Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2016-4-30
Cross-National Prevalence of Traditional Bullying,Traditional Victimization,Cyberbullying and Cyber-Victimization: Comparing Single-Item and Multiple-Item Approaches of Measurement
Many large-scale cross-national studies rely on a single-item measurement when comparing prevalence rates of traditional bullying, traditional victimization, cyberbullying, and cyber-victimization between countries. However, the reliability and validity of single-item measurement approaches are highly problematic and might be biased. Data from three countries were used as an example case to compare the single- and multiple-item approaches from a substantial and a statistical point of view. The sample comprised 671 Austrian (46.3% girls), 691 Cypriot (45.9% girls), and 604 Romanian (46.7% girls) 12 year old students. Data were collected via self-assessments with single and multiple-items. Because scalar measurement invariance could be established for the multiple-item measurement approaches, latent means between the three countries were compared. Substantial results of the single- and multiple-item approach did not differ for traditional bullying and traditional victimization, but differed for cyberbullying and cyber-victimization. As a consequence, we suggest using carefully validated multiple-item scales for cross-national comparisons.
BergmüllerS. (2013). The relationship between cultural individualism-collectivism and student aggression across 62 countries. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 182–200. doi:
10.1002/ab.21472
BovairdJ. A., & KoziolN. A. (2012). Measurement models for ordered categorical indicators in structural equation modelling. In HoyleR.H., KaplanD., MulidesG., & WestS., (Eds.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp 495–511). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
4.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. doi:
10.1080/10705510701301834
5.
ChenF. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018.
6.
CheungG. W., & RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:
10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
7.
CurrieC., ZanottiC., MorganA., CurrieD., de LoozeM., RobertsC.,…, BarnekowV.. (Eds.). (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people: Health behour in school-aged children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2009/2010 survey. Kopenhagen:WHO Regional Office for Europe.
8.
EdwardsM. C., WirthR. J., HoutsC. R., & XiN. (2012). Categorical data in the structural equation modeling framework. In HoyleR. H., KaplanD., MulidesG., & WestS. (Eds.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp 195–208). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
GradingerP., YanagidaT., StrohmeierD., & SpielC. (2016). Effectiveness and sustainability of the ViSC Social Competence Program to prevent cyberbullying and cyber-victimization: Class and individual level moderators. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 181–193. doi:
10.1002/ab.21631
11.
GrahamS., BellmoreA., & JuvonenJ. (2003). Peer victimization in middle school: When self- and peer views diverge. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 117–138.
12.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
13.
HofstedeG. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
14.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
15.
KärnäA., VoetenM. J. M., LittleT. D., PoskipartaE., KaljonenA., & SalmivalliC. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82, 311–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x
16.
KowalskiR. M., GiumettiG. W., SchroederA. N., & LattannerM. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073–1137. doi: 10.1037/a0035618
17.
LittleT. D. (2013), Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford press.
18.
LivingstoneS., HaddonL., GörzigA., & ÓlafssonK. (2011), Risks and safety on the Internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings. London, UK: EU Kids Online.
19.
MaedeA. W., JohnsonE. C., & BraddyP. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568–592. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
20.
MenesiniE., & NocentiniA. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some critical considerations. Journal of Psychology, 217, 230–232. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2012.0040
21.
MillsapR. E., & Yun-TeinJ. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515. doi:
10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_4
22.
MonksC. P., & SmithP. K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 801–821. doi:
10.1348/026151005X82352
23.
MuthénB., & KaplanD. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x
NocentiniA.,
MenesiniE., &
CalussiP. (2009, August). Cyberbullying measurement: A comparison between different strategies. Poster presented at the Postconference of the European Society for Developmental Psychology (ESDP) on Cyberbullying: Definition and Measurement Issues, Vilnius, Lithuania, August, 22-23.
26.
OlweusD. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In PeplerD. J., & RubinK. H. (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
27.
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
28.
PellegriniA.D., & BartiniM. (2000). An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression and victimization in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 360–366.
29.
RolandE. (1989). A system oriented strategy against bullying. In RolandE., & MuntheE. (Eds.), Bullying: An international perspective, (pp. 143–151). LondonDavid Fulton.
30.
SmithP. K., CowieH., OlafssonR. F., & LiefoogheA. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119–1133.
31.
SmithP. K., MahdaviJ., CarvalhoM., FisherS., RussellS., & TippettN. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact on secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
32.
SmithP. K., & SharpS. (1994), School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge.
33.
SolbergM. E., & OlweusD. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239–268. doi:
10.1002/ab.10047
34.
Solomontos-KountouriO.,
GradingerP.,
YanagidaT., & Strohmeier (2016, in press). The implementation and evaluation of the ViSC Program in Cyprus: Challenges of cross-national dissemination and evaluation results. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. doi:
10.1080/17405629.2015.1136618
35.
StrohmeierD., AoyamaI., GradingerP., & TodaY. (2013). Cyber-victimization and cyberaggression in eastern and western countries: Challenges of constructing a cross culturally appropriate scale. In BaumanS., CrossD., & WalkerJ. (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology, (pp. 202–221). New YorkRoutledge.
36.
StrohmeierD., HoffmannC., SchillerE.-M., StefanekE., & SpielC., (2012a). ViSC social competence program. New Directions for Youth Development, 133, 71–84. doi:
10.1002/yd.20008
37.
StrohmeierD., GradingerP., SchabmannA., & SpielC.,(2012b). Gewalterfahrungen von Jugendlichen. Prävalenzen und Risikogruppen [Adolescent’s experiences of violence]. In EderF., (Hrg.) PISA 2009. Nationale Zusatzerhebungen[PISA 2009. Additional National Investigations](S. 165–208). Münster: Waxman.
38.
StrohmeierD.,
YanagidaT., &
TodaY. (2016). Individualism/Collectivism as predictors of relational and physical victimization in Japan and Austria. In SmithP.K.,
KwakK.,
& TodaY. (Eds.), Reducing bullying and cyberbullying in schools – Eastern and Western Perspectives (pp. 259–279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
TripS., BoraC., Sipos-GugS., TocaiI., GradingerP., YanagidaT., & StrohmeierD. (2015). Bullying prevention in schools by targeting cognitions, emotions and behavior: Evaluating the effectiveness of the REBE-ViSC program. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 732–740.
40.
VaillancourtT., McDougallP., HymelS., KrygsmanA., MillerJ., StiverK., … DavisC. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing?. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 486–495. doi:
10.1177/0165025408095553
41.
Yanagida, T., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (submitted). Effectiveness of the ViSC Social Competence Program: Dynamic change of aggression and victimization. Submitted for Publication
