirect behaviors ha s implications for how behavior is reported and observed as bullying.

PAGE 59

51 Appendix B Assessment of Bullying Behaviors In addition to the numerous ways bullying and victimization have been defined, researchers have developed vari ous methods to assess bullying be havior. In general, four methodologies have been employed by pa st bullying studies: self-report surveys, interview, observation, and peer nomination. Most commonly used, the self-report survey technique has become the method of choice for many studies. Surveys are relatively simple to administer to large numbers of students and the interpretation of responses is straightforward (Solberg & Olweus, 2002). Some st udies have assessed bullying behaviors using two or three globa l items that require students to respond whether they generally bully students or have been bullied by students (Nansel et al., 2001; Haynie et al., 2001). For these studies, the range of bullying behavior types was not assessed to the same extent that the Olwe us survey had measured them. The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) specifies two global items to classify general bullying and victimization with the addition of several items that identify various types of bullying behaviors that are engaged in and/or experienced (e.g., hitting, pushing, verbal abuse, teasing, so cial exclusion, spreading ru mors, etc.). Bullying and victimization can be computed using the two global items and further explained using responses on the specific bullying type items. Because it is a brief and accurate scale, many more researchers chose to use the Olwe us measure, or direct variations of the measure, to estimate bullying prevalence and identify students with difficulties (Solberg & Olweus, 2002). As an alternate to survey techniques, Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt (2000) used an interview method for students in order to estimate bullying in classmates. The interview items were structured simila rly to the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire and allowed students to elaborate on their ex periences rather than simply respond to items on a Likert scale. However, this me thod is time consuming making it difficult to recruit large numbers of partic ipants. While interviews ma y be based on an established measure and can provide a wealth of qualita tive information, the responses obtained from interview items are typically not scaled a nd less standardized. Using this method and considering its limitations, prevalence estimates of bullying behaviors may not be comparable across schools. In addition, th e information gained regarding bullying behaviors may not ha ve equivalent meaning across studies. Boulton (1993) employed a playground observation technique to measure bullying behaviors. This me thod requires independent obser vers to record classmate interactions and code behaviors in accordance with Olweus’s definition of bullying behaviors. An advantage of th is technique is the recording of actual behavior, rather than having to rely on the accuracy, interpretation, or validity of child re port. Disadvantages include inadequate observation of indirect bullying and teasing and the costliness of employing independent observers to asse ss what may be relatively low base-rate behavior. However, if the emphasis of a study is not on estimating the prevalence of

PAGE 60

52 Appendix B (Continued) bullying, but on identification within a sc hool of at-risk students, interview and observation methods may be usef ul (Solberg & Olweus, 2002). In addition to the survey, intervie w, and observation methods, The Peer Nomination Inventory, deve loped by Perry, Kusel, and Perry (1988), requires respondents to nominate which of their classm ates are bullies or vi ctims. A benefit of this method is that students will be more likel y to validly report bully ing if they have to report about others’ behavior. A disadvantage is that dir ect behaviors will be observed more readily than indirect, making those students who are physica lly aggressive more likely to be identified as bullies. Other students may not observe those who engage in such indirect bullying behaviors as isola tion or rumor spreading, unless the reporting student experiences the bullying him or he rself. In addition, the procedures one researcher uses to categorize student ratings resulting from peer nominations are usually complex and difficult to reproduce (Solberg & Olweus, 2002). Further, the prevalence estimates obtained through peer nomination depend on factors within the school (e.g., number of students in the classroom, problem levels in the classr oom, standardization method of nominations, etc.), increasing the difficulty for other re searchers to duplicate the procedures of others and extract similar meaning from prevalence estimates (Solberg & Olweus, 2002). Olweus’s paradigm for assessing bullying has been used in se veral international and national intervention strategies, including the National Model Blueprints Bullying Prevention Program in the United States (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999). The definition of bullying behaviors accompan ying the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire incorporates most components of bullying behavior that have been found important in past research. Assessment techniques have b een developed as a result of several author-formulated de finitions, as previously discussed. Additionally, these assessment tools have been created to accomplish the goal of gathering information on child behaviors via varying methods and each has pros and cons. Many have found selfreport survey techniques to be among the easiest to administer and comprehend. The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire is an exam ple of a comprehensive self-report survey that provides distinct criteria for reporting one’s behavior. This survey has been used in several studies in which in formation was obtained from st udents regarding their own behavior. Using Teacher Reports to Identify At-Risk Children Assessment of child behavior can incor porate information from several sources. Ideally, a comprehensive assessment of child adjustment within the schools should utilize multiple informants. Oftentimes, obtaining reliable information from several raters in a single environment proves too costly and time consuming. Many studies, therefore, rely on a single rater, commonly, teacher report. Such assessment of large student populations is more cost effective and e fficient method for obtai ning information on school environments and individual students.

PAGE 61

53 Appendix B (Continued) Past research has shown the stability of t eacher report of behavi oral difficulties in school aged children. For example, mode rate stability was found for the Achenbach Teacher Report Form (TRF), specifically for scales related to externalizing behaviors (Achenbach, 1991; Verhulst & Va n der Ende, 1991). Of specific interest for the current study, the AML-R measure has displayed high reliability and validity for screening and evaluation purposes (Cowen, Dorr, Clarfield, Kreling, McWilliams, Pokracki, Pratt, Terrell, & Wilson, 1973). Multiple studies ha ve confirmed the AML-R’s ability to identify children at-risk for subsequent adjustment and academic problems (Carberry & Handal, 1980; Durlak & Jason, 1984). In a ddition, teacher completed AML-R scores were consistent with indepe ndent observation of disruptive behaviors and psychological and attention difficulties (Dur lak, Stein, & Mannarino, 1980). While studies have shown teacher report to be a stable and effective method of assessment, reliability of teacher reports may differ between externalizing and internalizing difficulties (Gree n, Beck, Forehand, & Vosk, 1980). In situations with large numbers of students, teachers may have more difficulty identifying internalizing behaviors, such as anxiety, depression, and withdrawal, th an externalizing behaviors, such as aggression and ina ttention (Gillespie & Durlak, 1995). In reporting troublesome behaviors in the classroom, teachers are likel y more concerned with students who present with very overt and aggressi ve behaviors rather than the students who are exceedingly quiet and withdrawn. Therefore, it is importa nt to consider teacher report surveys as a part of a larger constellation of measurement tools in order to explain child behaviors.

PAGE 62

54 Appendix C Hypothesis 1 Specifically, in the individual variable domain, it is hypothesized that bullies will have greater depressive sy mptom levels than the noninvol ved students (Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001), greater levels of tr ait anger and anger expression than victims and uninvolved students (Bosworth et al., 1999), lo wer levels of anxiety than victims and bully/victims (Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Olweus, 1995), and greater discipline referrals than victims and uni nvolved students (Haynie et al ., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Generally, bully/victims are exp ected to have the highest le vels of depression, anxiety, trait anger, anger expression, and discipline referrals compared with other groups of students, while the comparison control gr oup will have the lowe st levels of each. In the family domain, bullies will have lower familial cohesion and adaptability than the victims and uninvolved students (Bat sche & Knoff, 1994; Carney, 2000; Hazler, 1996; Olweus, 1978; 1991; Oliver, Oaks, & Hoover, 1994). Victims will have the greatest levels of adaptability and cohesion compared with other groups of students, while bull/victims are expected to have the lowest levels. Within the school domain, bullies will ha ve lower academic achievement, as measured by Grade Point Averages and sta ndardized test scores (Nansel et al., 2001), lower school spirit (Rigby & Slee, 1991; Slee & Rigby, 1993), poorer child-teacher relationships (Rigby & Slee, 1991; Slee & Ri gby, 1993), lower goal orientation than victims and uninvolved students (Lagerspetz, 1982), lower alienati on than victims and bully/victims, and poorer child -peer relationships than uninvolved students (Olweus, 1997). Bullies are expected to report having school environments with an unpleasant condition of school campus (i.e., the presen ce of graffiti, building cleanliness, and likeability of school appearance), a poorer clima te (e.g., presence of gangs, witnessing fighting at school, lower diversity, and witne ssing other problem be haviors), low levels of adult supervision, and low le vels of adult intervention (e .g., fairness of discipline for aggressive acts and staff response to bullying) compared with the environmental reports of victims and uninvolved st udents (Olweus, 1992; 1994). However, bully/victims are expected to have the poorest academic ach ievement, school spir it, child-teacher and child-peer relations, and goal orientation and the greatest le vels of alienation compared with other groups of students. In add ition, bully/victims will report having school environments with the most unpleasant c ondition of campus, the poorest school climate, and the lowest levels of adult intervention a nd supervision in school. Teachers will report bullies to have greater acting-out behaviors and greater learning difficulties than victims and uni nvolved students, and lower moodiness than victims (Carberry & Handal, 1980; Durla k, Stein, & Mannarino, 1980; Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Greater levels of moodiness are expected to be reported by teachers for bullies compared with uninvolved students (Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001). Bully/victims are expected to have the greatest levels of acting-out behavior, moodiness, and learning difficulties compared with other groups of students, as reported by teachers.

