Health Promotion International, Vol. 16, No. 2, 155-167,
June 2001
© Oxford University Press 2001
Anti-bullying interventions at school: aspects of programme adaptation and critical issues for further programme development
1 Research Group Health and Behaviour, Department of Psychology, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium and 2 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
Address for correspondence: V. Stevens, Ghent University, Department of Psychology, Research Group Health and Behaviour, H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
 |
SUMMARY |
|---|
 TOP SUMMARY INTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Recently, a growing interest in problems at school of peer aggression and victimization was observed. As a result, intervention strategies appropriate for this kind of problem were required. The Norwegian anti-bullying intervention that was developed and evaluated by Olweus (1992) in the region of Bergen was considered to be a good model for other countries to implement interventions against peer aggression within the school environment. It was therefore adapted to the educational settings of other countries. This paper aims to discuss the adaptation processes of the Bergen anti-bullying programme and to give guidelines to advance further programme development. For this, the DFE Sheffield Bullying Project (Smith and Sharp, 1994
), the Anti-bullying Intervention in Toronto schools (Pepler et al., 1994) and the Flemish anti-bullying project (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994) were considered in the analyses. Discussion of the adaptation processes of the Bergen model programme revealed that the adapted interventions largely succeeded in incorporating the core components of the Bergen model programme, taking into account the characteristics of the implementation environment. This suggests that for bully/ victim interventions, the dilemma of programme fidelity and programme adaptation could be solved adequately. However, from a health promotion perspective, some critical issues for programme improvement were observed. Three suggestions for change were made, indicating that anti-bullying actions at schools may benefit from: (i) a clear overview of the learning objectives, specified per target population; (ii) more attention to parental involvement and family interventions; and (iii) additional information about the adoption processes of the anti-bullying interventions within schools. Key words: anti-bullying interventions; health promotion; programme adaptation; programme development
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Since the 1980s, peer aggression and victimization within the school setting have been identified as a significant threat to the development of children's and adolescents' mental and social wellbeing (Olweus, 1984
; Olweus, 1992; Rigby and Slee, 1993; Smith et al., 1993). This has resulted in a more profound concern within mental health promotion for the specific problem of bullying behaviour among peers. Observance of its short tradition revealed that the Norwegian anti-bullying intervention research in the 1980s was the trigger for further research and action both within Europe and further afield (Olweus, 1991; Olweus, 1992). Research on the prevalence of peer aggression (Olweus, 1991) revealed that about one in seven students in Norway were involved in problems with bullying or victimization. Supported by the National Ministry of Education, an intervention programme for schools, directly focusing on the problem of peer aggression and victimization, was developed (Olweus, 1991; Olweus, 1992) and disseminated among Norwegian schools (Munthe and Roland, 1989; Olweus, 1991; Olweus, 1992). The programme aimed at reducing levels of peer aggression and victimization employing a system-based approach and intensive use of the school environment. From 1983 to 1985, the programme was evaluated among 2500 students (11–14 years of age) from 42 schools in Bergen by the use of a cohort-longitudinal study (Olweus, 1991). Data analyses showed a significant reduction (up to 50%) in rates of bullying and of those being bullied. Roland (Munthe and Roland, 1989) replicated the study of Olweus in Rogaland (Norway) in 7000 students (aged 8–16 years). He observed slight increases in the amount of bullying and of being bullied. However, it is difficult to compare both evaluation studies, as differences were observed between the studies in external support for schools during programme implementation (Smith and Sharp, 1994). Moreover, Olweus argued that both studies also differ in data quality, times of measurements and programme planning (Olweus, 1999).
The positive results of the evaluation study in Bergen encouraged other countries to investigate the nature of the anti-bullying phenomenon in the school setting (Mooij, 1992; Van Lieshout, 1992; Pepler et al., 1994; Smith and Sharp, 1994; Stevens and Van Oost, 1994; Genta et al., 1996; Rigby and Slee, 1998). Comparable results or even more serious rates of bullying and victimization were found in these other studies, using the same bullying inventory, arguing for appropriate intervention plans (Olweus, 1989; Smith et al., 1999). The Bergen anti-bullying programme (Olweus, 1992) was considered to be a good model and was adapted to the educational settings of other countries.
