Fallas Bullying

8/14/2019 Fallas Bullying

1/14

155

SUMMARY

Recently, a growing interest in problems at school of peer

aggression and victimization was observed. As a result,

intervention strategies appropriate for this kind of problem

were required. The Norwegian anti-bullying intervention

that was developed and evaluated by Olweus (1992) in the

region of Bergen was considered to be a good model for

other countries to implement interventions against peer

aggression within the school environment. It was therefore

adapted to the educational settings of other countries. This

paper aims to discuss the adaptation processes of the Bergen

anti-bullying programme and to give guidelines to advance

further programme development. For this, the DFE Sheffield

Bullying Project (Smith and Sharp, 1994), the Anti-bullying

Intervention in Toronto schools (Pepler et al., 1994) and

the Flemish anti-bullying project (Stevens and Van Oost,

1994) were considered in the analyses. Discussion of the

adaptation processes of the Bergen model programme

revealed that the adapted interventions largely succeeded in

incorporating the core components of the Bergen model

programme, taking into account the characteristics of the

implementation environment. This suggests that for bully/

victim interventions, the dilemma of programme fidelity

and programme adaptation could be solved adequately.

However, from a health promotion perspective, some critical

issues for programme improvement were observed. Three

suggestions for change were made, indicating that anti-

bullying actions at schools may benefit from: (i) a clear

overview of the learning objectives, specified per target

population; (ii) more attention to parental involvement and

family interventions; and (iii) additional information about

the adoption processes of the anti-bullying interventions

within schools.

Anti-bullying interventions at school:aspects of programme adaptation and criticalissues for further programme development

V. STEVENS1, I. DE BOURDEAUDHUIJ1,2 and P. VAN OOST11Research Group Health and Behaviour, Department of Psychology, Ghent University,H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and 2Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2,B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

HEALTH PROMOTION INTERNATIONAL Vol. 16, No. 2 Oxford University Press 2001. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain

Key words: anti-bullying interventions; health promotion; programme adaptation; programmedevelopment

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1980s, peer aggression and victimizationwithin the school setting have been identifiedas a significant threat to the development of chil-drens and adolescents mental and social well-being (Olweus, 1984; Olweus, 1992; Rigby andSlee, 1993; Smith et al., 1993). This has resulted ina more profound concern within mental healthpromotion for the specific problem of bullyingbehaviour among peers. Observance of its short

tradition revealed that the Norwegian anti-

bullying intervention research in the 1980s wasthe trigger for further research and action bothwithin Europe and further afield (Olweus, 1991;Olweus, 1992). Research on the prevalence ofpeer aggression (Olweus, 1991) revealed thatabout one in seven students in Norway wereinvolved in problems with bullying or victim-ization. Supported by the National Ministry ofEducation, an intervention programme forschools, directly focusing on the problem of peer


2/14

aggression and victimization, was developed(Olweus, 1991; Olweus, 1992) and disseminatedamong Norwegian schools (Munthe and Roland,1989; Olweus, 1991; Olweus, 1992). The pro-gramme aimed at reducing levels of peeraggression and victimization employing a system-based approach and intensive use of the school

environment. From 1983 to 1985, the programmewas evaluated among 2500 students (1114 yearsof age) from 42 schools in Bergen by the use ofa cohort-longitudinal study (Olweus, 1991). Dataanalyses showed a significant reduction (up to50%) in rates of bullying and of those beingbullied. Roland (Munthe and Roland, 1989)replicated the study of Olweus in Rogaland(Norway) in 7000 students (aged 816 years).He observed slight increases in the amountof bullying and of being bullied. However, it isdifficult to compare both evaluation studies, asdifferences were observed between the studies inexternal support for schools during programmeimplementation (Smith and Sharp, 1994). More-over, Olweus argued that both studies also differin data quality, times of measurements and pro-gramme planning (Olweus, 1999).

The positive results of the evaluation study inBergen encouraged other countries to investigatethe nature of the anti-bullying phenomenon inthe school setting (Mooij, 1992; Van Lieshout,1992; Pepler et al., 1994; Smith and Sharp, 1994;Stevens and Van Oost, 1994; Genta et al., 1996;Rigby and Slee, 1998). Comparable results or

even more serious rates of bullying and victim-ization were found in these other studies, usingthe same bullying inventory, arguing for appro-priate intervention plans (Olweus, 1989; Smithet al., 1999). The Bergen anti-bullying programme(Olweus, 1992) was considered to be a good modeland was adapted to the educational settings ofother countries.

