School-Based Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization

4.1.1 Bulli and Pupe (Italy)

Bulli and Pupe’ was an intervention program concerned with bullying and family violence. The program, developed by Baldry (2001), was ‘directed towards the individual and peer group, and aimed to enhance awareness about violence and its negative effects’ (Baldry & Farrington, 2004, p. 3). The intervention package consisted of three videos and a booklet divided into three parts; each video was linked to one part of the booklet. Each part of the booklet was meant to take the form of an interactive lesson where professionals, experienced in school and juvenile processes, discussed three issues according to the structure of the manual.

The first part of the booklet, entitled ‘Bullying among peers’, emphasized teen violence among peers. The booklet presented vignettes and graphics that reported research findings on bullying in an attempt to raise students’ awareness of this issue. The corresponding video showed teenagers talking about bullying based on their own experiences and judgments. The second part of the booklet, entitled ‘Children witnessing domestic violence’, analyzed the effects of domestic violence on children and the repercussions for school achievement and peer relations. In the accompanying video, children in a shelter for battered women were presented, talking about their personal experiences and emotions. Finally, the third part of the booklet, entitled ‘Cycle of violence’, dealt with the long-term effects of violence on adults who were victims of violence in their childhood. The corresponding video consisted of an interview conducted with a 19-year old boy who had a violent father.

The program was in the first place delivered in three days by experts who, together with teachers, discussed about bullying, read the booklet and analyzed its content. The program was taken over by teachers who once a week created a facilitation group and allowed children to discuss any problems they encountered with their peers. The program was more effective with secondary students because it required its participants to have good interpersonal and cognitive skills (Baldry & Farrington, 2004, p. 4).

4.1.2 Project Ploughshares Puppets for Peace (Canada)

Project Ploughshares Puppets for Peace (P4 program) was an anti-bullying program that aimed to educate elementary school students about bullying and conflict resolution (Beran & Shapiro, 2005, p. 703). The P4 program used puppets and a 30-minute script. Using three-feet, hand-and-rod puppets, two puppeteers enacted a story that involved direct and indirect bullying, as well as a successful resolution to this scenario. These behaviors occurred among two female puppets and a male puppet friend.

After watching the play, students were invited to identify the bullying behaviors. During the discussion, four main strategies –presented as ‘4 Footsteps’– to deal with bullying were suggested to pupils: a) ignore, b) say stop, c) walk away and d) get help. The show took approximately 45 minutes and aimed to increase children's awareness about which behaviors could be categorized as bullying and to show various strategies that children who were bullied and/or who witnessed bullying could use to discourage it (Beran & Shapiro, 2005, p. 703).

4.1.3 Short Video Intervention (England)

This anti-bullying strategy, involved a single viewing of an anti-bullying video, entitled Sticks and Stones, and aimed to examine its effects on secondary school students’ views of, and involvement in, bullying. The program aimed to examine both attitudes toward bullying and the actual behavior since ‘it would not be unreasonable to propose that these attitudes will influence actual behavior’ (Boulton & Flemington, 1996, p. 334). The program involved only one school that had no prior anti-bullying policy.

The video presented pupils (either in groups or on their own) talking about bullying, their views about this phenomenon and their personal experiences of bullying. The video also involved a number of bullying scenes (see Boulton & Flemington, 1996, p. 337 for examples).

4.1.4 Friendly Schools (Australia)

‘Friendly Schools’ was a theoretically grounded program. Its educational techniques (e.g. role modeling, drama activities, skills training, etc.) were based on notions derived from Social Cognitive theory, the Health Belief Model and Problem Behavior theory (Cross et al., 2004, p. 191). An interesting aspect of this program is that it was based on the results of a systematic review (Cross et al., 2004, p. 187), which provided a set of key elements to be included in the final intervention strategy. The program targeted bullying at three levels: a) the whole-school community; b) the students’ families; and c) the fourth and fifth grade students and their teachers.

With regard to the whole-school intervention component, in each school, a Friendly Schools Committee was organized with key individuals (e.g. a parent representative, a school psychologist, a school nurse, teaching staff) who could co-ordinate and successfully sustain the anti-bullying initiative. Each committee was provided with a four-hour training, designed to build members’ capacity to address bullying. Each member was provided with a specific strategy manual. The manual was a step-by-step guide on how to implement the anti-bullying initiative. It included among others the Pikas ‘Method of Shared Concern’ and the ‘No Blame’ approach.

With regard to the family intervention component, this included home activities linked to each classroom-learning activity. Parents were also provided with 16 skills-based newsletter items (eight for each year of the intervention) that aimed to provide research information on bullying as well as advice to parents on what to do if their child was a perpetrator or a victim of bullying behavior.

Moving on to the Grade 4 and 5 classroom curriculum, the Friendly Schools curriculum consisted of nine learning activities per year. The curriculum was offered by trained teachers in three blocks of three 60-minute lessons, over a three-school-term period. The learning activities aimed to promote awareness of what was bullying behavior; to help students to become assertive and talk about bullying with teachers and parents; and to promote peer and adult discouragement of bullying behavior.

Finally, the Friendly Schools program offered manuals to teachers. The teacher manuals were designed to be entirely self-contained so as to maximize the likelihood of teacher implementation. Friendly Schools project staff also provided teacher training (a six-hour course) for all intervention teachers.

4.1.5 S.S. GRIN (USA)

The Social Skills Group Intervention (S.S.GRIN) was a school-based program that aimed to help children enhance their social skills. S.S.GRIN was designed as a social-skills training intervention for peer-rejected, victimized and socially anxious children. It could be applied to an array of problems that are social in nature (e.g. aggression, low self-esteem, depression, social anxiety, social withdrawal) not just bullying (De Rosier & Marcus, 2005, p. 140). The authors argued that the program went beyond the most common social-skills training (De Rosier & Marcus, 2005, p. 141) by emphasizing the cognitive aspects of relations and emotions. That is, children were not only taught pro-social skills, but they were also taught, on the cognitive level, how to identify negative perceptions and behaviors in an effort to help children to regulate their own emotions as well as enhance their coping skills.

Overall, the program was a combination of social-learning and cognitive-behavioral techniques, used to help children build social skills and positive relationships with peers. It was a highly structured, manualized program (De Rosier, 2004, p. 197) with a number of sessions containing scripts and activities to undertake. Each session included didactic instruction combined with active practice such as role-playing, modeling and hands-on activities (De Rosier, 2004, p. 197). The children participated in group sessions for eight consecutive weeks. Each session lasted approximately an hour. The groups were led by each school's counselor and an intern, who were trained and supervised by one of the program instructors (De Rosier & Marcus, 2005, p. 143).

4.1.6 Dutch Anti-Bullying Program

The anti-bullying initiative in the Netherlands was inspired by the Olweus program (Fekkes et al., 2006, p. 639). The program was specifically designed to tackle bullying behavior by involving teachers, parents and students. It offered a two-day training session for teachers in order to inform them about bullying behavior and to instruct them about how to deal with bullying incidents in schools. During the intervention period, teachers had access to the training staff for additional advice. Intervention schools were supported by an external organization named KPC, which specialized in training school staff and in assisting schools in setting up new curricula and guidelines. The core intervention program included: a) anti-bullying training for teachers; b) a bullying survey; c) anti-bullying rules and a written anti-bullying school policy; d) increased intensity of surveillance; and f) information meetings for parents.

During the intervention, there was careful dissemination of the anti-bullying program to intervention schools. Also, the researchers provided information about the number of intervention and control schools, which have used the above-mentioned elements of intervention. Finally, intervention schools were supplied with the booklet ‘Bullying in schools: how to deal with it’ and with a ‘Bullying Test’, a computerized questionnaire that children could complete anonymously in the classroom.

4.1.7 SPC and CAPSLE Program (USA)

This evaluation compared the effects of two intervention packages with a treatment-as-usual condition (Fonagy et al., 2009). Nine schools were randomly allocated to the two experimental and one control (Treatment As Usual) conditions after a stratified allocation procedure, which was used to stratify schools based on the percentage of low-income students (indicated by students’ free- and reduced-lunch status). In the experimental conditions, the full intervention was offered for two years (the efficacy phase) with a limited third year of intervention (the maintenance phase).

The first experimental condition involved a ‘School Psychiatric Consultation’ (SPC), a manualized protocol that aims to address mental health issues of children with disruptive behavioral problems, internalizing problems, or poor academic performance. SPC was a school-level intervention focused on individual children. Three child psychiatry residents, supervised biweekly by a senior child psychiatrist, delivered mental health consultation following the SPC manual for four hours per week. The psychiatric residents attended weekly school resource meetings and consulted directly with teachers, parents and other school personnel, through classroom observations and meetings, providing 140 consultations for 65 students in year 1 and 97 consultations for 45 students in year 2.

The second experimental condition involved the implementation of CAPSLE (‘Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment’), a manualized psychodynamic approach addressing the co-created relationship between bullies, victims and bystanders. In contrast to SPC, CAPSLE represents a whole-school intervention approach. It aimed to modify the educational and disciplinary school climate. A CAPSLE team drawn from school staff in the pilot project led implementation in the two intervention years using a training manual. In year 1, teachers received a day of group training, students received nine sessions of self-defense training, and the CAPSLE team consulted with school staff monthly. Year 2 started with a school-wide half-day refresher self-defense course, and consultation continued with counselors, teachers and adult/peer mentor programs. In year 3 (the maintenance phase), self-defense training continued as in year 2.

CAPSLE includes several anti-bullying materials that can be used by teachers such as a Teacher Discipline Manual (used in the teacher training), a Student Workbook, Buttons and Magnets and Patches (used as a way of reinforcing of desirable student behavior), Parent Warning Notes (notifying parents about specific problem behavior of the child) as well as anti-bullying videos that can be used during the physical education lessons (and videos that can be used by parents). CAPSLE also includes the Gentle Warrior Program, a 12-week curriculum specifically designed for physical education teachers. For CAPSLE, intervention fidelity was assessed using a teacher self-report measure that required teachers to state the frequency with which various CAPSLE program components were implemented.

4.1.8 Steps to Respect (USA)

The Step to Respect program aimed to tackle bullying by a) increasing staff awareness, b) fostering socially responsible beliefs, and c) teaching social-emotional skills so as to promote healthy relationships (Frey et al., 2005, p. 481). The program included staff and family training manuals, a program guide and lesson-based curricula for third- through sixth-grade classrooms (Hirschstein et al., 2007, p. 7).

Components at a whole-school level consisted of an anti-bullying policy and procedures, staff training and parents meetings, all aiming at sharing understanding of bullying and its consequences and increasing adult awareness, monitoring and involvement. At the classroom level, the proposed activities consisted of teaching friendship skills, emotion regulation skills, identifying types of bullying, teaching prevention strategies and peer group discussion. The aim was to improve peer relations and reduce the risk of victimization, assess level of safety and recognize, report and refuse bullying. At the individual level, students involved in bullying were approached and coached based on the ‘Four-A Responses’: affirm behavior, ask questions, assess immediate safety and act.

The S to R training manual consisted of an instructional session for all school staff and two in-depth training sessions for counselors, administrators and teachers. There were also videos accompanying the program. With regard to staff training, there were two levels of training: all school staff received an overview of the program goals and principal aspects of the program (program guide). Teachers, counselors and administrators received additional training in how to coach students involved in bullying, based on behavioral skills training, cooperative learning and role-playing.

The student curriculum comprised skills and literature-based lessons delivered by third- through sixth-grade teachers during a 12-14 week period. The intervention consisted of 10 semi-scripted skills lessons with topics such as joining groups, distinguishing reporting from tattling and being a responsible bystander.

Finally, with regard to the parent intervention, administrators informed parents about the program and the school's anti-bullying policy and procedures. Parents could also benefit from other resources such as letters provided to them and newsletters describing whole-school anti-bullying activities undertaken at school.

4.1.9 Anti-Bullying Intervention in Australian Secondary Schools

This anti-bullying intervention consisted of several activities that aimed to increase awareness and identification of bullying, to promote empathy for targets of bullying and to provide students with strategies to cope with bullying (Hunt, 2007, p. 22). The intervention was based on an educational anti-bullying program, which was delivered by teachers. There was no specific training for teachers. Information about bullying was provided at parent and teacher meetings. Teacher meetings were held in conjunction with regular staff meetings whilst parent meetings were held after hours. A summary of the information covered at parent meetings was also published in the school newsletter in an attempt to target the wider parent population. Finally, the program includes a two-hour classroom-based discussion of bullying (offered by teachers) using activities from an anti-bullying workbook written by Murphy and Lewers (2000).

