Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ): Establishing a Reliable and Valid Measure

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray] On: 14 October 2014, At: 17:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of School Violence Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ): Establishing a Reliable and Valid Measure Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray a, Kelly Hodgson Summers b, Lyndsay N. Jenkins c & Lisa Davidson Becker d a Psychology Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA b Leadership, Educational Psychology, & Foundations Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA c Department of Psychology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA d DeKalb, Illinois School District, DeKalb, Illinois, USA Accepted author version posted online: 25 Sep 2014.Published online: 10 Oct To cite this article: Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, Kelly Hodgson Summers, Lyndsay N. Jenkins & Lisa Davidson Becker (2014): Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ): Establishing a Reliable and Valid Measure, Journal of School Violence, DOI: / To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

2 Conditions of access and use can be found at

3 Journal of School Violence, 00:1 31, 2014 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: print/ online DOI: / Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ): Establishing a Reliable and Valid Measure MICHELLE KILPATRICK DEMARAY Psychology Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA KELLY HODGSON SUMMERS Leadership, Educational Psychology, & Foundations Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA LYNDSAY N. JENKINS Department of Psychology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA LISA DAVIDSON BECKER DeKalb, Illinois School District, DeKalb, Illinois, USA The current study further establishes the reliability and validity of the Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ), a self-report survey that allows for an examination of participation in various bullying participant role behaviors including bully, assistant to the bully, victim, defender of the victim, and outsider. The study included 801 sixth- through eighth-grade students. The results of the study confirmed a five-factor structure (Bully, Assistant, Victim, Defender, and Outsider). Internal consistency of the subscales was high and item-subscale correlations were all significant and moderate to high. Correlations among the BPBQ subscales and with additional measures, including the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, Self-Report of Personality (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), the Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990), and an unpublished victim measure (Demaray & Malecki, 2003), provided evidence of concordant, convergent, and divergent validity. Gender and Received June 30, 2013; accepted September 8, Address correspondence to Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, Psychology Department, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. mkdemaray@niu.edu 1

4 2 M. K. Demaray et al. grade level differences were also investigated among the bullying participant behaviors. KEYWORDS Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire, BPBQ, bullying, roles, BASC, SSRS, self-report, validity, factor analysis Bullying is a significant problem worldwide, including in many schools in the United States (Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010). Bullying behaviors are complex and need to be understood within the larger social context in which they take place (Swearer & Doll, 2001; Swearer & Espelage, 2011; Unnever & Cornell; 2003). Because bullying is a social phenomenon, many other participants aside from the bully and the victim are likely to be present. Given that perhaps the largest number of participants in bullying situations are not the bully or the victim, but other participants and bystanders, leading experts agree that more research must focus on bystander participant roles (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Pellegrini & Long, 2002; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003; Thornberg, 2007; Twemlow, Fonagy,& Sacco, 2004). Bystanders have been defined as those who witness bullying and other acts of violence but are not themselves acting in the role of bully or victim (Twemlow et al., 2004, p. 222). Although an increased amount of recent research has focused on bystanders, much more work still needs to be conducted to understand the measurement of bystander behaviors and their potential influence on bullying prevention and intervention efforts. Measurement of bullying behaviors is complicated (Furlong, Sharkey, Felix, Tanigawa, & Green, 2010; Olweus & Limber, 2010). Much of the debate and issues relevant to assessment of bullying have focused on measures that assess students who bully and students who are victims. Given the importance of focusing on the broader social context of bullying and the role of bystanders, there are very few instruments designed to assess participation in other bullying behaviors, aside from that of the bully and victim, in the bullying phenomenon. Thus, the goal of the current study was to further the development of a self-report survey that allows for assessment of participation in a wider range of bullying behaviors, including bystander behaviors. Bystanders Roles in Bullying Situations Olweus (1993) discussed a circle of bullying that includes not only the bully and the victim, but followers of the bully, supporters of the bully, disengaged onlookers, possible defenders of the target, and defenders. Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Kaukiainen (1996) have conducted work in Finland and found evidence for differing participant

