A Mixed Methods Evaluation of the “Aged-Up” STAC Bullying Bystander Intervention for High School Students

Mar 30, 2018 | Articles

April D. Johnston, Aida Midgett, Diana M. Doumas, Steve Moody

This mixed methods study assessed the appropriateness of an “aged-up,” brief bullying bystander intervention (STAC) and explored the lived experiences of high school students trained in the program. Quantitative results included an increase in knowledge and confidence to intervene in bullying situations, awareness of bullying, and use of the STAC strategies. Utilizing the consensual qualitative research methodology, we found students spoke about (a) increased awareness of bullying situations, leading to a heightened sense of responsibility to act; (b) a sense of empowerment to take action, resulting in positive feelings; (c) fears related to intervening in bullying situations; and (d) the natural fit of the intervention strategies. Implications for counselors include the role of the school counselor in program implementation and training school staff to support student “defenders,” as well as how counselors in other settings can work with clients to learn the STAC strategies through psychoeducation and skills practice.

Keywords: bullying, bystander intervention, consensual qualitative research (CQR), high school, mixed methods

Researchers have defined bullying as “when one or more students tease, threaten, spread rumors about, hit, shove, or hurt another student over and over again” (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention [CDCP], 2017, p. 7). Bullying includes verbal, physical, or relational aggression, as it often occurs through the use of technology (e.g., cyberbullying). National statistics indicate approximately 20.5% of high school students are victims of bullying at school and 15.8% are victims of cyberbullying (CDCP, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2016). Although school bullying peaks in middle school, it remains a significant problem at the high school level, with the highest rates of cyberbullying reported by high school seniors (18.7%; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2016).

There are wide-ranging negative consequences experienced by students who are exposed to bullying as either a target or bystander (Bauman, Toomey, & Walker, 2013; Doumas, Midgett, & Johnston, 2017; Hertz, Everett Jones, Barrios, David-Ferdon, & Holt, 2015; Rivers & Noret, 2013; Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009; Smalley, Warren, & Barefoot, 2017). High school students who are targets of bullying report higher levels of risky health behaviors, including physical inactivity, less sleep, risky sexual practices (Hertz et al., 2015), elevated substance use (Doumas et al., 2017; Smalley et al., 2017), and higher levels of depression and suicidal ideation (Bauman et al., 2013; Smalley et al., 2017). Adolescents who observe bullying as bystanders also report associated negative consequences, and, in some instances, report more problems than students who are directly involved in bullying situations (Rivers & Noret, 2013; Rivers et al., 2009). Specifically, bystanders have been found to be at higher risk for substance abuse and overall mental health concerns than students who are targets (Rivers et al., 2009). Bystanders also are significantly more likely to report symptoms of helplessness and potential suicidal ideation compared to students not involved in bullying (Rivers & Noret, 2013). Furthermore, although bystanders are often successful when they intervene on behalf of targets of bullying (Gage, Prykanowski, & Larson, 2014), bystanders usually do not intervene because they do not know what to do (Forsberg, Thornberg, & Samuelsson, 2014; Hutchinson, 2012). Failure to respond to observed bullying leads to feelings of guilt (Hutchinson, 2012) and coping through moral disengagement (Forsberg et al., 2014). Thus, there is a need to train bystanders to intervene to both reduce bullying and buffer bystanders from the negative consequences associated with observing bullying without acting.

To address the negative effects that can result from being exposed to bullying, researchers have developed numerous bullying prevention and intervention programs for implementation within the school setting. Many of these programs are comprehensive, school-wide interventions (Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011). However, findings indicate these programs are most effective for students in middle and elementary school (Yeager, Fong, Lee, & Espelage, 2015). Additionally, a recent meta-analysis indicates that bystander intervention is an important component of bullying intervention; however, few comprehensive programs include a bystander component (Polanin et al., 2012). Further, those programs that do include a bystander component have been normed on children within the context of the classroom setting (Salmivalli, 2010). High school students experience greater independence at school, with less adult supervision in the hallways and at lunch, and move to different classroom locations throughout the day. Thus, there is a need for effective bullying bystander programs and interventions that have been “aged up” specifically for the high school level (Denny et al., 2015).

The STAC Program

The STAC program is a brief bystander intervention that teaches students who witness bullying to intervene as “defenders” (Midgett, Doumas, Sears, Lundquist, & Hausheer, 2015). The STAC acronym stands for the four bullying intervention strategies taught in the program: “Stealing the Show,” “Turning It Over,” “Accompanying Others,” and “Coaching Compassion.” The second author created the STAC program for the middle and elementary school level with the intention of establishing school counselors as leaders in program implementation. The program includes a 90-minute training with bi-weekly, 15-minute small group follow-up meetings, placing low demands on schools for implementation. Findings from studies conducted at the elementary and middle school level indicate students trained in the STAC program report an increase in knowledge and confidence to intervene as defenders (Midgett et al., 2015; Midgett & Doumas, 2016; Midgett, Doumas, & Trull, 2017), as well as increased use of the STAC strategies (Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017). Additionally, research demonstrates students trained in the STAC program report reductions in bullying (Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnson, 2017), as well as increases in self-esteem (Midgett, Doumas, & Trull, 2017) and decreases in anxiety (Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017), compared to students in a control group.

Development of the STAC Program for High School

The authors conducted a previous qualitative study to inform the modification of the original STAC program to be appropriate for the high school level (for details, see Midgett, Doumas, Johnston, et al., 2017). Based upon data generated from high school students, the authors “aged up” the STAC program by incorporating the following content into the didactic and role-play components of the training: (a) cyberbullying through social media and texting, (b) group dynamics in bullying, and (c) bullying in dating and romantic relationships. The authors also aged up the program by including developmentally appropriate language (e.g., breaks vs. recess) and content, including common locations where bullying occurs (e.g., school parking lot vs. the school bus) and age-appropriate examples of physical bullying (e.g., covert behaviors such as “shoulder checking,” “backpack checking,” and “tripping” vs. physical fights).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to extend the literature by evaluating the appropriateness of the aged-up STAC program for the high school level and to explore the experiences of students trained in the program. Following guidelines suggested by Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2010), the literature review guided the formulation of the study rationale, goal, objectives, and research questions. Despite the need to provide anti-bullying programs to high school students, the majority of bullying intervention research has been conducted with elementary and middle school students (Denny et al., 2015). Although intervening on behalf of students who are targets of bullying is associated with positive outcomes (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001), research on bystander intervention programs aged up for high school students is limited. The present authors could find only one program, StandUP, developed specifically for high school students. Results of a pilot study indicated students participating in the 3-session StandUP online program reported an increase in positive bystander behavior and decreases in bullying behavior (Timmons-Mitchell, Levesque, Harris, Flannery, & Falcone, 2016). The research noted several methodological limitations that limit the generalizability and validity of the findings, including a 6.8% response rate, 22% attrition rate with differential attrition by race and bullying status, and the use of a single-group design.

Thus, the goal of this study was to add to the knowledge on bullying interventions for high school students. Our objectives were to (a) examine the influence of the STAC program on knowledge and confidence, awareness of bullying, and use of the STAC strategies, and (b) describe and explore the experience of high school students participating in the STAC intervention. We were interested in answering the following mixed method research questions: (a) Do students trained in the aged-up STAC intervention report an increase in knowledge and confidence to intervene as defenders? (b) Do students trained in the aged-up STAC intervention have an increased awareness of bullying? (c) Do students trained in the aged-up STAC intervention use the STAC strategies to intervene when they observe bullying? and (d) What were high school students’ experiences of participating in the aged-up STAC intervention and using the STAC strategies to intervene in bullying situations?

Methods

Mixed Research Design

A mixed methods design was implemented with a single group of participants who completed the STAC training. We were interested in the influence of the STAC intervention on students’ knowledge and confidence, awareness of bullying, and use of the STAC strategies. An additional interest was to understand students’ experiences of the STAC training. The purpose of selecting a mixed methods design was to maximize interpretation of findings, as mixed methods designs often result in a greater understanding of complex phenomena than either quantitative or qualitative studies can produce alone (Creswell, 2013). Hesse-Biber (2010) also advocates for the convergence of qualitative and quantitative data to enhance and triangulate findings. Following the guidelines described by Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2010), we chose to supplement the quantitative data with qualitative data to investigate the in-depth, lived experiences of high school students trained as defenders in the aged-up STAC program. Our research design was a partially mixed, sequential design (Creswell, 2009; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2010). The quantitative design was a single-group repeated-measures design and the qualitative component included consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill et al., 2005).

Participants

Our sampling design was sequential-identical (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2010), with the same participants completing surveys followed by focus groups. The sample consisted of 22 students
(n = 15 females [68.2%]; n = 7 males [31.8%]) recruited from a public high school via stratified random sampling in the Northwestern region of the United States. Participants ranged in age from 15–18 years old (M = 16.82 and SD = 0.91), with reported racial backgrounds of 59.1% White, 18.2% Asian, 13.6% Hispanic, and 9.1% African American. Of the 22 participants trained in the STAC program, 100% participated in follow-up focus groups and follow-up data collection.