The use of model programmes
Although the use of good model programmes is encouraged within health promotion as a way of heightening the quality of prevention efforts, one must not minimalize the process of programme adaptation. On the one hand, merely copying or replicating the model programme could result in a concept that works in Norwegian schools in Bergen, but affects other educational settings in a different way; on the other hand, the adaptation process includes the problem of programme fidelity and modification of the intervention to the new setting, which may change the core features of the programme. This may result in a different intervention (Price et al., 1993; Roberts and Hinton-Nelson, 1996; Elias, 1997). In this paper we aim to discuss the adaptation processes of the Bergen anti-bullying programme and to give guidelines for further programme development. For this, the DFE Sheffield Bullying Project (Smith and Sharp, 1994), the Anti-bullying Intervention in Toronto schools (Pepler et al., 1994) and the Flemish anti-bullying project (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994; Stevens et al., 2000), all being interventions reporting to be inspired by the Bergen programme, were involved in the analyses. First, the Bergen anti-bullying intervention will be discussed in the context of model programmes.
|
THE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING INTERVENTION AS A MODEL PREVENTION PROGRAMME |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Characteristics of model programmes
Model programmes can be described as evidence-based prevention programmes, developed on an experimental or scientific basis and implemented on a fairly large scale (Hosman and Engels, 1999
). Model programmes have to fulfil a set of quality criteria in a superior way (Price et al., 1993; Roberts and Hinton-Nelson, 1996). By comparing 23 model interventions in child and family mental health, Roberts and Hinton-Nelson identified six common characteristics of good model programmes (Roberts and Hinton-Nelson, 1996). First, the authors advocate that good model programmes are founded upon a theoretical framework or a guiding philosophy, providing theoretical evidence about how the programme is supposed to improve the health conditions towards which the intervention is directed. Model programmes should also be based upon a system-oriented approach. Programmes that do recognize the social environment of the child were found to be more successful than interventions that merely focus on individual determinants of health problems (Bond and Compas, 1989; Weissberg et al., 1991; Kazdin, 1993; Dryfoos, 1997; Valente and Dodge, 1997). In addition, Roberts and Hinton-Nelson argue that model programmes in child and family mental health should include intensive collaboration with multiple specialized services and make efforts to reduce barriers to access for children and adolescents at risk (Roberts and Hinton-Nelson, 1996). The fifth criterion states that model programmes provide detailed information about programme monitoring and outcome data (Roberts and Hinton-Nelson, 1996). The sixth and final criterion states that good model programmes are able to be replicated or adapted to other settings, providing information about essential programme components and mechanisms for success (Roberts and Hinton-Nelson, 1996).
In line with this, Price et al. identified a set of quality criteria for model programmes, based on the analyses of 14 prevention programmes for a range of health and mental health problems (Price et al., 1993). According to the authors, model programmes are characterized by a clear description of the programme, including information about the emotional and behavioural conditions to be prevented and a rationale for the intervention, recognizing potential ethical issues. Model programmes include information about programme monitoring, timing and evaluation, and are transferable to other settings. In addition to these characteristics, the authors also argue that good model programmes provide a description of the programme's target goals in terms of observable and measurable objectives, as well as the procedures followed in reaching these objectives. They also introduced the criterion of describing the prerequisite skills for successful programme implementation.
These criteria were all derived from interventions programmes that have proven to be effective in advancing children's psychosocial functioning. However, the appropriateness of these criteria for interventions against bully/victim problems among students can be questioned. One may argue that the nature of anti-bullying interventions requires additional criteria or greater appropriateness to the setting. However, it was observed that some of the selected model programmes concerned school-based health and mental health problems. As such, the criteria were expected to suit the educational context also.
