The effect and moderators of school-based anti-bullying programs: Meta-analysis and GRADE evidence

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02113

Abstract

Abstract:

School bullying has become a public health issue in the past several decades which caused physical and psychological harm on bullies, victims as well as bystanders. Therefore, a series of anti-bullying programs were designed to reduce the bullying or the harmfulness of bullying, but the effectiveness of these programs was inconsistent. Forty-three pre-post randomized controlled trail studies were selected to examine the effect of school-based anti-bullying programs. The evidence quality was screened under the GRADE protocol. Results suggested a significant effect for anti-bullying programs which targets bullies (g = 0.57, p< 0.05), while those who target victims, victimization decreased (g = 0.40, p< 0.05), and overall metal health improved (g = 0.40, p< 0.01). The pooled effect size indicated that school-based anti-bullying programs have a small effect on bullying and victimization (g = 0.17, p< 0.001) and influenced by publication bias. Attitude changed moderately (g = 0.19, p< 0.001). The evidence of attitude change was moderate, other outcome variables have a very low or low evidence quality according to GRADE protocol. For the programs targeting universal students, programs which was less than one semester performed better, and the global intervention showed more effective than education. The effect size of anti-bullying programs targeting bullies or victims was moderate, but more research is needed. Though school-based anti-bullying programs which target universal students have a relatively small effect size, however, they are practical for real-world applications. The dose of intervention and the feature of programs have influence on the effect of anti-bullying programs.

Key words: school anti-bullying, intervention effect, meta-analysis, GRADE

CLC Number:

B844

ZHAO Lingbo, LAI Lizu, LIN Yuzhong, ZHAO Chunxiao, REN Zhihong. The effect and moderators of school-based anti-bullying programs: Meta-analysis and GRADE evidence[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(12): 2113-2128.

Figures/Tables 9

References 81

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

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

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

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