Exploring Change Processes in School-Based Mentoring for Bullied Children

Abstract

We examined change processes associated with the school-based, lunchtime mentoring of bullied children. We used data from a one-semester open trial of Lunch Buddy (LB) mentoring (N = 24) to examine changes in bullied children's lunchtime peer relationships. We also tested whether these changes predicted key outcomes (i.e., peer victimization, social preference) post-mentoring. Results provided partial support that bullied children paired with LB mentors experienced improved lunchtime peer relationships and that gains in lunchtime relationships predicted post-mentoring levels of social preference and peer victimization. Neither child nor mentors' ratings of the mentoring relationship predicted post-mentoring outcomes; however, child-rated mentor support and conflict predicted improvements in lunchtime peer relationships. We discuss implications for future research on school-based mentoring as a form of selective intervention for bullied children.

Lunch Buddy Mentoring for Children Victimized by Peers: Two Pilot Studies

“…Unexpectedly, this "weakened" form of school-based mentoring led to differential benefits for highly aggressive children (Cavell et al, 2009;Hughes et al, 2005). As an intervention for victimized children, we reconceptualized LB mentoring as a way to change social contextual variables (e.g., low peer acceptance) that contribute to chronic peer victimization (Cavell & Henrie, 2010;Craig et al, 2015;. College student mentors are embedded into the natural peer ecology of victimized children and trained to use twice weekly visits as opportunities to enhance victimized children's social interactions with and social reputation among lunchtime peers.…”

“…LB mentoring provides an indirect way to assist victimized children: Neither bullies nor victims are identified or labeled, and the topic of school bullying is not a primary focus of what mentors do at each visit. Their behavior at the school lunch table is more accurately described as finding fun and engaging ways to connect with both mentees and their nearby lunch mates (Craig et al, 2015;Gregus, 2014). We suspect it is this positive and indirect approach to supporting victimized children that explains the palatability of LB mentoring.…”

“…The manual addresses a number of key issues, beginning with a focus on (a) safety and proper dress, (b) completing paperwork and weekly log sheets, (c) structuring the initial visit, (d) responding to critical events (e.g., explicit bullying, disruptive behavior, disclosure of maltreatment), and (e) saying goodbye at semester's end. Training via the manual then shifted to the overarching goal of LB mentoring, which is improving mentee's lunchtime peer relationships (Cavell et al, 2009;Cavell & Henrie, 2010;Craig et al, 2015). Rather than following a structured protocol or curriculum to achieve this goal, mentors were given two key tasks (in addition to being consistent in their visits): (a) promote positive interactions between their mentee and nearby lunch mates and (b) enhance their mentee's social reputation among nearby lunch mates.…”

“…It would be useful to examine in future LB mentoring studies the degree to which changes in children's level of peer victimization correspond to other relevant outcomes (e.g., symptoms of anxiety or depression, class-wide levels of peer acceptance). Future studies can be used to evaluate how intervention dosage and length impact outcomes as well as the mediational role of hypothesized change mechanisms (e.g., improved relationships with lunchtime peers) thought to underlie LB mentoring (Craig et al, 2015). Also worth investigating is whether the nature of LB mentoring or its potential benefits differ depending on the gender of the mentors and mentees.…”

SBIRT-Based Interventions to Improve Pediatric Oral Health Behaviors and Outcomes: Considerations for Future Behavioral SBIRT Interventions in Dentistry

“…The remaining studies did not mention fidelity. Previous work on fidelity checklists suggests variations in checklist quality and inter-rater agreement when there are multiple fidelity assessors [29]. Researchers testing SBIRT interventions should publish or make detailed intervention protocols publicly available and include a priori fidelity monitoring protocols.…”