The use of model programmes

Although the use of good model programmes is

encouraged within health promotion as a way ofheightening the quality of prevention efforts, onemust not minimalize the process of programmeadaptation. On the one hand, merely copying orreplicating the model programme could resultin a concept that works in Norwegian schools inBergen, but affects other educational settings ina different way; on the other hand, the adaptationprocess includes the problem of programmefidelity and modification of the intervention to

the new setting, which may change the corefeatures of the programme. This may result in adifferent intervention (Price et al., 1993; Robertsand Hinton-Nelson, 1996; Elias, 1997). In thispaper we aim to discuss the adaptation processesof the Bergen anti-bullying programme and togive guidelines for further programme develop-

ment. For this, the DFE Sheffield BullyingProject (Smith and Sharp, 1994), the Anti-bullying Intervention in Toronto schools (Pepleret al., 1994) and the Flemish anti-bullying project(Stevens and Van Oost, 1994; Stevens et al.,2000), all being interventions reporting to be in-spired by the Bergen programme, were involvedin the analyses. First, the Bergen anti-bullyingintervention will be discussed in the context ofmodel programmes.

THE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYINGINTERVENTION AS A MODELPREVENTION PROGRAMME

Characteristics of model programmes

Model programmes can be described as evidence-based prevention programmes, developed on anexperimental or scientific basis and implementedon a fairly large scale (Hosman and Engels,1999). Model programmes have to fulfil a setof quality criteria in a superior way (Price et al.,1993; Roberts and Hinton-Nelson, 1996). By

comparing 23 model interventions in child andfamily mental health, Roberts and Hinton-Nelsonidentified six common characteristics of goodmodel programmes (Roberts and Hinton-Nelson,1996). First, the authors advocate that goodmodel programmes are founded upon atheoretical framework or a guiding philosophy,providing theoretical evidence about how theprogramme is supposed to improve the healthconditions towards which the intervention isdirected. Model programmes should also be basedupon a system-oriented approach. Programmes

that do recognize the social environment ofthe child were found to be more successful thaninterventions that merely focus on individualdeterminants of health problems (Bond andCompas, 1989; Weissberg et al., 1991; Kazdin,1993; Dryfoos, 1997; Valente and Dodge, 1997).In addition, Roberts and Hinton-Nelson arguethat model programmes in child and family mentalhealth should include intensive collaboration withmultiple specialized services and make efforts to

156 V. Stevens et al.


3/14

reduce barriers to access for children andadolescents at risk (Roberts and Hinton-Nelson,1996). The fifth criterion states that model pro-grammes provide detailed information aboutprogramme monitoring and outcome data(Roberts and Hinton-Nelson, 1996). The sixthand final criterion states that good model pro-

grammes are able to be replicated or adaptedto other settings, providing information aboutessential programme components and mechan-isms for success (Roberts and Hinton-Nelson,1996).

In line with this, Price et al. identified a set ofquality criteria for model programmes, based onthe analyses of 14 prevention programmes for arange of health and mental health problems(Price et al., 1993). According to the authors,model programmes are characterized by a cleardescription of the programme, including in-formation about the emotional and behaviouralconditions to be prevented and a rationale forthe intervention, recognizing potential ethicalissues. Model programmes include informationabout programme monitoring, timing andevaluation, and are transferable to other settings.In addition to these characteristics, the authorsalso argue that good model programmes providea description of the programmes target goals interms of observable and measurable objectives,as well as the procedures followed in reachingthese objectives. They also introduced thecriterion of describing the prerequisite skills for

successful programme implementation.These criteria were all derived from inter-

ventions programmes that have proven to beeffective in advancing childrens psychosocialfunctioning. However, the appropriateness ofthese criteria for interventions against bully/victimproblems among students can be questioned.One may argue that the nature of anti-bullyinginterventions requires additional criteria orgreater appropriateness to the setting. However,it was observed that some of the selected modelprogrammes concerned school-based health and

mental health problems. As such, the criteria wereexpected to suit the educational context also.