PAGE 63

55 Appendix D Hypothesis 2 Specifically, it is expected that male bullies will report the lowest levels of depression and anxiety compared with male bully/victims, male victims, female bully/victims, and female vic tims. However, males in th e comparison control group are expected to have the lowest levels of depr ession, anger, anxiety, and discipline referrals compared with other group. Male bully/victims are expected to have the greatest levels of trait anger, anger expression, and disc ipline referrals. Within the family domain, female bully/victims are expected to report the lowest levels of cohesion and adaptability compared with other groups of students. Family adaptability and cohesion are expected to decrease from greatest to lowest levels by group and gender in the following order: uninvolved students, male vic tims, female victims, male bullies, male bully/victims, and female bully/victims. Essentially, uninvolved students will have the greatest family adaptability and cohesion, wh ile female bully/victims w ill have the poorest family functioning. In the school se tting, male bully/victims are ex pected to report the lowest levels of school spirit, ch ild-teacher relationships, child -peer relationships, academic achievement, and goal orie ntation, the poorest percepti on of school c limate, adult intervention and supervision in schools, condition of school campus, and the greatest levels of alienation compared with other groups of stude nts (Santa Lucia & Gesten, 2000). Male bully/victims are expected to have the highest teacher ratings of acting-out and learning difficulties and female bully/victims are expected to have the highest moodiness ratings compared with other students.

PAGE 64

56 Appendix E Hypothesis 3 Specifically, 8th grade bully/victims are expected to experience the highest levels of depression, anxiety, behavi oral misconduct, and anger comp ared with other groups of students. Uninvolved 6th grade students are expected to have the lowest levels of anxiety, depression, anger, and disciplin e referrals. For family factor s, adaptability and cohesion are hypothesized to be the poorest for bully/victims in 8th grade compared with other groups of students. In school, some effects can be hypothesized ba sed on past research, while others will be further explored through results from the present study. Child-peer relations, child-teacher relations, goal orientation, and school sp irit are expected to be the lowest for bullies and bully/victims in 8th grade. Alienation is likely to be the greatest for victims and bully/victims in 8th grade. Teachers are expected to report the greatest levels of acting-out, learning difficulties, and moodiness for 8th grade bully/victims.

PAGE 65

57 Appendix F Hypothesis 4 Some effects can be hypothe sized based on past researc h. Levels of depression and anxiety are expected to increase for female victims and bully/victims from 6th to 8th grade compared with male victims and bully victims, in that 8th grade female bully/victims will have the greatest reports of depression and anxiety. Anger and discipline referrals are expected to increase more for male bullies and bully/victims from 6th to 8th grade than for other groups of students such that 8th grade male bully/victims will have the highest levels of anger, an ger expression, and beha vioral misconduct. Family levels of cohesion and adaptability are expected to decrease more so for male bullies and bully/victims from 6th to 8th grade than for other groups of students. However, 8th grade female bully/victims will overall have the lowest reported levels of family functioning. Child-peer relations are expected to increase for female victims from 6th to 8th grade, but decrease for other groups of students across grades. Eighth grade male bully/victims will have the greatest teacher repor ted levels of acting-out and learning difficulties, and 8th grade female bully/victims will have the greatest reports of moodiness.

PAGE 66

58 Appendix G Olweus Bully/Victim Qu estionnaire-Revised Along with assessing genera l involvement in bullying behaviors, the Bully/Victim Questionnaire assesses exposure to and engageme nt in different types of bullying (direct and indirect methods), the location of bullyin g, student attitudes toward bullying, and the perceived reactions of classm ates and school administrators to bullying and victimization (Olweus, 1991a). Each of the global bully ing and victimization ite ms are followed by a series of eight items asking students to indi cate participation in or experience of various types of bullying behaviors (name calling, t easing, social exclus ion, physical aggression, spreading rumors, stealing, and threatening). Each of the 18 items is rated on a 5-point scale: 1 = “I haven’t been bullied at school in the past couple of m onths,” 2 = “it has only happened once or twice,” 3 = “2 or 3 times a month,” 4 = “about once a week,” and 5 = “several times a week.” Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire Items: You will find questions about your life in school. There are se veral answers next to each question. Each answer has a number by it. Da rken in the circle on the scantron form that matches the answer that best describes you for each statement. Here are some questions about being bullied by other student s. First, we define or explain the word bullying. We say a student is being bullied when another student, or several other students: € Say mean and hurtful things or make fun of him or her or call him or her hurtful names € Completely ignore or exclude him or her from their group of friends or leave him or her out of things on purpose € Hit, kick, push, shove around, or lo ck him or her inside a room € Tell lies or spread false rumors about h im or her or send mean notes and try to make other students dislike him or her € And other hurtful things like that, includi ng being teased in a mean and hurtful way. When we talk about bullying, these things happen repeatedly, and it is difficult for the student being bullied to defend himself or herself. Note that we also call it bullying when a student is teased repeatedly in a mean and hurtful way.

PAGE 67

59 Appendix G (Continued) But, we don’t call it bullying when the teasing is done in a friendly and playful way. Also, it is not bullying when students of about equal stre ngth or power argue or fight. ABOUT BEING BULLIED BY OTHER STUDENTS Have you been bullied at school in the past couple of months in one or more of the following ways? Please answer all of the questions. I haven’t been bullied in the past couple of months It has only happened once or twice 2 or 3 times a month About once a week Several times a week 4. How often have you been bullied at school in the past couple of months? 1 2 3 4 5 5. I was called mean names, was made fun of, or teased in a hurtful way. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Other students left me out of things on purpose, excluded me from their group of friends, or completely ignored me. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I was hit, kicked, pushed, shoved around, or locked indoors. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Other students told lies or spread false rumors about me and tried to make others dislike me. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I had money or other things taken away from me or damaged. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I was threatened or forced to do things I didn’t want to do. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 68

60 Appendix G (Continued) I haven’t been bullied in the past couple of months It has only happened once or twice 2 or 3 times a month About once a week Several times a week 11. I was bullied with mean names or comments about my race or color. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I was bullied with mean names, comments, or gestures with a sexual meaning. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I was bullied in another way. In this case, please write where:_________________ 1 2 3 4 5 14. In which classes is the student or students who bully you? I haven’t been bullied in the last couple of months In my class In a different class but same grade In a higher grade In a lower grade In different grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Have you been bullied by boys or girls? I haven’t been bullied in the last couple of months Mainly by one girl By several girls Mainly by one boy By several boys By both boys and girls 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. By how many students have you usually been bullied? I haven’t been bullied in the last couple of months Mainly by one student By a group of 2-3 students By a group of 4-9 students By a group of more than 9 students By several different students of groups 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 69

61 Appendix G (Continued) 17. How long has the bullying lasted? I haven’t been bullied in the last couple of months It lasted one or two weeks It lasted about a month It has lasted about 6 months It has lasted about a year It has gone on for several years 1 2 3 4 5 6 I haven’t been bullied in the last couple of months I have been bullied in one or more of the following places in the past couple of months 18. Where have you been bullied? 1 2 Continue here if you have been bu llied in the past couple of months: Have you been bullied: No Yes 18a. on the playground/athletic field (during recess or break times)? 1 2 18b. in the hallways/stairwells? 1 2 18c. in class (with the teacher present)? 1 2 18d. in the classroom (without the teacher present)? 1 2 18e. in the bathroom? 1 2 18f. in gym class or the gym locker room/shower? 1 2 18g. in the lunch room? 1 2 18h. on the way to and from school? 1 2 18i. at the school bus stop? 1 2 18j. on the school bus? 1 2 18k. somewhere else in school? In this case, please write where:_________________ 1 2