An analysis of the Bergen anti-bullying intervention as a model programme
The strengths and shortcomings of the Bergen anti-bullying intervention will be compared with the essential features of model programmes. From the Bergen programme it is known that it aims primarily to increase adults' and students' awareness of problems of peer aggression and victimization, and it tries to encourage active involvement of adults and peers in resolving bully/victim incidents (see Table 1).
|
Strengths of the Bergen model programme
Developmental models of aggressive behaviour and behaviour modification theories established the programme concept. Olweus found that most bullying behaviour is intended to result in social outcomes such as dominance or status among peers (Olweus, 1991
). By joining in with the bullying or being an audience, peers themselves consistently reinforce bullies' behaviour (Schwartz et al., 1993). When no or few negative consequences from parents, peers or teachers result from the aggressive act, bullying behaviour will increase. As a consequence, Olweus argued that anti-bullying intervention programmes should restructure the social environment by implementing clear rules against bullying behaviour, so that the positive consequences of bullying are reduced while the negative behavioural outcomes increase (Olweus, 1991). The programme stresses the reciprocal relationship between bullies or victims and their social environment. As such, the programme can be defined as being founded upon a theoretical framework, including the need for a system-oriented approach. It is also known that under the programme, extensive attention is being given to serious talks with bullies, victims and parents of the children involved, and that schools can rely on intensive support from the research group. In addition, links with social workers and school psychologists are encouraged to handle more severe bully/victim problems. As a result, one may conclude that from the perspective of the school setting, the programme encourages network-building with more specialized services and tries to reduce barriers to access for children most at risk.
In addition, the programme description (Olweus, 1992) provided an extensive report of the programme evaluation. As was mentioned earlier in this paper, the Bergen intervention was successful in reducing rates of bullying behaviour and victimization. Olweus has clearly indicated the essential programme components at each level of intervention and has provided reasons for programme effectiveness (Olweus, 1994).
Limitations of the Bergen model programme
Some shortcomings were observed in relation to aspects of specific programme goals, methods and monitoring. First, the programme seems to be unclear in indicating for each target population what behaviour, attitudes, etc. must be learned to fulfil the general programme objectives of reducing the problems of bullying and victimization. Besides, no clear information is given about how programme methods are linked to specific programme goals.
Secondly, it was noticed (Olweus, 1992) that the programme did not describe the skills necessary to conduct the intervention in a successful manner, notwithstanding the finding that teachers perceived the intervention as feasible and beneficial. In line with this, it was observed (Olweus, 1992) that it was difficult to involve parents of bullies or victims, suggesting that this part of the programme is less feasible compared with other programme components as far as parental involvement is concerned. This may affect programme implementation in the home environment and it possibly limits the programme outcomes.
In general, one may conclude that the Bergen programme, in essence, fulfils most of the characteristics of good model programmes, including an overall description of the programme goals and methods, a theoretical foundation and system-oriented approach, network-building with more specialized services, reduction of barriers to access for children most at risk as well as a report of the intervention outcomes. Limitations that were observed in relation to programme objectives and programme monitoring may affect programme implementation and outcomes.
|
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED INTERVENTIONS |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
There is no extensive theory of programme adaptation. However, there are adequate and solid models for programme development (Green and Kreuter, 1991
; Bartholomew et al., 1998; Kok, 1999). Recently, Bartholomew et al. described the development of health education programmes in five consecutive steps, which the authors entitled the intervention mapping process (Bartholomew et al., 1998). The model provides a plan for programme development by sequentially combining theoretical findings, empirical information and data from the target population. Because of the detailed analysis of each component of programme development, the model was considered to be a good alternative to outline the adaptation process. In addition, because of its focus on issues relative to programme content as well as programme monitoring and evaluation, the intervention mapping model was considered the most comprehensive model for programme development currently available.
Proximal programme objectives
Step 1 of the intervention mapping process aimed to identify the proximal programme objectives based on the behavioural and environmental determinants of the health problem. Specifying proximal programme objectives includes formulating the learning and change objectives. Learning objectives specify what target populations have to learn to attain the performance objects; change objectives indicate how the environment has to be changed to encourage the programme outcomes.
Table 2 gives an overview of the programme objectives of the adapted interventions. The programme objectives are formulated as intended by the authors.
|
Learning objectives
It is clear that the programmes intend to reduce existing bully/victim problems and to prevent the development of new conflicts. They all try to reduce bullies' aggressive acts, to change students' and adults' attitudes against peer aggression and to enhance their behaviour to tackle problems with bullying. Additionally, they aim to improve the quality of children's playtime experiences. However, in line with the Bergen model programme, no explicit learning or change objectives were formulated. While some objectives clearly indicate what is intended to be learnt (e.g. enhancing social skills by joining in games and making friends, encouraging bullies to repair the consequences of their aggressive behaviour by doing something in favour of the victim), others are formulated as performance objectives (e.g. training students to solve bullying conflicts, raising awareness of bully/victim problems). Moreover, most programme objectives refer to activities that programme implementers have to organize and do not mention what participants themselves have to learn.
