Modeling the bullying prevention program design recommendations of students from grades five to eight: a discrete choice conjoint experiment

Abstract

We used a discrete choice conjoint experiment to model the bullying prevention recommendations of 845 students from grades 5 to 8 (aged 9-14). Students made choices between experimentally varied combinations of 14 four-level prevention program attributes. Latent class analysis yielded three segments. The high impact segment (27.1%) recommended uniforms, mandatory recess activities, four playground supervisors, surveillance cameras, and 4-day suspensions when students bully. The moderate impact segment (49.5%) recommended discretionary uniforms and recess activities, four playground supervisors, and 3-day suspensions. Involvement as a bully or bully-victim was associated with membership in a low impact segment (23.4%) that rejected uniforms and surveillance cameras. They recommended fewer anti-bullying activities, discretionary recess activities, fewer playground supervisors, and the 2-day suspensions. Simulations predicted most students would recommend a program maximizing student involvement combining prevention with moderate consequences. The simulated introduction of mandatory uniforms, surveillance cameras, and long suspensions reduced overall support for a comprehensive program, particularly among students involved as bullies or bully-victims.

Modeling the Mental Health Practice Change Preferences of Educators: A Discrete-Choice Conjoint Experiment

“…The pattern of overlapping preferences observed here has been reported in studies of the prevention program preferences of educators (Cunningham et al, 2009) and students (Cunningham et al, 2011), the knowledge translation preferences of mental health professionals (Cunningham et al, 2012), and the service preferences of parents of children with mental health problems (Cunningham et al, 2008, 2013; Waschbusch et al, 2011). Despite general agreement on the relative importance of many attributes of the practice change process, however, views regarding a set of strategically important design features differed.…”

“…Marketing research, however, has adapted these methods to engage consumers in the service and product design process (Orme, 2009), while economists use DCEs to estimate the value of different outcomes and dimensions of the health service delivery process (Ryan, Gerard, & Amaya-Amaya, 2008). These methods have, only recently, been applied to the design of school-based prevention programs (Cunningham et al, 2009; Cunningham, Vaillancourt, Cunningham, Chen, & Ratcliffe, 2011), children’s mental health services (Cunningham et al, 2008; Cunningham et al, 2013; Waschbusch et al, 2011), and the dissemination of evidence-based mental health practices (Cunningham et al, 2012). …”

What Limits the Effectiveness of Antibullying Programs? A Thematic Analysis of the Perspective of Teachers

“…This view is supported by systematic reviews concluding that "firm and consistent consequences" for perpetrators contribute to the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Although choice studies show that students prefer antibullying programs that combine preventive activities with moderate consequences for bullying, the introduction of more punitive options reduces the support of students involved as either victims or perpetrators (Cunningham, Vaillancourt, Cunningham, Chen, & Ratcliffe, 2011).…”

“…Using discrete choice conjoint experiments (Cunningham et al, 2009(Cunningham et al, , 2011, future studies will quantify the relative importance of key themes, understand heterogeneity in the views of different segments of educators, and simulate an approach to program improvement which considers evidence regarding key components of antibullying programs (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011) and the views of the educators who implement these initiatives.…”

Modeling the anti‐cyberbullying preferences of university students: Adaptive choice‐based conjoint analysis

“…Students involved as perpetrators, in contrast, were more likely to be members of a segment preferring limited supervision and less serious consequences (Cunningham et al, 2011). Students involved as perpetrators, in contrast, were more likely to be members of a segment preferring limited supervision and less serious consequences (Cunningham et al, 2011).…”