5 Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 3 roles in bullying situations including the bully, the victim, reinforcers of the bully, assistants to the bully, defenders of the victim, and outsiders. Although other participant roles have been identified for example, Twemlow and colleagues (2004) identified seven bystander roles from a more psychodynamic perspective the roles by Salmivalli and colleagues (1996) appear to be the most cited roles in the literature. Salmivalli et al. (1996) described reinforcers of the bully as individuals who reinforce the bully s behaviors by attending to it positively via watching, laughing, or using encouraging gestures; assistants to the bully as those participants who do not start the bullying but will join in when someone else starts the behaviors; defenders of the victim are participants who try to stop the bullying and console the victim; and outsiders are participants who avoid bullying and do not take sides with anyone. Assessment of Participant Roles One reason for the inconsistent study of participant roles beyond bully and victim may be the lack of a reliable and valid measurement instrument that includes assessment of bystander behaviors. A review of the literature revealed only one measure, the Participant Role Questionnaire (PRQ; Salmivalli et al., 1996), which adequately assesses bystander roles. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention published a compendium of assessment tools for bullying and also only identified the PRQ as including assessment of bystanders (Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011). The PRQ is a 15-item survey that utilizes peer nominations to categorize students into the following bystander roles: bully, assistant to the bully, reinforcer to the bully, defender of the victim, and outsider. When administering the PRQ, students are asked to think of situations in which someone has been bullied. Then they are presented with 15 items describing different ways to behave in such situations and asked to rate on a 3-point, Likert-type scale how often classmates behave in the ways described. The PRQ is a solid first step in exploring different participant roles. However, the measure has been used predominantly with students in Finland, which limits generalizability to U.S. populations. A second limitation of the PRQ is the 3-point, Likert-type scale, which limits responses to the never, sometimes, oroften categories prescribed by the tool. Additionally, the PRQ uses peer nomination, which is a useful and widely accepted methodology for identifying participant roles. However, this nomination methodology also limits use of the measure. While nomination methodology may be feasible to use in U.S. grade schools, where peers likely spend a large part of the day grouped with 20 to 30 classmates, it becomes less useful with large middle- and high-school populations. The PRQ methodology (i.e., peer nomination) has been adapted and administered as an interview (Sutton & Smith, 1999) and as a self-report measure (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999). However, the PRQ was not developed as a self-report

6 4 M. K. Demaray et al. rating scale and needs more evidence of reliability and validity to be used in this manner. The current study aimed to develop a measure, the Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ; Summers & Demaray, 2008) that expands upon current measurement of behaviors in the bullying situation. Similar to the work of Salmivalli, the goal was to develop a measure of bullying participant role behaviors that included: bully, assistant to the bully, victim, defender to the victim, and outsider. However, the construct of assistant to the bully in the current study includes behaviors that reflect a combination of Salmivalli s roles of assistant to the bully and reinforcer of the bully. Thus, in the current study the conceptualization of assistants to the bully includes youth who may actually assist the bully in the behavior (e.g., hold down a student) or reinforce the bullying behavior (e.g., encourage the bully to engage in the behavior). Other studies have combined the assistant and reinforcer of the bully categories using variations of Salmivalli s measure indicating these categories are part of the same probullying category (Goossens, Olthof, & Dekker, 2006; Sutton & Smith, 1999). However, these studies have still relied on peer nomination versus a rating scale format. The measure in the current study, the BPBQ, also allows for a wider range of responses by way of an expanded self-report, Likert-type scale. The BPBQ uses a 5-point Likert scale versus the PRQ s 3-point Likert scale allowing for more variability in responses. Another key difference between the PRQ and the BPBQ is that although the PRQ allows for classification of various roles, it does not provide information about the degree to which respondents exhibit or have been subjected to various behaviors related to different participant roles in bullying. That is, the PRQ places students in a category where the BPBQ provides a score for the student for behaviors associated with that category. Recently, some additional self-report tools have added a bystander or witness component to measures of bullying, but they do not break that group down into behaviors associated with different roles (e.g., assistant, defender) of the bystander (Cheng, Chen, Liu, & Chen, 2011; Wiens & Dempsey, 2009). Thus, there is still a void that exists with respect to measuring participation in the different bullying participant role behaviors in the United States. Understanding more about these roles may aid in intervention development. The BPBQ (Summers & Demaray, 2008) was created to fill this gap. It should be noted that preliminary work developing the measure was completed as part of a pilot study (N = 203) and a dissertation study (N = 250). The brief results from these preliminary works are described in the Method section under the description of the measure. The goal of the current study was to follow up on this initial work with a larger sample and additional analyses. Thus, the goal of the current study was to refine the BPBQ and provide evidence of reliability and validity so that researchers and school service personnel alike could use the tool with confidence.