An analysis of the Bergen anti-bullyingintervention as a model programme

The strengths and shortcomings of the Bergenanti-bullying intervention will be compared withthe essential features of model programmes.From the Bergen programme it is known that it

aims primarily to increase adults and studentsawareness of problems of peer aggression andvictimization, and it tries to encourage activeinvolvement of adults and peers in resolvingbully/victim incidents (see Table 1).

Strengths of the Bergen model programme

Developmental models of aggressive behaviourand behaviour modification theories establishedthe programme concept. Olweus found that mostbullying behaviour is intended to result in socialoutcomes such as dominance or status amongpeers (Olweus, 1991). By joining in with thebullying or being an audience, peers themselvesconsistently reinforce bullies behaviour (Schwartzet al., 1993). When no or few negative con-sequences from parents, peers or teachers resultfrom the aggressive act, bullying behaviour willincrease. As a consequence, Olweus argued thatanti-bullying intervention programmes shouldrestructure the social environment by imple-menting clear rules against bullying behaviour,so that the positive consequences of bullyingare reduced while the negative behavioural out-comes increase (Olweus, 1991). The programmestresses the reciprocal relationship betweenbullies or victims and their social environment.As such, the programme can be defined as beingfounded upon a theoretical framework, includingthe need for a system-oriented approach.

It is also known that under the programme,extensive attention is being given to serious talkswith bullies, victims and parents of the childreninvolved, and that schools can rely on intensivesupport from the research group. In addition, linkswith social workers and school psychologists areencouraged to handle more severe bully/victimproblems. As a result, one may conclude thatfrom the perspective of the school setting, theprogramme encourages network-building withmore specialized services and tries to reducebarriers to access for children most at risk.

In addition, the programme description(Olweus, 1992) provided an extensive report ofthe programme evaluation. As was mentionedearlier in this paper, the Bergen interventionwas successful in reducing rates of bullyingbehaviour and victimization. Olweus has clearlyindicated the essential programme componentsat each level of intervention and has providedreasons for programme effectiveness (Olweus,1994).

Anti-bullying interventions at school 157


4/14

Limitations of the Bergen model programme

Some shortcomings were observed in relation toaspects of specific programme goals, methodsand monitoring. First, the programme seems to

be unclear in indicating for each target popu-lation what behaviour, attitudes, etc. must belearned to fulfil the general programme object-ives of reducing the problems of bullying and


Table 1: Overview of the programme objectives and methods of the Norwegian anti-bullying interventionprogramme (Olweus, 1992).

Programme objectives Programme methods and strategies

Overall programme methods and strategiesMethods:

contingency management by means of clear rules againstbullying and non-hostile, non-physical punishment

better supervision of recessStrategies:

staff and parents meetings survey service for schools more attractive school playground teacher group for the development of the school climate contact telephone

Programme methods and strategies per target populationTeachers

Methods: increasing awareness information about bully/victim problems intensive coaching of school during implementation

processStrategies:

staff meetings and training sessionsParents

Methods: information about bully/victim problems consultation during the development of the whole-school

policy support for their child when victimized advice for parents of bullies on child-rearing aspects

Strategies: parents circles (study and discussion groups) discussion groups with parents of bullies and victims serious talks with parents of involved children parent brochure

PeersMethods:

class rules (clarification, praise and sanctions) praise when the rules have been followed classroom discussion on bully/victim problems social support to tackle bully/victim problems cooperative learning

Strategies: regular class meetings role playing literature meeting teachers, parents and children common positive activities

Bullies and victimsMethods:

contingency management in relation with the class rules teacher support to make the victim valuable in the eyes of

their classmates help from neutral students

Strategies: serious talks with bullies and victims

Overall programme objectives(1) Reducing existing bully/victim problems

and preventing the development of new problems

(2) Enhancing all participants behaviour and attitudesto tackle problems with bullying

(3) Creating a warm and positive school climate,and making the school setting more protective

Programme objectives per target populationTeachers and other personnel:

being aware of problems with bullying being actively involved in tackling problems

with bullying responding to aggressive behaviour

in the playgroundParents:

being aware of problems with bullying being actively involved in tackling problems

with bullyingStudents: being more tolerant and to stop bullying others providing help for victims of bullying reacting against bullying behaviour

Social environmental changes: more attractive school playground


5/14

victimization. Besides, no clear information isgiven about how programme methods are linkedto specific programme goals.

