心理科学进展 ›› 2018, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (12): 2113-2128.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02113
赵陵波1, 赖丽足2, 林羽中1, 赵春晓2, 任志洪2()
收稿日期:
2018-04-13
出版日期:
2018-12-15
发布日期:
2018-10-30
通讯作者:
任志洪
E-mail:ren@mail.ccnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
ZHAO Lingbo1, LAI Lizu2, LIN Yuzhong1, ZHAO Chunxiao2, REN Zhihong2()
Received:
2018-04-13
Online:
2018-12-15
Published:
2018-10-30
Contact:
REN Zhihong
E-mail:ren@mail.ccnu.edu.cn
摘要:
通过文献检索和筛选, 选取了43个校园欺凌的干预研究, 使用CMA 3.0分析干预效果及影响因素, 并使用GRADE系统对所有结局指标的证据质量进行评估。结果显示, 针对欺凌者的干预项目具有中等效果量(g = 0.57, p < 0.05); 针对欺凌受害者的干预项目使得受害者的受欺凌行为减少(g = 0.42, p < 0.05), 心理健康得到改善(g = 0.40, p < 0.01); 针对所有学生的欺凌干预项目对其欺凌行为的效果g =0.17 (p < 0.001), 对其受欺凌行为效果g = 0.19 (p < 0.001), 可能存在出版偏差; 学生态度改变的效果g = 0.40 (p < 0.01)。除了态度改变的证据质量为中等, 其他结局指标的证据都为低或者极低质量。对于所有学生干预项目, 干预周期小于1学期的效果量大于干预周期大于1学期的效果量, 教育干预项目效果量小于系统干预效果量, 非随机研究效果量大于随机对照研究。直接针对欺凌者或者欺凌受害者的干预效果量中等, 但是样本量少, 需要进一步的研究证据支持。针对所有学生的欺凌干预项目虽然效果量低, 但是仍具有实践意义, 其效果量受到干预周期和干预特征的影响。
中图分类号:
赵陵波, 赖丽足, 林羽中, 赵春晓, 任志洪. (2018). 校园反欺凌项目干预效果及影响因素:元分析和GRADE证据质量. 心理科学进展 , 26(12), 2113-2128.
ZHAO Lingbo, LAI Lizu, LIN Yuzhong, ZHAO Chunxiao, REN Zhihong. (2018). The effect and moderators of school-based anti-bullying programs: Meta-analysis and GRADE evidence. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(12), 2113-2128.
干预对象 | 结果 | N | G | 95%CI | Z | Q | I2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
欺凌者 | 欺凌行为 | 4 | 0.57 | 0.08, 1.05 | 2.30* | 48.23*** | 93.79 |
欺凌受害者 | 受欺凌行为 | 6 | 0.42 | 0.10, 0.74 | 2.60** | 18.55** | 73.04 |
心理健康 | 5 | 0.40 | 0.14, 0.65 | 3.04** | 7.95 | 49.66 |
表2 针对欺凌者或欺凌受害者的干预效果
干预对象 | 结果 | N | G | 95%CI | Z | Q | I2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
欺凌者 | 欺凌行为 | 4 | 0.57 | 0.08, 1.05 | 2.30* | 48.23*** | 93.79 |
欺凌受害者 | 受欺凌行为 | 6 | 0.42 | 0.10, 0.74 | 2.60** | 18.55** | 73.04 |
心理健康 | 5 | 0.40 | 0.14, 0.65 | 3.04** | 7.95 | 49.66 |
结果 | N | G | 95%CI | Z | Q | I2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
态度 | 11 | 0.40 | 0.19, 0.61 | 3.79*** | 131.79*** | 94.41 |
行为 | 42 | 0.21 | 0.15, 0.26 | 7.09*** | 330.23*** | 87.58 |
欺凌 | 38 | 0.17 | 0.12, 0.22 | 6.91*** | 123.96*** | 70.15 |
受欺凌 | 38 | 0.19 | 0.12, 0.26 | 5.27*** | 354.73*** | 89.57 |
表3 针对所有学生的反欺凌项目预防干预效果
结果 | N | G | 95%CI | Z | Q | I2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
态度 | 11 | 0.40 | 0.19, 0.61 | 3.79*** | 131.79*** | 94.41 |
行为 | 42 | 0.21 | 0.15, 0.26 | 7.09*** | 330.23*** | 87.58 |
欺凌 | 38 | 0.17 | 0.12, 0.22 | 6.91*** | 123.96*** | 70.15 |
受欺凌 | 38 | 0.19 | 0.12, 0.26 | 5.27*** | 354.73*** | 89.57 |