Change objectives
The adapted anti-bullying interventions differ largely in the adaptations made to the change objectives. Although they all promote better adult supervision during playtime, some divergences were observed due to organizational differences in the educational system. In addition to improved playground supervision, the Canadian programme (Pepler et al., 1994) encourages discussion with students about everyday conflicts and interactions between classmates in the playground, and suggests the introduction of additional play equipment, with special attention to days when it is raining. The Flemish programme (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994) additionally provides an extensive procedure to manage bully/victim problems in the playground in an authoritative manner. When bullying is observed, teaching and non-teaching staff members are prepared to react immediately to stop bully/victim incidents. Teachers then discuss the bullying incident separately with bully and victim, using repair procedures and contracting. The intervention in Sheffield (Smith and Sharp, 1994) also discusses strategies to handle bully/victim incidents in an authoritative way. In the schools of the Sheffield project, members of the local community usually supervise during midday break. By building better relationships between children and lunchtime supervisors, the programme tries to encourage an authoritative adult–child interaction. The Sheffield intervention programme also provides activities to redesign the playground, including collaboration with landscape designers.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
In step 2 of the intervention mapping process, attention is focused on the programme methods and strategies used to attain the proximal programme objectives. Methods are based upon theoretical concepts, revealing which intervention techniques may result in the desired environmental or behavioural changes. Strategies are the programme activities that organize the intervention methods, so that the target populations are approached in an appropriate way. In Table 3
, methods and strategies used in the anti-bullying interventions are delineated.
|
School and class
In line with the model programme, the adapted anti-bullying interventions make use of contingency management to reduce the aggressive behaviour of bullies, which is primarily operationalized in the development of an anti-bullying policy within the school. Other theoretical methods for obtaining proximal programme objectives among the other target populations were less extensively elaborated in the Bergen model programme. This may have affected the adapted programmes as they essentially differ in the methods used to involve peers. The selected methods for changes in attitude and behaviour within the peer group vary from the Pikas method and other curriculum activities (Smith and Sharp, 1994
) to peer conflict mediation programmes (Pepler et al., 1994) or problem solving strategies and skills training sessions (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994). It is somewhat unclear why various countries prefer different methods, suggesting that characteristics of the implementation system, like skills and practices of teachers, may interfere in the decision process (see also steps 3 and 4).
Family
In relation to the family component, the model programme prescribes organizing general parent meetings and introducing discussion groups specifically for parents of involved children. These prescriptions are based on the methods of giving advice on child-rearing techniques (Stafford and Bayer, 1993). The adapted programmes copied the strategy of organizing information sessions (Pepler et al., 1994; Smith and Sharp, 1994; Stevens and Van Oost, 1994) and communication skills training (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994) for all parents to help them monitor bullying behaviour and provide support for children being bullied. It was observed that none of the adapted interventions provided activities specifically for parents of the children involved.
Bullies and victims
The programme methods selected to accomplish the programme objectives among children directly involved in bully/victim problems are fairly congruent between the model and the adapted interventions: the programmes introduce assertiveness training or support for victims of bullying and self-control sessions or problem-solving training for the bullies. It was observed that the intervention in Sheffield additionally presented schools with the option to introduce peer counselling activities for victims of bullying. However, some programme designers define these programme components as short-terms actions (Smith and Sharp, 1994), providing assertiveness training or self-control therapy for bullies or victims at school. Others have formulated them as long-term activities (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994), referring children to specialized clinical child guidance centres.
Production, adoption and implementation of the programme
The purpose of the third step in the intervention mapping process is the production of an organized intervention programme, and includes putting programme strategies and the development and pre-testing of programme materials into operation. Development and pre-testing of health intervention programmes requires an intensive collaboration between programme designers, programme participants and intermediate users (Bartholomew et al., 1998). In addition, step 4 of the intervention mapping process intends to develop a plan for appropriate adoption and implementation. One of the essential activities includes the elaboration of a linkage system between programme designers and users to guarantee appropriate and reliable implementation, and to make the intervention better fit the educational context in which the programme has to be implemented. In the context of conducting innovations in organizational settings, Rogers referred to the re-invention concept, which he defined as ‘the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of its adoption and implementation’ [(Rogers, 1983), p. 175]. Hence, steps 3 and 4 are nearly interlinked, proceeding as a dynamic interaction between the two during programme development.