PAGE 70

62 Appendix G (Continued) Have you told (that you have been bullied): No Yes 19a. your class (homeroom) teacher? 1 2 19b. another adult at school (a diffe rent teacher, the principal, the school nurse, the custodian, the school psychologist, etc.)? 1 2 19c. your parents/guardians? 1 2 19d. your brothers or sisters? 1 2 19e. your friends? 1 2 19f. somebody else? In this case, please write who:_______________ 1 2 Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Often Almost Always 20. How often do the teachers or other adults try to put a stop to it when a student is being bullied at school? 1 2 3 4 5 21. How often do other students try to put a stop to it when a student is being bullied at school? 1 2 3 4 5 I haven’t been bullied in the last couple of months No, they haven’t contacted the school Yes, they have contacted the school once Yes they have contacted the school several times 22. Has any adult at home contacted the school to try to stop your being bullied at school in the past couple of months? 1 2 3 4 I haven’t been bullied in the last couple of months (skip the next 6 questions) I have been bullied but I have not told anyone (skip the next 6 questions) I have been bullied and I have told somebody 19. Have you told anyone that you have been bullied at school in the past couple of months? 1 2 3

PAGE 71

63 Appendix G (Continued) That is probably what he or she deserves I don’t feel much I feel a bit sorry for him or her I feel sorry for him or her and want to help him or her 23. When you see a student your age being bullied at school, what do you feel or think? 1 2 3 4 ABOUT BULLYING OTHER STUDENTS I haven’t bullied another student(s) in the past couple of months It has only happened once or twice 2 or 3 times a month About once a week Several times a week 24. How often have you taken part in bullying another student(s) at school in the past couple of months? 1 2 3 4 5 Have you bullied another student(s) at school in the past couple of months in one or more of the following ways? Please answer all of the questions. I haven’t bullied another student(s) in the past couple of months It has only happened once or twice 2 or 3 times a month About once a week Several times a week 25. I called another student mean names, made fun of or teased him or her in a hurtful way. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 72

64 Appendix G (Continued) I haven’t bullied another student(s) in the past couple of months It has only happened once or twice 2 or 3 times a month About once a week Several times a week 26. I kept him or her out of things on purpose, excluded him or her from their group of friends, or completely ignored him or her. 1 2 3 4 5 27. I hit, kicked, pushed, shoved him or her around or locked him or her indoors. 1 2 3 4 5 28. I spread false rumors about him or her and tried to make others dislike him or her. 1 2 3 4 5 29. I took money or other things from him or her or damaged his or her belongings. 1 2 3 4 5 30. I threatened or forced him or her to do things he or she didn’t want to do. 1 2 3 4 5 31. I bullied him or her with mean names or comments about his or her race or color. 1 2 3 4 5 32. I bullied him or her with mean names, comments, or gestures with a sexual meaning. 1 2 3 4 5 33. I bullied him or her in another way. In this case, please write in what way:_____________ 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 73

65 Appendix G (Continued) I haven’t bullied other student(s) at school in the past couple of months No, they haven’t walked with me about it Yes, they have talked with me about it once Yes, they have talked with me about it several times 34. Has your class (homeroom) teacher talked with you about your bullying other students at school in the past couple of months? 1 2 3 4 35. Has any adult at home talked with you about your bullying other students at school in the past couple of months? 1 2 3 4 Yes Yes, maybe I don’t know No, I don’t think so No Definitely No 36. Do you think you could join in bullying a student whom you didn’t like? 1 2 3 4 5 6 I have never noticed that students my age are bullied I take part in the bullying I don’t do anything but I think the bullying is OK I just watch what goes on I don’t do anything but I think I ought to help the bullied student I try to help the bullied student in one way or another 37. How do you usually react if you see or understand that a student your age is being bullied by other students? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Never Seldom Sometimes Fairly Often Often Very Often 38. How often are you afraid of being bullied by other students in your school? 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 74

66 Appendix G (Continued) Little or Nothing Fairly Little Somewhat A good deal Much 39. Overall, how much do you think your class teacher has done to counteract bullying in the past couple of months? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 75

67 Appendix H Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) Items are rated on a 4-point scale, 0 = Never to 3 = Most of the time and the reference period is within the last week. The scale has been shown to have adequate internal consistency relia bility, Cronbach’s alpha = .88 (Robert, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1991). Additionally, the CES-D scale showed concordant validity in identifying depressive symptomotology compared with th e Beck Depression Inventory, with an 88% agreement between the two scales (Robert, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1991). DIRECTIONS: For each statement below, darken in the circle on the scantron form for the number that best describes how often you felt or behaved this way for each following statementDURING THE PAST WEEK Rarely or none of the time (Less than 1 day) Some or a little of the time (1-2 Days) Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 Days) Most or all of the time (5-7 Days) DURING THE PAST WEEK: 1. I was bothered by things that usually don't bother me 0 1 2 3 2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor 0 1 2 3 3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends 0 1 2 3 4. I felt that I was just as good as other people 0 1 2 3 5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing 0 1 2 3 6. I felt depressed 0 1 2 3 7. I felt that everything I did was an effort 0 1 2 3 8. I felt hopeful about the future 0 1 2 3 9. I thought my life had been a failure 0 1 2 3 10. I felt fearful 0 1 2 3 11. My sleep was restless 0 1 2 3 12. I was happy 0 1 2 3 13. I talked less than usual 0 1 2 3 14. I felt lonely 0 1 2 3

PAGE 76

68 Appendix H (Continued) Rarely or none of the time (Less than 1 day) Some or a little of the time (1-2 Days) Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 Days) Most or all of the time (5-7 Days) 15. People were unfriendly 0 1 2 3 16. I enjoyed life 0 1 2 3 17. I had crying spells 0 1 2 3 18. I felt sad 0 1 2 3 19. I felt that people disliked me 0 1 2 3 20. I could not get "going" 0 1 2 3

PAGE 77

69 Appendix I State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) The Trait Anxiety subscale is rated on a 3point scale, 1 = Hardly ever to 3 = Often. The STAIC evidenced adequate internal consistencies for the State Anxiety scale, alpha = .87 for females and alpha = .82 for males, and for the Trait Anxiety scale, alpha = .81 for females and alpha = .78 for males (Spielberger, 1973). Trait Anxiety Scale items: DIRECTIONS: A number of statements that boys and girls use to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement carefully and decide if it is hardly ever, sometimes, or often true for y ou. Then darken the scantron circle with the same number as the statement that describes you best. Th ere are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Remember to darken the circle for each statement that best describes how you usually feel Hardly Ever Sometimes Often 1. I worry about making mistakes. 1 2 3 2. I feel like crying. 1 2 3 3. I feel unhappy. 1 2 3 4. I have trouble making up my mind. 1 2 3 5. It is difficult for me to face my problems. 1 2 3 6. I worry too much. 1 2 3 7. I get upset at home. 1 2 3 8. I am shy. 1 2 3 9. I feel troubled. 1 2 3 10. Unimportant thoughts run through my mind and bother me. 1 2 3 11. I worry about school. 1 2 3 12. I have trouble deciding what to do. 1 2 3 13. I notice my heart beats fast. 1 2 3 14. I am secretly afraid. 1 2 3 15. I worry about my parents. 1 2 3 16. My hands get sweaty. 1 2 3 17. I worry about things that may happen. 1 2 3 18. It is hard for me to fall asleep at night. 1 2 3 19. I get a funny feeling in my stomach. 1 2 3 20. I worry about what others think of me. 1 2 3

PAGE 78

70 Appendix J State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory fo r Children and Adolescents (STAXI-C/A) Pilot data is current being collected on this scale and further information regarding reliability and validity must be obtained. Items are rated on a 3-point scale (1 = Hardly Ever, 2 = Sometimes, and 3 = Often). Trait Anger items: DIRECTIONS: A number of statements that boys and girls use to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement carefully and decide if it is hardly ever, sometimes, or often true for y ou. Then darken the scantron circle with the same number as the statement that describes you best. Th ere are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Remember to darken the circle for each statement that best describes how you usually feel Hardly Ever Sometimes Often 1. I am annoyed. 1 2 3 2. I feel annoyed when I do a good job and no one notices me. 1 2 3 3. I get mad when I am punished unfairly. 1 2 3 4. I feel grouchy. 1 2 3 5. I get mad. 1 2 3 6. I get angry when I do well and am told I did something wrong. 1 2 3 7. I feel angry when I’m blamed for something I did not do. 1 2 3 8. I am hotheaded. 1 2 3 9. I get angry quickly. 1 2 3 10. I feel like yelling when I do something good and someone says I did bad. 1 2 3 11. I get furious when scolded in front of others. 1 2 3 12. I feel angry. 1 2 3 Anger Expression items: DIRECTIONS: A number of statements that boys and girls use to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement carefully and decide if it is hardly ever, sometimes, or often true for y ou. Then darken the scantron circle with the same number as the statement which describes how you res pond or behave when you are angry or very angry. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one