亚组变量 | N | G | 95%CI | Z | Q | I2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年级 | 0.228 | ||||||
小学 | 17 | 0.14 | 0.09, 0.18 | 6.18*** | 21.37 | 25.14 | |
初高中 | 21 | 0.20 | 0.11, 0.29 | 4.27*** | 100.77*** | 80.15 | |
干预周期 | 0.004 | ||||||
<=1学期 | 20 | 0.26 | 0.18, 0.35 | 5.96*** | 64.08*** | 70.35 | |
>1学期 | 18 | 0.11 | 0.05, 0.17 | 3.69*** | 45.60*** | 62.72 | |
干预特征 | 0.001 | ||||||
多水平 | 22 | 0.30 | 0.20, 0.40 | 5.97*** | 26.89* | 44.22 | |
个体水平 | 16 | 0.10 | 0.07, 0.17 | 4.73*** | 62.90*** | 66.61 | |
实验设计 | 0.016 | ||||||
随机 | 19 | 0.12 | 0.08, 0.17 | 5.08*** | 47.99*** | 62.49 | |
非随机 | 19 | 0.28 | 0.16, 0.39 | 4.67** | 60.86** | 70.43 |
表4 欺凌干预对欺凌行为改变效果量的亚组分析
亚组变量 | N | G | 95%CI | Z | Q | I2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年级 | 0.228 | ||||||
小学 | 17 | 0.14 | 0.09, 0.18 | 6.18*** | 21.37 | 25.14 | |
初高中 | 21 | 0.20 | 0.11, 0.29 | 4.27*** | 100.77*** | 80.15 | |
干预周期 | 0.004 | ||||||
<=1学期 | 20 | 0.26 | 0.18, 0.35 | 5.96*** | 64.08*** | 70.35 | |
>1学期 | 18 | 0.11 | 0.05, 0.17 | 3.69*** | 45.60*** | 62.72 | |
干预特征 | 0.001 | ||||||
多水平 | 22 | 0.30 | 0.20, 0.40 | 5.97*** | 26.89* | 44.22 | |
个体水平 | 16 | 0.10 | 0.07, 0.17 | 4.73*** | 62.90*** | 66.61 | |
实验设计 | 0.016 | ||||||
随机 | 19 | 0.12 | 0.08, 0.17 | 5.08*** | 47.99*** | 62.49 | |
非随机 | 19 | 0.28 | 0.16, 0.39 | 4.67** | 60.86** | 70.43 |
亚组变量 | N | G | 95%CI | Z | Q | I2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年级 | 0.457 | ||||||
小学 | 18 | 0.21 | 0.14, 0.28 | 5.93*** | 63.73*** | 73.33 | |
初高中 | 20 | 0.16 | 0.04, 0.28 | 2.72* | 234.53*** | 91.90 | |
干预周期 | 0.003 | ||||||
<=1学期 | 17 | 0.31 | 0.20, 0.42 | 5.59*** | 98.35*** | 83.73 | |
>1学期 | 21 | 0.10 | 0.02, 0.18 | 2.38* | 170.90*** | 88.30 | |
干预特征 | 0.001 | ||||||
多水平 | 24 | 0.39 | 0.24, 0.55 | 4.88*** | 52.19*** | 77.09 | |
个体水平 | 14 | 0.10 | 0.03, 0.18 | 2.78* | 232.15*** | 90.12 | |
实验设计 | 0.042 | ||||||
非随机 | 20 | 0.28 | 0.15, 0.41 | 4.29*** | 130.97*** | 85.49 | |
随机 | 18 | 0.12 | 0.04, 0.21 | 2.77** | 198.72** | 91.45 |
表5 欺凌干预对受欺凌行为改变效果量的亚组分析
亚组变量 | N | G | 95%CI | Z | Q | I2 | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年级 | 0.457 | ||||||
小学 | 18 | 0.21 | 0.14, 0.28 | 5.93*** | 63.73*** | 73.33 | |
初高中 | 20 | 0.16 | 0.04, 0.28 | 2.72* | 234.53*** | 91.90 | |
干预周期 | 0.003 | ||||||
<=1学期 | 17 | 0.31 | 0.20, 0.42 | 5.59*** | 98.35*** | 83.73 | |
>1学期 | 21 | 0.10 | 0.02, 0.18 | 2.38* | 170.90*** | 88.30 | |
干预特征 | 0.001 | ||||||
多水平 | 24 | 0.39 | 0.24, 0.55 | 4.88*** | 52.19*** | 77.09 | |
个体水平 | 14 | 0.10 | 0.03, 0.18 | 2.78* | 232.15*** | 90.12 | |
实验设计 | 0.042 | ||||||
非随机 | 20 | 0.28 | 0.15, 0.41 | 4.29*** | 130.97*** | 85.49 | |