Procedures

The current study was completed as part of a larger study designed to develop and test the effectiveness of the aged-up STAC intervention. Following institutional research board approval, the researchers randomly selected 200 students using stratified proportionate sampling and then obtained parental consent and student assent from 57 students, for a response rate of 28.5%. The current sample consists of the 22 students who participated in the STAC intervention. The recruiting team included school counselors, a doctoral student, and master’s students. A team member met briefly with students selected to discuss the project and provided an informed consent form to be signed by a parent or guardian. A team member met with students with parental consent to explain the research in greater detail and to obtain student assent. Researchers trained participants in the 90-minute aged-up STAC program and then conducted two 15-minute bi-weekly follow-up meetings for 30 days following the training. Students completed baseline, post-training, and 30-day follow-up surveys. Six weeks after the STAC training, team members conducted three 45-minute open-ended, semi-structured focus groups to investigate students’ experiences being trained as defenders in the aged-up STAC program. Researchers audio recorded the focus groups for transcription purposes. The team provided pizza to students after the follow-up survey and at the end of each focus group. The university and school district review boards approved all research procedures.

Measures

Knowledge and Confidence to Intervene. The Student-Advocates Pre- and Post-Scale (SAPPS; Midgett et al., 2015) was used to measure knowledge of bullying, knowledge of the STAC strategies, and confidence to intervene. The questionnaire is comprised of 11 items that measure student knowledge of bullying behaviors, knowledge of the STAC strategies, and confidence intervening in bullying situations. Examples of items include: “I know what verbal bullying looks like,” “I know how to use humor to get attention away from the student being bullied,” and “I feel confident in my ability to do something helpful to decrease bullying at my school.” Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I totally disagree) to 4 (I totally agree). Items are summed to create a total scale score. The SAPPS has established content validity and adequate internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .75–.81 (Midgett et al., 2015; Midgett & Doumas, 2016; Midgett, Doumas, & Trull, 2017; Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017). Cronbach’s alpha was .83 for this sample.

Awareness of Bullying. Awareness of bullying was assessed using one item. Students were asked to respond Yes or No to the following question: “Have you seen bullying at school in the past month?” Prior research has used this question to test the impact of the STAC program on observing and identifying bullying behavior post-training (Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017).

Use of STAC Strategies. The use of each STAC strategy was measured by a single item. Students were asked, “How often would you say that you used these strategies to stop bullying in the past month? (a) Stealing the Show—using humor to get the attention away from the bullying situation,
(b) Turning It Over—telling an adult about what you saw, (c) Accompanying Others—reaching out to the student who was the target of bullying, and (d) Coaching Compassion—helping the student who bullied develop empathy for the target.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never/Almost Never) to 5 (Always/Almost Always). Prior research has used these items to examine use of STAC strategies post-training (Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017).

High School Students’ Experiences. Researchers followed Hill et al.’s (2005) recommendation to develop a semi-structured interview protocol to answer the question, “What were high school students’ experiences of participating in the aged-up STAC intervention and using the STAC strategies to intervene in bullying situations?” Researchers developed questions based on previous qualitative findings with middle school students (Midgett, Moody, Reilly, & Lyter, 2017), quantitative results indicating students trained in the program use the STAC strategies (Midgett, Moody, et al., 2017), and a review of the literature (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). Researchers asked students the following questions: (1) Can you please talk about the personal values you had before the STAC training that were in line with what you learned during the STAC training? (2) Please share your experience using the STAC strategies (Stealing the Show, Turning It Over, Accompanying Others, and Coaching Compassion), (3) Can you share how using the STAC strategies made you feel about yourself? (4) How did being trained in the STAC program impact your relationships? (5) Can you please talk about your fears related to using the strategies in different bullying situations? and, (6) Overall, what was it like to be trained in the STAC program and use the STAC strategies?

The STAC Intervention

The STAC intervention began with a 90-minute training, which included information about bullying and strategies for intervening in bullying situations (Midgett et al., 2015). Following the training, facilitators met with students twice for 15 minutes throughout the subsequent 30 days to support them as they applied what they learned in the training. During these meetings, researchers reviewed the STAC strategies with students, and asked students about bullying situations they witnessed and whether they utilized a strategy. If students indicated they observed bullying but did not utilize a strategy, researchers helped students brainstorm ways in which they could utilize one of the four STAC strategies in the future.

Didactic Component. The didactic component included icebreaker exercises, an audiovisual presentation, two videos about bullying, and hands-on activities to engage students in the learning process. Students learned about (a) the complex nature of bullying in high school often involving group dynamics rather than single individuals; (b) different types of bullying, with a focus on cyberbullying and covert physical bullying; (c) characteristics of students who bully, including the likelihood they have been bullied themselves, to foster empathy and separate the behavior from the student; (d) negative associated consequences of bullying for students who are targets, perpetrate bullying, and are bystanders; (e) bystander roles and the importance of acting as a defender; and (f) the STAC strategies used for intervening in bullying situations. The four strategies are described below.

Stealing the Show. Stealing the Show involves using humor or distraction to turn students’ attention away from the bullying situation. Trainers teach bystanders to interrupt a bullying situation to displace the peer audience’s attention away from the target (e.g., tell a joke, initiate a conversation with the student who is being bullied, or invite peers to play a group game such as basketball).

Turning It Over. Turning It Over involves informing an adult about the situation and asking for help. During the training, students identify safe adults at school who can help. Students are taught to always “turn it over” if there is physical bullying taking place or if they are unsure as to how to intervene. Trainers also emphasized the importance of documenting evidence in cyberbullying cases by taking a screenshot or picture of the computer or cell phone over time for authorities (i.e., school principal and resource officer) to take action.

Accompanying Others. Accompanying Others involves the bystander reaching out to the student who was targeted to communicate that what happened is not acceptable, that the student who was targeted is not alone, and that the student bystander cares about them. Trainers provide examples of how students can use this strategy either directly, by inviting a student who was targeted to talk about the situation, or indirectly, by approaching a peer after they were targeted and inviting them to go to lunch or spend time with the bystander. This strategy focuses on communicating empathy and support to the student who was targeted.

 Coaching Compassion. Coaching Compassion involves gently confronting the student who bullied either during or after the bullying incident to communicate that his or her behavior is unacceptable. Additionally, the student bystander encourages the student who bullied to consider what it would feel like to be the target in the situation, thereby fostering empathy toward the target. Bystanders are encouraged to implement Coaching Compassion when they have a relationship with the student who bullied or if the student who bullied is in a lower grade and the bystander believes they will respect them.

Role-Plays. Trainers divided students into small groups to practice the STAC strategies through role-plays that included hypothetical bullying situations. The team developed the scenarios based on student feedback on types of bullying that occur in high school, including cyberbullying, romantic relationship issues, and covert physical bullying (Midgett, Doumas, Johnston, Trull, & Miller, 2017). See Appendix A for the STAC scenarios.

Post-Training Groups. STAC training participants met in 15-minute groups with two graduate student trainers twice in the 30 days post-training. In these meetings, students reviewed the STAC strategies, shared which strategies they used, and explained whether they felt the strategies were effective in intervening in bullying. Trainers also addressed questions and supported students in brainstorming other ways to implement the strategies, including combining strategies or working as a group to intervene together.

Data Analysis

Quantitative. The authors used quantitative analyses to test for significant changes in knowledge and confidence and to provide descriptive statistics for frequency of awareness of bullying and the use of the STAC strategies. An a priori power analysis was conducted using the G*Power 3.1.3 program (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) for a repeated-measures, within-subjects ANOVA with three time points. Results of the power analysis indicated a sample size of 20 was needed for power of > 0.80 to detect a medium effect size for the main effect of time with an alpha level of .05. Thus, the final sample size of 22 met the needed size to provide adequate power for analyses.
Before conducting primary analyses, all variables were examined for outliers and normality. The authors found no outliers and all variables were within the normal range for skew and kurtosis. To assess changes in knowledge and confidence, we conducted a GLM repeated-measures ANOVA with one independent variable, time (baseline, post-intervention, follow-up), and post-hoc follow-up paired t-tests to examine differences between time points. To evaluate awareness of bullying, we computed descriptive statistics to determine how many participants observed bullying at baseline and follow-up. To evaluate the use of STAC strategies, we computed descriptive statistics to examine the frequency of use of each strategy at the follow-up assessment. The authors used an alpha level of p < .05 to determine statistical significance and used partial eta squared (h2p) as the measure of effect size for the repeated-measures ANOVA and Cohen’s d for paired t-test with magnitude of effects interpreted as follows: small (h2p > .01; d = .20), medium (h2p > .06; d = .50), and large (h2p  > .14; d = .80; Cohen, 1969; Richardson, 2011). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24.0.

Qualitative. The authors conducted focus groups and employed CQR methodology to investigate participant experiences (Hill et al., 2005). Specifically, CQR was chosen because it uses elements from phenomenology, grounded theory, and comprehensive process (Hill et al., 2005). CQR is predominantly constructivist with postmodern influence (Hill et al., 2005), which was a good fit for the project as we were interested in students’ experiences being trained in the aged-up STAC program. Furthermore, we selected CQR because it includes semi-structured interviews to promote the exploration of participants’ experiences, while also allowing for spontaneous probes that can uncover related experiences and insights, adding depth to findings (Hill et al., 2005). CQR was well suited for this study because it requires a team of researchers working together to reach consensus analyzing complex data (Hill et al., 2005). Focus groups were chosen because they allow researchers to observe participants’ interactions and shared experiences such as teasing, joking, and anecdotes that can add depth to the findings (Kitzinger, 1995). Focus groups have potential therapeutic benefits for participants, including increasing feelings of self-worth (Powell & Single, 1996) and empowerment (Race, Hotch, & Parker, 1994). Additionally, focus groups can be especially useful when power differentials exist between participants and decision makers (Morgan & Kreuger, 1993).