4.1.10 Youth Matters (USA)

The Youth Matters program used ‘a curricular and a modified systemic approach to bullying prevention’ (Jenson & Dieterich, 2007, p. 287). The aim of the curriculum was to strengthen peer and school norms against antisocial behaviors by addressing critical issues (issue modules) such as the difference between teasing and bullying, building empathy, risks and norms surrounding aggression and so on. The curriculum also aimed to promote skills (skill modules; structured skills training sessions) that students could use in order to stay safe at school, cope with bullying, enhance their social skills and improve their peer relationships. To address systemic issues associated with bullying, curriculum modules terminated with the development of classroom or school-wide projects, which placed emphasis on the negative consequences of bullying for students.

The curriculum consisted of ten-session modules. Each module included a 30 – 40 page story, the content of which was directly linked to the structured skills training sessions. When looking at the implementation of the program, all curriculum materials were ‘language sensitive’: translated into Spanish for use in the three Spanish-speaking classrooms included in the evaluation. Youth Matters curriculum modules were offered to fourth and fifth graders. According to Jenson and Dieterich (2007, p. 287), grades 4 and 5 were selected ‘based on an appropriate fit between developmental ability and curricula’.

The Youth Matters program was based on a theoretically grounded curriculum. The curriculum was based on theoretical constructs derived from the Social Development Model. The latter integrated perspectives from three theories (i.e. social control theory, social learning theory and differential association theory) and proposed that four factors inhibit the development of anti-social development in children. These were: a) bonding or attachment to family, schools and positive peers; b) belief in the shared values or norms of the above-mentioned social units; c) external constraints or consistent standards against anti-social behavior; and d) social, cognitive and emotional skills that can be seen as protective tools for children to solve problems and perform adequately in social situations. The Youth Matters curriculum addressed each of these four core areas.

4.1.11 KiVa (Finland)

The name of this project is an acronym of the expression ‘Kiusaamista Vastaan’ which means ‘against bullying’. The word ‘kiva’ in Finnish means ‘nice’ and this is why this acronym was chosen for the specific anti-bullying initiative in Finland. Regarding the overall perspective of the program, the KiVa project included a universal and an indicated intervention. The universal intervention referred to efforts made to influence the group norms whilst the indicated intervention referred to the way in which specific cases were handled in schools through individual and group discussions between the teacher and the students involved (Salmivalli et al., 2007, p. 6).

The KiVa program included a large variety of concrete materials for students, teachers and parents. It also utilized the Internet and virtual learning environments (e.g. computer games against bullying) aiming in this way to enhance students’ attitudes against bullying. Also, students received their own personal user ID, which they could use as a password before the completion of each web-based questionnaire on bullying. KiVa included 20-hour student lessons, which were carried out by student teachers. The lessons involved discussions, group work, short films about bullying, and role-playing exercises. After each lesson, a class rule was adopted, based on the central theme of the lesson.

A unique feature of the KiVa program was the use of an anti-bullying computer game. The game involved five levels and the teacher always activated the next level of the game after the relevant lesson was completed. Students were able to begin using the game after the third lesson; the second level of the program was played after the fifth lesson, and so on until the end of the school year. Each level of the computer game included three components that were named as ‘I know’, ‘I can’ and ‘I do’. In the first component, students were informed about basic facts on bullying. In the second component, the ‘I can’-component, students moved around in the virtual school and faced different challenging bullying incidents. Finally, the third component was used to encourage students to make use of their knowledge and skills in real life situations.

Another important element of the KiVa project was the teacher training. Teachers were also provided with vests that they could use during playtime while supervising the school yard. This simple technique aimed to enhance teachers’ visibility in the schoolyard and to signal that bullying was taken seriously in the school. Also, all teachers carrying out the KiVa program could seek advice from a web-based discussion forum, where they could share experiences and ideas about bullying with other colleagues.

Within the school framework, the program also facilitated the use of a peer support group for victims of bullying. The classroom teacher was expected to arrange a group with 2-4 classmates –those who were pro-social and had high status in the class– who were expected to provide support to victimized students, thus sustaining healthy peer relationships. An interesting element in the KiVa program is that it incorporated both punitive and non-blame approaches when dealing with perpetrators of bullying. Half of the school teams were instructed to use more punitive approaches (e.g. ‘what you have done is wrong and it has to stop right now) whilst the rest of the school teams were instructed to use no-blame approaches in their discussions with children (e.g. ‘your classmate is also having a hard time and this is why he behaves like that; what could we do to help him?’). There was also co-operative group work among experts when dealing with children involved in bullying.

Finally, the KiVa program involved parents. A parents’ guide was sent to the home and provided information about bullying and advice on how parents could be involved to reduce this problem. Information nights for parents were also organized and provided.

4.1.12 Behavioral Program for Bullying Boys (South Africa)

This program targeted male youth, from a sub-economic collared suburb, involved in bullying. The program was based on the findings of an in-depth needs assessment within three schools and targeted a specific number of male students aged sixteen who (based on the results of the questionnaire that had been administered) were ‘considered to be a serious threat to the harmonious functioning of everyday school life’ (Meyer & Lesch, 2000, p. 59). The theoretical basis of the program could be found in the Social Interactional Model for the development of aggression (Meyer & Lesch, 2000, p. 61) and involved a behavioral approach for tackling the problem of bullying. The program was implemented by psychology students for ten non-consecutive weeks, with twenty hour-long sessions held twice weekly at the school, during school hours.

The components of the 17-session behavioral program included homework tasks, modeling, self-observation, role-plays, and a token economy system for reinforcing positive behaviors. According to the program designers ‘the chief contingency for behavioral change was the token economy system, using Wonderland Games tokens, chocolates and cinema tickets as rewards for non-bullying behavior’ (Meyer & Lesch, 2000, p. 62). Each participant was monitored by himself and by a ‘buddy’ who was selected in each session prior to the monitoring. Each session included an opportunity for feedback on the students’ progress in the week, a discussion of a relevant applied topic, role-playing, games and drawing. The program designers pointed out the limitations of the intervention strategy. As they indicate (Meyer and Lesch, 2000, p. 67) ‘the program was too short and structured to address the issues that were disclosed in sessions, as the severity of the nature of the aggression in the schools and vast social problems was seriously underestimated’.

4.1.13 Expect Respect (USA)

Expect Respect was a school-based program that aimed to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harassment. The project was developed by Safe Place, the sole provider of comprehensive sexual and domestic violence prevention and intervention services in Austin, Texas (Rosenbluth et al., 2004, p. 211). The program targeted the involvement of all members of the school community in recognizing and responding to bullying and sexual harassment. The overall project design was inspired by the work of Olweus (Rosenbluth et al., 2004, p. 212). Expect Respect consisted of five core program components, namely a classroom curriculum, staff training, policy development, parent education and support services.

The classroom curriculum was based on 12 weekly sessions adapted from a specific manual called ‘Bullyproof: a teachers’ guide on teasing and bullying for use with fourth and fifth grade students’ (Whitaker et al., 2004, p. 330). The Bullyproof curriculum was designed to be taught in conjunction with literature typically read by fourth and fifth graders. Although the anti-bullying curriculum was designed to be implemented by teachers, within the framework of the Expect Respect program, it was jointly led by Safe Place Staff and teachers or school counselors (Whitaker et al., 2004, p. 331). The curriculum aimed to increase the ability and willingness of bystanders to intervene in bullying situations, thus reducing the social acceptability of bullying and sexual harassment. The Bullyproof lessons included writing assignments, role-plays of how to intervene in bullying situations, class discussions and so on.

With regard to the staff training, a six-hour training was provided to project staff, counselors, and fifth grade teachers. The training was given by the author of the specific manual and aimed to prepare school personnel to respond effectively to bullying incidents. In addition, three-hour training sessions were provided once per semester for all personnel, including bus drivers, cafeteria workers, hall monitors and office staff. The training presentation included research on bullying and sexual harassment; strategies to enhance mutual respect among students; practice in using lessons from the curriculum; and methods for integrating the lessons into other subject areas including language arts and health.

School administrators were encouraged to develop an anti-bullying policy (policy development) in their school to ensure consistent responses by all staff members to incidents of bullying and sexual harassment. Principals were expected to present the policy to school staff, students and parents. In order to facilitate the overall procedure of policy development, Expect Respect staff provided an initial policy template to school administrators (Whitaker et al., 2004, p. 332) and each school was encouraged to expand this initial policy in accordance with the specific needs of their unit.

The Expect Respect program also included parent training. Educational presentations were offered to parents twice a year, providing information about the project. The information given to parents through these meetings (as well as through parent newsletters sent home) was aimed at enhancing parents’ strategies to help children involved in bullying as bullies, victims, bully-victims or bystanders.

Further support services were provided such as continuous assistance of school counselors by Safe Place staff. School counselors were given a specialized session on how to deal with students who were repeatedly involved in bullying as either perpetrators or victims. They were also provided with a comprehensive resource manual containing reading and resource materials on bullying, sexual harassment and domestic violence.

4.1.14 Pro-ACT + E Program (Germany)

Pro-ACT + E was a universal, multidimensional program that aimed to prevent bullying in secondary schools (Sprober et al., 2006). It involved a cognitive-behavioral approach to the problem of bullying and victimization by building up pro-social behavior. The program was universal: it did not involve specific work with perpetrators or victims of bullying. However, it included both teacher and parent training and a two-hour classroom discussion with students about violence problems. The program offered curriculum materials that aimed to increase awareness in relation to the problem of bullying and placed emphasis on specific issues such as classroom management and classroom rules against bullying.

4.2.1 Be-Prox Program (Switzerland)

The Be-Prox program was specifically designed to tackle bullying and victimization among kindergarten students. According to Alsaker and Valkanover (2001, pp. 177-178) ‘the somewhat higher adult-children ratio, the interest of preschool teachers in socialization, the greater flexibility as to scheduling and teaching, and the admiration of many preschoolers for their teachers are ideal conditions for the implementation of preventive programs against bully/victim problems’. The basic principle of Be-Prox was to enhance preschool teachers’ capacity to handle bully/victim problems (Alsaker, 2004, p. 291). The program engaged teachers in an intensive focused supervision for approximately four months. Central features of Be-Prox were the emphasis on group discussions, mutual support and co-operation between consultants and teachers and between teachers and parents (Alsaker, 2004, pp. 292-293).

The teacher training was provided in six steps (Alsaker, 2004; figure 15.1, p. 292). Initially, teachers were given information about victimization (step 1) and the implications of this information were discussed (step 2). During the third step specific implementation tasks were introduced and the teachers worked in groups in preparation for the practical implementation (step 4). After this preparation, teachers implemented specific preventive elements in the classroom (step 5) for a specific period of time. After that, teachers met and discussed their experiences of the implementation of the preventive measures (step 6).

In eight meetings over a four-month period, issues related to the prevention of bullying were addressed. The main purpose of the first meeting was sensitization. Teachers were asked to describe any possible bully/victim problems in their schools and were then given information about bullying and other types of aggressive behavior. They were also presented with the main principles of the program. The importance of contact between kindergarten teachers and children's parents was also emphasized and teachers were advised to consider the possibility of organizing a meeting with parents. In the second meeting, the importance of setting limits and rules to preschool children was discussed. Teachers were invited to elaborate some behavior codes in their classroom in collaboration with the children and to be ready to present them during the third meeting. Also, as a second homework task, teachers were asked to organize a parent meeting.

During the third meeting, teachers discussed their experiences of implementing classroom rules against bullying. The main focus of this meeting was the need for consistent teacher behavior, the difference between positive and negative sanctioning and the use of basic learning principles in the classroom. The main focus of the fourth session was on the role and responsibility of children who were not involved in bullying and of bystanders in the prevention of victimization. Teachers were asked to draw some kind of personality profiles of passive and aggressive victims and of bullies and to present them to the rest of the group. After this task, teachers were presented with research findings regarding the characteristics of children who were or were not involved in bullying. As a homework task for the next meeting, teachers were asked to systematically observe non-involved children and to develop some means of involving them in the prevention of victimization.

During the fifth meeting, research-based information about motor development and body awareness among preschool children was presented to teachers. A discussion between teachers and program researchers of children's self-perceptions of strength, of peers’ perceptions of strengths of victims of bullies, and other motor characteristics of children, aimed to yield important insights. The overall discussion and exchange of information among teachers aimed to promote teachers’ understanding about how to change these perceptions within the classroom setting. Specific goals to be achieved within the classroom were clearly set, such as training in empathy and body awareness among children, participation and involvement of non-involved children and talks with all the children about the situation in their kindergarten. During the sixth meeting, time was given to reflect on the goals formulated at the beginning of the prevention program. Teachers were also given time to discuss their experiences with implementing the goals of the fifth meeting within the classroom settings. The last two meetings followed a similar format, with time given for reflection on goals achieved, problems dealt with, and an overall evaluation of the program.