PAGE 79

71 Appendix J (Continued) statement. Remember to darken the circle on the scantron form for the answer that best describes how you usually respond or behave when angry or very angry. Hardly Ever Sometimes Often 13. I am patient with others. 1 2 3 14. I show my anger. 1 2 3 15. If I don’t like someone, I keep it a secret. 1 2 3 16. I try to calm my angry feelings. 1 2 3 17. I keep cool. 1 2 3 18. I say mean things. 1 2 3 19. I hide my anger. 1 2 3 20. I try to relax. 1 2 3 21. I don’t tell anyone I am angry. 1 2 3 22. I lose my temper. 1 2 3 23. I keep my anger in. 1 2 3 24. I try to calm down. 1 2 3 25. I control my temper. 1 2 3 26. I get into arguments. 1 2 3 27. I have more anger than I show. 1 2 3 28. I take a deep breath. 1 2 3 29. I control my angry feelings. 1 2 3 30. I get into fights. 1 2 3 31. I am afraid to show my anger. 1 2 3 32. I try to reduce my anger. 1 2 3 33. I stop myself from losing my temper. 1 2 3 34. I do things like slam doors. 1 2 3 35. I get mad inside, but don’t show it. 1 2 3 36. I do something to relax and calm down. 1 2 3

PAGE 80

72 Appendix K School Adjustment Survey (SAS) Each item is rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 2 = Strongly Agree). The domains assessed are school sp irit (alpha = .85), alie nation (alpha = .62), goal orientation (alpha = .69), child-teacher relations (alpha = .86), and child-peer relations (alpha = .69), which each presented with adequate reliab ility when administered to a 6th grade sample. DIRECTIONS: Read each sentence carefully and darken the circle on the scantron form for the number that sounds most like you for each statement. Strongly Disagree Disagree I don’t know Agree Strongly Agree 1. Students usually get along well with each other in this school. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Making friends is very difficult in this school. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am in the wrong group to feel a part of this school. 1 2 3 4 5 4. A student can be himself/herself and still be accepted by other students in this school. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Most students at school like to include me in their activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I always seem to be left out of important school activities. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I think my teachers care about me. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Teachers are not usually available before class to talk with students. 1 2 3 4 5 9. My teachers often get to know me well. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Most teachers like my friends and me. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I care what most of my teachers think about me. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Some teachers would choose me as one of their favorite students. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I like school. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 81

73 Appendix K (Continued) Strongly Disagree Disagree I don’t know Agree Strongly Agree 14. My teachers don’t pay much attention to me. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I get a lot of encouragement at my school. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Other kids in my class have more friends than I do. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I feel a sense of school spirit. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I don’t feel safe at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I have friends who are of different raci al and ethnic backgrounds at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 20. Discipline is fair at this school. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I feel like I’m learning a lot in school. 1 2 3 4 5 22. School is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 23. I believe that I’m learning important things in school. 1 2 3 4 5 24. I liked school more last year than I do this year. 1 2 3 4 5 25. I feel that I can go to my teacher for advice or help with schoolwork. 1 2 3 4 5 26. I feel that I can go to my teacher for advice or help with non-school related problems. 1 2 3 4 5 27. Most of my teachers don’t really expect very good work from me. 1 2 3 4 5 28. I don’t care how well I do in school. 1 2 3 4 5 29. I try as hard as I can to do my best at school. 1 2 3 4 5 30. I am an important member of this school. 1 2 3 4 5 31. It bothers me when I don’t do something well. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Education is important for success in life. 1 2 3 4 5 33. I feel prepared for middle school. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 82

74 Appendix K (Continued) Strongly Disagree Disagree I don’t know Agree Strongly Agree 34. I think I will go to college. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 83

75 Appendix L Middle School/High School Student Su rvey (MS/HS Student Survey) Several factors from the original MS/HS Student Survey were combined for the present study’s analyses. Witnessing other Problem Behaviors, Witnessing Fighting at School, Presence of Gangs, and Diversity we re aggregated to comprise the School Climate factor. Knowledge of Fairness and Discipline Po licies and Staff Response to Bullying comprise the Adult Intervention factor Condition of Campus is its own factor. These questions ask you how you feel abou t your school and peop le in your school. Please fill in the circle for the answer that most closely matches the way you feel. YES! indicates that the statement is always or almost always true for you, yes indicates that it is usually true for you, no indicates that the statement is not usually true for you, and NO! indicates the statement is never or almost never true for you. YES! yes no NO! 1. Adults at my school teach us not to pick on other students. 4 3 2 1 2. Adults at my school try hard to keep students from bullying or picking on each other. 4 3 2 1 3. People in my school re spect students of all races. 4 3 2 1 4. People of my race can succeed in my school. 4 3 2 1 5. There is graffiti at my school. 4 3 2 1 6. There is pressure to join gangs at my school. 4 3 2 1 7. My school building is clean. 4 3 2 1 8. I like the way my school looks. 4 3 2 1 9. Students in my school obey the rules. 4 3 2 1 10. There are gang fights at my school. 4 3 2 1 11. All students at my school who break the rules are treated the same, no matter who they are. 4 3 2 1 12. When someone breaks the rules here, administrators take appropriate action. 4 3 2 1 13. There is gang activity at my school. 4 3 2 1 These questions ask you about thin gs that go on at your school. Please fill in the circles to answer whether or not the following things have happened in the past month

PAGE 84

76 Appendix L (Continued) These questions ask you about things that you saw at your school in the past month No1 to 3 times 4 to 6 times More than 6 times 14. I saw other students in a fight. 0 1 2 3 15. I saw another student get pushed, shoved, slapped, or kicked. 0 1 2 3 17. I saw another student get harassed. 0 1 2 3 18. I saw a student threaten to hit or hurt another student at school. 0 1 2 3 These questions ask you about dr ug/alcohol use at your school. Please fill in the circles on this form to answer whether or not the following things have happened in the past month No1 to 3 times 4 to 6 times More than 6 times 19. I saw a student smoking on school grounds. 0 1 2 3 20. I saw a student using alcohol at school. 0 1 2 3 21. I saw a student using illegal drugs at school. 0 1 2 3 22. I saw another student sellin g drugs at school. 0 1 2 3

PAGE 85

77 Appendix M Adult Supervision at School (ASAS) DIRECTIONS: Read each sentence carefully and darken the circle on the scantron form for the number that sounds most like you for each statement. Strongly Disagree Disagree I don’t know Agree Strongly Agree 1. In my school, teachers and administrators are in the hall when we change classes. 1 2 3 4 5 2. In my school, teachers and administrators are in the halls when we are in class. 1 2 3 4 5 3. In my school, there are lots of places where teachers and administrators cannot see what is going on. 1 2 3 4 5 4. In my classroom, teachers walk around while students are working. 1 2 3 4 5 5. In my school, there are a lot of open areas where teachers and administrators can supervise students. 1 2 3 4 5 6. In my school there are a lot of walls and barriers that make it hard for adults to supervise students. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 86

78 Appendix N Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES-II) Each item is rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Almost Never, 2 = Once in a While, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Almost Always ). Internal consistencies for each scale are good, alpha = .87 for Cohesion, alpha = .78 for Adaptability, and alpha = .90 for the whole scale. Edman, Cole, & Howard (1990) found convergent and discriminant validity between the FACES-II subscales and other measures of family functioning. DIRECTIONS: Describe your family. How often does each behavi or happen in your family according to the following scale? Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always 1. Family members are supportive of each other during difficult times. 1 2 3 4 5 2. In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 3. It is easier to discuss problems with people outside the family than with other family members. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Each family member has input regarding major family decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Our family gathers together in the same room. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Children have a say in their discipline. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Our family does things together. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Family members discuss problems and feel good about the solutions. 1 2 3 4 5 9. In our family, everyone gets his/her own way. 1 2 3 4 5 10. We shift household responsibilities from person to person. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 87

79 Appendix N (Continued) Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always 11. Family members know each other’s close friends. 1 2 3 4 5 12. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Family members consult other family members on personal decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Family members say what they want. 1 2 3 4 5 15. We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family. 1 2 3 4 5 16. In solving problems, the children’s suggestions are followed. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Family members feel very close to each other. 1 2 3 4 5 18. Discipline is fair in our family. 1 2 3 4 5 19. Family members feel closer to people outside the family than to other family members. 1 2 3 4 5 20. Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems. 1 2 3 4 5 21. Family members go along with what the family decides to do. 1 2 3 4 5 22. In our family, everyone shares responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Family members like to spend their free time with each other. 1 2 3 4 5 24. It is difficult to get a rule changed in our family. 1 2 3 4 5 25. Family members avoid each other at home. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 88