7 Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 5 Research Predictions It was predicted that the BPBQ would have a five-factor structure (i.e., Bully, Assistant, Victim, Defender, Outsider) with evidence of high internal consistency and moderate to high significant correlations between the items and their respective subscale scores. Patterns of significant relations were also expected among the subscales. Specifically, it was predicted that the bully and assistant scores would correlate moderately given they are assessing similar probullying constructs. It was also predicted that both the bully and assistant scores would have low to moderate correlations with the victim score because of the overlap of bullying and victimization behaviors (e.g., bully-victims). Lastly, it was expected that the victim, defender, and outsider scores would demonstrate small to moderate relations among each other as previous research has indicated this pattern may be present among participant role behaviors (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Validity. Three additional measures were utilized to document evidence of concordant, convergent, and divergent validity: a measure of social emotional behaviors, a measure of social skills, and a measure of victimization. The social-emotional behaviors assessed included four maladaptive behaviors (i.e., negative attitude to school, negative attitude to teachers, depression, and anxiety) and three adaptive behaviors (i.e., interpersonal relations, relations with parents, and self-esteem). It was expected that the bully and assistant scores would have similar patterns of relations among the variables and that both scores would be associated with more negative attitudes to school and teachers based on the research focused on bullying behaviors and school connectedness (Cunningham, 2007; Raskauskas, Gregory, Harvey, Rifshana, & Evans, 2010). It was also expected that the bully and assistant scores would be associated with more negative relationships with parents (Rigby, 1993). It was expected that the bully and assistant roles would be associated with higher levels of depression (Seals & Young, 2003; Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle, & Mickelson, 2001). No relation was expected for the bully and assistant scores with anxiety and selfesteem. It was expected that the victim score would be significantly related to all of the social-emotional indicators including more negative attitudes towards teachers and school, lower interpersonal relations, poor parental relationships, higher levels of depression and anxiety, and lower self-esteem (Cunningham, 2007; Rigby, 1993; Seals & Young, 2003; Swearer et al., 2001). It was hypothesized that defenders and outsiders would have fewer social and emotional problems and that defenders may have more positive adaptive skills (i.e., interpersonal relations, relations with parents, and self-esteem). It was predicted that bullies and assistants would demonstrate significant negative correlations with positive social skills (i.e., cooperation, assertion, empathy, and self-control; Chui & Chan, 2013; Espelage, Mebane, & Adams,

8 6 M. K. Demaray et al. 2004; Gini, 2006; Larke & Beran, 2006; Wang, Chen, Xiao, Ma, & Ahang, 2012). Victims were also expected to have lower social skills (Champion, Vernberg, & Shipman, 2003; Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012; Unnever & Cornell, 2003). Based upon previous research, it was also predicted that defenders would have higher social skills of empathy and cooperation (Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoe, 2008). Given the lack of prior research on outsiders, no predictions were made for this bully role. It was predicted that the BPBQ Victim subscale score would demonstrate a moderate to high correlation with another victimization measure. Because research has indicated that victim measurements often correlate with other participant roles, it was predicted that the correlations between the victimization measure and the bully, assistant, defender, and outsider scores would be significant and low (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Participant role behaviors and gender and grade differences. The study also investigated gender and grade level differences associated with different bullying participant roles. With regard to gender, it was predicted that boys would report being bullied and would be categorized as bullies more often than females (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Demaray & Malecki, 2003; Espelage & Holt, 2001). It was also predicted that males would be classified as assistants more often than females (Salmivalli et al., 1996). Conversely, it was predicted that females would report defending victims and would be outsiders more frequently than males (Salmivalli et al., 1996; Trach, Hymel, Waterhouse, & Neale, 2010). When investigating grade level differences, it was predicted that sixth graders would have higher victimization scores than eighth graders, while eighth graders would have higher bullying scores (Demaray & Malecki, 2003; Espelage & Holt, 2001; Nansel et al., 2001) and that younger participants, sixth graders, would be more likely to defend victims than older participants, eighth graders (Trach et al., 2010). Participants METHOD The study included 801 sixth- through eighth-grade students from a middle school located in a suburban area in the Midwest. Approximately 49% of the participants were male and 51% were female. The majority (81%) of the participants were White. The school had a total of 845 students enrolled (95% participation rate). The school consisted of 15.5% of students receiving free or reduced lunch and 0.6% were limited in English proficiency. For the factor analyses, the sample was randomly split into two separate samples (n = 393 and n = 408). The total sample demographics and demographics by these two random samples are detailed in Table 1.