Three team members (the first and second authors and a master’s in counseling student) employed the CQR methodology to analyze the data. After the data transcription, each member worked individually to identify domains and core ideas prior to meeting as a group. The team met three times in the next month to achieve consensus. Researchers relied on participant quotations to resolve disagreements, to cross-analyze the data, and to move into more abstract levels of analysis (Hill et al., 2005). The team labeled domains as general (typical of all but one participant or all participants), typical (more than half of participants), and variant (at least two participants; Hill et al., 2005). An external auditor analyzed the data separately, utilizing NVivo qualitative analysis software (Version 10; 2012), and reported similar findings with the exception of a minor modification to one domain, which the team incorporated into final findings. Next, the researchers conducted member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) by emailing all participants with an overview of the findings. All participants who responded agreed the findings were an accurate representation of their experience.

Strategies for Trustworthiness. As recommended by Hays, Wood, Dahl, and Kirk-Jenkins (2016), we used multiple strategies to strengthen the trustworthiness of the study. First, our process was reflexive with continuous awareness of expectations and biases. Prior to conducting focus groups, we discussed and wrote memos about our expectations and biases (Creswell, 2013). To triangulate data, all three analysts were involved throughout the process and in comparing findings among the team. An external auditor was included to provide oversight and increase credibility of findings. Once all researchers reached agreement about major findings, we elicited participant feedback to increase credibility and confirmability of our findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Findings

Knowledge and Confidence

The researchers examined changes in knowledge and confidence across three time points (baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up). Results indicated a significant main effect for time: Wilks’ Lambda = .31, F (2, 20) = 6.85, p < .000, h2p = .31. Follow-up paired t-tests indicated a significant difference in knowledge and confidence between baseline (M = 35.68, SD = 4.35) and post-intervention (M = 40.64, SD =3.11), t(21) = -6.52, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -1.46; and between baseline (M = 35.68, SD = 4.35) and 30-day follow-up (M = 40.68, SD = 4.10), t(21) = -4.96, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -1.06; but not between post-intervention (M = 40.64, SD = 3.11) and 30-day follow-up (M = 40.68, SD = 4.10), t(21) = -0.05, p = .96, Cohen’s d = -.01. Findings indicate students reported an increase in knowledge and confidence from baseline to post-intervention, and this increase was sustained at the 30-day follow-up.

Awareness of Bullying

The researchers examined rates of observing bullying at baseline and at the 30-day follow-up to determine if students became more aware of bullying after being trained in the STAC program. Rates of observing bullying increased from 54.5% to 63.6%, indicating that the STAC program raised awareness of bullying.

Use of the STAC Strategies

The researchers examined how frequently students in the intervention group used the STAC strategies at the 30-day follow-up. Among students who reported witnessing bullying (63.6%, n = 14), 100% indicated using one or more STAC strategies in the past month. Specifically, 64.3% reported using Stealing the Show, 42.9% reported using Turning It Over, 100% reported using Accompany Others, and 85.7% reported using Coaching Compassion.

Qualitative

Through CQR analysis, the team agreed on four domains with supporting core ideas. All of the domains below are general or typical and endorsed by participants via member checks.

Domain 1: Awareness and Sense of Responsibility. Participants (n = 8; 57%) talked about the STAC program enhancing their awareness of bullying behavior and increasing their sense of responsibility to act. Students spoke about some types of bullying being difficult to recognize and that the STAC training helped them become more aware of covert bullying situations. One participant gave an example about being able to recognize types of bullying that can often be overlooked. The student shared, “People look like they’re joking around and you . . . ignore it, but now it’s like they’re not [joking]. You can tell a little bit. I think . . . [the STAC program] brought . . . [awareness] out in us.” Students also talked about their experience being able to recognize different types of bullying and being equipped to intervene, as well as becoming aware that their actions can have an impact on others. One participant shared that “learning the different ways you can address . . . [bullying] also helps you realize the different forms it happens in, so it makes you value being aware of what’s going on and how your own actions affect other people.” Another student also spoke about the connection between being trained to act as a defender and a newfound sense of responsibility and shared that after STAC training, “there’s not really a reason to say that you don’t want to [get involved] because you’re scared, because you know what’s happening to the person is wrong and if you can change it, you should.” Another participant stated that “there’s some others that don’t have this training, so we’re the ones that should be stepping in if we see it. Everyone should, but . . . we know what to do.”

Domain 2: Empowerment and Positive Feelings. Participants (n = 9; 64%) spoke about a sense of empowerment and associated positive feelings that came from using the STAC strategies to intervene in bullying situations. For example, one participant stated, “It makes you feel a little bit more empowered because you realize you actually can make a difference in someone else’s life or in the whole community at your school or community in general.” Students also talked about the STAC program empowering them to make decisions about their friendships. A participant shared, “I actually told some people I didn’t want to talk to them or be friends with them [because] I can’t be around someone who is making fun of people with disabilities. . . . So, it changed the way I picked my friends.” Some students talked about the association between a sense of empowerment to make a difference in a bullying situation and feeling good about themselves and helping other students. A student said, “I feel like it made us feel good, like we made a positive difference in some way regarding the person that’s being bullied. So it makes it feel like we did something good, like a good deed.” Another student shared, “Somebody actually went to talk to him [ethnic minority student who was bullied] . . . and that was me. It was good to see him happy after he was feeling sad.”

Domain 3: Fears. Almost all participants (n = 12; 86%) spoke about how acting as a defender elicited fears related to judgment from peers or creating tension with friends. For example, one student shared, “I have a fear of being judged, which is kind of the thing of bullying. So, I try not to be so active with people at school.” Another participant also talked about fears related to peer judgment and creating tension with friends when utilizing the STAC strategy Accompanying Others by having lunch with a student who was a target of bullying. The student said, “It’s a social fear, or like ‘why are you hanging out with them?’ . . . and it’s kind of tense between you and your other friends because you brought this person that they didn’t want.” Students also talked about fears of making a situation worse. In particular, participants spoke about fears about reporting bullying situations to adults by using the STAC strategy Turning It Over. For example, one participant stated, “When you get teachers involved or your parents . . . [bullying] kind of . . . escalates . . . a lot of kids will avoid going to adults if they can until it gets physical.” However, most participants were encouraged to act despite their fears, and many discovered that the STAC program allowed them to overcome their fears. One participant stated, “I think starting out my biggest fear was that [using STAC strategies] wasn’t going to do anything, that nothing was going to change, but it really did, and I was pretty shocked that I had a positive effect on people.”

Domain 4: Natural Fit of STAC Strategies and Being Equipped to Intervene. Many participants (n = 10; 71%) indicated the STAC strategies were a natural fit and equipped them with tools to intervene when they witnessed bullying. For example, one student shared, “Stealing the Show [was a natural fit]. I think it happened during accelerated PE. Someone was making fun of someone’s bench max, and I could tell the person was uncomfortable, so I just made a joke or something and changed the subject.” Another participant spoke about Coaching Compassion: “It’s probably one of my favorite ones because it actually does something in the moment, [and] it actually taught me how I can put out the effort without feeling uncomfortable when doing it.” Further, participants shared that implementing the strategies increased their knowledge and confidence to intervene. For example, one participant shared, “You know when to use them [the strategies] and when it’s not necessary and how far you should go when using them.” The strategies seemed to successfully meet participants at their level of understanding and equip them with more structure and guidance to intervene more confidently and consistently.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the appropriateness of the aged-up STAC program for the high school level and to explore the experiences of high school students trained in the program. Quantitative data indicated students trained in the aged-up program reported an increase in knowledge and confidence to intervene and an increase in awareness of bullying, and also reported using the STAC strategies when they observed bullying at school. Qualitative data enhanced the interpretation of quantitative findings, depicting students’ experiences being trained in the program and using the STAC strategies.

Findings indicate that participating in the STAC training was associated with an increased awareness and sense of responsibility. Reported rates of observing bullying increased from baseline to the 30-day follow-up (54.5% to 63.6%). These findings are consistent with research showing students trained in the STAC program report increased awareness of bullying behavior (Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017). Further, students indicated that once they became aware of covert bullying, they felt responsible to intervene. One explanation for this finding is that participating in the training leads to an increase in awareness of bullying situations, which promotes a sense of responsibility to act. This explanation is consistent with research suggesting that awareness of negative consequences to others leads to an increase in feelings of personal responsibility, which in turn, leads to action (de Groot & Steg, 2009).

Our data also revealed that the STAC training was associated with an increase in knowledge and confidence and a sense of empowerment associated with positive feelings and changes in friendships. These findings are consistent with research showing that when students intervene in bullying situations they feel a sense of congruence, a positive sense of self (Midgett, Moody, et al., 2017), and a sense of well-being (Schwartz, Keyl, Marcum, & Bode, 2009). Researchers also have shown that when bystanders do not intervene, the lack of action leads to guilt (Hutchinson, 2012) and moral disengagement (Forsberg et al., 2014). Further, researchers have found that students have a desire to belong to a peer group with similar values in “defending” behaviors as their own (Sijtsema, Rambaran, Caravita, & Gini, 2014). Thus, it is possible that the confidence and positive feelings associated with being trained to act as defenders extended to feeling empowered to disengage from peers who do not intervene on behalf of targets of bullying.