80 Appendix N (Continued) Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always 26. When problems arise, we compromise. 1 2 3 4 5 27. We approve of each other’s friends. 1 2 3 4 5 28. Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds. 1 2 3 4 5 29. Family members pair up rather than do things as a total family. 1 2 3 4 5 30. Family members share interests and hobbies with each other. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 89

81 Appendix O Acting-Out, Moodiness, and Lear ning Scale-Revised (AML-R) Each item is rated on a 5-point scale, 1 = Never to 5 = Most or all of the time. Higher scores on the scales indicate signifi cant disturbance. The AML-R has adequate validity and test-retest reliabilities ranges over a two we ek period, alpha = .80 to alpha = .86 (Carberry & Handal, 1980; Cowen et al ., 1973; Durlak et al., 1980; Gillespie & Durlak, 1995). Internal consistency is high (alpha = .93) (Santa Lu cia, Gesten, RendinaGobioff, Epstein, Kaufmann, Salcedo, & Gadd, 2000). This screening device has demonstrated good concurrent and discriminant validity (Cow en et al., 1973; Gillespie & Durlak, 1995). Scores on the AML-R have been correlated w ith personality and academic achievement (Dorr, Stephens, Pozn er, & Klodt, 1980) and have distinguished between children who were referred for mental health services and those who were not (Cowen et al., 1973). In addition, Gillespie and Durlak (1995) report a 93% true positive hit rate for the AML-R in identifying children who are at-risk. The AML-R had been developed for use with primary grade childre n, but has been administered to students in 6th grade with good results (Dorr, et al., 1980) Two items were added to the AML-R to assess student bullyin g and victimization. Child’s Name: _____________________ D.O.B.: _______________ Child’s Gender: ___ Male ___ Female Is this child in Exception al Education? : ___ Yes ___ No If yes, please specify ________________________ This child is in a: ___ Self-Contained ___ Continuous Progress -classroom Instructions: Please rate the child’s behavior, as you have observed and experienced it since the beginning of school according to the following scale, by circling the appropriate number: (1) Never You have literally never observed this behavior in this child. (2) Seldom You have observed this behavior once or twice. (3) Moderately often You have seen this behavior mo re often than once a month but less often than once a week. (4) Often You have seen this behavi or more often than once a week but less often than daily.

PAGE 90

82 Appendix O (Continued) (5) Most or all of the time You have seen this behavi or with great frequency, averaging once a day or more often. This child: 1. gets into fights or quarrels with classmates 1 2 3 4 5 2. has to be coaxed to play or work with peers 1 2 3 4 5 3. is confused with school work 1 2 3 4 5 4. is restless 1 2 3 4 5 5. is unhappy 1 2 3 4 5 6. gets off-task 1 2 3 4 5 7. disrupts class discipline 1 2 3 4 5 8. feels hurt when criticized 1 2 3 4 5 9. needs help with school work 1 2 3 4 5 10. is impulsive 1 2 3 4 5 11. is moody 1 2 3 4 5 12. has difficulty learning 1 2 3 4 5 This Child: Not in the past couple of months It has only happened once or twice 2 or 3 times a month About once a week Several times a week 13. has been bullied at school in the past couple of months? 1 2 3 4 5 14. has taken part in bullying another student(s) at school in the past couple of months? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 91

83 Appendix P Florida Comprehensive Achievement Tests (FCAT) Students’ scores are compared with benc hmarks defined by the state of Florida (Florida Department of E ducation, 2000). In addition, Florida students’ performance on the FCAT is compared with the performan ce of students across the nation using a normreferenced test. The FCAT is comprised of the reading comprehension and mathematics problem-solving portions of the Stan ford Achievement Test battery, 9th Edition (Stanford 9; “Stanford Achievement Te st Series”, 1999). The Stan ford Achievement Tests are national tests that measure st udents’ achievement in base d reading, language arts, mathematics, science, and social science curriculum. These tests are administered to 3rd through 10th grade students in Florida school distri cts. The reading comprehension and math problem solving achievement tests provide a scale score and a national percentile rank. Students who receive a national percentile rank (N PR) of 50 perform at the national average. All students in grades 3 through 10 take the Norm-Referenced Test section of the FCAT and receive scale scor es that range from 424-863 across all grades (Florida Department of E ducation, 2000). Reading and Math Developmental Scale Scores were examined for the present study since they are used to determine student achievement level. The range of Developmental Scale Scores is 86-3008.

PAGE 92

84 Appendix Q Multivariate and Follow-Up Univariate Analysis Tables Table 1 Multivariate Tests for Individual Domain Variables Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Pillai's Trace.885 2878.125 1865 .000 Group Pillai's Trace.177 23.44615 5601 .000 Gender Pillai's Trace.016 5.953 5 1865 .000 Grade Pillai's Trace.009 1.594 10 3732 .102 Gender Group Pillai's Trace.021 2.575 15 5601 .001 Grade Group Pillai's Trace.019 1.158 30 9345 .252 Gender Grade Pillai's Trace.004 .703 10 3732 .722 Gender Grade Group Pillai's Trace.021 1.288 30 9345 .135 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 93

85 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 2 Multivariate Tests for Family Domain Variables Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Pillai's Trace.807 4054.502 1944 .000 Group Pillai's Trace.023 7.437 6 3890 .000 Gender Pillai's Trace.002 2.434 2 1944 .088 Grade Pillai's Trace.000 .195 4 3890 .941 Gender Group Pillai's Trace.013 4.190 6 3890 .000 Grade Group Pillai's Trace.004 .721 12 3890 .733 Gender Grade Pillai's Trace.002 .741 4 3890 .564 Gender Grade Group Pillai's Trace.005 .886 12 3890 .561 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 94

86 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 3 Multivariate Tests for School Adjustment Variables Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Pillai's Trace.951 8310.945 2158 .000 Group Pillai's Trace.115 17.23415 6480 .000 Gender Pillai's Trace.004 1.912 5 2158 .089 Grade Pillai's Trace.007 1.516 10 4318 .127 Gender Group Pillai's Trace.015 2.103 15 6480 .008 Grade Group Pillai's Trace.015 1.061 30 10810 .376 Gender Grade Pillai's Trace.006 1.269 10 4318 .242 Gender Grade Group Pillai's Trace.019 1.350 30 10810 .096 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 95

87 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 4 Multivariate Tests of School Environment Variables Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Pillai's Trace.937 6753.29 4 1805 .000 Group Pillai's Trace.069 10.66212 5421 .000 Gender Pillai's Trace.007 3.190 4 1805 .013 Grade Pillai's Trace.007 1.671 8 3612 .100 Group Gender Pillai's Trace.006 .965 12 5421 .481 Group Grade Pillai's Trace.020 1.531 24 7232 .047 Grade Gender Pillai's Trace.010 2.218 8 3612 .023 Group Grade Gender Pillai's Trace.026 1.943 24 7232 .004 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 96

88 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 5 Multivariate Tests for Achievement Variables Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Pillai's Trace.934 15303.3 2 2177 .000 Group Pillai's Trace.004 1.371 6 4356 .222 Gender Pillai's Trace.003 2.730 2 2177 .065 Grade Pillai's Trace.050 27.7934 4356 .000 Gender Group Pillai's Trace.000 .158 6 4356 .987 Grade Group Pillai's Trace.007 1.233 12 4356 .253 Gender Grade Pillai's Trace.000 .222 4 4356 .926 Gender Group Grade Pillai's Trace.004 .777 12 4356 .675 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 97

89 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 6 Multivariate Tests for T eacher Report Variables Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept Pillai's Trace.555 569.0943 1368 .000 Group Pillai's Trace.021 3.285 9 4110 .001 Gender Pillai's Trace.004 1.918 3 1368 .125 Grade Pillai's Trace.020 4.607 6 2738 .000 Group Gender Pillai's Trace.012 1.872 9 4110 .052 Group Grade Pillai's Trace.021 1.578 18 4110 .057 Gender Grade Pillai's Trace.003 .668 6 2738 .675 Group Gender Grade Pillai's Trace.022 1.667 18 4110 .038 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 98

90 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 7 Nested Analysis of Variance for Trait Anxiety Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1734 4824.728 .000 Group (school) 33 1734 4.438 .000 Gender (school) 11 1734 2.077 .019 Grade 2 1734 .570 .566 Group Gender (school) 23 1734 .604 .929 Group Grade (school) 43 1734 1.040 .401 Grade Gender (school) 21 1734 1.097 .343 Group Gender Grade (school) 24 1734 1.308 .145 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 99