9 Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 7 TABLE 1 Participant Characteristics by Total Sample and the CFA and PCA Samples Total sample N = 801 CFA sample n = 408 PCA sample n = 393 Characteristics n % n % n % Grade Sixth Seventh Eighth Missing Gender Boy Girl Missing Ethnicity African American Asian American Hispanic American White Multiracial Native American Missing Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; PCA = principal components analysis. The school make up was 3.9% African American, 1.2% Asian American, 6.4% Hispanic American, 84% White, 0.8% Native American, and 3.2% multiracial. Chi-square analyses indicated there were no significant differences between CFA and PCA groups in demographic variable membership. Measures Four measures were completed by each student: the BPBQ (Summers & Demaray, 2008), the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, Self-Report of Personality (BASC-2 SRP; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990), and an additional unpublished measure of victimization. The Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire. The BPBQ (Summers & Demaray, 2008) is intended to measure children and adolescents perceptions of bullying in their school and includes assessment of behaviors associated with five different participant roles: bully, victim, defender of the victim, assistant to the bully, and outsider. In initial work the BPBQ was called the Bully Participant Role Survey (BPRS); the title was changed to more accurately reflect that it assesses behaviors associated with bullying roles. The content of the BPBQ was based on the literature regarding bystanders of bullying (Salmivalli et al., 1996; Salmivalli, Huttunen, & Lagerspetz, 1997; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004) and was reviewed by graduate students and professors in school psychology. Expert reviewers provided informal feedback on the items. The BPBQ was initially developed and tested on a pilot study sample (N = 203) of middle school students, which revealed five factors (Bully, Assistant to the Bully, Victim, Defender

10 8 M. K. Demaray et al. of the Victim, and Outsider) accounting for 55% of the variance. The BPBQ was refined and utilized in a sample of 250 middle school students and in this sample four factors (Bully, Victim, Defender of the Victim, and Outsider) were obtained that accounted for 55% of the variance. In that sample, the Assistant to the Bully factor was not retained as many of the items double loaded on the Bully factor. Thus, for the current study, the BPBQ was again refined, additional items were added, especially focusing on the Assistant factor, and the version utilized in this study consisted of 80 items that were each hypothesized to load onto one of the five proposed factors (Bully, Victim, Assistant, Outsider, and Defender). Each of these factors is discussed next. The Bully Subscale assesses the frequency of participation in behaviors that are considered to be bullying whereas the Assistant Subscale assesses the willingness to encourage, join in, or aid a bully in bullying others. The Victim Subscale assesses the frequency of behaviors that one experiences being bullied. The Defender Subscale assesses the frequency of participation in behaviors related to defending on behalf of a victim, and the Outsider Subscale contains items about the frequency with which a student acknowledges bullying occurs but chooses to actively ignore it. To complete the BPBQ students are provided with a definition of bullying (i.e., frequent, power differential, and negative intent). Then, they rate the frequency in which they engaged in (i.e., bullying, assistant, defender, and outsider items) or experienced (i.e., victim) a behavior in the last 30 days on a 5-point response scale (0 = never, 1= 1to2times,2= 3to4times,3= 5to 6times,4= 7ormoretimes). The goal of the current study was to provide evidence of reliability and validity of the BPBQ and these data are provided in the Results section. Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, Self-Report of Personality. The BASC-2 SRP (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) is a rating scale that measures the personality and self-perceptions of students ages There are two types of questions in the scale. Some questions require a true or false response, but other questions are rated on a 4-point frequency scale, ranging from never to almost always. It has been determined that the SRP is written at approximately a third-grade reading level and has three forms for three different age levels: child (8 to 11), adolescent (12 to 21), and college (18 to 25). The SRP-A, for adolescents, was used in the current study and has five composite scales, School Problems, Internalizing Problems, Inattention/Hyperactivity, Emotional Symptoms Index, and Personal Adjustment. The BASC-2 SRP standardization sample consisted of 1,900 children for the SRP-A form. The sample was stratified by gender, age, SES, race/ethnicity, and geographic region based on the 2001 Current Population Survey. According to the manual, the BASC-2 SRP-A subscale scores have demonstrated strong evidence of internal consistency with coefficients ranging from