4.2.2 Greek Anti-Bullying Program

The Greek anti-bullying initiative was a four-week intervention program that aimed to minimize both bullying and victimization. The conceptual framework of the Greek anti-bullying program was based on the theoretical model proposed by Salmivalli in 1999 (Andreou et al., 2007, p. 696), according to which changing an individual's behavior (e.g. the bully's behavior) entailed motivating not only the particular person but also the rest of the group members (participant roles’ approach).

The program was embedded within the wider curriculum of the fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade classrooms and consisted of eight instructional hours, each hour corresponding to one curricular activity. The curricular activities were presented to students by their classroom teachers who received training beforehand. The teacher training consisted of five 4-hour meetings and aimed to increase awareness of the bullying problem and its seriousness as well as to raise teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing the program (Andreou et al., 2007, p. 697).

The Greek anti-bullying curriculum was divided into three parts in accordance with the three main theoretical axes proposed by Salmivalli in 1999, namely: a) awareness-raising; b) self-reflection; and c) commitment to new behaviors (Andreou et al., 2007, pp. 697-698).

In line with the first axis (awareness-raising), small-group and whole-class discussions were conducted (over three instructional hours) that aimed to increase students’ awareness of the bullying problem. Corresponding materials included a real snap-shot from the playground, a story entitled ‘A new friend’ and students’ own drawings. In line with the second theoretical axis (self-reflection), two instructional hours involving classroom discussions were conducted. These discussions placed emphasis on the participant roles that students took in the bullying process. Corresponding materials involved each student's completion of open-ended sentences. Through this activity students were intended to reflect on critical issues around the causes, benefits, feelings, and consequences of adopting different roles. In line with the final axis (commitment to new behaviors), three instructional hours of small-group and whole-class discussions were conducted concerning different ways of approaching or solving the peer-conflict situation and the formulation of class rules. Corresponding materials involved an open-ended comic-strip for group completion to find a solution to the bullying situation presented in the relevant story.

4.2.3 Seattle Trial of the Olweus Program (USA)

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) was implemented and evaluated in a non-randomized controlled trial in a cohort of ten Seattle middle schools (Bauer et al., 2007, p. 267). The overall program was in absolute concordance with the Olweus program and aimed at improving peer relations and promoting a safe and positive school environment by addressing and tackling the problem of bullying.

Intervention schools received consultation by district trainers prior to implementation. The program components corresponded to several levels of intervention such as the whole-school level, the classroom level, the individual level and the community level. At the school level, the program started with an ‘official start date’ during which a school assembly took place aiming to present the overall program to students, introduce the basic concepts and raise enthusiasm among students. The core components of the program at the school level also included a coordinating committee, the members of which were responsible for the initial planning and oversight of the implementation of the intervention. Regular staff discussions were also organized with the goal of fostering collaboration in implementation efforts. School anti-bullying rules were presented to students that set clear guidelines about the students’ behavior that was expected within the school. School surveillance was a crucial element of the anti-bullying program. Tracking and identifying ‘hot spots’ of bullying was crucial in reducing the percentage of bullying incidents whilst continuous surveillance on behalf of the teachers involved constant reminders that bullying was an unacceptable form of behavior in the school. Teachers in the intervention schools received teacher training.

The program aimed to raise awareness of the problem of bullying among the parents and the overall community as well. Involving parents and the overall community was an important element of the program since students’ behavior could not be seen as fragmented: socially acceptable forms of behavior should be positively reinforced within and outside the school community.

4.2.4 Dare to Care; Bully Proofing Your School Program (Canada)

‘Dare to Care; Bully Proofing Your School’ was a modification of the ‘Bully Proofing Your School’ program (Beran et al., 2004, p. 103), which in turn was modeled on the Olweus Program. This anti-bullying program placed emphasis on clinical support to victims and perpetrators of bullying in the form of individual and group counseling. It also enabled collaboration with community services. The essence of the program was to encourage accountability for creating solutions among all parties involved in the education system (Beran et al., 2004, p. 104).

The program included several steps. Program facilitators provided to school personnel information and training on issues related to bullying in schools (in a full-day professional development workshop). This workshop aimed to ensure that the program principles would be reflected in the overall curriculum and would be sustained over time. Information was also given to parents. Then, students, parents and school staff collaborated in the development of a school anti-bullying policy. This policy had the aim of identifying caring and aggressive behaviors and consequences of those behaviors, but with a focus on reparation rather than punishment. The anti-bullying policy was posted throughout the school. Finally, the program involved the implementation, on behalf of the teachers, of a classroom curriculum that educated children about the nature of bullying and strategies to avoid victimization. The curriculum included discussion, role-plays, artwork, books, videos and skits presented to school staff, parents and other children.

4.2.5 Progetto Pontassieve (Italy)

The program was delivered in a period of three years, and it consisted of two main parts. During the first two years it was delivered more at the school level whereas the third year was more at the class and individual level (Ciucci & Smorti, 1998). During the first year a training course for teachers took place addressing psychosocial risks for children and bully-victim problems. At the end of the training, a study was conducted to reveal how serious the problem of bullying was and what its characteristics were. The second year of the intervention included a counseling service for each individual who was affected by bullying.

The intervention took place in the third year and was based on the use of two different methods: Quality Circles, where pupils had to cooperate to find practical solutions to their problems, with the use of the Interpersonal Process Recall which consisted of the recording of one Quality Circle and discussion about it. The other method used was Role Playing conducted in small groups with subsequent class discussions, which helped students to examine possible strategies to face and overtake bullying problems. The aims of both of these methods were to make students aware that they could intervene in an efficient way to reduce bullying. Transtheoretical-based Tailored Anti-bullying Program (USA)

This anti-bullying initiative involved ‘transtheoretical-based tailored programs that provided individualized and interactive computer interventions to populations of middle and high school students involved in bullying as bullies, victims and/or passive bystanders’ (Evers et al., 2007, p. 398). The intervention involved only three 30-minute computer sessions during the school year for the students and a 10-page manual for staff and parents with optional activities. According to the program designers, the transtheoretical model is ‘a theory of behavior change that applies particular change processes like decision-making and reinforcement to help individuals progress at particular stages of change’ (Evers et al., 2007, p. 398).

Intervention materials included the ‘Build Respect, Stop Bullying’ program, which is a multi-component, internet-based computer system (Evers et al., 2007, p. 402). Students initiated the program by running a multimedia CD which brought them to the program website. Students could use the program by creating a login name based on personal information and a password. Once the students registered for the program, logged in and consented to be involved in the intervention study, they were given instructions on how to proceed. This multi-media program also included short movies (videos) of students giving testimonials about bullying (Evers et al., 2007, p. 403).

Other elements of the program included: a) a 10-page family guide, sent to children's homes, which provided brief information about the multi-media program and its relation to the anti-bullying initiative; and b) a 10-page staff guide, which included general information about bullying and how to support student change, classroom activities and information on how to work with parents. Teachers were not provided with any training.

4.2.6 Social Skills Training (SST) Program (England)

Social Skills Training was a program specifically designed to support ‘chronic victims’ of bullying (Fox and Boulton, 2003, p. 237). The general aim of the program was to help children improve their social skills, therefore reducing a child's individual risk of victimization (Fox and Boulton, 2003, p. 234). The program involved an eight-week course during which children learnt how to use both problem-solving and relaxation skills, how to think positively, how to modify their non-verbal behavior and how to use some verbal strategies such as ‘fogging’ and ‘mirroring’ (Fox and Boulton, 2003, p. 235).

During the program, victims of bullying were gathered in groups of five to ten and were exposed to the aims of the program for one hour per week. Two trainers delivered the one-hour sessions throughout the program. The first week was dedicated to children introducing each other and listening to each other's problem. The next two sessions dealt with issues of friendship and aimed to help children form strong friendships (e.g. having conversations; asking to join in), whilst the fourth session dealt with issues of body language: teaching children how to modify their non-verbal behavior in a way that would protect them from being victimized. During the fifth session children learned how to be assertive whilst in the next two sessions children were taught how to deal with the bully. The eighth session signaled the end of the program.

4.2.7 Stare bene a scuola: Progetto di prevenzione del bullismo (Italy)

This intervention was based on the curriculum activities and the whole-school approach because it tried to involve all people in a school (Gini et al., 2003). The program was delivered to 6 schools and included several activities. Teachers were first trained in three days on ‘cooperative learning’ and in particular on the Jigsaw technique. Teachers then had an on-going supervision once every fifteen days. The intervention in the class lasted 4 months with two meetings a week. The intervention was directed towards the following areas: a) awareness of the body and what it feels; b) emotional awareness; and c) bullying awareness. These areas were dealt with in each of the sessions, starting from the first one. For each thematic area, several activities were conducted and several methods were used.

4.2.8 ViSC Training Program (Germany) ²

The Viennese Social Competence Training program aimed to provide students ‘with systematic theoretically-based guidance in becoming responsible and competent actors in conflict situations’ (Atria and Spiel, 2007, p. 179). It was specifically designed for disadvantaged adolescents aged fifteen to nineteen who were considered at risk for future problems (Atria & Spiel, 2007, p. 179). The theoretical basis of the programs drew its main ideas from social information processing theory and from research that approached the problem of bullying as a group phenomenon (Gollwitzer et al, 2006, p. 126).

The ViSC program consisted of thirteen lessons which were divided into three phases: a) impulses and group dynamics; b) reflection; and c) action. The first phase, entitled ‘impulses and group dynamics’, consisted of six lessons and the main aim was to enhance students’ competence in dealing with critical situations by teaching them how to look at social situations from different perspectives using vignette stories, discussions and role-plays. The second phase, reflection, involved one lesson during which pupils reflected on what had been learned in the first phase of the program. The last phase, action, consisted of six lessons during which the trainer asked students to define how they wanted to benefit from the remaining lessons. The trainer collected students’ individual ideas, evaluated them and –along with the students– put them in practice in alignment with the global goal of the program: enhancing pupils’ social competence. The third phase of the program was flexible and it could involve several projects suggested by pupils such as a movie production, a work of art, the organization of a party, and so on. This flexibility was allowed and was, in fact, a main feature of ViSC because organizing such projects ‘involves a variety of critical situations, in which alternative, non-aggressive response options can be probed, rehearsed, and evaluated for success’ (Gollwitzer et al, 2006, p. 126).

Based on the design of the program, the training of students was conducted by trainers other than their teachers. The trainers participated in instruction workshops and were also supervised during the training by the ViSC developers’ team at the University of Vienna (Gollwitzer et al, 2006, p. 127). According to the principles of the program, it was essential for the trainer to avoid receiving any information about individual students offered by teachers; students’ assessments should be based on standardized diagnostic measures (Atria and Spiel, 2007, p. 184). Moreover, the training was conducted during regular class time and teachers were advised to attend the lessons, so that the program was taken seriously by the students. ViSC has been implemented and evaluated three times: by Gollwitzer (2005), by Atria and Spiel (2007) and by Gollwitzer et al. (2006).

4.2.9 Granada Anti-bullying Program (Spain)

This program was a pilot anti-bullying program with the following aims: a) to establish children's involvement in bullying within different participant roles/categories; b) to reduce the number of students involved in the phenomenon as bullies, victims and bully-victims; c) to increase the number of students who are categorized as non-involved in bullying, through the enhancement of pro-social skills; and d) to identify the threats to fidelity of the program and establish the validity of the pilot program with the possibility of replicating it in future (Martin et al., 2005, p. 376). Forty-nine sixth graders from one Spanish primary school in Granada participated in the program.

The program designers gathered information about the social, educational and economic background of the school, of the students’ families and the community in general. That was done during 3 meetings/seminars of three hours each. Parents, teachers and members of the educational team attended those meetings. Through these meetings, it was established that the program should target interpersonal relationships of the children. It was decided that the program would be curriculum-based as part of the normal program of the school. It was decided that the program would be implemented by one of the researchers because the teachers did not have enough qualifications to do it and because of lack of time and resources for teacher training. Parents and teachers were provided with information about bullying [a dossier/file] that they could use to discuss the problem of bullying with children. Also, teachers could attend the intervention program so that later they would be able to implement it by themselves. Parents were invited to attend some talks on bullying that would be given by the implementation team so that the program could be continued outside the school. The program was implemented for five months at the classroom level (30 sessions; 3 sessions per week with one tutor, i.e. one of the evaluators).

