The Effectiveness of Whole-School Antibullying Programs: A Synthesis of Evaluation Research

The VIP Partnership Programme in Norwegian Schools: An Assessment of Intervention Effects

“…For instance, meta-analyses have indicated that universal preventive interventions tend to be less intensive than selective or indicated interventions, and therefore may exhibit lower effect sizes (Horowitz & Garber, 2006;Teubert & Pinquart, 2011). Effect sizes also tend to be smaller in interventions involving older students (e.g., January et al, 2011;Smith et al, 2004), as was the case in the present study. When comparing the effect sizes found in the current study with those reported in previous research, the results do not differ greatly from one another.…”

“…When comparing the effect sizes found in the current study with those reported in previous research, the results do not differ greatly from one another. For instance, meta-analyses evaluating the effectiveness of various universal social school-programmes have found average post-intervention effects of d = .15 on students' social behaviours (January et al, 2011), d = .22 on students' social and emotional development (Goldberg et al, 2019), and d = -.02-.12 on bullying and victimization (Smith et al, 2004).…”

“…These interventions vary greatly in terms of participants' age, target groups, intervention types, and duration. Many seem to be designed to reduce the prevalence of bullying and victimization (e.g., Farrington & Ttofi, 2009;Smith et al, 2004), or to reduce problem behaviours (e.g., Sørlie & Ogden, 2015) or mental health problems among children and adolescents (e.g., La Greca et al, 2016;Neil & Christensen, 2009;Skotheim et al, 2014). Several studies have also investigated the effectiveness of school-based universal social and emotional (SEL) programmes.…”

Current Evidence of Best Practice in Whole-School Bullying Intervention and Its Potential to Inform Cyberbullying Interventions

“…The most effective program components associated with a decrease in bullying others were: parent training/meetings, teacher training, improved playground supervision, disciplinary methods, cooperative group work between professionals, school assemblies, information for parents, classroom rules and classroom management, as well as a whole-school antibullying policy. Despite the varying success of a wholeschool approach, the results from evaluations support the continued development and implementation of school-based bullying programs, at least until further evaluations are conducted to suggest otherwise (Baldry & Farrington, 2007;Smith et al, 2004). This highlights, however, the need for future research to provide more indepth evaluation of the effectiveness of whole-school strategies to reduce bullying.…”

“…The provision of adequate resources and organisational support including materials, staffing, funding, daily planning time, training and longer timeframes to trial a program in the school (Gingiss et al, 2006;Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten, 2005;Smith et al, 2004) were found to be linked to successful program outcomes (Gingiss et al, 2006;Thaker et al, 2008). Ttofi and Farrington (2011) found that program duration and intensity for students and teachers was one of the main factors associated with a significant decrease in rates of bullying others and being bullied; however, it is noted that most programs do not provide implementation and fidelity data and, therefore, it is difficult to assess the moderating effect this may have on outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008;Ferguson et al, 2007).…”