91 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 8 Nested Analysis of Variance for Depression Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1936 1102.204 .000 Group (school) 33 1936 6.603 .000 Gender (school) 11 1936 1.766 .055 Grade 2 1936 1.718 .180 Group Gender (school) 28 1936 1.442 .063 Group Grade (school) 46 1936 1.404 .039 Grade Gender (school) 21 1936 1.334 .142 Group Grade Gender (school) 26 1936 1.229 .197 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 100

92 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 9 Nested Analysis of Variance for Trait Anger Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2101 6860.031 .000 Group (school) 33 2101 4.984 .000 Gender (school) 11 2101 .249 .994 Grade 2 2101 1.355 .258 Group Gender (school) 28 2101 .650 .920 Group Grade (school) 51 2101 .823 .809 Grade Gender (school) 21 2101 .944 .533 Group Gender Grade (school) 26 2101 .799 .753 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 101

93 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 10 Nested Analysis of Variance for Anger Expression Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2107 9940.040 .000 Group (school) 33 2107 3.257 .000 Gender (school) 11 2107 .692 .747 Grade 2 2107 2.823 .060 Group Gender (school) 28 2107 .629 .934 Group Grade (school) 50 2107 .894 .683 Grade Gender (school) 21 2107 .882 .616 Group Gender Grade (school) 26 2107 1.328 .124 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 102

94 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 11 Nested Analysis of Variance for Discipline Referrals Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2134 314.220 .000 Group (school) 33 2134 2.245 .000 Gender (school) 11 2134 2.836 .001 Grade 2 2134 2.229 .108 Group Gender (school) 28 2134 .924 .580 Group Grade (school) 51 2134 1.019 .438 Grade Gender (school) 21 2134 1.035 .416 Group Gender Grade (school) 26 2134 1.366 .103 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 103

95 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 12 Nested Analysis of Variance for Cohesion Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1864 7707.704 .000 Group (school) 43 1864 2.013 .000 Gender 1 1864 .560 .454 Grade 2 1864 2.733 .065 Group Gender (school) 33 1864 1.437 .052 Group Grade (school) 62 1864 1.205 .133 Grade Gender 2 1864 1.725 .178 Group Gender Grade (school) 43 1864 .841 .759 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 104

96 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 13 Nested Analysis of Variance for Adaptability Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1777 4988.346 .000 Group(school) 43 1777 1.444 .032 Gender 1 1777 .767 .381 Grade 2 1777 .372 .690 Group Gender (school) 33 1777 1.677 .010 Group Grade (school) 62 1777 1.224 .115 Grade Gender 2 1777 3.137 .044 Group Gender Grade (school) 43 1777 1.148 .237 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 105

97 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 14 Nested Analysis of Variance for School Spirit Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2026 5431.284 .000 Group(school) 43 2026 2.787 .000 Gender 1 2026 11.470 .001 Grade 2 2026 8.486 .000 Group Gender (school) 38 2026 1.217 .171 Group Grade (school) 68 2026 1.706 .000 Grade Gender 2 2026 .461 .630 Group Grade Gender (school) 45 2026 .929 .607 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 106

98 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 15 Nested Analysis of Variance for Goal-Orientation Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1987 8292.502 .000 Group(school) 43 1987 2.368 .000 Gender 1 1987 10.121 .001 Grade 2 1987 6.765 .001 Group Gender (school) 38 1987 1.535 .020 Group Grade (school) 66 1987 2.185 .000 Grade Gender 2 1987 1.617 .199 Group Gender Grade (school) 45 1987 .604 .983 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 107

99 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 16 Nested Analysis of Variance for Child-Peer Relations Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2051 12503.80 4 .000 Group(school) 43 2051 5.125 .000 Gender 1 2051 12.774 .000 Grade 2 2051 1.332 .264 Group Gender (school) 38 2051 .992 .484 Group Grade (school) 68 2051 1.329 .039 Grade Gender 2 2051 .651 .522 Group Gender Grade (school) 45 2051 .905 .652 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 108

100 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 17 Nested Analysis of Variance for Child-Teacher Relations Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2046 7063.004 .000 Group (school) 43 2046 2.736 .000 Gender 1 2046 7.983 .005 Grade 2 2046 1.498 .224 Group Gender (school) 38 2046 1.439 .041 Group Grade (school) 68 2046 1.425 .014 Grade Gender 2 2046 .825 .438 Group Gender Grade (school) 45 2046 1.010 .454 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 109

101 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 18 Nested Analysis of Variance for Alienation Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2050 4984.920 .000 Group(school) 43 2050 2.376 .000 Gender 1 2050 11.379 .001 Grade 2 2050 1.214 .297 Group Gender (school) 38 2050 .779 .831 Group Grade (school) 68 2050 1.046 .377 Grade Gender 2 2050 1.677 .187 Group Grade Gender (school) 45 2050 1.135 .250 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 110

102 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 19 Nested Analysis of Vari ance for Condition of Campus Source Numerator df Denominator dfF Sig. Intercept 1 1660 4923.446 .000 Group(school) 32 1660 1.662 .012 Gender(school) 11 1660 .816 .624 Grade 2 1660 1.018 .362 Group Grade (school) 44 1660 1.761 .002 Group Gender (school) 25 1660 1.246 .186 Gender Grade (school) 21 1660 1.174 .264 Group Grade Gender (school) 23 1660 1.211 .224 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 111

103 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 20 Nested Analysis of Va riance for School Climate Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1674 3378.845 .000 Group(school) 33 1674 3.079 .000 Gender(school) 11 1674 1.529 .115 Grade 2 1674 2.118 .121 Group Grade (school) 44 1674 1.329 .074 Group Gender (school) 25 1674 1.146 .281 Gender Grade (school) 21 1674 .814 .705 Group Grade Gender (school) 24 1674 1.138 .292 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 112

104 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 21 Nested Analysis of Variance for Adult Intervention Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1680 6122.675 .000 Group (school) 32 1680 1.968 .001 Gender(school) 11 1680 .992 .451 Grade 2 1680 3.403 .033 Group Grade (school) 44 1680 .641 .968 Group Gender (school) 25 1680 1.222 .207 Gender Grade (school) 21 1680 .998 .462 Group Gender Grade (school) 24 1680 1.193 .237 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 113

105 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 22 Nested Analysis of Vari ance for Adult Supervision Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2054 11530.19 .000 Group(school) 33 2054 1.747 .005 Gender(school) 11 2054 2.552 .003 Grade 2 2054 3.819 .022 Group Grade (school) 50 2054 1.433 .026 Group Gender (school) 28 2054 1.154 .264 Gender Grade (school) 21 2054 .958 .514 Group Grade Gender (school) 25 2054 .921 .576 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 114

106 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 23 Nested Analysis of Variance for FCAT Developmental Reading Scale Scores Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2005 12672.511 .000 Group 3 2005 1.064 .363 Gender 1 2005 1.965 .161 Grade(school) 31 2005 4.875 .000 Group Grade (school) 83 2005 1.293 .041 Group Gender 3 2005 .562 .640 Gender Grade (school) 31 2005 .808 .765 Group Gender Grade (school) 51 2005 .957 .560 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 115

107 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 24 Nested Analysis of Variance for FCAT Developmental Math Scale Scores Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 2005 24141.245 .000 Group 3 2005 2.382 .068 Gender 1 2005 .036 .849 Grade(school) 31 2005 5.856 .000 Group Grade (school) 83 2005 .903 .721 Group Gender 3 2005 .504 .679 Gender Grade (school) 31 2005 .799 .777 Group Gender Grade (school) 50 2005 1.050 .379 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 116

108 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 25 Nested Analysis of Variance for Acting-Out Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1220 1505.511 .000 Group(school) 33 1220 1.823 .003 Grade(school) 21 1220 2.136 .002 Gender 1 1220 20.044 .000 Group Gender (school) 23 1220 1.194 .240 Group Grade (school) 40 1220 1.038 .408 Gender Grade (school) 20 1220 1.355 .135 Group Grade Gender (school) 11 1220 2.716 .002 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 117

109 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 26 Nested Analysis of Variance for Moodiness Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig. Intercept 1 1220 1725.853 .000 Group (school) 33 1220 2.381 .000 Grade(school) 21 1220 2.899 .000 Gender(school) 1 1220 5.879 .015 Group Gender (school) 23 1220 1.778 .013 Group Grade (school) 40 1220 1.107 .299 Gender Grade (school) 20 1220 1.319 .156 Group Grade Gender (school) 11 1220 1.574 .101 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 118

110 Appendix Q (Continued) Table 27 Nested Analysis of Variance for Learning Source Numerator df Denominator dfF Sig. Intercept 1 1220 1446.454 .000 Group (school) 33 1220 .942 .563 Grade(school) 21 1220 2.808 .000 Gender 1 1220 7.882 .005 Group Gender (school) 23 1220 .791 .746 Group Grade (school) 40 1220 1.099 .312 Gender Grade (school) 20 1220 1.371 .127 Group Grade Gender (school) 11 1220 2.311 .008 Note. Alpha level = .05.