Secondly, it was noticed (Olweus, 1992) thatthe programme did not describe the skills neces-sary to conduct the intervention in a successfulmanner, notwithstanding the finding that teachers

perceived the intervention as feasible and bene-ficial. In line with this, it was observed (Olweus,1992) that it was difficult to involve parents ofbullies or victims, suggesting that this part ofthe programme is less feasible compared withother programme components as far as parentalinvolvement is concerned. This may affect pro-gramme implementation in the home environmentand it possibly limits the programme outcomes.

In general, one may conclude that the Bergenprogramme, in essence, fulfils most of the charac-teristics of good model programmes, including anoverall description of the programme goals andmethods, a theoretical foundation and system-oriented approach, network-building with morespecialized services, reduction of barriers toaccess for children most at risk as well as areport of the intervention outcomes. Limitationsthat were observed in relation to programmeobjectives and programme monitoring may affectprogramme implementation and outcomes.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THEADAPTED INTERVENTIONS

There is no extensive theory of programmeadaptation. However, there are adequate andsolid models for programme development (Greenand Kreuter, 1991; Bartholomew et al., 1998;Kok, 1999). Recently, Bartholomew et al. describedthe development of health education program-mes in five consecutive steps, which the authorsentitled the intervention mapping process(Bartholomew et al., 1998). The model provides aplan for programme development by sequentiallycombining theoretical findings, empirical in-

formation and data from the target population.Because of the detailed analysis of each com-ponent of programme development, the modelwas considered to be a good alternative to out-line the adaptation process. In addition, becauseof its focus on issues relative to programmecontent as well as programme monitoring andevaluation, the intervention mapping model wasconsidered the most comprehensive model forprogramme development currently available.

Proximal programme objectives

Step 1 of the intervention mapping process aimedto identify the proximal programme objectivesbased on the behavioural and environmentaldeterminants of the health problem. Specifyingproximal programme objectives includes formu-lating the learning and change objectives. Learn-

ing objectives specify what target populationshave to learn to attain the performance objects;change objectives indicate how the environmenthas to be changed to encourage the programmeoutcomes.

Table 2 gives an overview of the programmeobjectives of the adapted interventions. The pro-gramme objectives are formulated as intended bythe authors.

Learning objectives

It is clear that the programmes intend to reduceexisting bully/victim problems and to preventthe development of new conflicts. They all try toreduce bullies aggressive acts, to change studentsand adults attitudes against peer aggression andto enhance their behaviour to tackle problemswith bullying. Additionally, they aim to improvethe quality of childrens playtime experiences.However, in line with the Bergen model pro-gramme, no explicit learning or change object-ives were formulated. While some objectivesclearly indicate what is intended to be learnt (e.g.enhancing social skills by joining in games andmaking friends, encouraging bullies to repair theconsequences of their aggressive behaviour bydoing something in favour of the victim), othersare formulated as performance objectives (e.g.training students to solve bullying conflicts,raising awareness of bully/victim problems).Moreover, most programme objectives refer toactivities that programme implementers have toorganize and do not mention what participantsthemselves have to learn.

Change objectivesThe adapted anti-bullying interventions differlargely in the adaptations made to the changeobjectives. Although they all promote better adultsupervision during playtime, some divergenceswere observed due to organizational differencesin the educational system. In addition to improvedplayground supervision, the Canadian programme(Pepler et al., 1994) encourages discussion withstudents about everyday conflicts and interactions



6/14


7/14

between classmates in the playground, andsuggests the introduction of additional playequipment, with special attention to days when itis raining. The Flemish programme (Stevens andVan Oost, 1994) additionally provides anextensive procedure to manage bully/victimproblems in the playground in an authoritative

manner. When bullying is observed, teaching andnon-teaching staff members are prepared toreact immediately to stop bully/victim incidents.Teachers then discuss the bullying incidentseparately with bully and victim, using repairprocedures and contracting. The intervention inSheffield (Smith and Sharp, 1994) also discussesstrategies to handle bully/victim incidents in anauthoritative way. In the schools of the Sheffieldproject, members of the local community usuallysupervise during midday break. By building betterrelationships between children and lunchtimesupervisors, the programme tries to encourage anauthoritative adultchild interaction. TheSheffield intervention programme also providesactivities to redesign the playground, includingcollaboration with landscape designers.