随机 | 18 | 0.12 | 0.04, 0.21 | 2.77** | 198.72** | 91.45 |
干预 对象 | 结局 指标 | 实验 设计 | 纳入 研究 | 结果的 不一致 | 间接 证据 | 结果 不精确 | 发表 偏倚 | 实验组 | 对照组 | 相对效应 | 证据 质量 | 结果 变量 重要性 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
欺凌者 | 欺凌行为 | RCT1 | 2 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3-4 | 无 | 24 | 24 | 0.96(-1.04, 2.95) | ?OOO | 关键 |
受凌者 | 受欺凌行为 | RCT1 | 2 | 严重2 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 209 | 216 | 0.79(-0.56, 2.14) | ??OO | 关键 |
非RCT | 3 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 104 | 63 | 0.33(0.07, 0.59) | ??OO | 关键 | ||
心理健康 | RCT1 | 2 | 严重2 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 209 | 216 | 0.57(-0.13, 1.27) | ??OO | 关键 | |
非RCT | 2 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 93 | 49 | 0.49(0.15, 0.84) | ??OO | 关键 | ||
所有 学生 | 欺凌行为 | RCT1 | 14 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3 | 无 | 1110 | 1101 | 0.12(0.08, 0.17) | ??OO | 关键 |
非RCT | 10 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3 | 严重 | 1505 | 1776 | 0.28(0.20, 0.40) | ?OOO | 关键 | ||
受欺凌行为 | RCT1 | 13 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3 | 无 | 12630 | 10731 | 0.12(0.04, 0.21) | ??OO | 关键 | |
非RCT | 12 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3 | 严重 | 7697 | 3791 | 0.28(0.15, 0.41) | ?OOO | 关键 | ||
态度 | RCT1 | 6 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 1479 | 1589 | 0.34(0.06, 0.61) | ???O | 重要 |
表6 结果变量证据GRADE总结表
干预 对象 | 结局 指标 | 实验 设计 | 纳入 研究 | 结果的 不一致 | 间接 证据 | 结果 不精确 | 发表 偏倚 | 实验组 | 对照组 | 相对效应 | 证据 质量 | 结果 变量 重要性 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
欺凌者 | 欺凌行为 | RCT1 | 2 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3-4 | 无 | 24 | 24 | 0.96(-1.04, 2.95) | ?OOO | 关键 |
受凌者 | 受欺凌行为 | RCT1 | 2 | 严重2 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 209 | 216 | 0.79(-0.56, 2.14) | ??OO | 关键 |
非RCT | 3 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 104 | 63 | 0.33(0.07, 0.59) | ??OO | 关键 | ||
心理健康 | RCT1 | 2 | 严重2 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 209 | 216 | 0.57(-0.13, 1.27) | ??OO | 关键 | |
非RCT | 2 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 93 | 49 | 0.49(0.15, 0.84) | ??OO | 关键 | ||
所有 学生 | 欺凌行为 | RCT1 | 14 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3 | 无 | 1110 | 1101 | 0.12(0.08, 0.17) | ??OO | 关键 |
非RCT | 10 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3 | 严重 | 1505 | 1776 | 0.28(0.20, 0.40) | ?OOO | 关键 | ||
受欺凌行为 | RCT1 | 13 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3 | 无 | 12630 | 10731 | 0.12(0.04, 0.21) | ??OO | 关键 | |
非RCT | 12 | 严重2 | 无 | 严重3 | 严重 | 7697 | 3791 | 0.28(0.15, 0.41) | ?OOO | 关键 | ||
