A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review of Measurements for School Bullying

IF 4.7 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL

Adolescent Research Review Pub Date : 2022-08-26 DOI:10.1007/s40894-022-00194-5

Zhongju Xie, Wenyi Man, Chuanjun Liu, Xinyuan Fu

{"title":"A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review of Measurements for School Bullying","authors":"Zhongju Xie, Wenyi Man, Chuanjun Liu, Xinyuan Fu","doi":"10.1007/s40894-022-00194-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The measurement tools of school bullying vary, and an instructive study identifying how to select the proper tool is needed. Based on the PRISMA, quantitative research literature on school bullying published from 1978 to 2021 through multiple online databases (i.e., WoS, ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, and CNKI) were searched. After conducting additional searches, a total of 75 tools were obtained. The specific content and psychometric properties (provided by original and follow-up studies) were then analyzed. Regarding the measurement content, 16 tools provided a definition of bullying, and 14 tools simultaneously measured all three components of “intention to harm”, “repetition”, and “power imbalance”. For the control of subjective explanatory bias, 19 tools present bullying-related terms to participants. As a key part of bullying measurement, a timeframe was set in 52 tools, ranging from “past month” to “past year”. Concerning the measurement method, 73 tools administer the measures by self-report, and peer-report (<i>n</i> = 8) and teacher-report (<i>n</i> = 5) are applied by some tools. Regarding psychometric properties, existing instruments demonstrated satisfactory in terms of internal consistency reliability (<i>n</i> = 75) but showed limitations due to their lack of content readability, criterion validity, and measurement invariance. In combination with specific research purposes, future research can select instruments based on the consideration of definition, components, terms, timeframe, reporter and the improving of the psychometric properties of tools.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45912,"journal":{"name":"Adolescent Research Review","volume":"8 2","pages":"219 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Adolescent Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40894-022-00194-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Abstract

The measurement tools of school bullying vary, and an instructive study identifying how to select the proper tool is needed. Based on the PRISMA, quantitative research literature on school bullying published from 1978 to 2021 through multiple online databases (i.e., WoS, ScienceDirect, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, and CNKI) were searched. After conducting additional searches, a total of 75 tools were obtained. The specific content and psychometric properties (provided by original and follow-up studies) were then analyzed. Regarding the measurement content, 16 tools provided a definition of bullying, and 14 tools simultaneously measured all three components of “intention to harm”, “repetition”, and “power imbalance”. For the control of subjective explanatory bias, 19 tools present bullying-related terms to participants. As a key part of bullying measurement, a timeframe was set in 52 tools, ranging from “past month” to “past year”. Concerning the measurement method, 73 tools administer the measures by self-report, and peer-report (n = 8) and teacher-report (n = 5) are applied by some tools. Regarding psychometric properties, existing instruments demonstrated satisfactory in terms of internal consistency reliability (n = 75) but showed limitations due to their lack of content readability, criterion validity, and measurement invariance. In combination with specific research purposes, future research can select instruments based on the consideration of definition, components, terms, timeframe, reporter and the improving of the psychometric properties of tools.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

基于PRISMA的校园欺凌测量系统综述

学校欺凌的测量工具各不相同，需要进行一项有指导意义的研究，确定如何选择合适的工具。基于PRISMA，检索了1978年至2021年通过多个在线数据库（即WoS、ScienceDirect、PsycINFO、MEDLINE、ERIC和CNKI）发表的关于校园欺凌的定量研究文献。经过进一步搜索，共获得75件工具。然后分析了具体内容和心理测量特性（由原始研究和后续研究提供）。关于测量内容，16个工具提供了欺凌的定义，14个工具同时测量了“伤害意图”、“重复”和“权力失衡”这三个组成部分。为了控制主观解释偏差，19种工具向参与者呈现了与欺凌相关的术语。作为欺凌测量的一个关键部分，在52个工具中设定了一个时间框架，从“过去一个月”到“过去一年”。关于测量方法，73个工具通过自我报告和同行报告（n = 8）和教师报告（n = 5）由一些工具应用。关于心理测量特性，现有仪器在内部一致性可靠性方面表现出令人满意的结果（n = 75），但由于缺乏内容可读性、标准有效性和测量不变性而显示出局限性。结合具体的研究目的，未来的研究可以根据工具的定义、组成部分、术语、时间框架、报告者和心理测量特性的改进来选择工具。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Adolescent Research Review PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-

CiteScore

10.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Adolescent Research Review publishes articles that review important contributions to the understanding of adolescence. The Review draws from the many subdisciplines of developmental science, psychological science, education, criminology, public health, medicine, social work, and other allied disciplines that address the subject of youth and adolescence. The editors are especially interested in articles that bridge gaps between disciplines or that focus on topics that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. Reviews must be cutting edge and comprehensive in the way they advance science, practice or policy relating to adolescents.