During the first 5 sessions, the tutor informed the children about peer bullying. Topics covered in the first 5 sessions involved issues such as concept of bullying, types of bullying, how to identify it, individual and group differences in bullying, and classroom rules against bullying. From the 6th to the 21st sessions, the program emphasis was on the emotional and social abilities of the children. Several topics were covered such as: identification and expression of emotions during bullying situations; communication abilities; ability to pose questions; ability of children to give and receive complements and complaints; ability to say no in life; ability to ask for a change of behavior; and ability to solve interpersonal problems. From the 17th to the 21st sessions, the program placed emphasis on mediation.

From the 22nd to the 25th sessions, the program emphasis was on human rights. Several topics were covered such as: freedom and equality, respect of private life, respect for other people's belongings, and respect for others’ opinions. Similarly, from the 26th to 30th sessions, the emphasis was on moral education. During the whole program (sessions 1 – 30), there was also an emphasis on the inhibition of impulsivity and enhancement of reflexivity. For the enhancement of reflexivity, the program designers used a specific program called ‘Programa de Intervencion para Aumentar la Attention y la Reflixividad’ [PIAAR] developed by Gargallo (2000; see Martin et al., 2005, p. 378). This focuses on cognitive techniques that aim to inhibit impulsivity and enhance self-control. The program also included role-playing, peer mediation, guided discussion, brainstorming, and drawings.

The authors acknowledge several problems with the implementation of the program such as: little involvement by parents and teachers; implementation of the program lessons during recess time or during the physical education program; lack of time to cover all the topics; no second follow-up because of difficulties of following the children; problems with the size and selection of the sample; the instrument they used; and possible contamination of results because of the way they categorized the children (Martin et al., 2005, p. 382). These pitfalls could easily be spotted. For example, the evaluators indicate that they implemented the program with the most aggressive sixth graders who had the worst interpersonal problems (Martin et al., 2005, p. 738). This made it difficult to know whether any changes in bullying in the experimental condition were attributable to the effectiveness of the program or to regression to the mean. Also, even though they distributed a self-report questionnaire, they categorized children based on those questionnaires only after teachers’ suggestions.

4.2.10 South Carolina Program (USA)

This program involved the implementation of the OBPP in South Carolina schools. It was a comprehensive school-based anti-bullying program essentially inspired by the Norwegian model (Melton et al., 1998, p.72; p. 74) and aimed to target bullying at the school, classroom, individual and community levels.

In accordance with the OBPP, the South Carolina program included a school-wide intervention. In each school, coordinating committees planned and guided the school's anti-bullying initiative throughout the various phases of the project. The committees consisted of school psychologists or counselors and representative teachers, students and parents. In each school, a survey was conducted prior to the implementation of the program, which aimed to assess the nature and extent of bullying problems in the school. The survey results were presented during a school conference day that aimed to increase students’ awareness about this problem. There were school-wide events to launch the program. Another element of the program at the school level included teacher surveillance in order to track down ‘hot-spots’ of bullying.

At the classroom level, core elements of the program included the formulation of clear anti-bullying rules, the use of consistent sanctions for violating the rules, the use of consistent praise of pro-social behavior by teachers and the scheduling of regular classroom meetings or discussions during which teachers and peers discussed issues related to bullying in their school. Teachers had a wide variety of materials that they could use in the classroom such as videos and classroom materials, a teachers’ guide, and program newsletters that they could consult (‘Bully-Free Times’).

At the individual level, interventions included discussions with bullies and their parents and the development of safety plans for chronic victims of bullying. Informational newsletters for parents were also provided. At the community level, an effort was made to involve community members in the anti-bullying initiative by a) making the program known among a wide range of residents in the local community; b) engaging community members in the school's anti-bullying activities and c) engaging community members, students and school personnel in anti-bullying efforts within the community (e.g. by introducing program elements into summer church school classes).

Other elements of the program included the involvement of school-based mental health professionals to assist the development of individual interventions with children who were frequently involved in bullying as perpetrators or victims, the development of American versions of several materials used in the OBPP and the development of additional materials for teachers and other school staff such as teachers’ guide books and teachers’ newsletters.

4.2.11 Bully-Proofing Your School (USA)

‘Bully-Proofing Your School’ (BPYS) was a comprehensive, school-based intervention program for the prevention of bullying, with three major components: a) Heightened awareness of the problem of bullying, involving a questionnaire to measure the extent of bullying and the creation of classroom rules related to zero tolerance for bullying; b) Teaching students protective skills for dealing with bullying, resistance to victimization and providing assistance to potential victims by teaching assertiveness skills; and c) Creation of a positive school climate where students were encouraged to work as positive and supportive bystanders (Menard et al., 2008, p. 7). The primary targets of BPYS were elementary and middle school students. School staff were involved as both secondary targets of intervention (since changes in their behavior was a requirement for the construction of a positive anti-bullying school environment) and as agents delivering the intervention to students. Teachers were given information and strategies that they could use while delivering the intervention.

The intervention in the classes consisted of a classroom curriculum, which included seven sessions of approximately 30-40 minutes. Each session was delivered by a teacher or by mental health staff. After completion of the classroom curriculum materials, teachers were encouraged to hold weekly classroom meetings during which students could be helped to reflect on their behaviors. Parents were offered information through newsletters. Individual parents of students involved in bullying as either perpetrators or victims were given consultation. The complete BPYS program ran over a period of three years. The first year was devoted to implementing the full curriculum and the following two years were intended to reinforce all the activities delivered in the first year.

4.2.12 Befriending Intervention Program (Italy)

Befriending intervention was an anti-bullying program that relied mainly on a peer support model. The overall aims of the program were: a) to reduce bullying episodes through developing in bullies an awareness of their own and others’ behavior; b) to enhance children's capacity to offer support to the victims of bullying; c) to enhance responsibility and involvement on the part of bystanders; and d) to improve the quality of interpersonal relationships in the class group (Menesini et al, 2003, p. 1).

The anti-bullying intervention was offered in five steps (Menesini et al, 2003, p. 5). During the first phase, which targeted the class level (class intervention), several activities were offered aiming to increase children's awareness of pro-social and helping behaviors and to promote positive attitudes towards others. Through work at the class level, the school authorities sensitized and prepared the whole-school population for the new service that the school unit was about to implement. In this way, another goal was achieved, namely developing values and attitudes toward ‘peer support activities’ in the whole-school population.

During the second phase of the program, the ‘peer supporters’ were selected. Approximately three to four supporters were allocated in each classroom and were selected based on a combination of techniques, such as self- and peer-nominations. These children were then trained in special full-day sessions or in regular meetings during school time (phase three) so that they knew how to deal with other children and how to facilitate interactions amongst other children. Teachers and other professionals (psychologists and social workers) took part in these sessions as well. The overall aim of this phase of the anti-bullying program was to help peer supporters to enhance their listening and communication skills since they would be the mediators in the interactions among children.

During the fourth phase of the program, peer supporters worked in their classes with the assistance and close monitoring of their teachers. The teachers in each class organized ‘circle meetings’ during which the needs of specific children involved in bullying (target children) were identified. Target children were contacted and, after their consent and cooperation, were offered help by the peer supporters. Peer supporters were not only assigned to specific tasks involving the target children but were also supervised by the teachers so that they were given constant feedback on their on-going work in the class.

During the final phase of the Befriending Intervention, the leading group of peer supporters was involved in training other children in the class, so that more children could be involved in the program (in the transmission of training and passing on the roles).

4.2.13 Toronto Anti-bullying Program (Canada)

The Toronto anti-bullying program was inspired by the OBPP (Pepler et al., 2004, p. 125). It was based on the understanding that bullying is a problem that extends far beyond the individual children; it involved the peer group and the teachers, as well as the parents of children (Pepler et al., 2004, p. 127). The program included several preventive elements implemented at the school, parent and classroom levels, as well as additional work with specific students involved in bullying as perpetrators or victims.

The level of implementation of the program varied across the intervention schools. However, in all intervention schools three critical elements were found: staff training, codes of behavior and improved playground supervision. At the school level an emphasis was placed on developing a positive code of behavior among students, engaging teachers and promoting positive playground interactions. At the parent level, information nights were held during which parents were informed about the problem of bullying in their school. Also, information about the program and its objectives was sent home. At the classroom level, children were involved in developing classroom rules against bullying. Further classroom activities aimed to change students’ attitudes and to promote healthy relationships among peers. At the individual level, children involved in bullying as perpetrators or victims received specialized intervention through consultation and though engaging their parents. Follow-up monitoring of these cases helped school authorities to establish that bullying incidents were terminated or discontinued.

4.2.14 Ecological Anti-bullying Program (Canada)

The Ecological Anti-bullying program examined peer group and school environment processes ‘utilizing a systemic interactional model with evaluations at each level of intervention’ (Rahey & Craig, 2002, p. 283). The overall aim of the program was the creation of a supportive and safe school environment in which firm limits against bullying were established. The specific goals of the program included raising awareness of the problem of bullying, increasing empathy, encouraging peers to speak against bullying and formulating clear rules against bullying.

The 12-week program was based on the ‘Bully Proofing Your School’ (BPYS) program which was designed to increase the understanding of bullying and decrease the incidence of bullying (Rahey & Craig, 2002, p. 285). The program elements included a psycho-educational component implemented within each classroom, a peer mediation component and specialized groups for children involved in bullying.

At the school-wide level, the psycho-educational program was implemented by psychology students who received training sessions and manuals prior to intervention. Prior to the program, at a school assembly the program was introduced to students. The assembly signaled the formal beginning of the intervention. The classroom programs involved interactive educational approaches such as role playing and puppet techniques. The topics addressed were bullying and victimization, conflict resolution, empathy, listening skills and individual differences (Rahey & Craig, 2002, p. 286).

Individual programs for children involved in bullying were also part of the intervention. The relevant sessions consisted of social skills, listening, empathy training and supportive counseling. Each weekly session lasted 45 minutes. The program also included intervention at the teacher level. Teacher programs consisted of meetings with teachers to discuss bullying, intervention approaches, and student support for those directly involved in bullying. During the intervention, the program coordinators met with principals and teachers to offer support.

4.2.15 Short Intensive Intervention in Czechoslovakia

The anti-bullying intervention in Czechoslovakia was inspired by the OBPP and borrowed elements from it, such as the Olweus videocassette on bullying (Rican et al., 1996, p. 399). The Olweus bullying questionnaire was used to measure several aspects of bullying within the schools. A peer nomination technique was also used to identify bully and victim scores. The relevant results from both measurement scales were presented to teachers in the intervention schools to increase awareness of the problem of bullying. The program researchers discussed with the teachers ‘possibilities of an individual approach to the bullies as well as to the victims’ (Rican et al., 1996, p. 399).

As another intervention element, teachers were instructed to introduce relevant ethical aspects into the curriculum where possible: the ideal of knighthood was suggested for history classes and the ideal of consideration for the weak was introduced in sentences used for dictation and analysis (Rican et al., 1996, p. 400). Another element of the intervention involved the use of a method called ‘class charter’. Specifically, children were asked to indicate how they would like their teachers and other classmates to behave towards them as well as how students should behave towards teachers and among themselves. The final aim of this classroom activity was the construction of a set of rules and principles, which was then signed by all pupils in the classroom and placed there in a visible position. Finally, the Olweus videocassette on bullying was shown to children and was used as a means of promoting the anti-bullying idea in the school.

4.3.1 Norwegian Anti-bullying Program

This anti-bullying initiative was based on a pilot study conducted in primary schools in a town in the South of Norway. Based on the theoretical perspective of the program, teachers’ professional development is a crucial factor affecting the quality of school life for both school staff and students. Teachers are constantly called to deal with child problem behavior. Thus, it was argued that ‘investing’ in teachers’ professional development and helping teachers enhance their coping skills and tactics, could be very productive in reducing children's anti-social behavior, including bullying. As Galloway and Roland (2004, p. 45) put it ‘the implications for the argument presented above are that attempts to reduce bullying can, and should, form an integral part of wider ranging attempts to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Teachers should perceive an anti-bullying initiative as assisting them in their core work, from which they derive their job satisfaction and for which they are rightly held accountable’.

The core element of the intervention within this program was teacher training, which consisted of four in-service days over a nine-month period. A handout summarizing the content of the course was distributed to teachers in each meeting. In addition, the program included 15 two-hour peer supervision sessions, the aim of which was to give teachers the opportunity to discuss the practical implications of the theoretical concepts introduced in the in-service days.