态度 | RCT1 | 6 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 无 | 1479 | 1589 | 0.34(0.06, 0.61) | ???O | 重要 |
1 | *高妍 . ( 2011). 小学生欺负行为干预研究(博士学位论文). 山西大学. |
2 | 雷雳, 王燕, 郭伯良, 张雷 . ( 2004). 班级行为范式对个体行为与受欺负关系影响的多层分析. 心理学报, 36( 5), 563-567. |
3 | *任丽娜. ( 2007). 初中生受欺负者的干预研究(硕士学位论文). 山西大学. |
4 | *杨婉秋. ( 2004). 团体心理咨询降低小学生欺负行为的实验研究(硕士学位论文). 云南师范大学. |
5 |
郑辉烈, 王忠旭, 王增珍 . ( 2009). Meta分析中发表偏倚的Begg's检验、Egger's检验及Macaskill's检验的SAS程序实现. 中国循证医学杂志, 9( 8), 910-916.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2531.2009.08.018 URL |
6 | 张文新 . ( 2002). 中小学生欺负/受欺负的普遍性与基本特点. 心理学报, 34( 4), 387-394. |
7 |
* 张文新, 鞠玉翠 . ( 2009). 小学生欺负问题的干预研究. 中国教育学前沿, ( 1), 95-99.
doi: 10.1007/s11516-009-0007-0 URL |
8 |
*Albayrak S., Ylldlz A., & Erol S . ( 2016). Assessing the effect of school bullying prevention programs on reducing bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 63, 1-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.005 URL |
9 |
Alonso-Coello P., SchÜnemann H. J., Moberg J., Brignardello-Petersen R., Akl E. A., Davoli M., … Oxman A. D . ( 2016). GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks: A systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ, 353, i2016.
doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.02.010 URL pmid: 27365494 |
10 |
*Andreou E., Didaskalou E., & Vlachou A . ( 2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of a curriculum-based anti-bullying intervention program in Greek primary schools. Educational Psychology, 27( 5), 693-711.
doi: 10.1080/01443410601159993 URL |
11 |
*Baldry, A.C., &Farrington, D.P . ( 2004). Evaluation of an intervention program for the reduction of bullying and victimization in schools. Aggressive Behavior, 30( 1), 1-15.
doi: 10.1002/ab.20000 URL |
12 | *Battey, G. J.L. ( 2008). Can bullies become buddies? Evaluation of and theoretical support for an experiential education bully prevention curriculum with seventh grade students(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oregon State University. |
13 |
*Bauer N. S., Lozano P., & Rivara F. P . ( 2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40( 3), 266-274.
doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.005 URL pmid: 17321428 |
14 |
*Beran T. N., Tutty L., & Steinrath G . ( 2004). An evaluation of a bullying prevention program for elementary schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 19( 1-2), 99-116.
doi: 10.1177/082957350401900105 URL |
15 |
*Berry, K., &Hunt, C.J . ( 2009). Evaluation of an intervention program for anxious adolescent boys who are bullied at school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45( 4), 376-382.
doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.023 URL pmid: 19766942 |
16 | *Boulton, M.J., &Flemington, I . ( 1996). The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school pupils' involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying. School Psychology International, 17( 4), 331-345. |
17 |
*Brown E. C., Low S., Smith B. H., & Haggerty K. P . ( 2011). Outcomes from a school-randomized controlled trial of steps to respect: A bullying prevention program. School Psychology Review, 40( 3), 423-443.
doi: 10.1177/1053815111427445 URL |
18 |
Carlson, K.D., &Schmidt, F.L . ( 1999). Impact of experimental design on effect size: Findings from the research literature on training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84( 6), 851-862.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.851 URL |
19 |
Chan, H. C.O., &Wong, D. S.W . ( 2015). Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese societies: Prevalence and a review of the whole-school intervention approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 98-108.
doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.010 URL |
20 | Cooper H., Hedges L. V., & Valentine J. C . ( 2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, second edition. Russell Sage Foundation. |
21 | *Couch, L. ( 2015). The bullying literature project: An evaluation of a class-wide bullying intervention program(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Riverside. |
22 |
*DeRosier, M.E. ( 2004). Building relationships and combating bullying: Effectiveness of a school-based social skills group intervention. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33( 1), 196-201.
doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3301_18 URL pmid: 15028553 |
23 | *Doğan A., Keser E., Şen Z., Yanagida T., Gradinger P., & Strohmeier D . ( 2017). Evidence based bullying prevention in turkey: Implementation of the ViSC social competence Program. International Journal of Developmental Science, 11( 3-4), 93-108. |
24 | *Domino, M.B. ( 2011). The impact of take the LEAD on school bullying among middle school youth(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University. |
25 |
Duval, S., &Tweedie, R . ( 2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56( 2), 455-463.
doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x URL pmid: 10877304 |
26 |
*Elledge L. C., Cavell T. A., Ogle N. T., & Newgent R. A . ( 2010). School-based mentoring as selective prevention for bullied children: A preliminary test. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 31( 3), 171-187.
doi: 10.1007/s10935-010-0215-7 URL pmid: 20443060 |
27 |
Evans C. B. R., Fraser M. W., & Cotter K. L . ( 2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19( 5), 532-544.
doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004 URL |
28 |
Farrington D. P., Gaffney H., Lösel F. A., & Ttofi M. M . ( 2016). Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of developmental prevention programs in reducing delinquency,aggression, and bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 91-106.
doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.11.003 URL |
29 |
*Fekkes M., Pijpers F. I., & Verloove-Vanhorick S. P . ( 2006). Effects of antibullying school program on bullying and health complaints. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160( 6), 638-644.
doi: 10.1001/archpedi.160.6.638 URL pmid: 16754827 |
30 |
Forsberg C., Wood L., Smith J., Varjas K., Meyers J., Jungert T., & Thornberg R . ( 2018). Students’ views of factors affecting their bystander behaviors in response to school bullying: A cross-collaborative conceptual qualitative analysis. Research Papers in Education, 33( 1), 127-142.
doi: 10.1080/02671522.2016.1271001 URL |
31 |
*Fox, C., &Boulton, M . ( 2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of a social skills training (SST) programme for victims of bullying. Educational Research, 45( 3), 231-247.
doi: 10.1080/0013188032000137238 URL |
32 | *Fraser, C.M. ( 2004). Bully proofing your school: The effectiveness of a school-wide prevention program with middle school students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University. |
33 |
*Frey K. S., Hirschstein M. K., Snell J. L., Edstrom L. V. S., MacKenzie E. P., & Broderick C. J . ( 2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the steps to respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41( 3), 479-490.
doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.479 URL pmid: 15910156 |
34 |
Garandeau C. F., Vartio A., Poskiparta E., & Salmivalli C . ( 2016). School bullies’ intention to change behavior following teacher interventions: Effects of empathy arousal, condemning of bullying, and blaming of the perpetrator. Prevention Science, 17( 8), 1034-1043.
doi: 10.1007/s11121-016-0712-x URL pmid: 5065969 |
35 |
*Gradinger P., Yanagida T., Strohmeier D., & Spiel C . ( 2015). Prevention of cyberbullying and cyber victimization: Evaluation of the ViSC social competence program. Journal of School Violence, 14( 1), 87-110.
doi: 10.1080/15388220.2014.963231 URL |
36 |
Havik T., Bru E., & Ertesvåg S. K . ( 2015). School factors associated with school refusal-and truancy-related reasons for school non-attendance. Social Psychology of Education, 18( 2), 221-240.
doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9293-y URL |
37 |
Hedges, L.V., &Vevea, J.L . ( 1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3( 4), 486-504.