Programme production and implementation
For the adapted anti-bullying intervention programmes, it was observed that they all provided links with programme users and created opportunities for programme modification and re-invention. The Canadian programme (Pepler et al., 1994) provided the largest autonomy for programme users during programme development. Two team leaders from each school were given the task of developing intervention materials within their schools in collaboration with other staff members. During planning team sessions these activities were discussed with the members of the research group. The Department for Education (DFE) Sheffield Anti-Bullying Project (Smith and Sharp, 1994) includes a core intervention aimed at developing a whole-school anti-bullying policy. Additional intervention materials were provided for schools, ranging from curriculum activities and playground interventions, to working with individuals and small groups. Schools themselves could choose the interventions that best fitted the school setting. Moreover, in some schools, the interventions were supplemented with materials they themselves developed or discovered. In Flanders, the development of the intervention programme (Stevens and Van Oost, 1994) was conducted in two phases. During the pilot phase, schools could adapt programme components to their own situation, while the research team preserved the development of the anti-bullying policy. After 6 months of implementation, within each school, the project co-ordinator, the school principal and another teacher were interviewed about programme feasibility, barriers for implementation and training needs. Based on this information, a final version of the programme was developed and additional training sessions were provided for another group of schools where the programme was implemented and evaluated (see also step 5).
Programme adoption
One may conclude that the programme developers in different countries have intensively monitored the process of programme development and implementation. However, in line with the model programme, it is unclear how programme developers in different countries have monitored the adoption process. Activities within this stage are related to decision-making processes to adopt or to reject an intervention, and they precede the implementation stage (Rogers, 1983). The anti-bullying interventions do not provide information about why and how schools decide to implement the anti-bullying programmes and it remains unknown how the adoption processes are linked to the implementation efforts.
Programme monitoring and evaluation
The fifth and last step in the intervention mapping process focuses on programme monitoring and evaluation. This step intends to carry out process and outcome evaluations related to the performance objectives and to the proximal programme objectives. For the adapted anti-bullying interventions, as well as for the Bergen model programme, it was observed that the programme outcomes were evaluated and related with process variables (Pepler et al., 1994; Smith and Sharp, 1994; Stevens et al., 2000). These studies revealed that the adapted interventions were less effective in reducing bullying and victimization compared with the model programme. However, the evaluation measurements were primarily linked with performance objectives, including the effects on rates of bullying and victimization. Less information is available on specific learning and environmental objectives, such as the increase in assertiveness of victims, self-control of bullies, child-rearing skills of parents and teachers' or students' skills to interrupt bully/victim incidents and to manage effective solutions.
|
FURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
It was found that the Bergen intervention in essence fulfils most of the characteristics of good model programmes, including a link with developmental models of aggressive behaviour and behaviour modification theories, a person-oriented as well as a system-oriented approach, and encouragement of links with specialized services. It provides information about programme monitoring and behavioural outcomes. It was also found that the adapted interventions largely succeeded in incorporating the core components of the Bergen model programme with attention to the characteristics of the implementation environment. Only minor differences were found between the adapted programmes and the Bergen model relating to the intervention activities in the playground and strategies relevant for peer environment, and for students directly involved in bully/victim incidents. Primarily, they could be explained by cultural differences in the organization of school psychological services and involvement of the local community. Skills and practices of intermediate users, i.e. teaching and non-teaching staff members, have also defined the adaptation outcomes.
Nevertheless, when the programme characteristics and development processes of the adapted interventions and the Bergen programme were analysed in the context of health promotion models (Bartholomew et al., 1998; Kok, 1999), it was observed that certain aspects of the intervention mapping process have received less attention in all anti-bullying programmes. First, the analyses revealed that none of the anti-bullying programmes have formulated specific learning objectives. As learning objectives are derived from the behavioural determinants of the health problem (Bartholomew et al., 1998), they are critical for developing a programme that focuses on the central attitudes and behaviours of the unhealthy condition. Schools could benefit from a detailed overview of the learning objectives, clearly indicating what each target population has to learn to reach the programme goals.