4.3.2 B.E.S.T-Bullying Eliminated from Schools Together (USA)

BEST was implemented in one K-12 developmental research school in Northern Florida. It is based on the Kia Kaha anti-bullying program (see later), although it is different in many ways. The evaluation of the program was based on data from 7th graders. BEST is a complex alteration of the Kia Kaha, having foundations within social cognitive theory and social competence theory (Kaiser-Ulrey, 2003, pp. 18 –19). The program was implemented by four school teachers (as opposed to the Kia Kaha program which was primarily implemented by Police Officers). The 12-week program ran twice per week in concordance with the established curriculum, with activity sessions lasting no longer than 45 minutes per session.

BEST was divided into four modules with three activity pods per module. The program placed emphasis on social problem solving techniques, awareness raising and rules against bullying, and included teacher training and a teacher manual along with a student evaluation form. The program also included a parent evaluation form along with parent information, sent home to inform parents, accompanied by contact information for the researcher in the event that they should have any questions (Kaiser-Ulrey, 2003, p. 84). Detentions (e.g. a suspension of one day) and conferences were given to students who committed bullying-related behaviors (Kaiser-Ulrey, 2003, p. 93). In the initial Kia Kaha program, researchers could make use of anti-bullying videos that were specific to the Maori culture. Alteration of these videos, in order to make them compatible with the American culture, was unsuccessful. Instead, the teachers made use of scenarios/stories that they could incorporate in the anti-bullying sessions.

4.3.3 SAVE (Spain)

The SAVE anti-bullying program in Seville was based on an educational model which placed emphasis on an ecological approach to analyzing bullying and violence in general (Ortega et al., 2004, p. 169). The model proposed the design of an educational project regarding interpersonal relationships based on the dimension of convivencia (coexistence) and on the dimension of activity. The theoretical notion of convivencia signaled the spirit of solidarity, fraternity, cooperation, harmony and a desire for mutual understanding, the desire to get on well with others and the resolution of conflict through dialogue and other non-violent ways (Ortega et al., 2004, p. 169).

Three processes were relevant to the design of the SAVE program, namely: a) management of the social environment and of the ways in which children interact; b) the specific method of instructive action; and c) activities that were geared towards feelings and values of education (Ortega et al., 2004, p. 170).

The program was based on the principle of democratic management of interpersonal relationships in which teachers, without losing their authority, gave students the opportunity to have an active and participative role in decision-making. Co-operative group work was another element of the intervention. The program included direct intervention work with students at risk or involved in bullying. For these children a variety of additional preventive measures were offered such as quality circles, conflict mediation, peer support, the Pikas Method, assertiveness and empathy training (Ortega et al., 2004, p. 172). Finally, the program included training sessions for teachers and work with families but the extent to which these were implemented varied across schools (Ortega et al., 2004, p. 176).

4.3.4 Kia Kaha (New Zealand)

Kia Kaha was designed as an anti-bullying program, but it also met the requirements of two essential areas within the curriculum framework: social sciences and health/physical well-being (Raskauskas, 2007, p. 10). The program involved a whole-school approach to tackling bullying and victimization. In the Maori language the word ‘kia kaha’ means to stand strong, which is why this name was used ‘to represent the need for the whole-school community to stand strong to prevent bullying’ (Raskauskas, 2007, p. 9). The program covered issues such as peer relationships, identifying and dealing with bullying, making personal choices, developing feelings of self-worth, respecting differences and working co-operatively to build a safe classroom environment.

The Kia Kaha curriculum used several resources, including a teachers’ guide, with an overview of the program, instructions on how to plan and implement the lessons, a video and information to be sent home to parents. The video included five bullying situations that provided the basis for discussing both on what was happening and what could be done. Students were taught to take steps to defuse bullying situations: Stop, Think, Consider Options, Act, and Follow-up. The student and teacher components were delivered through the regular classroom curriculum.

Police Education Officers (PEOs) are trained as educators and are involved in youth education in New Zealand. PEOs visited schools and introduced the programs offered by the police, including Kia Kaha. PEOs introduced and tried to convince principals to use the whole-school approach in their schools. They also trained the teachers in the program, hosted parent nights and taught up to four lessons of the curriculum.

4.4.1 Respect Program (Norway)

Respect, previously running under the name Connect, was a program that aimed to tackle different types of child problem behavior, such as disobedience, off-task behavior, bullying and aggression. The program was implemented in both primary and secondary schools. The Respect program worked on the system level by including all school personnel, pupils and parents in an attempt ‘to improve the quality of the school at the individual, at the class and at the school levels’ (Ertesvag & Vaaland, 2007, p. 714). The program was based on four basic principles (Ertesvag & Vaaland, 2007, p. 716): a) Adults were expected to act as sources of authority. This involved an authoritative approach that aimed to create a warm and caring environment; b) The program was broad-based involving all persons in the school and intervening at all levels (individual, classroom and school level); c) Adults should act consistently in order to ensure that they made an impact on student behavior; and d) the program was based on the notion of continuity, which implied a long-term commitment to the previous three principles.

Within the program framework, teachers and school management staff participated in series of seminars. The staff training sessions introduced the basic principles of the program and practical approaches to the prevention of child problem behavior along with some illustrative examples. A two-day seminar for schools’ management and other key school personnel was run in advance of the implementation period. Within each school, a one-day workshop took place with the main goal of ensuring that the school staff understood their own school's implementation process. Other short-term training sessions took place during the intervention period (Ertesvag & Vaaland, 2007, p. 718). Within each school, a project group shared day-to-day responsibility for implementing the program. Among the different intervention schools, a network was established with the aim of discussing knowledge, experiences and challenges related to program implementation.

Finally, there were four main strategies in the implementation of the program, namely a) having a whole-school approach to the problem of bullying; b) using an authoritative approach to classroom leadership; c) choosing the right timing of the intervention and, finally, d) commitment to the principles of the program.

4.4.2 Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, OBPP (Norway)

The OBPP was a multi-level program aiming at targeting the individual, the school, the classroom and the community level. Apart from marked mass-media publicity, the program started with a one-day school conference during which the problem of bullying was addressed between school staff, students and parents. This signaled the formal commencement of the intervention. Two different types of materials were produced: a handbook or manual for teachers (entitled ‘Olweus’ core program against bullying and antisocial behavior’) and a folder with information for parents and families. The program also included: a) CD-program that was used for assessing and analyzing the data obtained at the pre-test period, so that school-specific interventions could then be implemented; b) a video on bullying; c) the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire and d) the book ‘Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do’.

The anti-bullying measures mainly targeted three different levels of intervention: the school, the classroom and the individual. At the school level, the intervention included:

Meetings among teachers to discuss ways of improving peer-relations; staff discussion groups.

At the individual level the intervention included:

Talks with bullies and their parents and enforcement of non-hostile, non-physical sanctions.

An interesting feature of the OBPP is that it offered guided information about what schools should do at both the intervention and the maintenance period. ‘The Olweus program demands significant commitment from the school during the “introductory period” which covers a period of about 18 months. Later the methodology acquired by the staff and the routines decided by the school may be maintained using less resources … Yet, even for the maintenance period, the program offers a point-by-point description of what the school should do to continue its work against bullying in accordance with Olweus methodology (Olweus, 2004c, p. 1). Also, at the school level training was offered to the whole-school staff, with additional training provided to the coordinators and key personnel. These were responsible for coordinating the overall anti-bullying initiative in their school. The program also included cooperation among experts and teachers (e.g. psychologists) who worked with children involved in bullying.

4.4.3 Donegal Anti-bullying Program (Ireland)

The Donegal anti-bullying program in Ireland was implemented in the county of Donegal. Of the 100 primary schools in the county, 42 were involved, but data from 22 schools were included in the evaluation of the program. The Donegal program was inspired by the Norwegian anti-bullying initiative (O’Moore & Minton, 2004, p. 277) and is based on four elements: a)

Training of a network of professionals: Eleven teachers were trained through a program of workshops, to provide further training and support for staff, students and parents in the intervention schools.

4.4.4 Chula Vista Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (USA)

With funding from the California Department of Education and the Office of the Attorney General of California, three elementary schools of the city of Chula Vista implemented the OBPP (Pagliocca et al., 2007). The OBPP is described above and the description will not be repeated in detail here.

In the early stages of planning for the OBPP, each school appointed a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee, with several members such as: the principal; teachers; parents; students; a school counselor; a psychologist or social worker; other non-teaching school staff (e.g. a librarian); a Family Resource Coordinator; and a police department person. Each of the BPCCs was provided with a two-day training by a certified trainer of the OBPP. A full day of training in the Olweus model for teachers and other school staff was also provided. Parents were also provided with written materials in English or Spanish as appropriate. Arrangements were also made by all three schools to provide face-to-face presentation of the OBPP information to parents. Schools’ anti-bullying rules were publicized at the community level by posting of them off school grounds at local stores frequented by parents and students.

The evaluation relied on a number of sources of information related to the operation of the OBPP in the Chula Vista schools such as:

Key Informant Survey and Interview

A total of nine Key Informants participated in this component of the evaluation of the program. Four were representatives from the school district, three were from the Family Resources Centers affiliated with the participating schools, and two were from the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD). The Key Informants were asked to answer questions about their role in the OBPP, the training received by the school staff, the materials used by the project, and the implementation of the core components of the OBPP.

4.4.5 Finnish Anti-Bullying program

The Finnish anti-bullying program in Helsinki and Turku used a participant role approach to bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2005, p. 467). In agreement with this approach to bullying, three steps in curriculum-based preventive work involved: a) raising awareness of the issue of bullying; b) encouraging students’ self-reflection on their own behavior; and c) commitment to anti-bullying behaviors (Salmivalli et al., 2007, pp. 467-468).

The core element of the intervention involved a one-year teacher training. This training was provided in four sessions/meetings carried out throughout the school year. During the training teachers were given feedback about the situation in their own classes (based on the results of the pre-intervention data) and information about alternative methods of intervening to prevent bullying at the individual, class and school level. Also, teachers were offered advice about individual cases that they found difficult to deal with. During the training, teachers were provided with anti-bullying materials that they could use along with the formal curriculum activities or materials. These materials involved, for example, overhead transparencies and suggestions for discussions as well as role-playing exercises developed by a group of drama teachers, ‘Theatre in Education’. For interventions at the individual level, teachers were presented with several methods that they could use individually with specific children involved in bullying, such as the method of ‘Shared Concern’, the ‘No Blame’ approach and the Farsta method (Salmivalli et al., 2007, p. 471). Regardless of the method used, the role of systematic follow-ups after the initial work was strongly emphasized. At the school level, teachers were encouraged to take the anti-bullying message to their school and to promote the process of developing a whole-school anti-bullying policy.

4.4.6 Sheffield Anti-Bullying program (England)

The Sheffield anti-bullying initiative offered a marked variety of materials that teachers could use to address the problem of bullying. These materials were based on existing knowledge and ideas, but not on a systematic evaluation of the effects and relative success of different interventions (Smith, 1997, p. 194). The core intervention was based on a whole-school policy on bullying (Smith, 1997, p. 195). Schools were given a choice of additional interventions covering: a) curriculum work (e.g. video, drama, literature, quality circles); b) playground interventions (e.g. surveillance, training lunchtime supervisors in recognizing bullying, improving the playground environment); c) working with individuals and small groups (e.g. peer counseling, assertiveness training for victims, the Pikas method).

Curriculum-based strategies included a variety of materials and activities that aimed to increase children's awareness of the problem of bullying. A video entitled ‘Sticks and Stones’ could be used by teachers. The film showed interviews with students, a scenario depicting bullying episodes and clips from the operation of a bully-court (Smith et al., 2004, p. 102). The video came with a manual containing ideas on how to start a discussion, use drama and engage students in creative writing activities. To deal with racial issues another video was available, entitled ‘White Lies’, which specifically addressed issues of racial bullying. A drama, entitled ‘Only playing Miss’ aimed to address issues related to harassing behaviors. A novel, entitled ‘The Heartstone Odyssey’, gave teachers the chance to address through literature the issue of bullying. This was a story for primary students, which tackled the issues of racial harassment and bullying. The use of quality circles was also part of the curriculum-based anti-bullying strategies. They consisted of a group of students who met together to identify and address problems related to bullying, to find effective solutions that they then presented to the class teacher or senior management team (Smith et al., 2004, p. 103).

Other components of the Sheffield anti-bullying initiative involved individual work with children directly involved in bullying, peer counseling and increased playground surveillance. Peer counseling involved a ‘listening line’ for other students (Smith et al., 2004, p. 104): students formed small teams comprising two or three counselors and one receptionist. Each team was directed by a supervising teacher; students never intervened in bullying situations themselves. Direct work with children involved in bullying as perpetrators was carried out though a method developed by Anatol Pikas, entitled ‘Shared Concern’, which was based on a structured script that could guide teachers’ discussions with students involved in bullying. Making changes to playgrounds and training of lunchtime supervisors were also part of the intervention strategies.