METHODS

In step 2 of the intervention mapping process,attention is focused on the programme methodsand strategies used to attain the proximalprogramme objectives. Methods are based upon

theoretical concepts, revealing which interventiontechniques may result in the desired environ-mental or behavioural changes. Strategies are theprogramme activities that organize the inter-vention methods, so that the target populationsare approached in an appropriate way. In Table 3,methods and strategies used in the anti-bullyinginterventions are delineated.

School and class

In line with the model programme, the adapted

anti-bullying interventions make use of con-tingency management to reduce the aggressivebehaviour of bullies, which is primarilyoperationalized in the development of an anti-bullying policy within the school. Othertheoretical methods for obtaining proximalprogramme objectives among the other targetpopulations were less extensively elaborated in theBergen model programme. This may have affectedthe adapted programmes as they essentially differ

in the methods used to involve peers. Theselected methods for changes in attitude andbehaviour within the peer group vary from thePikas method and other curriculum activities(Smith and Sharp, 1994) to peer conflictmediation programmes (Pepler et al., 1994) orproblem solving strategies and skills training

sessions (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994). It issomewhat unclear why various countries preferdifferent methods, suggesting that characteristicsof the implementation system, like skills andpractices of teachers, may interfere in thedecision process (see also steps 3 and 4).

Family

In relation to the family component, the modelprogramme prescribes organizing general parentmeetings and introducing discussion groups spe-cifically for parents of involved children. Theseprescriptions are based on the methods of givingadvice on child-rearing techniques (Stafford andBayer, 1993). The adapted programmes copiedthe strategy of organizing information sessions(Pepler et al., 1994; Smith and Sharp, 1994;Stevens and Van Oost, 1994) and communicationskills training (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994)for all parents to help them monitor bullyingbehaviour and provide support for children beingbullied. It was observed that none of the adaptedinterventions provided activities specifically forparents of the children involved.

Bullies and victims

The programme methods selected to accomplishthe programme objectives among children directlyinvolved in bully/victim problems are fairlycongruent between the model and the adaptedinterventions: the programmes introduce assert-iveness training or support for victims of bullyingand self-control sessions or problem-solvingtraining for the bullies. It was observed that theintervention in Sheffield additionally presented

schools with the option to introduce peercounselling activities for victims of bullying.However, some programme designers define theseprogramme components as short-terms actions(Smith and Sharp, 1994), providing assertivenesstraining or self-control therapy for bullies orvictims at school. Others have formulated themas long-term activities (Stevens and Van Oost,1994), referring children to specialized clinicalchild guidance centres.



8/14


9/14


10/14

Production, adoption and implementationof the programme

The purpose of the third step in the interventionmapping process is the production of an organ-ized intervention programme, and includes puttingprogramme strategies and the development andpre-testing of programme materials into operation.

Development and pre-testing of health inter-vention programmes requires an intensivecollaboration between programme designers,programme participants and intermediate users(Bartholomew et al., 1998). In addition, step 4of the intervention mapping process intends todevelop a plan for appropriate adoption andimplementation. One of the essential activitiesincludes the elaboration of a linkage systembetween programme designers and users to guar-antee appropriate and reliable implementation,and to make the intervention better fit the

educational context in which the programme hasto be implemented. In the context of conductinginnovations in organizational settings, Rogersreferred to the re-invention concept, which hedefined as the degree to which an innovationis changed or modified by a user in the processof its adoption and implementation [(Rogers,1983), p. 175]. Hence, steps 3 and 4 are nearlyinterlinked, proceeding as a dynamic interactionbetween the two during programme development.

Programme production and implementation

For the adapted anti-bullying interventionprogrammes, it was observed that they all pro-vided links with programme users and createdopportunities for programme modification andre-invention. The Canadian programme (Pepleret al., 1994) provided the largest autonomy forprogramme users during programme develop-ment. Two team leaders from each school weregiven the task of developing intervention materialswithin their schools in collaboration with otherstaff members. During planning team sessionsthese activities were discussed with the members

of the research group. The Department forEducation (DFE) Sheffield Anti-BullyingProject (Smith and Sharp, 1994) includes a coreintervention aimed at developing a whole-schoolanti-bullying policy. Additional interventionmaterials were provided for schools, rangingfrom curriculum activities and playgroundinterventions, to working with individuals andsmall groups. Schools themselves could choose theinterventions that best fitted the school setting.