11 Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 9.71 to.86. Test-retest reliability (14-51 days) was demonstrated with a median correlation coefficient of.75 and subscale coefficients ranging from.63 to.84. Validity for the SRP-A was demonstrated via intercorrelations of the scales and factor structure of the scales. Overall, the scales were moderately correlated with each other in the expected direction. In addition, two types of factor analysis, covariance structure analysis and principal-axis factor analysis demonstrated clear factor loadings. The SRP-A demonstrated adequate correlations with other self-report measures of depression and anxiety, as well as the first edition of the BASC SRP-A. In the current data collection the following subscales were given: Attitude to School, Attitude to Teachers, Anxiety, Depression, Attention Problems, Hyperactivity, Interpersonal Relations, and Self-Esteem. For validity purposes, the Attention Problems and Hyperactivity subscales were not utilized. The Social Skills Rating System. The SSRS (Gresham & Elliott, 1990) isa rating scale measure used to assess student social behaviors that may affect a number of areas in the student s life. Parent, teacher, and student forms are available. There are two versions of the student ratings form, one for Grades 3-6 (Elementary) and the other for Grades 7-12 (Secondary). The current study utilized the Elementary (Grade 6; 34 items) or Secondary (Grades 7 and 8; 39 items) student versions of the SSRS. Students are asked to rate their own behaviors sampling from four subscales or content areas. These content areas include Cooperation, Assertion, Responsibility, Empathy, and Self-Control. For each item, students are asked to circle how often (frequency) a social behavior occurs and additionally, for Grades 7-12, how important each behavior is (importance). Answers are circled based upon a scale with frequency scores ranging from 0 = never to 2 = very often. Similarly, the importance scores range from 0 = not important to 2 = critical. Student self-rating scales were standardized based on a sample of 4,170 children. Geographical location, ethnicity, disability status, and community size were representative of the U.S. population as a whole. In addition, the SSRS demonstrates sound reliability and validity. Alpha coefficients were.83 for the total scale and ranged from.51 to.77 for the subscales. Test-retest reliability was measured four weeks after the original sampling and ranged from.52 to.66. Validity evidence consisted of factor analysis, which yielded the four social skills subscales presented above. In addition, the SSRS student form was compared to the Child Behavior Checklist-Youth Self Report Form (CBCL-YSR; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and the Piers- Harris Children s Self-Concept Scale (PHCSCS; Piers, 1984). Correlations with the PHCSCS scales were low to moderate and there were negative and significant correlations with the CBCL-YSR. Victim measure. A 12-item victimization questionnaire was also administered to assess victimization. This measure was based on items from the Bully Survey (Swearer, 2001) and The National School Crime and Safety Survey-Revised Student Form (Kingery, 2001). A prior version of the measure

12 10 M. K. Demaray et al. was published in a study investigating social support and bullying (Demaray & Malecki, 2003). Additional items were added and some wording was slightly changed from the version published in the Demaray and Malecki (2003) study. The measure was adapted so that students would not only be able to rate the frequency in which they experienced each behavior, but also the degree to which it made them feel bad and whether they felt that the aggressor made them feel scared or worried. Only the frequency scores were utilized in the current study. For frequency ratings, students were presented with each item then asked, How often have these things happened to you at school in the last month? Students responded to items by circling if they experienced the behavior on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2= 1 time a month, 3 = 2+ times a month, 4= 1 time a week, and5= 2+ times a week). Some sample items are, Someone called me names, Someone said mean things behind my back, and Someone hit, kicked, pushed, attacked, or physically hurt me in another way. In the current study, the alpha coefficient was for the measure was.88. Procedure Data were collected as part of a school-wide evaluation of social-emotional issues. Parents were notified that self-report surveys would be completed. No parents requested that their child abstain from participation. University IRB approval was obtained to use the dataset for the current study. No names or identifying information were located in the electronic dataset. Students completed the surveys over a 3-day period in mid-october. The unpublished victimization form bullying scale was administered on the first day, the BASC- 2 on the second day, and the BPBQ and SSRS on the third day. Language Arts teachers administered the surveys and students completed the surveys during Language Arts time. If students were identified as needing help reading, items were read aloud by special education teachers. Factor Analysis RESULTS The sample was randomly divided in half and on one half of the sample a principal component factor analysis was conducted and on the other half a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Principal component factor analysis. Item-level analyses were conducted on all BPBQ items. Item means and standard deviations were examined. Items were also examined for range restriction, skewness, and kurtosis. These data are presented in Table 2. A principal component factor analysis (PCA) was conducted. An oblique (Promax) rotation was applied because it was hypothesized that the factors are correlated with one another.