The intervention program did not indicate which and how many of these methods had to be used in order for the project to be successful. The interested reader can find however in several places the extent to which the elements of the program were implemented within each school (e.g. Eslea & Smith, 1998, p. 208; Smith et al., 2004, p. 101).

9.1.1 Odds Ratio

The OR is calculated from the following table:

OPEN IN VIEWER

	Non-Bullies	Bullies
Experimental	a	b
Control	c	d

Where a, b, c, d are numbers of children

OR = ( a * d ) / ( b * c )

* indicates multiplication

An OR greater than 1 indicates a desirable effect of the anti-bullying program, while an OR less than 1 indicates an undesirable effect. The chance value of the OR is 1, indicating no effect.

For example, the figures for the first post-test of Fekkes et al. (2007) were as follows:

OPEN IN VIEWER

	Non-Bullies	Bullies	% Bullies
Experimental	1011	87	7.9
Control	1009	99	8.9

Here, OR = (1101*99) / (1009*87) = 1.14

The statistical significance of an OR is assessed by calculating the LOR:

LOR = Ln ( OR )

Here, LOR = Ln (1.14) = 0.131

The variance of LOR, VLOR, is as follows:

VLOR = ( 1 / a ) + ( 1 / b ) + ( 1 / c ) + ( 1 / d )

Here, VLOR = 0.0236

The standard error of LOR, SELOR, is the square root of the variance:

Here, SELOR = 0.1535

Once SELOR is known, it is easy to calculate confidence intervals for OR. The 95% confidence interval (CI) about LOR is + or – 1.96 * SELOR

Hence, the lower CI = 0.131 – 1.96 * 0.1535 = – 0.170

The corresponding lower CI for the OR is:

ORLOCI = Exp ( - 0.170 ) = 0.84

Where Exp indicates the exponential.

Similarly, the higher CI = 0.131 + 1.96 * 0.1535 = 0.432

The corresponding higher CI for the OR is:

ORHICI = Exp ( 0.432 ) = 1.54

The confidence intervals are symmetrical about LOR (0.131 + or - 0.301) but not about OR (1.14, CI 0.84 – 1.54).

The significance of LOR is tested as follows:

Z = LOR / SELOR

Where z is an observation from a unit normal distribution with mean = 0 and standard deviation = 1

Here, Z = 0.85

Since this is below the value (1.96) corresponding to p = .05, we conclude that the OR of 1.14 is not statistically significant, and hence that the anti-bullying program did not cause a significant decrease in bullying.

9.1.2 Standardized Mean Difference d

d is calculated as follows:

d = ( MC - ME ) / SP

Where MC = Mean score in control condition

ME = Mean score in experimental condition

SP = Pooled standard deviation (SD)

The pooled variance, VP, is as follows:

VP = [ ( NC – 1 ) * VC + ( NE – 1 ) * VE ] / ( NC + NE – 2 )

Where NC = Number in control condition

VC = Variance of control scores

NE = Number in experimental condition

VE = Variance of experimental scores

As an example, for bullying by older children after the intervention of Baldry and Farrington (2004):

MC = 3.39

VC = 15.92 (SD = 3.99, squared)

NC = 36

ME = 2.31

VE = 9.425 (SD = 3.07, squared)

NE = 99

VP = [ ( 35 * 15.92 ) + ( 98 * 9.425 ) ] / 133 = 11.134

Hence, SP = 3.337

d = ( 3.39 – 2.31 ) / 3.337 = 0.324

To a close approximation, the variance of d, Vd, is as follows:

Vd = ( NC + NE ) / ( NC * NE )

Here, Vd = (36 + 99) / (36 * 99) = 0.03788

Hence, the standard error of d is as follows:

SEd = 0.195

The significance of d can be tested as follows:

Z = d / SEd

Here, Z = 0.324 / 0.195 = 1.66

Since this is below 1.96, this value of d is not statistically significant.

d can be converted into LOR using the following equation (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p.202):

LOR = d / 0.5513

Hence, LOR = 0.587

Similarly, the SE of LOR is as follows:

SELOR = SEd / 0.5513

Here SELOR = 0.354

Z = LOR / SELOR = 1.66 as before

In one case where phi correlations were reported as effect sizes (Menard et al., 2008), we use the following equation to convert r to d (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p.63):

d = r / sqrt [ ( 1 – r * r ) * p * ( 1 - p ) ]

Where p is the proportion of the sample in the experimental condition as opposed to the control condition.

To a good approximation:

SEd = 2 * Ser

The SE of r is calculated using the transformation:

Zr = 0.5 * Ln [ ( 1 + r ) / ( 1 – r ) ] and VAR ( Zr ) = 1 / ( N – 3 )

The analysis then proceeded as above.

9.1.3 Before and After Measures

Where there are before and after measures of bullying, the appropriate effect size measure is:

LOR = LORA - LORB

Where LORA = LOR after

LORB = LOR before

Fekkes et al. (2007) had a before measure of bullying, with ORB = 1.01 and

LORB = 0.010

Therefore, for Fekkes et al.,

LOR = 0.131 - 0.010 = 0.121

The variance of this LOR is as follows:

VLOR = VLORA + VLORB – 2 * COV

Where COV = Covariance

Because LORA and LORB are positively correlated, VLOR will be less than (VLORA + VLORB). However, the covariance is usually not reported. In general, VLOR will be between (VLORA + VLORB) / 2 and (VLORA + VLORB). Therefore, we estimate it as half-way between these values:

VLOR = 0.75 * ( VLORA + VLORB )

For Fekkes et al. (2007):

VLOR = 0.75 * ( 0.0373 + 0.0236 ) = 0.0457

Consequently, SELOR = 0.214

OR = exp ( LOR ) = exp ( 0.121 ) = 1.13

The confidence intervals are 0.74 – 1.72

Z = 0.121 / 0.214 = 0.57

Again, this is less than 1.96, so this LOR is not significant.

9.1.4 Combining LORs Within a Study

It is common for a study to yield more than one LOR. In this case, the weighted average LOR is calculated. For example, for Baldry and Farrington (2004):

For older children, LOR after = 0.587, LOR before = - 0.247;

LOR ( older ) = LORO = 0.587 – ( - 0.247 ) = 0.834

SELORO can be calculated as 0.432

For younger children, LOR after = - 0.801, LOR before = - 0.125:

LOR ( younger ) = LORY = - 0.801 – ( - 0.125 ) = - 0.676

SELORY can be calculated as 0.464

Each LOR is weighted by its inverse variance (1 / VLOR).

WO = 1 / ( SELORO * SELORO ) = 1 / ( 0.432 * 0.432 ) = 5.358 WY = 1 / ( SELORY * SELORY ) = 1 / ( 0.464 * 0.464 ) = 4.651

Where WO = Weighting of LORO

WY = Weighting of LORY

LOR combined = LORC = [(LORO * WO) + (LORY * WY)] / (WO + WY) = [(0.834 * 5.358) + (-0.676 * 4.651)] / (5.358 + 4.651) = 0.133

The variance of LORC, VLORC, is:

VLORC = 1 / ( WO + WY ) = 1 / ( 5.358 + 4.651 ) = 0.0998

Therefore, SELORC = 0.316

ORC = exp ( LORC ) = exp ( 0.133 ) = 1.14

The confidence intervals are 0.62 — 2.12

Z = LORC / SELORC = 0.133 / 0.316 = 0.42

This is not significant.

9.1.5 Correction for Clustering

The standard techniques assume that individuals are allocated to experimental or control conditions, so that each individual is independent of each other individual. However, in evaluations of anti-bullying programs, it is usually the case that school classes (not individual children) are allocated to conditions. In this case, it is necessary to correct standard errors of effect sizes for the effects of clustering (Hedges, 2007).

The correction depends on an estimate of the intraclass correlation (rho). This is not usually reported. However, Murray and Blitstein (2003) carried out a systematic review of articles reporting intraclass correlations and found that, for youth studies with behavioral outcomes, rho was about 0.025. Also, Olweus (2008) informed us that: “I have made a number of such estimates on my large scale samples for being bullied and bullying others and … the intraclass correlation at the classroom level is typically in the .01 to .04 range”. We therefore estimate that rho = 0.025. All the calculations assume equal sizes of clusters (school classes).

We will not correct effect sizes because the correction for clustering has a negligible impact on them. The correction for d (and, by implication, for LOR) is as follows:

Corrected d = d * sqrt [ 1 - [ 2 * ( n - 1 ) * rho ] / ( N - 2 ) ]

Where n = cluster size (school classes) and N = total sample size

For typical values of n = 30 and N = 500,

Corrected d = d * sqrt [1 – (2 * 29 * 0.025) / 498] = d * 0.998

Because this is very close to d, we do not correct effect sizes for clustering.

We need to correct standard errors of effect sizes. To a very good approximation, corrected Vd = Vd * [1 + (n – 1) * rho]

Where Vd = variance of d

Assuming n = 30 and rho = 0.025, corrected Vd = Vd * 1.725

We therefore multiply all variances of effect sizes by 1.725 and all standard errors of effect sizes by 1.313 in order to take account of the clustering of children in school classes.

For example, returning to Baldry and Farrington (2004), LORC = 0.133 and SELORC = 0.316. We multiply SELORC by 1.313 to obtain:

Corrected SELORC = 0.415

Corrected z = 0.133 / 0.415 = 0.32

9.1.6 Meta-Analysis

We use standard methods of meta-analysis, following Lipsey and Wilson (2001). In the simplest fixed effects model, the weighted mean effect size is as follows:

WMES = sum ( Wi * ESi ) / sum ( Wi )

Where WMES = weighted mean effect size

ESi = effect size in the ith study

Wi = weighting in the ith study = 1 / Vi

Where Vi = variance of effect size in the study

SE (WMES) = sqrt [1 / sum (Wi)]

And Z = WMES / SE (WMES)

In order to test whether all effect sizes are randomly distributed about the weighted mean, the Q statistic is calculated:

Q = sum [ Wi * ( ESI - WMES ) * ( ESi - WMES ) ]

Q is distributed as chi-squared with (k-1) degrees of freedom, where k is the number of effect sizes. We always used a random effects model, in which a constant Vx is added to each variance Vi.

corrected Vi = Vi + Vx

Vx = [ Q – k + 1 ] / [ sum ( Wi ) – sum ( Wi * Wi ) / sum ( Wi ) ]

The weighted mean ES and its variance are then calculated as before using the corrected Vi. As mentioned, we use OR and LOR as the main measures of effect size in this report.

Footnotes

11 Appendix/Tables and Figures

1

Personal communication with Christina Salmivalli via e-mail (June 18, 2008) and with Antti Karna (May 22, 2009).

2

For the evaluation that is included in the meta-analysis. The program was also evaluated in Austria, but due to lack of data it was not possible for us to include the specific evaluation in the meta-analysis.

3

E-mail correspondence with Stephen Minton dated June 10, 2009.

4

E-mail dated May 28, 2009.

5

Personal communication via e-mail from Ersilia Menesini (June 1, 2009).

6

Personal communication via e-mail from Peter Fonagy (June 29, 2009).

7

Personal communication from Christina Salmivalli (January 31, 2009).

8

References with an asterisk indicate reports of evaluations that have been included in the meta-analysis.

9

All dates in the tables specify the year of publication of the report [not the year the programs were implemented] with the exception of the Olweus evaluations; for these, the period the program took place is shown. Not all published reports of a specific program are presented in this table, only the most relevant ones.

References

1.

* Alsaker F.D. (2004). Bernese program against victimization in kindergarten and elementary schools. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 289–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

2.

* Alsaker F.D. Valkanover S. (2001). Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In Juvonen J. Graham S. (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 175–195). New York: Guilford.

+ Show References

3.

Altman D.G. Schulz K.F. Moher D. Egger M. Davidoff F. Elbourne D. Gotzsche P.C. Lang T. (2001). The revised CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 8, 663–694.

+ Show References

4.

Ananiadou K. Smith P.K. (2002). Legal requirements and nationally circulated materials against school bullying in European countries. Criminal Justice, 2, 471–491.

+ Show References

5.

Andershed H. Kerr M. Stattin H. (2001). Bullying in schools and violence on the streets: are the same people involved? Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 2, 31–49.

Go to Reference

6.

* 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, 693–711.

+ Show References

7.