Moreover, in some schools, the interventionswere supplemented with materials they them-selves developed or discovered. In Flanders, thedevelopment of the intervention programme(Stevens and Van Oost, 1994) was conducted intwo phases. During the pilot phase, schools couldadapt programme components to their own

situation, while the research team preserved thedevelopment of the anti-bullying policy. After6 months of implementation, within each school,the project co-ordinator, the school principal andanother teacher were interviewed about pro-gramme feasibility, barriers for implementationand training needs. Based on this information, afinal version of the programme was developedand additional training sessions were providedfor another group of schools where the programmewas implemented and evaluated (see also step 5).

Programme adoptionOne may conclude that the programmedevelopers in different countries have intensivelymonitored the process of programme develop-ment and implementation. However, in line withthe model programme, it is unclear how pro-gramme developers in different countries havemonitored the adoption process. Activities withinthis stage are related to decision-making pro-cesses to adopt or to reject an intervention, andthey precede the implementation stage (Rogers,1983). The anti-bullying interventions do not

provide information about why and how schoolsdecide to implement the anti-bullying programmesand it remains unknown how the adoption pro-cesses are linked to the implementation efforts.

Programme monitoring and evaluation

The fifth and last step in the intervention map-ping process focuses on programme monitoringand evaluation. This step intends to carry outprocess and outcome evaluations related tothe performance objectives and to the proximal

programme objectives. For the adapted anti-bullying interventions, as well as for the Bergenmodel programme, it was observed that the pro-gramme outcomes were evaluated and relatedwith process variables (Pepler et al., 1994; Smithand Sharp, 1994; Stevens et al., 2000). Thesestudies revealed that the adapted interventionswere less effective in reducing bullying and victim-ization compared with the model programme.However, the evaluation measurements were



11/14

primarily linked with performance objectives,including the effects on rates of bullying andvictimization. Less information is availableon specific learning and environmental object-ives, such as the increase in assertiveness ofvictims, self-control of bullies, child-rearing skillsof parents and teachers or students skills to

interrupt bully/victim incidents and to manageeffective solutions.

FURTHER PROGRAMMEDEVELOPMENT

It was found that the Bergen intervention inessence fulfils most of the characteristics of goodmodel programmes, including a link with develop-mental models of aggressive behaviour and be-haviour modification theories, a person-orientedas well as a system-oriented approach, andencouragement of links with specialized services.It provides information about programme mon-itoring and behavioural outcomes. It was alsofound that the adapted interventions largelysucceeded in incorporating the core componentsof the Bergen model programme with attentionto the characteristics of the implementationenvironment. Only minor differences were foundbetween the adapted programmes and theBergen model relating to the intervention activ-ities in the playground and strategies relevant forpeer environment, and for students directly

involved in bully/victim incidents. Primarily, theycould be explained by cultural differences in theorganization of school psychological services andinvolvement of the local community. Skills andpractices of intermediate users, i.e. teachingand non-teaching staff members, have alsodefined the adaptation outcomes.

Nevertheless, when the programme character-istics and development processes of the adaptedinterventions and the Bergen programme wereanalysed in the context of health promotionmodels (Bartholomew et al., 1998; Kok, 1999),

it was observed that certain aspects of theintervention mapping process have receivedless attention in all anti-bullying programmes.First, the analyses revealed that none of the anti-bullying programmes have formulated specificlearning objectives. As learning objectives arederived from the behavioural determinants ofthe health problem (Bartholomew et al., 1998),they are critical for developing a programme thatfocuses on the central attitudes and behaviours

of the unhealthy condition. Schools could benefitfrom a detailed overview of the learning objectives,clearly indicating what each target populationhas to learn to reach the programme goals.

Secondly, an overview of the learningobjectives may additionally provide a structurefor more detailed programme evaluations. It was

observed that most evaluation measurements areprimarily linked to the effects on bullying andvictimization, while less information is providedabout the effects on specific learning objectives.Effects on subgoals could inform us aboutessential programme elements for reachingthe overall programme objectives and give anindication about critical parts for programmeimplementation or success.

