Getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of bullying: The development of the California Bullying Victimization Scale

Abstract

Accurate assessment of bullying is essential to intervention planning and evaluation. Limitations to many currently available self-report measures of bullying victimization include a lack of psychometric information, use of the emotionally laden term "bullying" in definition-first approaches to self-report surveys, and not assessing all components of the definition of bullying (chronicity, intentionality, and imbalance of power) in behavioral-based self-report methods. To address these limitations, we developed the California Bullying Victimization Scale (CBVS), which is a self-report scale that measures the three-part definition of bullying without the use of the term bully. We examined test-retest reliability and the concurrent and predictive validity of the CBVS across students in Grades 5-12 in four central California schools. Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the CBVS with a common, definition-based bullying victimization measure. Predictive validity was examined through the co-administration of measures of psychological well-being. Analysis by grade and gender are included. Results support the test-retest reliability of the CBVS over a 2-week period. The CBVS was significantly, positively correlated with another bullying assessment and was related in expected directions to measures of well-being. Implications for differentiating peer victimization and bullying victimization via self-report measures are discussed.

The mediating role of shame in the relationship between childhood bullying victimization and adult psychosocial adjustment

“…The participants responded to questions about the three main components of bullying (chronicity, intentionality, and imbalance of power), derived from the California Bullying Victimization Scale (CBVS), a behavioural-based self-report questionnaire developed by Felix, Sharkey, Green, Furlong, and Tanigawa (2011). An adjusted retrospective version of the CBVS, which has shown good psychometric properties, was used in this study (Green et al, In Press).…”

The Forms of Bullying Scale (FBS): Validity and reliability estimates for a measure of bullying victimization and perpetration in adolescence.

“…Consistent with others (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995;Felix et al, 2011;Monks & Smith, 2006;Solberg & Olweus, 2003;Underwood, 2002), five broad forms of bullying were defined:…”

“…The consequences of this debate can be seen in the development of a range of instruments which use different methods to measure bullying (Furlong, Sharkey, Felix, Tanigawa, & Greif-Green, 2010). The choice of an appropriate format for an instrument to measure involvement in bullying behaviors is guided by the aim of the study and therefore the purpose of the measurement (Felix et al, 2011;Greif & Furlong, 2006). If the research aims to estimate and compare the prevalence of bullying victimization and perpetration in general, single global questions are often utilized to categorize students as having been bullied or bullied others (Solberg & Olweus, 2003).…”

“…) and track changes over time, where a scale comprising items describing different behaviors would be more relevant. To determine associations between involvement in bullying behaviors and other variables (e.g., mental health ) a multi-item scale measuring involvement is more appropriate than a single global question designed to measure prevalence (Felix et al, 2011). Composite scores, for example, mean scores, on such a scale would have greater sensitivity and variability than a binary outcome and reflect the continuous nature of the latent victimization or perpetration variable.…”

“…Self-report assessments are most commonly used to measure bullying behaviors (Felix et al, 2011;Swearer, Siebecker, Johnsen-Frerichs, & Wang, 2010).The relative merits of selfreport versus other types of assessments such as peer-and teacher-nomination have been comprehensively discussed (Cornell & Bandyopadhyay, 2010;Furlong et al, 2010;Ortega et al, 2001;Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Self-report taps into the student's perspective and is thus more likely to reflect intentionality and power imbalance (Furlong et al, 2010).…”