Atria M. Spiel C. (2007). Viennese Social Competence (ViSC) Training for students: Program and evaluation. In Zins J.E. Elias M.J. Maher C.A. (Eds.), Bullying, victimization and peer harassment: A handbook of prevention and intervention (pp. 179–197). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

+ Show References

8.

* Baldry A.C. (2001). Bullying in schools: Correlates and intervention strategies. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University. Index to Theses Database, 51-8145.

+ Show References

9.

Baldry A.C. Farrington D.P. (1999). Types of bullying among Italian school children. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 423–426.

Go to Reference

10.

* Baldry A.C. Farrington D.P. (2004). Evaluation of an intervention program for the reduction of bullying and victimization in schools. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 1–15.

+ Show References

11.

Baldry A.C. Farrington D.P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bullying. Victims and Offenders, 2, 183–204.

+ Show References

12.

* 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, 266–274.

+ Show References

13.

* Beran T. Shapiro B. (2005). Evaluation of an Anti-Bullying program: Student reports of knowledge and confidence to manage bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28 (4), 700–717.

+ Show References

14.

* Beran T. 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.

+ Show References

15.

Borenstein M. Hedges L.V. Higgins J.P.T. Rothstein H.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Go to Reference

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, 331–345.

+ Show References

17.

Campbell D.T. Stanley J.C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Go to Reference

18.

* Ciucci E. Smorti A. (1998). Il fenomeno delle pretonenze nella scuola: problemi e prospettive di intervento [The phenomenon of bullying in school: problems and prospects for intervention]. Psichiatria dell'infanzia e dell'adolescenza, 65, 147–157.

+ Show References

19.

Cook T.D. Campbell D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.

+ Show References

20.

Cowie H. (2000). Aggressive and bullying behavior in children and adolescents. In Boswell G. (Ed.), Violent children and adolescents: Asking the question why (pp. 138–150). London: Whurr.

Go to Reference

21.

Cowie H. Smith P.K. Boulton M. Laver R. (1994). Cooperation in the multi-ethnic classroom: The impact of cooperative group work on social relationships in middle schools. London: David Fulton.

+ Show References

22.

* Cross D. Hall M. Hamilton G. Pintabona Y. Erceg E. (2004). Australia: The Friendly Schools project. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 187–210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

23.

* 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, 196–201.

+ Show References

24.

* DeRosier M.E. Marcus S.R. (2005). Building friendships and combating bullying: effectiveness of S.S.GRIN at one-year follow-up. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 140–150.

+ Show References

25.

Dishion T.J. McCord J. Poulin F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.

Go to Reference

26.

Dodge K.A. Dishion T.J. Lansford J.E. (2006) (Eds.). Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for Youth. New York: Guildford.

Go to Reference

27.

Eck J.E. (2006). When is a bologna sandwich better than sex? A defense of small-n case study evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 345–362.

Go to Reference

28.

Egger M. Smith D.G. O'Rourke K. (2001). Rationale, potentials and promise of systematic reviews. In Egger M. Smith D. G. Altman D.G. (Eds.), Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context (pp. 23–42). London: BMJ Books.

29.

* Ertesvag S. K. Vaaland G. S. (2007). Prevention and reduction of behavioural problems in school: An evaluation of the Respect program. Educational Psychology, 27, 713–736.

+ Show References

30.

Eslea M. Smith P.K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in primary schools. Educational Research, 40, 203–218.

+ Show References

31.

* Evers K.E. Prochaska J.O. Van Marter D.F. Johnson J.L. Prochaska J.M. (2007). Transtheoretical-based bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle schools and high schools. Educational Research, 49, 397–414.

+ Show References

32.

Farrington D.P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In Tonry M. (Ed.), Crime and Justice, vol. 17 (pp. 381–458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Go to Reference

33.

Farrington D.P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 587, 49–68.

+ Show References

34.

Farrington D.P. (2009). Conduct disorder, aggression and delinquency. In Lerner R.M. Steinberg L. (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley (in press).

Go to Reference

35.

Farrington D.P. Jolliffe D. Johnstone L. (2008). Assessing violence risk: A framework for practice. Edinburgh: Risk Management Authority Scotland.

+ Show References

36.

Farrington D.P. Petrosino A. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 35–49.

Go to Reference

37.

Farrington D.P. Weisburd D. (2007). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. The Criminologist, 32 (1), 1–5.

Go to Reference

38.

Farrington D.P. Welsh B.C. (2003). Family-based prevention of offending: A meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36, 127–151.

+ Show References

39.

Fekkes M. Pijpers F.I.M. Verloove-Vanhorick P.S. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior”. Health Education Research, 20, 81–91.

Go to Reference

40.

* Fekkes M. Pijpers F.I.M. Verloove-Vanhorick S.P. (2006). Effects of antibullying school program on bullying and health complaints. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 638–644.

+ Show References

41.

Ferguson C.J. Miguel C.S. Kilburn J.C. Sanchez P. (2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 401–414.

+ Show References

42.

* Fonagy P. Twemlow S.W. Vernberg E.M. Nelson J.M. Dill E.J. Little T.D. Sargent J.A. (2009). A cluster randomized controlled trial of child-focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems-focused intervention to reduce aggression. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, online first.

+ Show References

43.

Fonagy P. Twemlow S.W. Vernberg E. Sacco F.C. Little T.D. (2005). Creating a peaceful school learning environment: The impact of an anti-bullying program on educational attainment in elementary schools. Medical Science Monitor, 11 (7), 317–325.

Go to Reference

44.

* Fox C. Boulton M. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of a social skills training (SST) programme for victims of bullying. Educational Research, 45, 231–247.

+ Show References

45.

* Frey K.S. Edstrom L.V.S. Hirschstein M. K. (2005). The Steps to Respect program uses a multi-level approach to reduce playground bullying and destructive playground behaviours. In White D.L. Faber M.K. Glenn B.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of Persistently Safe Schools 2005, (pp. 47–55). Washington, DC: Hamilton Fish Institute, George Washington University.

+ Show References

46.

* Frey K. Hirschstein M.K. Snell J. L. van Schoiack Edstrom L. 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, 479–491.

47.

* Galloway D. Roland E. (2004). Is the direct approach to reducing bullying always the best? In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 37–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

48.

* Gini G. Belli B. Casagrande M. (2003). Le prepotenze a scuola: una esperienza di ricerca-intervento antibullismo [Bullying at school: an experience of research-intervention against bullying], Eta Evolutiva, 76, 33–45.

+ Show References

49.

* Gollwitzer M. Eisenbach K. Atria M. Strohmeier D. Banse R. (2006). Evaluation of aggression-reducing effects of the ‘Viennese Social Competence Training’. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 125–135.

+ Show References

50.

Hanewinkel R. (2004). Prevention of bullying in German schools: An evaluation of an anti-bullying approach. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 81–97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

51.

Hawker D.S.J. Boulton M.J. (2000). Twenty years research on peer victimisation and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455.

Go to Reference

52.

Hedges L.V. (1982). Fitting continuous models to effect size data. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 245–270.

Go to Reference

53.

Hedges L.V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 341–370.

Go to Reference

54.

Heydenberk R.A. Heydenberk W.R. Tzenova V. (2006). Conflict resolution and bully prevention: skills for school success. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24, 55–69.

+ Show References

55.

* Hirschstein M. K. Van Schoiack Edstrom Frey L. Snell K. S. Mackenzie J. L. P E. . (2007). Walking the talk in bullying prevention: Teacher implementation variables related to initial impact of Steps to Respect Program. School Psychology Review, 36, 3–21.

+ Show References

56.

Howard K.A. Flora J. Griffin M. (1999). Violence-prevention programs in schools: State of science and implications for future research. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 197–215.

Go to Reference

57.

* 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.

+ Show References

58.

* Jenson J.M. Dieterich W.A. (2007). Effects of a skills-based prevention program on bullying and bully victimization among elementary school children. Prevention Science, 8, 285–296.

+ Show References

59.

* Jenson J.M. Dieterich W.A. Rinner J.R. (2005a). Effects of a skills-based prevention program on bullying and bully victimization among elementary school children. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Toronto, Canada (November).

Go to Reference

60.

* Jenson J.M. Dieterich W.A. Rinner J.R. (2005b). The prevention of bullying and other aggressive behaviors in elementary school students: Effects of the Youth Matters curriculum. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DC (May).

Go to Reference

61.

* Jenson J.M. Dieterich W.A. Powell A. Stoker S. (2006a). Effects of a skills-based intervention on aggression and bully victimization among elementary school children. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, San Antonio, Texas (June).

Go to Reference

62.

* Jenson J.M. Dieterich W.A. Powell A. Stoker S. (2006b). Effects of the Youth Matters prevention curriculum on bullying and other aggressive behaviors in elementary school students. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research, San Antonio, Texas (January).

Go to Reference

63.

Jolliffe D. Farrington D.P. (2007). A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on reoffending. London: Home Office Online Report 11/07. (homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr1107.pdf).

64.

* Kaiser-Ulrey C. (2003). Bullying in middle schools: A study of B.E.S.T. – Bullying Eliminated from Schools Together– an anti-bullying programme for seventh grade students. PhD Thesis. Tallahassee: Florida State University, College of Education.

+ Show References

65.

Kalliotis P. (2000). Bullying as a special case of aggression: Procedures for cross-cultural assessment. School Psychology International, 21, 47–64.

Go to Reference

66.

Kaminski J.W. Valle L.A. Filene J.H. Boyle C.Y. (2008). A meta-analytic review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 567–589.

Go to Reference

67.

* Karna A. Voeten M. Little T.D. Poskiparta E. Kaljonen A. Salmivalli C. (2009). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying program. Child Development, in press.

+ Show References

68.

Kim J.U. (2006). The effect of a bullying prevention program on responsibility and victimization of bullied children in Korea. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 26 (1), 4–8.

+ Show References

69.

Koivisto M. (2004). A follow-up survey of anti-bullying interventions in the comprehensive schools of Kempele in 1990-1998. In Smith P.K. Peppler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: how successful can interventions be? (pp. 235–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

70.

Leary M.R. Kowalski R.M. Smith L. Phillips S. (2003). Teasing, rejection and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214.

Go to Reference

71.

* Limber S.P. Nation M. Tracy A. J. Melton G. B. Flerx V. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in the Southeastern United States. In Smith P. K. Pepler D. Rigby K (Eds.), Bullying in schools. How successful can interventions be? (pp. 55–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

72.

Lipsey M.W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 587, 69–81.

Go to Reference

73.

Lipsey M.W. (2008). Personal communication (January 30).

74.

Lipsey M.W. Wilson D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

+ Show References

75.

Littell J.H. Corcoran J. Pillai V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

76.

Losel F. Beelman A. (2003). Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial behavior: A systematic review of randomized evaluations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 84–109.

Go to Reference

77.

* Martin F.D.F. Martinez M. del. C.P. Tirado J.L.A. (2005). Design, implementation and evaluation of a bullying prevention pilot program [Spanish: Diseno, aplicacion y evaluacion de un Programa Piloto para la Prevencion del Maltrato entre companeros]. Revista Mexicana de Psicologia, 22, 375–384.

+ Show References

78.

McGuire J. (2001). What works in correctional intervention? Evidence and practical implications. In Bernfeld G.A. Farrington D.P. Leschield A.W. (Eds.), Offender Rehabilitation in Practice: Implementing and Evaluating Effective Programs (pp. 3–19). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Go to Reference

79.

* Melton G.B. Limber S.P. Flerx V. Nation M. Osgood W. Chambers J. Henggeler S. Cunningham P. Olweus D. (1998). Violence among rural youth. Final report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington DC.

+ Show References

80.

* Menard S. Grotpeter J. Gianola D. O'Neal M. (2008). Evaluation of Bullyproofing your School: final report. Downloaded from NCJRS: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221078.pdf

+ Show References

81.

* Menesini E. Benelli B. (1999). ? Enhancing children's responsibility against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Middle School Children , Paper presented at the IXth European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Spetses, Greece, September, 1999.

Go to Reference

82.

* 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, 1–14.

+ Show References

83.

Meraviglia M.G. Becker H. Rosenbluth B. Sanchez E. Robertson T. (2003). The Expect Respect Project: Creating a positive elementary school climate. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1347–1360.

Go to Reference

84.

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.

+ Show References

85.

* Meyer N. Lesch E. (2000). An analysis of the limitations of a behavioral programme for bullying boys from a sub-economic environment. Southern African Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12 (1), 59–69.

+ Show References

86.

Moher D. Schulz K.F. Altman D. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 1987–1991.

87.

Morrison B. (2007). Restoring Safe School Communities: A Whole School Response to Bullying, Violence and Alienation. Sidney, Australia: The Federation Press.