A third factor of interest refers to the familyenvironment. The Bergen programme prescribesthe organization of discussion groups specificallyfor parents of bullies and victims. However,Olweus observed that parents of involved chil-dren were hard to engage (Olweus, 1992). Theanalyses of the adapted programmes revealedthat none of these provided activities specificallyfor parents of bullies and victims. It is unclearwhether or not parents of bullies and victims maylearn from each other about family managementskills and about the effects of bullying on thechildren being victimized. This reveals a need forreviewing the methods and strategies used inparental involvement, in close collaboration withthe parents themselves.

Finally, it is unclear how programmedevelopers in different countries have monitoredthe adoption phase. None of the anti-bullyinginterventions have provided information aboutwhy and how schools decide to implementthe programmes, and it remains unknown howthe adoption processes are linked with the imple-mentation efforts. However, this kind of datacould help to determine the starting conditionsfor effective implementation of anti-bullyinginterventions. This information could help otherschools to decide whether or not they are ready

to implement an anti-bullying programme in aneffective way.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This paper has argued that the Bergen anti-bullying programme is a good model programmeand that the adapted interventions largely suc-ceeded in incorporating the core components of



12/14

the Bergen model. For bully/victim interventions,the dilemma of maintaining programme fidelitywhile incorporating programme adaptation couldbe solved adequately. From this it could bereasoned that poor programme adaptation is notthe main argument for the less positive outcomesof the adapted interventions.

From a health promotion perspective, somecritical issues for programme improvementwere observed. Three suggestions for changewere made, indicating that anti-bullying actionsat schools may benefit from: (i) a clear overviewof the learning objectives specified per targetpopulation; (ii) more intensive efforts within thehome environment; and (iii) additional informa-tion about the decision-making conditions foradopting anti-bullying interventions within theschool.

To understand better the observed outcomes,it might be the purpose of further research tofocus on more detailed programme evaluation,including effects on specific learning objectivesfor students, peers, teachers and parents, relativeto the extent of programme implementation(Hepworth, 1997; Nutbeam, 1998).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The paper was conducted as part of the firstauthors doctoral dissertation at the University of

Ghent. The research was supported financiallyby the University of Ghent and the Minister ofHealth Promotion of Flanders.

Address for correspondence:V. StevensGhent UniversityDepartment of PsychologyResearch Group Health and BehaviourH. Dunantlaan 2B-9000 GhentBelgium

REFERENCES

Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S. and Kok, G. (1998)Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory-and evidence-based health education programs. HealthEducation and Behaviour, 25, 545563.

Bond, L. A. and Compas, B. E. (1989) Primary Preventionand Promotion in the Schools. Primary Prevention ofPsychopathology Vol. XII. Sage Publications, London.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1997) The prevalence of problembehaviours: implications for programs. In Weissberg, R. P.,

Gullotta, T. P., Hampton, R. L., Ryan, B. A. and Adams,G. R. (eds) Enhancing Childrens Wellness. Issues inChildrens and Families Lives, Vol. 8. Sage Publications,London.

Elias, M. J. (1997) Reinterpreting dissemination of preven-tion programs as widespread implementation witheffectiveness and fidelity. In Weissberg, R. P., Gullotta,T. P., Hampton, R. L., Ryan, B. A. and Adams, G. R. (eds)Establishing Preventive Services. Issues in Childrens and

Families Lives, Vol. 9. Sage Publications, London.Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., Costabile, A. and

Smith, P. K. (1996) Bullies and victims in schools in centraland southern Italy. European Journal of Psychology ofEducation, 11, 97110.

Green, L. W. and Kreuter, M. W. (1991) Health PromotionPlanning: an Educational and Environmental Approach.Mayfield, Mountain View, CA.

Hepworth, J. (1997) Evaluation in health outcomesresearch: linking theories, methodologies and practice inhealth promotion, Health Promotion International, 12,233238.

Hosman, C. M. H. and Engels, M. C. L. J. (1999) The valueof model programmes in mental health promotion andmental disorder prevention. International Journal of

Mental Health Promotion, 1, 3.Kazdin, A. E. (1993) Adolescent mental health: prevention

and treatment programs. American Psychologist, 48,127141.