PAGE 119

111 Appendix R Discriminant Function Analysis Matrices Table 28 Standardized Canonical Discrimin ant Function Coefficients for Total Sample Function Scale 1 2 3 Condition of Campus .216 -.148 -.693 Adult Supervision at School -.166 .043 -.519 Adult Intervention -.253 -.005 .019 School Climate .168 .008 -.217 Trait Anger .169 .202 -.150 Anger Expression .165 .572 .096 Depression .255 -.304 .174 Anxiety .304 -.165 .018 Discipline Referrals .166 .239 .197 School Spirit -.197 .044 .234 Child-Teacher Relations .175 -.172 .488 Goal-Orientation .031 -.085 .052 Alienation -.035 .057 .264 Child-Peer Relations -.294 .622 .021 Cohesion .071 -.232 .097 Adaptability -.004 .066 .407 Acting-Out .123 .037 .137 Moodiness .030 .147 -.066 Learning -.008 -.151 -.099 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score .201 .048 .051 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score -.015 -.102 -.332

PAGE 120

112 Appendix R (Continued) Table 29 Structure Matrix for Total Sample Discriminant Function Analysis Function Scale 1 2 3 Depression .668* -.200 .037 Trait Anger .632* .170 -.047 Anxiety .614* -.228 .028 Child-Peer Relations -.540* .437 .045 School Climate .499* .192 .002 School Spirit -.469* -.234 .212 Adult Intervention -.459* -.143 -.060 Cohesion -.387* -.207 .268 Adult Supervision at School -.386* -.071 -.286 Alienation .359* .069 .128 Child-Teacher Relations -.353* -.233 .298 Moodiness .273* .233 -.034 Anger Expression .429 .634* -.044 Discipline Referrals .273 .372* .186 Acting-Out .310 .321* .028 Goal-Orientation -.262 -.263* .162 Learning Scale .182 .193* .032 Condition of Campus -.205 -.153 -.410 Adaptability -.288 -.077 .410 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score -.012 -.101 -.288 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score .067 -.103 -.149

PAGE 121

113 Appendix R (Continued) Table 30 Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients for Males Function Scale 1 2 3 Condition of Campus -.249 .196 -.580 Adult Supervision at School .253 .104 -.272 Adult Intervention .352 -.100 -.074 School Climate -.009 .137 -.069 Trait Anger .009 .250 .050 Anger Expression .175 .439 .315 Depression -.364 -.107 -.118 Anxiety -.439 -.045 -.072 Discipline Referrals .118 .540 -.130 School Spirit .228 -.211 .337 Child-Teacher Relations -.154 .017 .107 SAS Goal-Orientation Scale -.099 -.144 .500 Alienation .013 .060 .028 Child-Peer Relations .433 .099 -.053 Cohesion -.078 -.049 -.277 Adaptability .005 .161 .454 AML-R Acting-Out .039 .107 -.270 AML-R Moodiness -.036 .412 .553 AML-R Learning .052 -.464 -.084 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score -.040 .146 .210 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score .077 -.113 -.513

PAGE 122

114 Appendix R (Continued) Table 31 Structure Matrix for Male Discriminant Function Analysis Function Scale 1 2 3 Depression -.666* .130 -.055 Child-Peer Relations -.665* .094 .024 Anxiety .629* -.024 .032 Child-Teacher Relations .397* -.224 -.138 Adult Supervision at School .305* -.102 -.161 School Spirit -.263* .176 .132 Goal-Orientation .054 .629* -.055 Cohesion -.011 .579* .102 Adaptability .024 .461* .016 Adult Intervention -.050 .416* .271 Condition of Campus -.365 .383* .136 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score .284 -.368* .303 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score -.210 .358* .054 Trait Anger .223 -.305* .232 Moodiness .214 -.235* .095 Anger Expression .001 .168* .140 Discipline Referrals .082 -.298 .379 School Climate .152 -.040 -.343 Acting-Out .045 -.069 -.326 Alienation .200 -.088 .276 Learning -.025 .029 -.088

PAGE 123

115 Appendix R (Continued) Table 32 Standardized Canonical Discrimin ant Function Coefficients for Females Function Scale 1 2 3 Condition of Campus -.026 .288 -.383 Adult Supervision at School -.154 .107 -.366 Adult Intervention -.219 .106 .176 School Climate .112 .253 -.080 Trait Anger .147 .003 -.200 Anger Expression .445 -.168 -.109 Depression .109 .401 .155 Anxiety .186 .186 .020 Discipline Referrals .124 -.005 .543 School Spirit .027 .019 -.013 Child-Teacher Relations .039 .166 .452 Goal-Orientation -.192 .209 -.180 Alienation -.128 .000 .219 Child-Peer Relations .149 -.663 -.135 Cohesion -.129 .204 .231 Adaptability -.022 -.033 .322 AML-R Acting-Out .377 .076 .529 AML-R Moodiness -.332 .191 -.491 AML-R Learning Scale .139 -.053 -.253 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score .146 .408 -.049 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score .010 -.001 -.080

PAGE 124

116 Appendix R (Continued) Table 33 Structure Matrix for Female Discriminant Function Analysis Function Scale 1 2 3 Anger Expression .716* -.190 -.133 Cohesion .621* .274 -.179 School Spirit -.525* -.028 .389 Goal-Orientation .518* .496 -.031 Trait Anger -.518* .080 .032 Adaptability .516* .181 -.004 Acting-Out -.490* .063 .141 Alienation -.457* .199 -.064 Adult Intervention -.416* .044 -.193 Adult Supervision at School -.408* .100 .240 Child-Teacher Relations .390* .136 .164 Learning -.336* .113 -.132 Condition of Campus .325* .085 .051 Depression .269* -.006 -.078 Anxiety .228* .191 -.134 Child-Peer Relations -.165 -.551* -.005 School Climate .466 .470* -.087 Discipline Referrals -.028 .298* -.081 Moodiness -.056 .173* -.102 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score .306 -.040 .515 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score -.360 -.047 .388

PAGE 125

117 Appendix R (Continued) Table 34 Standardized Canonical Discrimin ant Function Coefficients for 6th Graders Function Scale 1 2 3 Condition of Campus .128 .100 .726 Adult Supervision at School -.142 .152 .098 Adult Intervention -.395 -.023 -.057 School Climate .157 .352 -.095 Trait Anger .271 .028 -.007 Anger Expression -.124 .388 -.369 Depression .616 -.418 -.031 Anxiety .007 .028 .262 Discipline Referrals .001 .185 -.306 School Spirit -.295 -.113 .055 Child-Teacher Relations .463 -.562 -.459 Goal-Orientation .097 .136 .002 Alienation -.313 -.344 .112 Child-Peer Relations -.372 -.089 -.319 Cohesion -.057 .199 .170 Adaptability .156 -.146 -.135 AML-R Acting-Out .145 .402 .366 AML-R Moodiness -.099 -.703 -.526 AML-R Learning .138 .411 .457 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score .134 .223 .086 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score -.098 -.146 .325

PAGE 126

118 Appendix R (Continued) Table 35 Structure Matrix for 6th Grade Discriminant Function Analysis Function Scale 1 2 3 Depression .727* -.154 .012 Anxiety .571* .204 .005 Cohesion -.503* -.019 -.233 Condition of Campus .478* -.091 .099 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score -.447* -.243 .139 Adult Intervention .418* .345 -.245 Goal-Orientation -.276* -.050 .099 Child-Peer Relations -.276* -.185 .112 Child-Teacher Relations .219* .007 .072 Moodiness -.169* -.089 -.004 Adult Supervision at School -.143 -.542* -.125 Anger Expression .194 .491* -.285 Acting-Out -.332 -.411* .056 Trait Anger .179 .400* -.046 Alienation .152 .302* -.038 School Climate -.083 -.195* .114 Learning -.279 -.193 .504 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score .101 .321 -.375 Adaptability -.074 -.090 .339 School Spirit .001 -.026 .232 Discipline Referrals .138 .022 -.200