Results indicated students used Turning It Over the least frequently among the strategies, with only 49% of students using this strategy. This finding is in direct contrast to research with middle school students suggesting Turning It Over is used by 91% of students (Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017). Qualitative data revealed that students felt fearful about intervening; specifically, students talked about being afraid that Turning It Over to an adult would make the situation worse. This finding parallels research suggesting that high school students believe adults at school do not handle bullying effectively (Midgett, Doumas, Johnston, et al., 2017) and that when they report bullying to teachers, the situation either remains the same or worsens (Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005). Coupled with research indicating students are more likely to report bullying when they believe their teachers will act (Cortes & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2014) and will be effective in intervening (Veenstra, Lindenberg, Huitsing, Sainio, & Salmivalli, 2014), our findings suggest it may be useful to provide teachers with knowledge and skills so that they may effectively support students who report bullying.

Finally, findings indicated that 100% of students who witnessed bullying post-training used at least one STAC strategy and that students experienced the STAC strategies as a natural fit and felt equipped with tools to act in bullying situations. These findings are consistent with prior research indicating students trained in the STAC program report using the strategies (Midgett, Moody, et al., 2017; Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017). The most frequently used strategies were Accompanying Others and Coaching Compassion, used by 100% and 85.7% of students, respectively. One explanation for these two strategies being the most natural fit for students is that the formation of peer relationships is an important developmental priority for adolescents (Wang & Eccles, 2012). Accompanying Others allows students to foster relationships in a way that feels natural and altruistic. Also, as adolescents mature emotionally and their ability to empathize grows (Allemand, Steiger, & Fend, 2015), Coaching Compassion can encourage bystanders and students who bully to develop empathy toward targets.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this study contributes to the literature regarding developmentally appropriate bullying interventions for high school students, several limitations must be considered. First, because of our small sample size and lack of control group, we cannot make causal attributions or generalize our findings to the larger high school student population. Although we enhanced the significance of our findings with a mixed methods design, there is a need for future studies investigating the efficacy of the aged-up STAC program through a randomized controlled trial. Further, since our study was intended as a first step in the development of an age-appropriate program for high school, we did not assess decreases in bullying victimization or perpetration. Therefore, future randomized controlled trial studies should include these outcome variables. Another limitation is related to the measures used. Specifically, both awareness of bullying and use of each STAC strategy were measured by a single item, which can result in decreased reliability. Further, although the developers constructed the items to have face validity, there are no studies investigating the psychometric properties of these items in measuring awareness of bullying or use of the STAC strategies. Additionally, our quantitative and qualitative findings were based on self-report data. It is possible that students’ responses were influenced by their desire to please the researchers, especially within the context of the focus groups. Thus, including objective measures of observable defending behaviors would strengthen the findings.

Practical Implications

Our findings provide important implications for counselors in both school and other settings. First, high school counselors can implement aged-up bullying intervention programs such as the STAC program. High school counselors can find encouragement in our findings indicating high school students are invested in helping reduce school bullying and that being trained to intervene can be associated with increased awareness and sense of responsibility. Further, findings suggest it might be helpful for school counselors to provide students trained in the program with an opportunity to meet in small groups to foster friendships with peers who are committed to acting as defenders.

Results also suggest that high school students believe reporting bullying to adults may not be an effective strategy. School counselors are well positioned as student advocates to establish anonymous reporting procedures to counteract potential student fears related to being negatively perceived when they report bullying to adults. In all bullying intervention efforts, school counselors should coordinate with administration to ensure success. School counselors can facilitate teacher and staff development to help them understand students’ fears related to reporting bullying and provide teachers with necessary tools to help students who report bullying to them. Additionally, although a teacher training would increase the required time and resources needed to implement the STAC program, it may be an important addition at the high school level. In this module, school counselors could educate teachers about bullying and the STAC strategies so that teachers could reinforce the strategies with students. The training would emphasize Turning It Over, explaining to teachers their important role in helping student bystanders intervene when they observe bullying.

Lastly, this study also has implications for counselors working with adolescents outside the school setting. There are negative associated consequences to witnessing bullying as a bystander (Rivers & Noret, 2013; Rivers et al., 2009). In addition, adolescents report not knowing how to intervene on behalf of targets (Forsberg et al., 2014; Hutchinson, 2012), which can lead to feelings of guilt (Hutchinson, 2012). Thus, counselors can empower clients to act as defenders by providing psychoeducation regarding the STAC strategies. They can focus on strategies that clients feel are a natural fit as a starting point. Counselors can encourage clients to share bullying situations they most commonly observe at school and invite clients to talk through how they could use a favorite STAC strategy.

Bullying is a significant problem among high school students. This study provided support for the aged-up STAC intervention as an anti-bullying approach that is appropriate for high school students. Specifically, the STAC program helped students be more aware of bullying, feel a stronger sense of responsibility to intervene, and feel empowered to use the STAC strategies.


Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors received internal funding for this project from a College of Education Seed Grant from Boise State University.

References

Allemand, M., Steiger, A. E., & Fend, H. A. (2015). Empathy development in adolescence predicts social competencies in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 83, 229–241. doi:10.1111/jopy.12098

Bauman, S., Toomey, R. B., & Walker, J. L. (2013). Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 341–350. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.001

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Youth Risk Behavior Survey Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/questionnaires.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2016). Understanding bullying: Fact sheet 2016. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/Bullying_Factsheet.pdf

Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Cortes, K. I., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2014). To tell or not to tell: What influences children’s decisions to report bullying to their teachers? School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 336–348. doi:10.1037/spq0000078

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

de Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 425–449.
doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.4.425-449

Denny, S., Peterson, E. R., Stuart, J., Utter, J., Bullen, P., Fleming, T., . . . Milfont, T. (2015). Bystander intervention, bullying, and victimization: A multilevel analysis of New Zealand high schools. Journal of School Violence, 14, 245–272. doi:10.1080/15388220.2014.910470

Doumas, D. M., Midgett, A., & Johnston, A. D. (2017). Substance use and bullying victimization among middle and high school students: Is positive school climate a protective factor? Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 38, 2–15. doi:10.1002/jaoc.12025

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 81–91. doi:10.1093/her/cyg100

Forsberg, C., Thornberg, R., & Samuelsson, M. (2014). Bystanders to bullying: Fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Research Papers in Education, 29, 557–576.
doi:10.1080/02671522.2013.878375

Gage, N. A., Prykanowski, D. A., & Larson, A. (2014). School climate and bullying victimization: A latent class growth model analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 256–271. doi:10.1037/spq0000064

Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00178

Hays, D. G., Wood, C., Dahl, H., & Kirk-Jenkins, A. (2016). Methodological rigor in Journal of Counseling & Development qualitative research articles: A 15-year review. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94, 172–183. doi:10.1002/jcad.12074

Hertz, M. F., Everett Jones, S., Barrios, L., David-Ferdon, C., & Holt, M. (2015). Association between bullying victimization and health risk behaviors among high school students in the United States. Journal of School Health, 85, 833–842. doi:10.1111/josh.12339

Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 455–468. doi:10.1177/1077800410364611

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196

Hutchinson, M. (2012). Exploring the impact of bullying on young bystanders. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28, 425–442. doi:10.1080/02667363.2012.727785

Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1–10. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311, 299–302.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 61–69.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00151.x

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Midgett, A., & Doumas, D. M. (2016). Training elementary school students to intervene as peer-advocates to stop bullying at school: A pilot study. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 11, 353–365.
doi:10.1080/15401383.2016.1164645

Midgett, A., Doumas, D. M., Johnston, A. D., Trull, R., & Miller, R. (2017). Rethinking bullying interventions for high school students: A qualitative study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling, 00, 1–18.
doi:10.1080/23727810.2017.1381932

Midgett, A., Doumas, D. M., Sears, D., Lundquist, A., & Hausheer, R. (2015). A bystander bullying psychoeducation program with middle school students: A preliminary report. The Professional Counselor, 5, 486–500. doi:10.15241/am.5.4.486

Midgett., A., Doumas, D. M., & Trull, R. (2017). Evaluation of a brief, school based bullying bystander intervention for elementary school students. Professional School Counselor, 20, 172–183.
doi:10.5330/1096-2409-20.1.172

Midgett, A., Doumas, D. M., Trull. R., & Johnson, J. (2017). Training students who occasionally bully to be peer advocates: Is a bystander intervention effective in reducing bullying behavior? Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling, 3, 1–13. doi:10.1080/23727810.2016.1277116

Midgett, A., Doumas, D. M., Trull, R., & Johnston, A. D. (2017). A randomized controlled study evaluating a brief, bystander bullying intervention with junior high school students. The Journal of School Counseling, 15(9). Retrieved from jsc.montana.edu/articles/v15n9.pdf.

Midgett, A., Moody, S. J., Reilly, B., & Lyter, S. (2017). The phenomenological experience of student-advocates trained as defenders to stop school bullying. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 56, 53–71.
doi:10.1002/johc.12044

Morgan, D. L., & Kreuger, R. A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 3–19). London, UK: Sage.

NVivo Version 10 [Computer software]. (2012). Victoria, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd.

Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47–65.

Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996). Focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 8, 499–504. doi:10.1093/intqhc/8.5.499

Race, K. E. H., Hotch, D. F., & Parker, T. (1994). Rehabilitation program evaluation: Use of focus groups to empower clients. Evaluation Review, 18, 730–740.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measurements of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135–147. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001

Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2013). Potential suicide ideation and its association with observing bullying at school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 32–36. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.10.279

Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 211–223. doi:10.1037/a0018164

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007

Schwartz, C. E., Keyl, P. M., Marcum, J. P., & Bode, R. (2009). Helping others shows differential benefits on health and well-being for male and female teens. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 431–448.
doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9098-1

Sijtsema, J. J., Rambaran, J. A., Caravita, S. C., & Gini, G. (2014). Friendship selection and influence in bullying and defending: Effects of moral disengagement. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2093–2104. doi:10.1037/a0037145

Smalley, K. B., Warren, J. C., & Barefoot, K. N. (2017). Connection between experiences of bullying and risky behaviors in middle and high school students. School Mental Health, 9, 87–96.
doi:10.1007/s12310-016-9194-z

Timmons-Mitchell, J., Levesque, D. A., Harris, L. A., III, Flannery, D. J., & Falcone, T. (2016). Pilot test of StandUp, an online school-based bullying prevention program. Children & Schools, 38(2), 71–79. doi:10.1093/cs/cdw010

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(2), 63–73. doi:10.1108/17596591111132873

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2016). Student reports of bullying: Results from the 2015 school crime supplement to the national crime victimization survey (NCES 2017-015). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017015.pdf

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Huitsing, G., Sainio, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). The role of teachers in bullying: The relation between antibullying attitudes, efficacy, and efforts to reduce bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1135–1143. doi:10.1037/a0036110

Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83, 877–895. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x

Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. L. (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36–51. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005

 

Appendix A

Aged-Up STAC Scenarios

Scenario 1

In the PE locker room, you overhear some girls talking about another girl who is going through a break-up. You hear them call her a “loser” (and some other hurtful names) and gossip about the reasons she and her boyfriend broke up. They also talk about how the girl is not skinny or pretty enough to date the guy.

Scenario 2

For a few weeks during break, you have noticed a group of students stand in the middle of the hallway and “shoulder check” another student as he tries to walk by to get to his next class on the other side of the school. Today, the student is tripped by one of the students standing with a group and something he was carrying was damaged.

Scenario 3

Your friends are hanging out at your house after school, looking through Twitter. One friend decided to follow a girl from school that they do not like and then repost one of her posts making fun of her in a humiliating way. This is not the first time your friend has done something like this.

Scenario 4

You are in the parking lot and suddenly you hear yelling coming from a car that is trying to pull out of a parking spot. You see a guy yelling at his girlfriend that she can’t go to lunch with a certain friend because he saw the text messages they sent last night. You know this happens a lot with this guy, and you’ve been concerned for a while.

 

April D. Johnston is a doctoral student at Boise State University. Aida Midgett is an associate professor at Boise State University.  Diana M. Doumas is a professor at Boise State University. Steve Moody, NCC, is an assistant professor at Idaho State University.  Correspondence can be addressed to April Johnston, 1910 University Blvd, Boise, ID 83725, aprilwatts@u.boisestate.edu.

 

Effect of Participation in Student Success Skills on Prosocial and Bullying Behavior

Jun 26, 2015 | Articles, Volumes

Melissa Mariani, Linda Webb, Elizabeth Villares, Greg Brigman

This study involved fifth-grade students (N = 336) from one Florida school district and examined prosocial behaviors, bullying behaviors, engagement in school success skills and perceptions of classroom climate between the treatment group who received the school counselor-led Student Success Skills classroom guidance program, and their peer counterparts (comparison group). Statistically significant differences were found (p values ranged from .000–.019), along with partial eta-squared effect sizes ranging from .01 (small) to .26 (quite large) between groups. Evidence supported the Student Success Skills classroom program as a positive intervention for affecting student engagement, perceptions and behavior. 

 

Keywords: bullying, prosocial behaviors, Student Success Skills, classroom climate, school counselor

 

While some forms of youth victimization have steadily declined over the years, bullying occurrences have remained relatively stable (DeVoe et al., 2004; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Reports have indicated that 30–40% of students admit to regular involvement in bullying behaviors (Bradshaw, O’Brennan, & Sawyer, 2008; Nansel et al., 2001; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007). Additionally, statistics reveal that bullying is much more common among early adolescents than elementary age children (Bradshaw et al., 2008; Olweus, 1993; Ortega & Lera, 2000). In fact, notable increases in the rates of peer aggression occur during the transition years, in both grade 6 (beginning of middle school) and grade 9 (beginning of high school; Olweus, 1993; Ortega & Lera, 2000); therefore, targeting students prior to these peaks would be considered more proactive.

 

Recent approaches to combat the bullying problem have highlighted the importance of increasing students’ social competencies and coping and social interaction skills (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Greenberg et al. (2003) offered that alternative approaches to managing problem behavior are most beneficial when they simultaneously foster students’ personal and social skills while improving the quality of the school environment. The philosophy behind incorporating these types of programs in schools suggests that in order for students to fully reach their potential, educators must address the whole child (Payton et al., 2008; Saleebey, 2008). Ultimately, building key skills in all children contributes to creating a positive, safe and caring learning environment, one that discourages aggression and violence.

 

The Consequences of Bullying Behaviors

 

Bullying can negatively impact victims and bullies, as well as bystanders. Emotionally, victims of bullying report higher levels of fear and anxiety (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010), are more socially withdrawn (Roth, Coles, & Heimberg, 2002), and are more likely to experience depression (Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011) than their peers. In terms of social consequences, victims suffer from increased levels of peer rejection (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Reijntjes et al., 2010). Victimization also has been linked to academic consequences, including increased tardiness, absentee and dropout rates (Beale & Scott, 2001; Nansel et al., 2001); poorer grades; and more academic struggles than their peer counterparts (Boulton, Trueman, & Murray, 2008). Similarly, bullies and bystanders experience distinct consequences that contribute to the struggles they experience in school. For example, bullies also may earn poorer grades and have higher absentee and dropout rates than non-aggressive peers (Bernstein & Watson, 1997), and bystanders have reported increased levels of fear about school safety (Olweus, 1993).

 

The literature further indicates that the actions of those involved in bullying situations, including bystanders, can either enhance or damage a school’s climate (Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010). Carney (2008) concluded that experiencing bullying firsthand, as well as witnessing bullying incidents, can be traumatic for students. It is evident that schools should be concerned about proactively addressing bullying behaviors. If not, significant consequences related to student behavior and academic achievement can abound.

 

Empirical Support for Student Success Skills

 

The Student Success Skills (SSS) classroom program (Brigman & Webb, 2010) is based on extensive research reviews (Daly, Duhon, & Witt, 2002; Greenberg et al., 2003; Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Payton et al., 2008; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994; Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004) that identified three key categories of skills needed in order to grow, perform and achieve: (a) cognitive and meta-cognitive skills such as goal setting, progress monitoring and memory skills; (b) social skills such as interpersonal, social problem solving, listening and teamwork skills; and (c) self-management skills such as managing attention, motivation and anger. Recent evidence supporting the use of these skills, valuing the teaching of both academic and social skills in order to promote student growth and success, also can be found in the literature (Winne & Nesbit, 2010; Yeager &Walton, 2011).

 

SSS is a comprehensive, evidence-based, school counselor-led program that supports development of these key skills in students. This manualized intervention consists of five 45-minute classroom lessons spaced one week apart, beginning in the fall, usually in late August or early September. Three monthly booster sessions are then implemented beginning in January. A total of 20 strategies are introduced and reinforced using a highly engaging “tell-show-do” format known to increase levels of student engagement and motivation. Each SSS lesson follows a structured beginning, middle and end sequence clearly detailed in the SSS manual. (Due to space limitations, readers are encouraged to review the Webb and Brigman [2006] descriptive article on the SSS classroom program).

 

Five outcome studies testing the effectiveness of SSS classroom and small group programs have resulted in positive effects on both student achievement and behavior, as well as perceived improvement in classroom behaviors (Brigman & Campbell, 2003; Brigman, Webb, & Campbell, 2007; Campbell & Brigman, 2005; León, Villares, Brigman, Webb, & Peluso, 2011; Webb, Brigman, & Campbell, 2005). A recent meta-analysis of these five SSS studies revealed an overall effect size of .29 (large), a medium effect size of .17 (equivalent to an additional half of a year of learning in reading) and a large effect size of .41 (equivalent to an additional full year of learning in math; Villares, Frain, Brigman, Webb, & Peluso, 2012).

 

While the SSS program has been shown to positively affect student achievement and behavior in general, comparison studies have not examined the impact of SSS on reducing bullying behavior. Consequently, the current study sought to measure the effects of the SSS classroom program administered by school counselors (Brigman & Webb, 2010) on student prosocial behavior, bullying behavior, engagement in school success skills and perceptions of classroom climate. The SSS intervention was selected because the cognitive, social and self-management skills taught in the program are associated with promoting academic and prosocial behaviors in youth, behaviors that enhance a positive school climate and discourage negative behaviors like bullying.

 

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the SSS classroom program (Brigman & Webb, 2010) on fifth-grade students’ prosocial behavior, bullying behavior, engagement in school success skills and perceptions of classroom climate. The problem addressed is significant for two reasons. First, a wide range of negative consequences can result from ineffectively dealing with bullying (Bernstein & Watson, 1997; Carney, 2008; Catalano et al., 2004; Deluty, 1985; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Olweus, 1993; Reijntjes et al., 2010; Swearer et al., 2010). Second, further research is needed to demonstrate the positive impact that school counselors have in schools. It has been stated that the school counselor’s role in addressing bullying in schools is crucial (Crothers & Levinson, 2004; Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Hazler & Carney, 2000; Hermann & Finn, 2002).