Go to Reference

88.

Murray D.M. Blitstein J.L. (2003). Methods to reduce the impact of intraclass correlation in group-randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27, 79–103.

Go to Reference

89.

Mytton J. DiGuiseppi C. Gough D. Taylor R. Logan S. (2006). School-based secondary prevention programs for preventing violence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3. Art No. CD 004606.

Go to Reference

90.

* Olweus D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In Pepler D.J. Rubin K. H. (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

+ Show References

91.

* Olweus D. (1992). Bullying among school children: Intervention and prevention. In Peters R.D. McMahon R.J. Quinsey V.L. (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan (pp. 100–125). London: Sage.

Go to Reference

92.

* Olweus D. (1993). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Long-term consequences and an effective intervention program. In Hodgins S. (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 317–349). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

+ Show References

93.

* Olweus D. (1994a). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171–1190.

Go to Reference

94.

* Olweus D. (1994b). Bullying at school: Basic facts and an effective intervention programme. Promotion and Education, 1, 27–31.

Go to Reference

95.

* Olweus D. (1994c). Bullying at school: long-term outcome for the victims and an effective school-based intervention program. In Huesmann L.R. (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 97–130). New York: Plenum.

Go to Reference

96.

* Olweus D. (1995). Peer abuse or bullying at school: Basic facts and a school-based intervention programme. Prospects, 25 (1), 133–139.

Go to Reference

97.

* Olweus D. (1996a). Bullying or peer abuse in school: Intervention and prevention. In Davies G. Lloyd-Bostock S. McMurran M. Wilson C. (Eds.), Psychology, law and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 248–267). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Go to Reference

98.

* Olweus D. (1996b). Bullying at school: Knowledge base and effective intervention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 784, 265–276.

Go to Reference

99.

* Olweus D. (1996c). Bully/victim problems at school: Facts and effective intervention. Reclaiming Children and Youth: Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 5 (1), 15–22.

Go to Reference

100.

* Olweus D. (1997a). Bully/victim problems in school: Knowledge base and an effective intervention project. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 170–190.

Go to Reference

101.

* Olweus D. (1997b). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495–510.

Go to Reference

102.

* Olweus D. (1997c). Tackling peer victimization with a school-based intervention program. In Fry D.P. Bjorkqvist K. (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to violence (pp. 215–232). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Go to Reference

103.

* Olweus D. (2004a). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 13–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Go to Reference

104.

* Olweus D. (2004b). Bullying at school: Prevalence estimation, a useful evaluation design, and a new national initiative in Norway. Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry Occasional Papers, 23, 5–17.

Go to Reference

105.

Olweus D. (2004c). Continuation of the Olweus programme against bullying and antisocial behaviour. Olweus-Gruppen; Mot mobbing (October).

Go to Reference

106.

* Olweus D. (2005a). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus bullying prevention program. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11, 389–402.

+ Show References

107.

* Olweus D. (2005b). Bullying in schools: Facts and intervention. Paper presented at the IX International Meeting on Biology and Sociology of Violence, Under the Honorary Presidency of H.M. Queen Sofia, Valencia, Spain (October).

Go to Reference

108.

Olweus D. (2008). Personal communication (June 5).

Go to Reference

109.

* Olweus D. Alsaker F.D. (1991). Assessing change in a cohort-longitudinal study with hierarchical data. In Magnusson D. Bergman L.R. Rudinger G. Torestad B. (Eds.), Problems and methods in longitudinal research (pp. 107–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Go to Reference

110.

* O'Moore M. (2005). Prevention programme for teachers. Paper presented at the IX International Meeting on Biology and Sociology of Violence, Under the Honorary Presidency of H.M. Queen Sofia, October, 6-7, 2005, Valencia.

111.

* O'Moore A.M. Milton S. J. (2004). Ireland: The Donegal primary school antibullying project. In Smith P. K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 275–288). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

112.

* Ortega R. Del Rey R. (1999). The use of peer support in the S.A.V.E. project. Paper presented at the IXth European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Spetses, Greece (September).

Go to Reference

113.

* Ortega R. Del-Rey R. Mora-Mercan J. A. (2004). SAVE Model: An anti-bullying intervention in Spain. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 167–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

114.

* Pagliocca P.M. Limber S.P. Hashima P. (2007). Evaluation report for the Chula Vista Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Final report prepared for the Chula Vista Police Department.

+ Show References

115.

Pateraki L. Houndoumadi A. (2001). Bullying among primary school children in Athens, Greece. Educational Psychology, 21, 167–175.

Go to Reference

116.

* Pepler D.J. Craig W.M. O'Connell P. Atlas R. Charach A. (2004). Making a difference in bullying: Evaluation of a systemic school-based program in Canada. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 125–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

117.

Pepler D. Smith P.K. Rigby K. (2004). Looking back and looking forward: Implications for making interventions work effectively. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 307–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

118.

Petticrew M. Roberts H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden: Blackwell.

119.

* Pintabona Y.C. (2006). Frequently bullied students: Outcomes of a universal school-based bullying preventive intervention on peer victimization and psychological health. PhD Thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, Western Australia.

Go to Reference

120.

* Rahey L. Craig W.M. (2002). Evaluation of an ecological program to reduce bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 36, 281–295.

+ Show References

121.

* Raskauskas J. (2007). Evaluation of the Kia Kaha anti-bullying programme for students in years 5-8. Wellington: New Zealand Police.

+ Show References

122.

* Rican P. Ondrova K. Svatos J. (1996). The effect of a short, intensive intervention upon bullying in four classes in a Czech Town. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 794, 399–400.

+ Show References

123.

Rigby K. (2002). A meta-evaluation of methods and approaches to reducing bullying in preschools and early primary school in Australia. Canberra: Attorney General's Department, Crime Prevention Branch.

Go to Reference

124.

Roland E. (1989). Bullying: The Scandinavian tradition. In Tattum D. P. Lane D. A. (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 21–32). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

Go to Reference

125.

Roland E. Idsoe T. (2001). Aggression and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 446–462.

Go to Reference

126.

* Rosenbluth B. Whitaker D.J. Sanchez E. Valle L.A. (2004). The Expect Respect Project: Preventing bullying and sexual harassment in US elementary schools. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 211–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

127.

Ruiz O. (2005). Prevention programs for pupils. In Serrano A. (Ed.), School violence. Valencia, Spain: Queen Sofia Center for the Study of Violence.

Go to Reference

128.

Salmivalli C. (2008). Personal communication (June 18).

129.

* Salmivalli C. Karna A. Poskiparta E. (2009). From peer putdowns to peer support: A theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti-bullying program. In Jimerson S.R. Swearer S.M. Espelage D.L. (Eds.), Handbook of bulling in schools: An international perspective (pp. 441–454). New York: Guilford.

130.

* Salmivalli C. Kaukiainen A. Voeten M. Sinisammal M. (2004). Targeting the group as a whole: The Finnish anti-bullying intervention. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 251–275). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

131.

* Salmivalli C. Kaukiainen A. Voeten M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465–487.

Go to Reference

132.

Salmivalli C. Nieminen E. , (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30–44.

Go to Reference

133.

Shadish W.R. Cook T.D. Campbell D.T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Go to Reference

134.

Smith J. D. Schneider B. Smith P. K. Ananiadou K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 548–561.

Go to Reference

135.

* Smith P.K. (1997). Bullying in schools: The UK experience and the Sheffield Anti-bullying Project. Irish Journal of School Psychology, 18, 191–201.

+ Show References

136.

Smith P.K. forthcoming. “Bullying in primary and secondary schools: Psychological and organizational comparisons”. In Jimerson S.R. Swearer S.M. Espelage D.L. (Eds.), The International Handbook of School Bullying. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

137.

Smith P.K. Ananiadou K. (2003). The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness of school-based interventions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 189–209.

+ Show References

138.

Smith P.K. Ananiadou K. Cowie H. (2003). Interventions to reduce school bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 591–599.

139.

Smith P. K. Cowie H. Olafsson R. F. Liefooghe A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a 14-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119–1133.

+ Show References

140.

Smith P.K. Mahdavi J. Carvalho M. Fisher S. Russell S. Tippett N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (4), 376–385.

Go to Reference

141.

Smith P. K. Morita J. Junger-Tas D. Olweus D. Catalano R. Slee P. T. (Eds.) (1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. London: Routledge.

+ Show References

142.

Smith P. K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.) (2004a). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Go to Reference

143.

* Smith P.K. Sharp S. Eslea M. Thompson D. (2004b). England: the Sheffield project. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 99–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

144.

Solberg M.E. Olweus D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying wit the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268.

Go to Reference

145.

* Spröber N. (2006). Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Mehrebenen-Programms zur Prävention von “Bullying” an weiterführenden Schulen und zur Förderung der positiven Entwicklung von Schülern. Dissertation der Fakultät für Informations- und Kognitionswissenschaften der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften.

146.

* Sprober N. Schlottke P.F. Hautzinger M. (2006). ProACT + E: Ein Programm zur Pravention von “bullying” an Schulen und zur Forderung der positiven Entwicklung von Schulern: Evaluation eines schulbasierten, universalen, primar-praventiven Programms fur weiterfuhrende Schulen unter Einbeziehung von Lehrern, Schulern und Eltern. [German: ProACT + E: A programme to prevent bullying in schools and to increase the positive development of students. Evaluation of a school-based, universal, primary preventive programme for secondary schools that includes teachers, students and parents]. Zeitschrift fur Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie: Forschung und Praxis, 35, 140–150.

+ Show References

147.

Stevens V. De 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, 195–210.

+ Show References

148.

Stevens V. De Bourdeaudhuij I. Van Oost P. (2001). Anti-bullying interventions at school: aspects of programme adaptation and critical issues for further programme development. Health Promotion International, 16, 155–167.

+ Show References

149.

Stevens V. Van Oost P. De Bourdeaudhuij I. (2000). The effects of an anti-bullying intervention programme on peers' attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 21–34.

150.

Stevens V. Van Oost P. De Bourdeaudhuij I. (2001). Implementation process of the Flemish anti-bullying intervention and relation with program effectiveness. Journal of School Psychology, 39 (4), 303–317.

151.

Stevens V. Van Oost P. De Bourdeaudhuij I. (2004). Interventions against bullying in Flemish schools. In Smith P.K. Pepler D. Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 141–165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

+ Show References

152.

Ttofi M.M. Farrington D.P. (2008a). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects, and the importance of Defiance Theory in explanation and prevention. Victims and Offenders, 3, 289–312.

+ Show References

153.

Ttofi M.M. Farrington D.P. (2008b). Reintegrative Shaming Theory, Moral Emotions and Bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 352–368.

+ Show References

154.

Twemlow S.W. Fonagy P. Sacco F.C. (2005). A developmental approach to mentalizing communities: II. The Peaceful Schools experiment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 69 (4), 282–304.

155.

Vreeman R.C. Carroll A.E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88.

+ Show References

156.

Warden D. Moran E. Gillies J. Mayes G. Macleod L. (1997). An evaluation of a children's safety training programme. Educational Psychology, 17, 433–448.

+ Show References

157.

Weisburd D. Lum C.M. Petrosino A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50–70.

Go to Reference

158.

Welsh B.C. Farrington D.P. Sherman L.W. (Eds.) (2001). Costs and benefits of preventing crime. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.

Go to Reference

159.

* Whitaker D.J. Rosenbluth B. Valle L.A. Sachez E. (2004). Expect Respect: A school-based intervention to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harassment. In Espelage D.L. Swearer S.M. (Eds.), Bullying in American Schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 327–350). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

+ Show References

160.

* Whitney I. Rivers I. Smith P.K. Sharp S. (1994). The Sheffield Project: Methodology and findings. In Smith P.K. Sharp S. (Eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 20–56). London: Routledge.

+ Show References

161.

Wiefferink C. Hoekstra H. Beek J.T. Van Dorst A. (2006). Effects of an anti-bullying programme in elementary schools in the Netherlands. European Journal of Public Health, 16, 76–76.

+ Show References

162.

Wilson S. J. Lipsey M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33, S130–S143.

Go to Reference

163.

Wilson S. J. Lipsey M. W. Derzon J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136–149.

Go to Reference

164.

Woods T. Coyle K. Hoglund W. Leadbeater B. (2007). Changing the contexts of peer victimization: The effects of a primary prevention program on school and classroom levels of victimization. In Zins J.E. Elias M.J. Maher C.A. (Eds.), Bullying, victimization, and peer harassment: A handbook of prevention and intervention (pp. 369–388). New York: Haworth Press.

Go to Reference