Kok, G. (1999) Implementing mental health promotion:a health education and promotion perspective. Inter-national Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 3, 410.

Mooij, T. (1992) Pesten in het Onderwijs. Instituut voorToegepaste Sociale Wetenschappen, Nijmegen.

Munthe, E. and Roland, E. (1989) Bullying: an InternationalPerspective. David Fulton Publishers, London.

Nutbeam, D. (1998) Evaluating health promotionprogress, problems and solutions. Health Promotion

International, 13, 2744.Olweus, D. (1984) Aggressors and their victims: bullying

at school. In Frude, N. and Gault, H. (eds) DisruptiveBehaviour in Schools. Wiley and Sons, New York, NY,pp. 5776.

Olweus, D. (1989) Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students.Department of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen.

Olweus, D. (1991) Bully/victim problems among school-children: basic facts and effects of a school based inter-vention program. In Pepler, D. J. and Rubin, K. H. (eds)The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NY, pp. 411448.

Olweus, D. (1992) Bullying among schoolchildren: inter-vention and prevention. In Peters, R. D. V., McMahon,R. J. and Quinsey, V. L. (eds) Aggression and ViolenceThroughout the Life Span. Sage Publications, NewburyPark, pp. 100125.

Olweus, D. (1994) Annotation: bullying at school: basic factsand effects of a school based intervention program.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and AlliedDisciplines, 35, 11711190.

Olweus, D. (1999) Norway. In Smith, P. K., Morita, Y.,Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. and Slee, P. (eds)The Nature of School Bullying. A Cross-NationalPerspective. Routledge, London, pp. 2848.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S. and Charach, A.(1994) An evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention inToronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community MentalHealth, 13, 95110.



13/14

Price, R. H., Cowen, E. L., Lorion, R. P. and Ramos-Mckay,J. R. (1993) Fourteen Ounces of Prevention: a Casebook

for Practitioners. American Psychological Association,Washington, DC.

Rigby, K. and Slee, P. (1993) Dimensions of interpersonalrelation among Australian children and implicationsfor psychological well-being. The Journal of SocialPsychology, 133, 3342.

Rigby, K. and Slee, P. (1998) Bullying in Australian Schools.

Paper presented at the XVth Biennial Meetings ofthe International Society for the Study of BehaviouralDevelopment, Berne, Switzerland.

Roberts, M. C. and Hinton-Nelson, M. (1996) Models forservice delivery in child and family mental health. InRoberts, M. C. (ed.) Model Programs in Child and FamilyMental Health. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ,pp. 121.

Rogers, E. M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations. The FreePress, New York, NY.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A. and Coie, J. D. (1993) Theemergence of chronic peer victimization in Boys PlayGroups. Child Development, 64, 17551772.

Smith, P. K. and Sharp, S. (1994) School Bullying: Insightsand Perspectives. Routledge, London.

Smith, P. K., Bowers, L., Binney, V. and Cowie, H. (1993)Relationships of children involved in bully/victimproblems at school. In Duck, S. (ed.) Learning About

Relationships. Understanding Relationship Processesseries. Sage Publications, London, pp. 184215.

Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano,R. and Slee, P. (1999). The Nature of School Bullying:a Cross-National Perspective. Routledge, London.

Stafford, L. and Bayer, C. L. (1993) Interaction BetweenParents and Children. Sage Publications, London.

Stevens, V. and Van Oost, P. (1994) Pesten op School: eenActieprogramma. Garant Uitgevers, Kessel-Lo.

Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. and 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, 195210.

Valente, E. and Dodge, K. A. (1997) Evaluation ofprevention programs for children. In Weissberg, R. P.,Gullotta, T. P., Hampton, R. L., Ryan, B. A. and Adams,G. R. (eds) Establishing Preventive Services. Issues inChildrens and Families Lives, Vol. 9. Sage Publications,London.

Van Lieshout, C. F. M. (1992) Inleiding. In Olweus, D. (ed.)Treiteren op School. College Uitgevers, Amersfoort,pp. 913.

Weissberg, R. P., Caplan, M. and Harwood, R. L. (1991)Promoting competent young people in competence-

enhancing environments: a systems-based perspective onprimary prevention. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 59, 830841.



14/14

Fallas Bullying

Documents

Transcript of Fallas Bullying