No abstract

The key aim of the present research was to study the “functionality” of two global variables in the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire and to examine the appropriateness of different cutoff points of these variables for prevalence estimation. Several empirical and conceptual analyses strongly attested to the functionality of the two selected variables in terms of construct validity and selected measurement properties. Similarly, a number of analyses indicated that (having been bullied/having bullied other students) “2 or 3 times a month” was a reasonable and useful lower‐bound cutoff point. With this cutoff point, “involved” students, victims, and bullies differed very markedly and in clearly different ways from “non‐involved” students in conceptually related variables. Prevalence estimates derived in this way can be conveniently obtained, have a reasonably well‐defined meaning, can be easily understood by users, and can be reproduced unambiguously by different researchers/administrators and at different times. An important background for the article is the fact that several common methods, including peer nominations, are not well suited for prevalence estimation. Prevalence data for victims, bullies, and bully‐victims are also presented. All data were derived from the New Bergen Project Against Bullying, comprising a sample of 5,171 students from 37 schools in the town community of Bergen, Norway. At the time of the data collection, the spring of 1997, the 2,544 girls and 2,627 boys were in grades 5 through 9, with modal ages of 11 through 15 years. Aggr. Behav. 29:239–268, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

After sketching how my own interest and research into bullying problems began, I address a number of potentially controversial issues related to the definition and measurement of such problems. The importance of maintaining the distinctions between bullying victimization and general victimization and between bullying perpetration and general aggression is strongly emphasized. There are particular problems with the common method of peer nominations for purposes of prevalence estimation, comparisons of such estimates and mean levels across groups and time, and measurement of change. Two large-scale projects with time series data show that several recent claims about cyber bullying made in the media and by some researchers are greatly exaggerated and lack scientific support. Recent meta-analyses of the long-term outcomes for former bullies and victims provide convincing evidence that being involved in such problems is not just a harmless and passing school problem but something that has serious adjustment and public health consequences that also entail great costs to society. Another section presents my view of why the theme of bullying took quite some time to reach the peer relations research community in the United States and the role of a dominant research tradition focusing on "likeability" in this account. In a final section, I summarize some reasons why it may be considered important and interesting to focus both research and intervention on bully/victim problems.

No abstract