Secondly, an overview of the learning objectives may additionally provide a structure for more detailed programme evaluations. It was observed that most evaluation measurements are primarily linked to the effects on bullying and victimization, while less information is provided about the effects on specific learning objectives. Effects on subgoals could inform us about essential programme elements for reaching the overall programme objectives and give an indication about critical parts for programme implementation or success.
A third factor of interest refers to the family environment. The Bergen programme prescribes the organization of discussion groups specifically for parents of bullies and victims. However, Olweus observed that parents of involved children were hard to engage (Olweus, 1992). The analyses of the adapted programmes revealed that none of these provided activities specifically for parents of bullies and victims. It is unclear whether or not parents of bullies and victims may learn from each other about family management skills and about the effects of bullying on the children being victimized. This reveals a need for reviewing the methods and strategies used in parental involvement, in close collaboration with the parents themselves.
Finally, it is unclear how programme developers in different countries have monitored the adoption phase. None of the anti-bullying interventions have provided information about why and how schools decide to implement the programmes, and it remains unknown how the adoption processes are linked with the implementation efforts. However, this kind of data could help to determine the starting conditions for effective implementation of anti-bullying interventions. This information could help other schools to decide whether or not they are ready to implement an anti-bullying programme in an effective way.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
This paper has argued that the Bergen anti-bullying programme is a good model programme and that the adapted interventions largely succeeded in incorporating the core components of the Bergen model. For bully/victim interventions, the dilemma of maintaining programme fidelity while incorporating programme adaptation could be solved adequately. From this it could be reasoned that poor programme adaptation is not the main argument for the less positive outcomes of the adapted interventions.
From a health promotion perspective, some critical issues for programme improvement were observed. Three suggestions for change were made, indicating that anti-bullying actions at schools may benefit from: (i) a clear overview of the learning objectives specified per target population; (ii) more intensive efforts within the home environment; and (iii) additional information about the decision-making conditions for adopting anti-bullying interventions within the school.
To understand better the observed outcomes, it might be the purpose of further research to focus on more detailed programme evaluation, including effects on specific learning objectives for students, peers, teachers and parents, relative to the extent of programme implementation (Hepworth, 1997; Nutbeam, 1998).
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
The paper was conducted as part of the first author's doctoral dissertation at the University of Ghent. The research was supported financially by the University of Ghent and the Minister of Health Promotion of Flanders.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYINTRODUCTIONTHE BERGEN ANTI-BULLYING...CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADAPTED...METHODSFURTHER PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENTRECOMMENDATIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S. and Kok, G. (1998) Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory- and evidence-based health education programs. Health Education and Behaviour, 25, 545–563.
Bond, L. A. and Compas, B. E. (1989) Primary Prevention and Promotion in the Schools. Primary Prevention of Psychopathology Vol. XII. Sage Publications, London.
Dryfoos, J. G. (1997) The prevalence of problem behaviours: implications for programs. In Weissberg, R. P., Gullotta, T. P., Hampton, R. L., Ryan, B. A. and Adams, G. R. (eds) Enhancing Children's Wellness. Issues in Children's and Families' Lives, Vol. 8. Sage Publications, London.
Elias, M. J. (1997) Reinterpreting dissemination of prevention programs as widespread implementation with effectiveness and fidelity. In Weissberg, R. P., Gullotta, T. P., Hampton, R. L., Ryan, B. A. and Adams, G. R. (eds) Establishing Preventive Services. Issues in Children's and Families' Lives, Vol. 9. Sage Publications, London.
Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., Costabile, A. and Smith, P. K. (1996) Bullies and victims in schools in central and southern Italy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 97–110.
Green, L. W. and Kreuter, M. W. (1991) Health Promotion Planning: an Educational and Environmental Approach. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA.
Hepworth, J. (1997) Evaluation in health outcomes research: linking theories, methodologies and practice in health promotion, Health Promotion International, 12, 233–238.
Hosman, C. M. H. and Engels, M. C. L. J. (1999) The value of model programmes in mental health promotion and mental disorder prevention. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 1, 3.