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486 URL |
38 |
*Hoglund W. L., Hosan N. E., & Leadbeater B. J . ( 2012). Using your WITS: A 6-year follow-up of a peer victimization prevention program. School Psychology Review, 41( 2), 193-214.
doi: 10.1177/0361684311432647 URL |
39 |
Hong J. S., Lee C-H., Lee J., Lee N. Y., & Garbarino J . ( 2014). A review of bullying prevention and intervention in south korean schools: An application of the social-ecological framework. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 45( 4), 433-442.
doi: 10.1007/s10578-013-0413-7 URL pmid: 24276393 |
40 |
Hoyt, W.T., & Del Re, A. C . ( 2017). Effect size calculation in meta-analyses of psychotherapy outcome research. Psychotherapy Research, 28( 3), 1-10.
doi: 10.1080/10503307.2017.1405171 URL |
41 |
Huedo-Medina T. B., SÁnchez-Meca J., Marín-Martínez F., & Botella J . ( 2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological Methods, 11( 2), 193-206.
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193 URL pmid: 16784338 |
42 |
*Hunt, C. ( 2007). The effect of an education program on attitudes and beliefs about bullying and bullying behaviour in junior secondary school students. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12( 1), 21-26.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00417.x URL |
43 |
Hymel, S., &Swearer, S.M . ( 2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70( 4), 293-299.
doi: 10.1037/a0038928 URL pmid: 25961310 |
44 |
JimÉnez-Barbero J. A., Ruiz-HernÁndez J. A., Llor-Zaragoza L., PÉrez-García M., & Llor-Esteban B . ( 2016). Effectiveness of anti-bullying school programs: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 165-175.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.015 URL |
45 |
*Joronen K., Konu A., Rankin H. S., & ÅstedtKurki P . ( 2011). An evaluation of a drama program to enhance social relationships and anti-bullying at elementary school: A controlled study. Health Promotion International, 27( 1), 5-14.
doi: 10.1093/heapro/dar012 URL pmid: 21385761 |
46 |
*Kärnä A., Voeten M., Little T. D., Alanen E., Poskiparta E., & Salmivalli C . ( 2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1-3 and 7-9. Journal of Educational Psychology, 10 5(2), 535-551.
doi: 10.1037/a0031120 URL |
47 |
* Kärnä A., Voeten M., Little T. D., Poskiparta E., Kaljonen A., & Salmivalli C . ( 2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82( 1), 311-330.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x URL pmid: 21291444 |
48 |
Kelly E. V., Newton N. C., Stapinski L. A., Slade T., Barrett E. L., Conrod P. J., & Teesson M . ( 2015). Suicidality, internalizing problems and externalizing problems among adolescent bullies, victims and bully-victims. Preventive Medicine, 73, 100-105.
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.01.020 URL pmid: 25657168 |
49 |
Kowalski R. M., Giumetti G. W., Schroeder A. N., & Lattanner M. R . ( 2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140( 4), 1073-1137.
doi: 10.1037/a0035618 URL pmid: 24512111 |
50 | *Krueger, L.M. ( 2010). The implementation of an anti-bullying program to reduce bullying behaviors on elementary school buses(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). D' Youville College. |
51 | Lee S., Kim C-J., & Kim D. H . ( 2015). A meta-analysis of the effect of school-based anti-bullying programs. Journal of Child Health Care, 19( 2), 136-153. |
52 | Maio, G., &Haddock, G . ( 2014). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. Sage. |
53 | McCuddy, T., &Esbensen, F-A . ( 2017). After the bell and into the night: The link between delinquency and traditional,cyber-, and dual-bullying victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54( 3), 409-441. |
54 | *McLaughlin, L.P. ( 2009). The effect of cognitive behavioral therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy plus media on the reduction of bullying and victimization and the increase of empathy and bystander response in a bully prevention program for urban sixth-grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).The University of Toledo. |
55 |
*Menesini E., Codecasa E., Benelli B., & Cowie H . ( 2003). Enhancing children's responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29( 1), 1-14.