13 Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 11 TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics for Items on the Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire Principal Components Analysis Sample Items N M SD Skew Kurtosis 1. I have called another student bad names I have made fun of another student I have purposely left out another student I have ignored another student a I have pushed, punched or slapped another student I have bumped into another student on purpose a I have told lies about another student I have tried to make people dislike another student I have stolen things from another student I have damaged or broken something that was another student s a 11. I have verbally threatened another student a I have made another student do things they didn t want to do a 13. I have thrown things at another student I have tripped another student on purpose a I have said bad things about another student I have talked about someone behind their back When someone else has started spreading rumors, I joined in a 18. When someone was ignoring another student, I joined in a 19. When someone was being pushed, punched, or slapped, I stopped to watch a 20. When someone else has started pushing or shoving a student, I joined in a 21. When someone was making fun of another student, I joined in 22. When someone was verbally threatening another student, I joined in 23. When someone was making a student do things they did not want to do, I joined in a 24. When someone else was telling lies about another student, I joined in a 25. When someone bumped into another student, I joined in 26. I have made fun of someone when they were pushed, punched, or slapped 27. I have made fun of someone who was being called mean names 28. When someone else broke something that belonged to another student, I stopped to watch 29. When someone else tripped another student on purpose, I laughed 30. When someone else knocked books out of another student s hands on purpose, I laughed 31. When someone else pinched or poked another student, I joined in (Continued)

14 12 M. K. Demaray et al. TABLE 2 (Continued) Items N M SD Skew Kurtosis 32. When someone else threw something at another student, I joined in 33. I have been called mean names I have been made fun of I have been purposely left out of something I have been ignored I have been pushed around, punched, or slapped I have been pushed or shoved People have told lies about me People have tried to make others dislike me I have been threatened by others People have damaged or broken something that was mine a 43. I have had things taken from me People have made me do things I did not want to do a I have been tripped by another student on purpose a I have had my books knocked out of my hands on purpose a 47. I have been pinched or poked a I have had something thrown at me a I tried to make people stop spreading rumors about others a 50. When I saw someone being mean to others, I threatened to tell an adult if it didn t stop a 51. I told someone that picking on others is mean and they should not do it a 52. I tried to make someone feel better after they were picked on a 53. I tried to become friends with someone after they were picked on 54. I encouraged someone to tell an adult after they were picked on 55. I defended someone by telling people that a rumor is not true a 56. I defended someone who was being pushed, punched, or slapped 57. When I saw someone being picked on, I told an adult a 58. I defended someone who had things purposely taken from them 59. I defended someone who was being called mean names 60. I tried to include someone if they were being purposely left out 61. I helped someone who had their books knocked out of their hands on purpose 62. I helped someone who was purposely tripped When I saw someone being physically harmed, I told an adult 64. I defended someone who I thought was being tricked on purpose (Continued)

15 Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 13 TABLE 2 (Continued) Items N M SD Skew Kurtosis 65. I ignored lies people spread about other students a I ignored it when I saw someone threatening another student a 67. I pretended not to notice when another student was being pushed, punched, or slapped a 68. I pretended not to notice when things were taken or stolen from another student 69. I pretended not to notice when rumors were being spread about other students 70. I ignored it when I saw someone making fun of another student 71. I pretended not to notice a situation that purposely left someone out 72. I ignored it when someone was calling another student bad names a 73. I ignored it when I saw someone breaking or damaging another student s things 74. I have walked away when I saw someone else being picked on a 75. I pretended not to notice when someone else knocked the books out of another student s hands on purpose a 76. I pretended not to notice when someone else tripped another student on purpose 77. I ignored it when someone else pinched or poked another student 78. I ignored it when someone threw something at another student 79. I ignored it when someone else tricked another student 80. I pretended not to notice when someone was destroying another student s property Note. The range on all items = 4. a Items were dropped from final version Initially, the analysis was run without forcing any factors. An examination of the scree plot indicated that there were five to seven factors. The analysis was run again forcing five factors. The factor structure accounted for 52% of the variance. Upon inspection of the factor loadings, five items loaded on factors they were not intended to load on (Items 65, 6, 11, 4, 44). Thus, these five items were deleted and the analysis was run again forcing five factors. All items loaded on the five factors as intended and accounted for 54% of the variance. At this point items were deleted that loaded the lowest on each factor to shorten the length of the scale and reduce each subscale to 10 items each for a total of 50 items (deleted Items 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 66, 67, 72, 74, 75). Finally, the factor analysis was run again forcing five factors. This final factor analysis accounted for 60% of the variance. The (KMO) measure of