 

Research Questions

The following research questions were addressed: (a) Is there an increase in the prosocial behaviors of fifth-grade students after participating in the SSS classroom program? (b) Is there a decrease in the bullying behaviors of fifth-grade students after participating in the SSS classroom program? (c) Is there an increase in levels of engagement in student success skills (cognitive and learning, social, and self-management) of fifth-grade students after participating in the SSS classroom program? (d) Is there an improvement in classroom climate after fifth-grade students participate in the SSS classroom program?

 

Method

 

Participants and Sampling Procedures

Fifth-grade students (N = 336, 181 females and 155 males) from five public elementary schools in central Florida volunteered to participate in this study. The eligibility criteria included the following: (a) participating schools had to employ a certified school counselor, (b) school counselors had to agree to implement the manualized SSS classroom program (Brigman & Webb, 2010), and (c) in an attempt to create a whole-school culture, the school had to have more than one fifth-grade classroom participating. On average, each school contained 4–6 general education fifth-grade classrooms; 21 of these 22 classrooms in the five participating elementary schools were included in the study. All students in general education fifth-grade classrooms were invited to participate. Blended classrooms (e.g., multiple grade levels in one classroom) were not included so that generalizations among age levels could be made between schools. The volunteer sample (N = 336) mean age was 10 years old. Racial identifications included 7 (2%) Asian, 52 (15%) African American, 221 (66%) Caucasian, 43 (13%) Latino/a, 12 (3.6%) Multiracial and 1 (.4%) American Indian. Thirty-one percent of the sample (n = 104) received free lunch and 7.1% (n = 24) were on reduced-lunch status.

 

The study followed a pre-post quasi-experimental cohort group design (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Random assignment of individual students was not conducive to preserving the nature of a whole-school culture, so schools were assigned to either the treatment or comparison group based on the order in which they volunteered to participate. The first three schools to volunteer were assigned to the treatment group (schools A, B and C) while the last two schools (schools D and E) were assigned to the comparison group.

Procedures

Following approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board, consent for research was obtained from the participating school district, school administrators, parents, teachers and students. In September, five certified school counselors from the participating schools received a 1-day training in the manualized use of the SSS classroom guidance program as well as other study-related procedures including instrument administration and electronic summary report instructions. The SSS program, consisting of five consecutive 45-minute lessons spaced a week apart, was then implemented in all fifth-grade classrooms in the treatment schools beginning in October. Monthly booster lessons followed beginning in January. Only students with parent permission completed the required instruments: the Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ), the Student Engagement in School Success Skills (SESSS) survey and the My Class Inventory-Short Form Revised (MCI-SFR). Students were ensured of the anonymity of their reporting by using generic school, classroom and student numbers. For a classroom to remain eligible to participate, a minimum of 80% of the students in the classroom had to return a signed parent consent form.

 

     Treatment group. Schools A, B and C served as the treatment group (n = 209) and participating fifth-grade students in this group received the SSS classroom intervention. These students completed the following pretests in September 2010: the PRQ, MCI-SFR and SESSS. Implementation of the SSS classroom program began in October. Following the completion of the first five SSS lessons, treatment students completed the SESSS instrument (posttest). Booster lessons were delivered in January, February and March, and treatment students were then asked to complete the PRQ, MCI-SFR and SESSS following the final booster lesson (post-posttest).

 

     Comparison group. Schools D and E served as the comparison group (n = 127) and did not receive the SSS intervention during the study. Students in these schools experienced business as usual, including any regularly scheduled school counseling programming. Comparison schools were eligible to receive the SSS curriculum after the study was completed. Participating students in the comparison schools completed the three instruments at the same time intervals (pretest, posttest and post-posttest) as students in the treatment group.

 

Instruments

     Peer Relations Questionnaire – For Children – Short Form. The PRQ (Rigby & Slee, 1993a) was designed to reveal student experiences with bullying at school. The questionnaire takes approximately 5–7 minutes to complete and is comprised of 20 items in which students are asked to circle how often the statements are true for them. The answers range on a 4-point scale from never = 1, once in a while = 2, pretty often = 3, to very often = 4. The PRQ consists of three scales and several filler items: a Bully Scale, a Victim Scale and a Prosocial Scale; students in the present study took all three scales. Scoring is determined by the items contained in each of the scales, with higher scores corresponding to a propensity for bully, victim and/or prosocial behaviors (Rigby & Slee, 1993b). Rigby and Slee (1993b) reported the reliability of the PRQ using the following alpha coefficients: bully scale (.75–.78), victim scale (.78–.86) and prosocial scale (.71–.74), indicating more than adequate internal consistency. Recent evaluation of the PRQ’s psychometric properties by Tabaeian, Amiri, and Molavi (2012) supported it as a highly reliable and valid instrument that should continue to be used in research.

 

     Student Engagement in School Success Skills Survey. The SESSS is a 33-item student self-report of cognitive engagement in SSS program skills and strategies, using language specific to the SSS curriculum, and takes approximately 15 minutes to complete (Carey, Brigman, Webb, Villares, & Harrington, 2013). Students are asked to circle how often they have engaged in a list of behaviors within the last 2 weeks (e.g., “I tried to encourage a classmate who was having a hard time doing something,” “I noticed when another student was having a bad day,” “I listened to music so that I would feel less stressed”). Possible responses include I didn’t do this at all, I did this once, I did this two times or I did this three or more times. The SESSS is intended for use with students in grades 3–12. Though a four-factor model was first revealed in an exploratory factor analysis conducted by Carey et al. (2013), a subsequent confirmatory factor analysis revealed the following three factors: self-direction of learning (which represents the combination of two original factors—management of learning and application of learning strategies), support of classmates’ learning and self-regulation of arousal, which correspond to the three subscales of the SESSS (Brigman et al., 2014). Coefficient alphas for the three SESSS subscales were as follows: self-direction of learning: 0.89, support of classmates’ learning: 0.79 self-regulation of arousal: 0.68, and 0.90 for the SESSS as a whole (Villares et al., 2014), indicating good internal consistency.

 

     My Class Inventory-Short Form-Revised. The MCI-SFR is a 20-item instrument that intends to measure the perceptions of students in grades 4–6 of four areas related to classroom climate (satisfaction, friction, competitiveness and cohesiveness). The instrument takes approximately 10–15 minutes to complete and respondents are asked to select either “yes” (3 points) or “no” (1 point). Omitted or invalidly scored items receive two points. Reports on the psychometric properties for both the MCI-SF and MCI-SFR have indicated strong concurrent validity when comparing long and short versions across each of the scales (.91–.97). Additionally, some degree of internal consistency (largely adequate coefficient alphas) has been reported for class means with Australian children (.58–.81). The MCI-SF yielded more acceptable alpha coefficients for each of the scales (.84–.93) than did the long version, the MCI. Modifications to the revised MCI-SFR produced a better overall instrument, improving factor interpretability and reliability (Fraser, 1982; Sink & Spencer, 2005). Sink and Spencer (2005) reported that interpreting students’ responses from pretest to posttest on the MCI-SFR should be straightforward, with higher scores on the satisfaction and cohesion scales providing positive indicators of a healthy classroom environment, and higher scores on the competitiveness and friction scales suggesting needed improvement in this area.

 

Data Analysis

Individual students were the units of analysis in the study. An alpha level of .05 and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to analyze differences in prosocial behaviors, bullying behaviors, school engagement skills and perceptions of classroom climate between students who participated in the SSS program (treatment group) and students who did not (comparison group). A post hoc Bonferroni correction was used to lessen the chance of a Type I error. Prior to the analyses, all the variables of interest were examined for accuracy of data entry, missing values, outliers and the normality of distributions. In addition, effect sizes (ES) were calculated to determine the practical significance of the SSS classroom program for the various student outcomes.

 

In this study, a partial eta-squared (ES; hp2) calculation was computed by SPSS (Field, 2009; Howell, 2008; Sink & Mvududu, 2010). The ES addresses the magnitude of the difference between groups or relationships between variables. The following benchmarks were used to determine small, medium, and large or strong ES strengths regarding hp2 calculations: (a) .01 small, (b) .06 medium, and (c) .14 large or strong (Green & Salkind, 2008; Sink & Mvududu, 2010).

 

Results

 

Preliminary ANOVAs were conducted on the students’ PRQ, SESSS and MCI-SFR pretest scores to determine whether statistically significant differences existed among the treatment and comparison groups prior to the implementation of the SSS intervention. No statistically significant differences were found on pretest scores; therefore, no covariates were used in subsequent analyses of students’ PRQ, SESSS and MCI-SFR posttest scores. Table 1 provides a summary of the study’s main findings.

 

Prosocial Behaviors

Research question 1 examined whether fifth-grade students who participated in the SSS classroom program would experience an increase in prosocial behaviors as compared to their peer counterparts who did not receive the intervention. Prosocial behaviors were assessed using the prosocial scale of the PRQ. A total of 188 students from the treatment group (schools A, B and C) and 123 students from the comparison group (schools D and E) were included in this analysis (n = 311). Findings from an ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference between groups, F(1, 308) = 18.708, p = .000 and hp2  = .06, a medium effect size. Participants in the treatment group (n = 188, M = 12.61, SD = 2.47) reported higher scores for prosocial behaviors at posttest as opposed to participants in the comparison group (n = 123, M = 11.27, SD = 2.81). Results indicated that students in the treatment schools reported engaging in prosocial behaviors more often at posttest than students in the comparison schools, highlighting the practical significance of using this intervention to positively influence student behavior.