doi: 10.1002/ab.80012 URL |
56 |
Merrell K. W., Gueldner B. A., Ross S. W., & Isava D. M . ( 2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23( 1), 26-42.
doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26 URL |
57 |
*Meyer, N., &Lesch, E . ( 2000). An analysis of the limitations of a behavioural programme for bullying boys from a subeconomic environment. Southern African Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12( 1), 59-69.
doi: 10.1080/16826108.2000.9632368 URL |
58 |
Modecki K. L., Minchin J., Harbaugh A. G., Guerra N. G., & Runions K. C . ( 2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55( 5), 602-611.
doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 URL pmid: 25168105 |
59 |
*Naidoo S., Satorius B. K., de Vries H., & Taylor M . ( 2016). Verbal bullying changes among students following an educational intervention using the integrated model for behavior change. Journal of School Health, 86( 11), 813-822.
doi: 10.1111/josh.12439 URL pmid: 27714870 |
60 |
*Nocentini, A., &Menesini, E . ( 2016). KiVa Anti-Bullying program in Italy: Evidence of effectiveness in a randomized control trial. Prevention Science, 17( 8), 1012-1023.
doi: 10.1007/s11121-016-0690-z URL pmid: 27488457 |
61 | Olweus, D. ( 1994 a). Bullying at school. Promotion & Education, 60( 6), 97-130. |
62 | Olweus, D. ( 1994 b). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35( 7), 1171-1190. |
63 |
Olweus, D. ( 2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the olweus bullying prevention program. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11( 4), 389-402.
doi: 10.1080/10683160500255471 URL |
64 |
*Palladino B. E., Nocentini A., & Menesini E . ( 2016). Evidence-based intervention against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of the NoTrap! program in two independent trials. Aggressive Behavior, 42( 2), 194-206.
doi: 10.1002/ab.21636 URL pmid: 26879897 |
65 |
*Rawana J. S., Norwood S. J., & Whitley J . ( 2011). A mixed-method evaluation of a strength-based bullying prevention program. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26( 4), 283-300.
doi: 10.1177/0829573511423741 URL |
66 |
Saarento S., Garandeau C. F., & Salmivalli C . ( 2015). Classroom- and school-level contributions to bullying and victimization: A review. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25( 3), 204-218.
doi: 10.1002/casp.2207 URL |
67 |
*Şahin, M. ( 2012). An investigation into the efficiency of empathy training program on preventing bullying in primary schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 34( 7), 1325-1330.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.013 URL |
68 |
*Salmivalli C., Kärnä A., & Poskiparta E . ( 2011). Counteracting bullying in finland: The KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being bullied. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35( 5), 405-411.
doi: 10.1177/0165025411407457 URL |
69 | *Solomontos-Kountouri O., Gradinger P., Yanagida T., & Strohmeier D . ( 2016). The implementation and evaluation of the ViSC program in cyprus: Challenges of cross-national dissemination and evaluation results. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13( 6), 737-755. |
70 |
*Stan, C., &Beldean, I.G . ( 2014). The development of social and emotional skills of students-ways to reduce the frequency of bullying-type events.Experimental results. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 735-743.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.777 URL |
71 |
*Stevens V., Bourdeaudhuij I., & van Oost P . ( 2000). Bullying in flemish schools: An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70( 2), 195-210.
doi: 10.1348/000709900158056 URL pmid: 10900778 |
72 |
*Trip S., Bora C., Sipos-Gug S., Tocai I., Gradinger P., Yanagida T., & Strohmeier D . ( 2015). Bullying prevention in schools by targeting cognitions, emotions, and behavior: Evaluating the effectiveness of the REBE-ViSC program. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62( 4), 732-740.