16 14 M. K. Demaray et al..88 indicated a high sampling adequacy for the factor analysis. Bartlett s test of sphericity was significant (p <.001), indicating that the factor model is appropriate. An analysis of the pattern matrix indicated that the strongest factor consisted of the outsider items followed by defender, victim, assistant to the bully, and bully items. Table 3 provides a summary of the items that load onto each of the five factors along with the internal consistency alpha for each factor. There were no items that cross-loaded onto any other factor above.38. The lowest loading item on the Bully scale, item 5, crossloaded on the Assistant scale at.38. Alpha coefficients for each subscale are presented in Table 3; they ranged from.88 to.94. Confirmatory factor analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the other half of the split data set (n = 408) to verify the five-factor structure developed during the PCA stage. AMOS 20.0 maximum likelihood estimation was used to provide robust estimates of the parameters. The five latent variables (bully, assistant, victim, defender, and outsider) were correlated because the literature suggests that there is overlap among the bullying participant behaviors (Salmivalli, 2010). Only 314 cases (77% of split data set) had complete data and were included in the analyses since AMOS requires no missing data when requesting modification indices.when conducting model respecification, only error covariances within a factor would be considered (e.g., a covariance between the error term of bully item and the error term of a victim item would not be added). Additionally, consideration of the extent to which an item was assessing a similar, but not identical bullying behavior was also given. For example, some items were worded similarly (e.g., I have been purposely left out of something and I have been ignored ) so it is logical that the error terms associated with these items would be correlated. Some items assess similar, but not synonymous, behaviors, so leaving both items in the model and adding a covariance between error terms would be more logical than deleting one of the items. Model fit was evaluated based on six measures of fit: χ 2, relative χ 2 (CMIN/df), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI). These fit indices were chosen based on recommendations by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008). When evaluating fit, it is desirable to have a nonsignificant χ 2 value (Barrett, 2007); however, there are some cautions when interpreting model fit using the χ 2. The χ 2 is sensitive to sample size where large samples are more likely to have a significant χ 2, indicating poor fit, where, in fact, the data may fit the model better than indicated by the χ 2 value (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu& Bentler, 1995; Kenny & McCoach, 2003); therefore, it is important to consider other information when evaluating the fit of a model. Carmines and McIver (1981) considered relative χ 2 ratios between 3 and 1 to be indicative of acceptable fit when comparing the hypothetical model to the sample data.

17 Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 15 TABLE 3 Final Factor Structure Loadings for PCA Sample Items Loading Bully (alpha =.88) 8. I have tried to make people dislike another student I have said bad things about another student I have told lies about another student I have thrown things at another student I have purposely left out another student I have made fun of another student I have stolen things from another student I have talked about someone behind their back I have called another student bad names I have pushed, punched, or slapped another student.49 Assistant (alpha =.92) 26. I have made fun of someone when they were pushed, punched, or.83 slapped 25. When someone bumped into another person, I joined in When someone else tripped another student on purpose, I laughed When someone else knocked books out of another student s hands on.75 purpose, I laughed 27. I have made fun of someone who was being called mean names When someone was verbally threatening another student, I joined in When someone else pinched or poked another student, I joined in When someone else threw something at another student, I joined in When someone else broke something that belonged to another.62 student, I stopped to watch 21. When someone was making fun of another student, I joined in.61 Victim (alpha =.93) 34. I have been made fun of I have been purposely left out of something I have been called mean names I have been ignored People have told lies about me People have tried to make others dislike me I have had things taken from me I have been pushed or shoved I have been threatened by others I have been pushed around, punched, or slapped.64 Defender (alpha =.94) 62. I helped someone who was purposely tripped I defended someone who had things purposely taken from them I defended someone who was being called mean names I helped someone who had their books knocked out of their hands on.82 purpose 64. I defended someone who I thought was being tricked on purpose I defended someone who was being pushed, punched, or slapped I tried to become friends with someone after they were picked on I tried to include someone if they were being purposely left out When I saw someone being physically harmed, I told an adult I encouraged someone to tell an adult after they were picked on.73 (Continued)