 

Table 1

 

Summary Table of P Values, Effect Size Estimates, and Confidence Intervals for All Measures

Measure p value  hp2 ES Strength              CI
PRQ
     Prosocial .000* .06 Medium 95% [11.68, 12.22]
     Bully .017* .02 Small 95% [7.22, 7.69]
SESSS
     Pretest to Posttest .000* .26 Large 95% [2.05, 2.20]
     Pretest to Post-posttest .366 .00 Negligible 95% [2.46, 2.62]
MCI-SFR
     Satisfaction .019* .02 Small 95% [10.36, 10.96]
     Friction .152 .01 Small 95% [9.21, 9.83]
     Competitiveness .831 .00 Negligible 95% [10.79, 11.41]
     Cohesion .414 .00 Negligible 95% [9.18, 9.85]

Note. PRQ = Peer Relations Questionnaire; SESSS = Student Engagement in School Success Skills;
MCI-SFR = My Class Inventory-Short Form-Revised; p = significance at posttest; hp2 = partial eta-squared
effect size; CI = confidence interval;

* p < .05.

 

Bullying Behaviors

The second research question asked whether fifth-grade students who received SSS would experience a decrease in bullying behaviors, assessed by the bully scale of the PRQ, compared to their peers in the comparison group. Results from a one-way ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference between the participants’ (n = 311) posttest scores, F(1, 308) = 5.708, p = .017 and a small effect size, hp2 = .02. These findings confirmed that students in the treatment group evidenced a decrease in mean change scores on the PRQ bully scale after SSS implementation, whereas students in the comparison schools reported an increase. Thus, students in the treatment group who received the SSS classroom intervention reported less bullying behavior at posttest than students in the comparison group.

 

Engagement in School Success Skills

Research question 3 investigated whether participating fifth-grade students who received the SSS classroom program would experience an increase in levels of engagement in student success skills (cognitive and learning, social, self-management) as compared to their peer counterparts. Results from the SESSS instrument were used in this analysis. A total of 115 students in the treatment group (schools A, B and C) and 85 students in the comparison group (schools D and E) were included in the SESSS analysis (n = 200). Table 2 displays the treatment and comparison group means, standard deviations, and change scores for the SESSS by school at the following three data collection periods: pretest (prior to SSS implementation), posttest (immediately following implementation of the five weekly SSS lessons) and post-posttest (at the end of the study).

 

Table 2

 

Treatment and Comparison Group Means, Standard Deviations and Change Scores for the SESSS by School

School n PretestM (SD) PosttestM (SD) Post-posttestM (SD) Pretest-to-posttestM  +/- Posttest-to-post-posttest M  +/- Pretest-to-post-posttest M  +/-
A* 40 2.49 (.61) 2.88 (.63) 2.41 (2.63) +.39 +.47 -.08
B* 38 2.47 (.68) 2.62 (.66) 2.64 (.63) +.15 +.02 +.17
C* 37 2.44 (.58) 2.60 (.60) 2.82 (.64) +.16 +.22 +.38
D 28 2.53 (.53) 2.47 (.57) 2.56 (.65) -.06 +.09 +.03
E 57 2.07 (.77) 1.37 (.12) 2.39 (.48) -.70 +1.02 +.32
TotalT 115 2.47 (.62) 2.50 (.64) 2.62 (.65) +.03 +.12 +.15
Total

C

 85 2.22 (.73) 1.73 (.68) 2.45 (.54) -.49 +.72 +.23

 

Note. SESSS = Student Engagement in School Success Skills; n = number; M = mean; SD = standard deviation;

T = treatment group; C = comparison group; * = treatment school; +/- = mean change score.

 

   SESSS posttest score analysis. Findings from an ANOVA on the posttest scores on the SESSS (from the pretest in October to the posttest in December) showed a statistically significant difference between schools, F(1, 197) = 69.295, p = .000 and hp2 = .26, a large effect size. Students in the treatment group (n = 115, M = 2.50, SD = .642) evidenced higher levels of engagement in school success skills from pretest to posttest than their counterparts in the comparison group (n = 85, M = 1.73, SD = .617).

 

SESSS post-posttest score analysis. A second one-way ANOVA showed no statistically significant differences between the treatment and comparison groups scores from pretest (October) to post-posttest (March), F(1, 197) = .820, p = .366 and hp2 = .004, a small effect size.

 

Perceptions of Classroom Climate

Finally, research question 4 investigated whether fifth-grade treatment group students would perceive an improvement in classroom climate as compared to students in the comparison group. Due to attrition, 308 fifth-grade students completed the four scales (satisfaction, cohesion, competitiveness and friction) of the MCI-SFR. Findings from an ANOVA using the MCI-SFR satisfaction scale posttest scores revealed a statistically significant difference between the treatment and comparison groups, F(1, 305) = 5.523, p = .019 and hp2 = .02, a small effect size. In particular, students in the treatment group (n = 187, M = 10.96, SD = 2.86) reported higher scores on the satisfaction scale at posttest than did students in the comparison group (n = 121, M = 10.39, SD = 2.74). The ANOVA tests on the other three scales of the MCI-SFR did not result in statistically significant differences between the treatment and comparison groups.

 

Discussion

 

The findings of this study reflect the connection between prosocial skills and reduced aggression, a finding which has been well documented in previous literature (Endresen & Olweus, 2001; Feshbach, 1997; McMahon & Washburn, 2003). School counselor interventions that focus on teaching prosocial behaviors have been successful in reducing aggressive behaviors such as bullying (Frey, Hirschstein, & Guzzo, 2000); these types of interventions also have been tied to improved academic achievement (Wentzel, 2003; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). The American School Counselor Association (ASCA; 2012) recommends that counselors cover academic, personal and social, and career domains as part of a comprehensive school counseling program. Results of this study support the delivery of interventions that incorporate the teaching of cognitive, social and self-management skills as a means to increase prosocial skills, reduce bullying behavior and promote a positive classroom climate. The design of the current study attempted to create a whole-school approach by implementing the SSS classroom program across an entire grade level (grade 5) in the treatment schools. Given that bullying peaks in the transition years, addressing the fifth-grade population was viewed as a proactive approach. SSS implementation resulted in some positive outcomes for those students, indicating that even a modified whole-school approach can be beneficial.

 

Previous SSS studies have documented the intervention’s positive impact on student academic performance as measured by standardized test scores in math and reading (Villares et al., 2012). Professionals in the field of counseling have identified a need to evaluate the link between the SSS program and intermediate variables related to student learning such as engagement in school success skills, prosocial behavior and perceptions of classroom climate (Carey, Dimmitt, Hatch, Lapan, & Whiston, 2008). Findings from the current study indicate that students who received the SSS intervention engaged significantly more in behaviors indicative of school success at posttest. These results are encouraging, since a body of research cites the negative impact that bullying can have on student academic achievement (Beale & Scott, 2001; Boulton et al., 2008; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993).

 

The quality of a classroom climate also can impact students’ success. Although improved perceptions of classroom climate were predicted across all areas in the current study, statistically significant differences were only noted on perceptions related to satisfaction. The researchers postulate that treatment students were more likely to tune into questions pertaining to satisfaction, as this is a focus of the SSS program (noticing small improvements, focusing on the positives, and creating a safe, caring, supportive, encouraging classroom). The maintenance of a positive school and classroom climate directly affects whether or not students feel accepted and happy among their peers (Greenberg et al., 2003; Millings, Buck, Montgomery, Spears, & Stallard, 2012; Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006). The literature indicates that the effectiveness of school counseling interventions can be greatly impacted by the school’s climate (Greenberg et al., 2003). Specifically, factors such as teacher adherence to the curriculum and staff buy-in can affect a program’s success (Biggs, Vernberg, Twemlow, Fonagy, & Dill, 2008; Yoon, 2004). Teachers should be involved in program implementation so that they become invested in its success. The current study addressed this area in that the classroom teachers were collaborators in SSS implementation. The program asks that classroom teachers be present during the counselor-led sessions so that they can cue students to use the skills taught throughout the regular school day. Thus, evidence-based interventions like the SSS program that emphasize school connectedness can be of benefit to students (Millings et al., 2012).

 

Implications for Practice and Future Research

 

The findings of this study support the use of the school counselor-led SSS classroom program as a practical means of impacting students’ prosocial skills, bullying behavior, engagement in school success skills and some perceptions of classroom climate, as indicated by various student self-report measures. Since the bullying literature calls for the use of multiple measures when attempting to link interventions to improvements, we recommend that additional studies track attendance rates, disciplinary referrals, bullying incident reports, and peer and teacher nominations, in addition to student instruments. Future researchers in this area also should gather data from teacher participants and vary the type of measurements specifically tied to prosocial and bullying behaviors (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000; Van Schoiack-Edstrom, Frey, & Beland, 2002), as well as academic outcomes (Carey et al., 2008; Hall, 2006). This study sought to create a whole-school culture by incorporating the intervention across an entire grade level at each school. Future researchers might consider implementing SSS across several grade levels or throughout the entire school, as students across various grades often come in contact with one another throughout the school day.

 

Limitations

The participants were derived from one suburban school district and randomization procedures were not possible, thereby limiting the sample size and generalizability of the results. Likewise, due to one school dropping out of the study at the onset, the numbers between the treatment and comparison groups were not equivalent. The high level of attrition also was a limitation, specifically regarding the SESSS instrument. Though 336 students were in the original sample, only 200 of these were included in the analysis on the SESSS due to dropping out or not adequately completing the instrument in its totality at all three intervals.

 

The self-report nature of all three of the instruments was an added limitation, particularly with the problem of bullying. Students involved in bullying incidents, whether they were bullies, victims or bystanders, might be hesitant to report or indicate negative behaviors. This reluctance could have resulted in respondent bias and decreased reliability in the results.