Kazdin, A. E. (1993) Adolescent mental health: prevention and treatment programs. American Psychologist, 48, 127–141.[Medline]
Kok, G. (1999) Implementing mental health promotion: a health education and promotion perspective. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 3, 4–10.
Mooij, T. (1992) Pesten in het Onderwijs. Instituut voor Toegepaste Sociale Wetenschappen, Nijmegen.
Munthe, E. and Roland, E. (1989) Bullying: an International Perspective. David Fulton Publishers, London.
Nutbeam, D. (1998) Evaluating health promotion—progress, problems and solutions. Health Promotion International, 13, 27–44.
Olweus, D. (1984) Aggressors and their victims: bullying at school. In Frude, N. and Gault, H. (eds) Disruptive Behaviour in Schools. Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 57–76.
Olweus, D. (1989) Bully/Victim Questionnaire for Students. Department of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen.
Olweus, D. (1991) Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In Pepler, D. J. and Rubin, K. H. (eds) The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NY, pp. 411–448.
Olweus, D. (1992) Bullying among schoolchildren: intervention and prevention. In Peters, R. D. V., McMahon, R. J. and Quinsey, V. L. (eds) Aggression and Violence Throughout the Life Span. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 100–125.
Olweus, D. (1994) Annotation: bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 1171–1190.[Web of Science][Medline]
Olweus, D. (1999) Norway. In Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. and Slee, P. (eds) The Nature of School Bullying. A Cross-National Perspective. Routledge, London, pp. 28–48.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S. and Charach, A. (1994) An evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 13, 95–110.
Price, R. H., Cowen, E. L., Lorion, R. P. and Ramos-Mckay, J. R. (1993) Fourteen Ounces of Prevention: a Casebook for Practitioners. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Rigby, K. and Slee, P. (1993) Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33–42.[Web of Science][Medline]
Rigby, K. and Slee, P. (1998) Bullying in Australian Schools. Paper presented at the XVth Biennial Meetings of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, Berne, Switzerland.
Roberts, M. C. and Hinton-Nelson, M. (1996) Models for service delivery in child and family mental health. In Roberts, M. C. (ed.) Model Programs in Child and Family Mental Health. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, pp. 1–21.
Rogers, E. M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A. and Coie, J. D. (1993) The emergence of chronic peer victimization in Boys' Play Groups. Child Development, 64, 1755–1772.[Web of Science][Medline]
Smith, P. K. and Sharp, S. (1994) School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives. Routledge, London.
Smith, P. K., Bowers, L., Binney, V. and Cowie, H. (1993) Relationships of children involved in bully/victim problems at school. In Duck, S. (ed.) Learning About Relationships. Understanding Relationship Processes series. Sage Publications, London, pp. 184–215.
Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. and Slee, P. (1999). The Nature of School Bullying: a Cross-National Perspective. Routledge, London.
Stafford, L. and Bayer, C. L. (1993) Interaction Between Parents and Children. Sage Publications, London.
Stevens, V. and Van Oost, P. (1994) Pesten op School: een Actieprogramma. Garant Uitgevers, Kessel-Lo.
Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. and Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: an evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195–210.
Valente, E. and Dodge, K. A. (1997) Evaluation of prevention programs for children. In Weissberg, R. P., Gullotta, T. P., Hampton, R. L., Ryan, B. A. and Adams, G. R. (eds) Establishing Preventive Services. Issues in Children's and Families' Lives, Vol. 9. Sage Publications, London.
Van Lieshout, C. F. M. (1992) Inleiding. In Olweus, D. (ed.) Treiteren op School. College Uitgevers, Amersfoort, pp. 9–13.
Weissberg, R. P., Caplan, M. and Harwood, R. L. (1991) Promoting competent young people in competence-enhancing environments: a systems-based perspective on primary prevention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 830–841.[Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Dresler-Hawke and D. Whitehead The Behavioral Ecological Model as a Framework for School-Based Anti-Bullying Health Promotion Interventions The Journal of School Nursing, June 1, 2009; 25(3): 195 - 204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Mishna Learning Disabilities and Bullying: Double Jeopardy J Learn Disabil, August 1, 2003; 36(4): 336 - 347. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||