18 16 M. K. Demaray et al. TABLE 3 (Continued) Items Loading Outsider (alpha =.94) 76. I pretended not to notice when someone else tripped another student.86 on purpose 78. I ignored it when some threw something at another student I pretended not to notice when someone was destroying another.82 student s property 77. I ignored it when someone else pinched or poked another student I ignored it when someone else tricked another student I pretended not to notice when rumors were being spread about other.79 students 68. I pretended not to notice when things were taken or stolen from.79 another student 70. I ignored it when I saw someone making fun of another student I ignored it when I saw someone breaking or damaging another.76 student s things 71. I pretended not to notice a situation that purposely left someone out.72 Guidelines suggest that models may be considered to have adequate fit if CFI values are greater than.90 (Browne & Cudeck, 1989), SRMR values below.05 (Byrne, 1998). RMSEA values should not exceed.10, with values between.05 and.08 indicating adequate fit and values between.08 and.10 suggesting mediocre fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1989). The PNFI is also reported, but there are not widely accepted cutoffs for this index. Mulaik and colleagues (1989) suggested that values near.50 or greater are acceptable. The CFA was completed in two phases. First, based on the principal components analysis (PCA), a five-factor model was tested including all 50 items (10 items for each of the five factors) without any error covariances. Results indicated that the model did not fit the data well, χ 2 (1165) = , p <.001, CFI =.80, SRMR =.07, RMSEA =.079, 90% CI [.076,.082], PNFI =.69. Modification indices were examined and indicated that adding 25 covariances would each reduce the χ 2 by at least 20. Upon examining these suggested covariances, the addition of 20 error covariances seemed appropriate based on substantive reasons. The model was analyzed again and output indicated that the model fit reasonably well. Though the χ 2 was significant (which was expected given the large sample) and the CFI value was just below the cutoff, the CMIN/df, SRMR, RMSEA, and PNFI were all in acceptable ranges, χ 2 (1145) = , p <.001, CFI =.88, SRMR =.06, RMSEA =.065, 90% CI [.062,.068], PNFI =.74. Table 4 contains the standardized, unstandardized, p values, and standard errors associated with the path coefficients of Model 2. The results of the CFA confirm the fivefactor structure including the Bully, Assistant, Victim, Defender, and Outsider subscales.

19 Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire 17 TABLE 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Standardized, Unstandardized, and Standard Errors of Path Coefficients Item and latent variable B β SE Bully 1. I have called another student bad names I have made fun of another student I have purposely left out another student I have pushed, punched or slapped another student I have told lies about another student I have tried to make people dislike another student I have stolen things from another student I have thrown things at another student I have said bad things about another student I have talked about someone behind their back Assistant 21. When someone was making fun of another student, I joined in 22. When someone was verbally threatening another student, I joined in 25. When someone bumped into another person, I joined in I have made fun of someone when they were pushed, punched, or slapped 27. I have made fun of someone who was being called mean names 28. When someone else broke something that belonged to another student, I stopped to watch 29. When someone else tripped another student on purpose, I laughed 30. When someone else knocked books out of another student s hands on purpose, I laughed 31. When someone else pinched or poked another student, I joined in 32. When someone else threw something at another student, I joined in Victim 33. I have been called mean names I have been made fun of I have been purposely left out of something I have been ignored I have been pushed around, punched or slapped I have been pushed or shoved People have told lies about me People have tried to make others dislike me I have been threatened by others I have had things taken from me Defender 53. I tried to become friends with someone after they were picked on 54. I encouraged someone to tell an adult after they were picked on (Continued)

20 18 M. K. Demaray et al. TABLE 4 (Continued) Item and latent variable B β SE 56. I defended someone who was being pushed, punched, or slapped 58. I defended someone who had things purposely taken from them 59. I defended someone who was being called mean names I tried to include someone if they were being purposely left out 61. I helped someone who had their books knocked out of their hands on purpose 62. I helped someone who was purposely tripped When I saw someone being physically harmed, I told an adult 64. I defended someone who I thought was being tricked on purpose Outsider 68. I pretended not to notice when things were taken or stolen from another student 69. I pretended not to notice when rumors were being spread about other students 70. I ignored it when I saw someone making fun of another student 71. I pretended not to notice a situation that purposely left someone out 73. I ignored it when I saw someone breaking or damaging another student s things 76. I pretended not to notice when someone else tripped another student on purpose 77. I ignored it when someone else pinched or poked another student 78. I ignored it when someone else threw something at another student 79. I ignored it when someone else tricked another student I pretended not to notice when someone was destroying another student s property Note. All path coefficients were significant p <.001. Evidence of Reliability Once the final 50 items on the BPBQ had been confirmed, the two samples were combined to provide overall evidence of reliability and validity based on the total sample (N = 801). The prediction of high internal consistency was supported with alpha coefficients of.88 for the Bully subscale,.92 for the Assistant subscale,.94 for the Victim subscale,.94 for the Defender subscale, and.94 for the Outsider subscale. As predicted, item to subscale total correlations for the total sample were all moderate to high and significant, p <.01, and are presented in Table 5. Item-subscale correlations ranged from r =.51 to.80 for the Bully subscale, r =.68 to.85 for the Assistant subscale, r =.73 to.84 for the Victim subscale, r =.76 to.85 for the Defender subscale, and r =.75 to.85 for the Outsider subscale.