 

Finally, the current study used only one component of the SSS curriculum (classroom program). Future studies might involve additional modalities, including individual and small group counseling as well as parent involvement. This study did not examine the impact of the SSS program over time. Follow-up studies are needed to support the long-term effectiveness of school counselor-led interventions that increase prosocial behaviors, reduce bullying behaviors and promote a positive school climate.

 

Conclusion

 

Results of the study provide support that students who receive the SSS classroom intervention led by school counselors (Brigman & Webb, 2010) evidence statistically significant differences in prosocial behaviors, bullying behaviors, engagement in school success skills and perceptions related to satisfaction with their classroom climate, as compared to students who do not receive the program. The findings provide empirical support for the notion that when students are taught skills in key areas (personal and social, self-management, and cognitive and academic) they benefit across social, emotional and behavioral outcomes. The study also suggests that aggressive behaviors such as bullying can be influenced by programs that do not specifically target these behaviors. Finally, this research points to the positive impact school counselors can have on student success, particularly when they deliver interventions that promote social competence among students. Providing school counselors with an evidence-based program that impacts students across several domains is of great value for school counseling practice.

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported no conflict of interest

or funding contributions for the development

of this manuscript.

 

References

 

American School Counselor Association. (2012). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Beale, A. V., & Scott, P. C. (2001). “Bullybusters”: Using drama to empower students to take a stand against bullying behavior. Professional School Counseling, 4, 300–305.

Bernstein, J. Y., & Watson, M. W. (1997). Children who are targets of bullying: A victim pattern. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 483–498. doi:10.1177/088626097012004001

Biggs, B. K., Vernberg, E. M., Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Dill, E. J. (2008). Teacher adherence and its relation to teacher attitudes and student outcomes in an elementary school-based violence prevention program. School Psychology Review, 37, 533–549.

Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., & Murray, L. (2008). Associations between peer victimization, fear of future victimization and disrupted concentration on class work among junior school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 473–489. doi:10.1348/000709908X320471

Bradshaw, C. P., O’Brennan, L. M., & Sawyer, A. L. (2008). Examining variation in attitudes toward aggressive retaliation and perceptions of safety among bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Professional School Counseling, 12, 10–21. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.10

Brigman, G., & Campbell, C. (2003). Helping students improve academic achievement and school success behavior. Professional School Counseling, 7, 91–98.

Brigman, G., & Webb, L. (2010). Student success skills: Classroom manual (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Atlantic Education Consultants.

Brigman, G. A., Webb, L. D., & Campbell, C. (2007). Building skills for school success: Improving the academic and social competence of students. Professional School Counseling, 10, 279–288.

Brigman, G., Wells, C., Webb, L., Villares, E., Carey, J. C., & Harrington, K. (2014). Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of the student engagement in school success skills survey. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. doi:10.1177/0748175614544545

Campbell, C. A., & Brigman, G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap: A structured approach to group counseling. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 30, 67–82. doi:10.1080/01933920590908705

Carey, J., Brigman, G., Webb, L., Villares, E., & Harrington, K. (2013). Development of an instrument to measure student use of academic success skills: An exploratory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47, 171–180. doi:10.1177/0748175613505622

Carey, J. C., Dimmitt, C., Hatch, T. A., Lapan, R. T., & Whiston, S. C. (2008). Report of the national panel for evidence-based school counseling: Outcome research coding protocol and evaluation of student success skills and second step. Professional School Counseling, 11, 197–206.

Carney, J. V. (2008). Perceptions of bullying and associated trauma during adolescence. Professional School Counseling, 11, 179–188.

Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the social development research group. Journal of School Health, 74, 252–261. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08281.x

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Crothers, L. M., & Levinson, E. M. (2004). Assessment of bullying: A review of methods and instruments. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 496–503. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00338.x

Daly, E. J., III, Duhon, G. J., & Witt, J. C. (2002). Proactive approaches for identifying and treating children at risk for academic failure. In K. L. Lane, F. M. Gresham, & T. E. O’Shaughnessy (Eds.), Interventions for children with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 18–32). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Deluty, R. H. (1985). Cognitive mediation of aggressive, assertive, and submissive behavior in children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 355–369. doi:10.1177/016502548500800309

DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., & Baum, K. (2004). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2004. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005002.pdf

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2001). Self-reported empathy in Norwegian adolescents: Sex differences, age trends, and relationship to bullying. In A. C. Bohart & D. J. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive & destructive behavior: Implications for family, school, and society (pp.147–165). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Feshbach, N. D. (1997). Empathy: The formative years—implications for clinical practice. In A. C. Bohart & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy reconsidered: New directions in psychotherapy (pp. 33–59). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fraser, B. J. (1982). Development of short forms of several classroom environment scales. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 221–227.

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., & Guzzo, B. A. (2000). Second step: Preventing aggression by promoting social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 102–113. doi:10.1177/106342660000800206

Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059–1065. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1215

Green, S. B., & Salkind, S. J. (2008). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466

Hall, K. R. (2006). Using problem-based learning with victims of bullying behavior. Professional School Counseling, 9, 231–237.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). Children who get victimized at school: What is known? What can be done? Professional School Counseling, 4, 113–119.

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136. doi:10.3102/00346543066002099

Hazler, R. J., & Carney, J. V. (2000). When victims turn aggressors: Factors in the development of deadly school violence. Professional School Counseling, 4, 105–112.

Hermann, M. A., & Finn, A. (2002). An ethical and legal perspective on the role of school counselors in preventing violence in schools. Professional School Counseling, 6, 46–54.

Howell, D. (2008). Best practices in the analysis of variance. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 341–357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

León, A., Villares, E., Brigman, G., Webb, L., & Peluso, P. (2011). Closing the achievement gap of Latina/Latino students: A school counseling response. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 2, 73–86. doi:10.1177/2150137811400731

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205–220.

McMahon, S. D., & Washburn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: An evaluation of program effects with urban African American students. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 43–62.

Millings, A., Buck, R., Montgomery, A., Spears, M., & Stallard, P. (2012). School connectedness, peer attachment, and self-esteem as predictors of adolescent depression. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1061–1067. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.015

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ortega, R., & Lera, M.-J. (2000). The Seville anti-bullying in school project. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 113–123. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:1<113::AID-AB9>3.0.CO;2-E

Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews—Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.lpfch.org/sel/PackardES-REV.pdf

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). An empirical comparison of methods of sampling aggression and victimization in school settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 360–366. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.360

Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244–252. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993a). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33–42. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993b). The Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ) [Measurement instrument]. Adelaide, Australia: University of South Australia.

Roth, D. A., Coles, M. E., & Heimberg, R. G. (2002). The relationship between memories for childhood teasing and anxiety and depression in adulthood. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16, 149–164. doi: 10.1016/S0887-6185(01)00096-2

Saleebey, D. (2008). Commentary on the strengths perspective and potential applications in school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 12, 68–75.

Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170–179. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_1

Sink, C. A., & Mvududu, N. H. (2010). Statistical power, sampling, and effect sizes: Three keys to research relevancy. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 1, 1–18. doi:10.1177/2150137810373613

Sink, C. A., & Spencer, L. R. (2005). My Class Inventory–Short Form as an accountability tool for elementary school counselors to measure classroom climate. Professional School Counseling, 9, 37–48.

Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer, and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 283–293. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38–47.

Tabaeian, S. R., Amiri, S., & Molavi, H. (2012). Factor analysis, reliability, convergent and discriminate [sic] validity of “The Peer Relationships Questionnaire” (PRQ). Studies in Learning & Instruction (Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities of Shiraz University), 3(2), 61–62.

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 63–73. doi:10.1108/17596591111132873

Van Schoiack-Edstrom, L., Frey, K. S., & Beland, K. (2002). Changing adolescents’ attitudes about relational and physical aggression: An early evaluation of a school-based intervention. School Psychology Review, 31, 201–216.

Villares, E., Colvin, K., Carey, J., Webb, L., Brigman, G., & Harrington, K. (2014). Convergent and divergent validity of the student engagement in school success skills survey. The Professional Counselor, 4, 541–552. doi:10.15241/ev.4.5.541

Villares, E., Frain, M., Brigman, G., Webb, L., & Peluso, P. (2012). The impact of student success skills on standardized test scores: A meta-analysis. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 3, 3–16. doi:10.1177/2150137811434041

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74–79.

Webb, L. D., & Brigman, G. A. (2006). Student success skills: Tools and strategies for improved academic and social outcomes. Professional School Counseling, 10, 112–120.

Webb, L. D., Brigman, G. A., & Campbell, C. (2005). Linking school counselors and student success: A replication of the student success skills approach targeting the academic and social competence of students. Professional School Counseling, 8, 407–413.

Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Sociometric status and adjustment in middle school: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 5–28. doi:10.1177/0272431602239128

Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198–1209. doi:10.2307/1132301

Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2010). The psychology of academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 653–678.

Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81, 267–301. doi:10.3102/0034654311405999

Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 37–45.

Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

 

 

Melissa Mariani is an Assistant Professor at Florida Atlantic University. Linda Webb is Research Faculty III at Florida State University. Elizabeth Villares is an Associate Professor at Florida Atlantic University. Greg Brigman, NCC, is a Professor at Florida Atlantic University. Correspondence may be addressed to Melissa Mariani, 777 Glades Road, COE 47, 274, Boca Raton, FL 33431, mmarian5@fau.edu.