PAGE 127

119 Appendix R (Continued) Table 36 Standardized Canonical Discrimin ant Function Coefficients for 7th Graders Function Scale 1 2 3 Condition of Campus .205 -.001 -.080 Adult Supervision at School -.130 -.011 -.371 Adult Intervention -.199 -.016 .225 School Climate .122 .077 -.376 Trait Anger .037 .364 -.224 Anger Expression .151 .457 .324 Depression -.171 -.320 .152 Anxiety .757 -.073 .074 Discipline Referrals .134 .200 .491 School Spirit -.234 .069 .496 Child-Teacher Relations .134 -.281 .040 Goal-Orientation -.030 .082 .324 Alienation .077 .036 .368 Child-Peer Relations -.296 .693 -.092 Cohesion .105 -.446 .020 Adaptability -.127 .086 .355 AML-R Acting-Out .282 .035 .281 AML-R Moodiness .166 -.123 .015 AML-R Learning -.194 -.007 -.129 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score .186 .068 -.086 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score .081 -.351 -.068

PAGE 128

120 Appendix R (Continued) Table 37 Structure Matrix for 7th Grade Discriminant Function Analysis Function Scale 1 2 3 Anxiety .682* -.093 .055 Child-Peer Relations -.499* .411 .045 Depression .474* -.044 -.063 Trait Anger .472* .302 -.001 Adult Intervention -.390* -.138 .350 Adult Supervision at School -.320* -.073 .009 Alienation .318* .063 .116 AML-R Moodiness .286* .181 .147 AML-R Acting-Out .266* .250 .228 Anger Expression .329 .546* .088 Cohesion -.322 -.357* .313 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score .041 -.323* -.113 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score .094 -.250* -.128 AML-R Learning .138 .242* .105 School Spirit -.364 -.203 .458 Discipline Referrals .262 .318 .401 Adaptability -.304 -.172 .387 Child-Teacher Relations -.313 -.178 .386 School Climate .338 .244 -.348 Goal-Orientation -.240 -.181 .291 Condition of Campus -.205 -.086 .213

PAGE 129

121 Appendix R (Continued) Table 38 Standardized Canonical Discrimin ant Function Coefficients for 8th Graders Function Scale 1 2 3 Condition of Campus .205 .190 -.366 Adult Supervision at School -.135 -.097 -.570 Adult Intervention -.186 .055 -.154 School Climate .027 .216 -.004 Trait Anger .243 -.047 -.086 Anger Expression .604 -.220 -.040 Depression .215 .436 .231 Anxiety -.136 .174 -.138 Discipline Referrals .235 -.182 -.328 School Spirit .089 .023 .028 Child-Teacher Relations .075 -.273 .266 Goal-Orientation -.277 .473 -.017 Alienation .108 -.148 .464 Child-Peer Relations .232 -.562 .190 Cohesion -.134 -.036 .144 Adaptability .098 -.129 .372 AML-R Acting-Out .023 -.096 .248 AML-R Moodiness .416 .041 -.352 AML-R Learning -.390 .136 .207 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score .138 .163 .357 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score .034 -.085 -.001

PAGE 130

122 Appendix R (Continued) Table 39 Structure Matrix for 8th Grade Discriminant Function Analysis Function Scale 1 2 3 Child-Peer Relations .744* -.103 -.091 Depression .517* .360 .015 School Climate -.422* .081 -.084 Adult Supervision at School -.385* -.349 .192 School Spirit -.370* -.209 -.197 Anxiety .360* -.128 -.187 Child-Teacher Relations .358* .141 .344 Cohesion .353* -.018 -.023 Adaptability .340* .317 .224 Learning .331* .086 -.190 Anger Expression -.319* -.220 -.164 Alienation .127* .040 -.033 Goal-Orientation .417 .642* .040 Trait Anger -.149 -.628* -.028 Adult Intervention .240 .558* -.084 FCAT Math Developmental Scaled Score -.264 -.241 -.515 Condition of Campus -.021 -.001 -.383 Moodiness -.169 -.292 .361 Discipline Referrals -.247 -.150 -.339 Acting-Out .018 .167 .302 FCAT Reading Developmental Scaled Score -.045 .046 .161

PAGE 131

123 Appendix S Table 40 Multivariate, Univariate, and Post Hoc Study Findings by Domain and Hypothesis Note. Shaded areas indicate significant findings. T = Total sample, M = Males, F = Females, 6 = 6th Graders, 7 = 7th Graders, 8 = 8th Graders. Hypothesis 5: Distinct Variable Associations Domain Hypothesis 1: Group Main Effect Hypothesis 2: Group x Gender Interaction Hypothesis 3: Group x Grade Interaction Hypothesis 4: Group x Gender x Grade Interaction T M F678 Individual Domain Depression Anxiety Anger Anger Expression Referrals Family Domain Cohesion Adaptability School Domain School Adjustment School Spirit Goal-Orientation Child-Peer Relations Child-Teacher Relations Alienation School Environment Condition of Campus School Climate Adult Intervention Adult Supervision Achievement FCAT Reading FCAT Math Teacher Report Domain Acting-Out Moodiness Learning

PAGE 132

124 Appendix T Table 41 Number (and Percentage) of Ca tegorized Students per School School N Sampled (%) Bullies N (%) Victims N (%) Bully/Victims N (%) Control N (%) 1 260 (10.4) 24 (14.6) 34 ( 11.5) 5 (11.4) 197 (9.8) 2 166 (6.6) 7 (4.3) 19 ( 6.4) 3 (6.8) 137 (16.7) 3 191 (7.6) 7 (4.3) 24 ( 8.1) 2 (4.5) 158 (7.9) 4 266 (10.6) 23 (14.0) 33 ( 11.2) 8 (18.2) 202 (10.1) 5 206 (8.2) 17 (10.4) 23 ( 7.8) 2 (4.5) 164 (8.2) 6 164 (6.5) 6 (3.7) 16 ( 5.4) 3 (6.8) 138 (6.9) 7 228 (9.1) 10 (6.1) 27 ( 9.2) 5 (11.4) 186 (9.3) 8 196 (7.8) 17 (10.4) 19 ( 6.4) 1 (2.3) 159 (7.9) 9 216 (8.6) 16 (9.8) 25 ( 8.5) 6 (13.6) 169 (8.4) 10 283 (11.3) 23 (14.0) 33 ( 11.2) 3 (6.8) 224 (11.2) 11 334 (13.3) 14 (8.5) 42 ( 14.2) 6 (13.6) 272 (13.6) Total 2509 (100) 164 (100) 295 (100) 44 (100) 2006 (100)


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001441477
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 031203s2003 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000150
035
(OCoLC)53994038
9
AJM5917
b SE
SFE0000150
040
FHM
c FHM
090
BF121
1 100
Totura, Christine Marie Wienke.
0 245
Bullying and victimization in middle school
h [electronic resource] :
the role of individual characteristics, family functioning, and school contexts /
by Christine Marie Wienke Totura.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2003.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 132 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: The present study examined the relationship between individual, family, and school variables and both bullying and victimization. Approximately equal numbers of males and females (N = 1185 and 1174, respectively) were randomly selected from classrooms in 11 middle schools across 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Students completed questionnaires including items from each domain. Questionnaires assessed bullying and victimization, internalizing and externalizing behaviors, family factors, and school variables. In addition, teachers of the selected classrooms completed a brief rating scale on each of the students, which assessed student moodiness, behavioral difficulties, and learning problems. Achievement and discipline records data were obtained. Based on their responses to critical items, participants were categorized into Bully, Victim, Bully/Victim, and comparison Control groups. Multivariate analyses, with follow-up univariate and discriminant function analyses, tested the association of variables within the individual, family, teacher report, and school domains with bullying group membership. Analyses were examined by grade and gender effects as well. Results indicated that variables within each of the domains significantly contributed to differences between bullying groups, by grade and gender. Specifically, bullies and bully/victims appeared to have the poorest reported adjustment in terms of behavioral difficulties, family functioning, and school variables, while both victims and bully/victims experienced greater internalizing difficulties. Bullies and bully/victims tended to have the poorest outcomes; however, victims reported poorer peer relationships and perceptions of school. Overall, depression, anxiety, and the expression of anger accounted for the majority of group differences. School variables, particularly peer relationships, a sense of school spirit, and perceptions of climate and adult availability at school, played a secondary role in explaining differences among groups. These findings varied by gender and grade. Illustratively, bullying intervention programs could, in part, focus on those characteristics that are more strongly related to certain groups of students (i.e., anger expression for females and school conditions for younger students).
590
Adviser: Gesten, Ellis L.
653
school violence.
aggression.
school climate.
assessment.
adolescence.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.150