doi: 10.1037/cou0000084 URL pmid: 26376177 |
73 |
Ttofi, M.M., &Farrington, D.P . ( 2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7( 1), 27-56.
doi: 10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1 URL |
74 |
Ttofi M. M., Farrington D. P., Lösel F., Crago R. V., & Theodorakis N . ( 2016). School bullying and drug use later in life: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 31( 1), 8-27.
doi: 10.1037/spq0000120 URL pmid: 25866866 |
75 |
*van der Ploeg R., Steglich C., & Veenstra R . ( 2016). The support group approach in the Dutch KiVa anti-bullying programme: Effects on victimisation, defending and well-being at school. Educational Research, 58( 3), 221-236.
doi: 10.1080/00131881.2016.1184949 URL |
76 | Vreeman, R.C., &Carroll, A.E . ( 2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161( 1), 78-88. |
77 | *Yanagida T., Strohmeier D., & Spiel C . ( 2016). Dynamic change of aggressive behavior and victimization among adolescents: Effectiveness of the ViSC program. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 1-15. |
78 |
Yang, A., &Salmivalli, C . ( 2015). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying programme on bully-victims, bullies and victims. Educational Research, 57( 1), 80-90.
doi: 10.1080/00131881.2014.983724 URL |
79 |
Yeager D. S., Fong C. J., Lee H. Y., & Espelage D. L . ( 2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37( 1), 36-51.
doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005 URL |
80 | Zeng X., Zhang Y., Kwong J. S., Zhang C., Li S., Sun F., … Du L . ( 2015). The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: A systematic review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 8( 1), 2-10. |
81 |
Zych I., Ortega-Ruiz R., & Del Rey R . ( 2015). Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 1-21.
doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001 URL |
[1] | 李亚丹, 杜颖, 谢聪, 刘春宇, 杨毅隆, 李阳萍, 邱江. 语义距离与创造性思维关系的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(4): 519-534. |
[2] | 曾润喜, 李游. 自我效能感与网络健康信息搜寻关系的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(4): 535-551. |
[3] | 吴佳桧, 傅海伦, 张玉环. 感知社会支持与学生学业成就关系的元分析:学习投入的中介作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(4): 552-569. |
[4] | 郭英, 田鑫, 胡东, 白书琳, 周蜀溪. 羞愧对亲社会行为影响的三水平元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 371-385. |
[5] | 陈必忠, 孙晓军. 中国内地大学生时间管理倾向的时代变迁:1999~2020[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(9): 1968-1980. |
[6] | 杜宇飞, 欧阳辉月, 余林. 隔代抚养与老年人抑郁水平:一项基于东西方文化背景的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(9): 1981-1992. |
[7] | 赵宁, 刘鑫, 李纾, 郑蕊. 默认选项设置的助推效果:来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(6): 1230-1241. |
[8] | 黄潇潇, 张亚利, 俞国良. 2010~2020中国内地小学生心理健康问题检出率的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(5): 953-964. |
[9] | 张亚利, 靳娟娟, 俞国良. 2010~2020中国内地初中生心理健康问题检出率的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(5): 965-977. |
[10] | 于晓琪, 张亚利, 俞国良. 2010~2020中国内地高中生心理健康问题检出率的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(5): 978-990. |
[11] | 陈雨濛, 张亚利, 俞国良. 2010~2020中国内地大学生心理健康问题检出率的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(5): 991-1004. |
[12] | 王佳燕, 蓝媛美, 李超平. 二元工作压力与员工创新关系的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(4): 761-780. |
[13] | 林新奇, 栾宇翔, 赵锴, 赵国龙. 领导风格与员工创新绩效关系的元分析:基于自我决定视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(4): 781-801. |
[14] | 刘俊材, 冉光明, 张琪. 不同情绪载体的神经活动及其异同——脑成像研究的ALE元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(3): 536-555. |
[15] | 刘海丹, 李敏谊. 家庭读写环境与儿童接受性词汇发展关系的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(3): 556-579. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||