توافق در میان ادراک دانش آموزان، معلمان و پدر و مادر از قربانی شدن با زورگویی

Abstract Bullying is a growing problem in many schools today, and accurate perceptions of bullying and victimization in schools are necessary in order for programs aimed at intervention for bullying behaviors to be effective. The current study examined agreement among students', teachers', and parents' perceptions of victimization across gender and grade level by surveying 137 students in grades 3–8, and their parents and teachers using a common measure of bullying. Overall, students reported the highest levels of victimization, and teachers reported the lowest levels of victimization. This pattern was consistent across gender, but inconsistent across grade level. Students and parents had moderate agreement correlations on levels of victimization, whereas teachers and students had low agreement correlations on levels of victimization. Overall, when students and parents or teachers disagreed, the disagreement was an underestimate, rather than an overestimate on the adult's part.

1. Introduction From a social-ecological perspective, bullying and victimization are influenced by multiple contexts that the child is embedded in, including home, school, peers, and the community (Espelage & Swearer, 2010). While many bullying prevention and intervention programs aim to include these multiple influences, few studies have assessed the degree to which multiple sources are aware of and agree on the extent of bullying occurring at the child's school. While perfect agreement of perceptions may be an idealistic goal, it is important for research to investigate patterns and underlying reasons for discrepant perceptions of victimization. This is essential for the effective development, implementation, and evaluation of bullying prevention and intervention programs. The current study adds to the literature on bullying by examining school-wide agreement among perceptions of bullying and victimization in a unique sample that consists of parallel ratings on victimization from parents, teachers, and students for each participant in an entire school. 1.1. Overview of bullying in youth Bullying is becoming an increasingly significant concern in many schools, with as many as 30–35% of elementary and middle school students reporting being involved in bullying as either the bully, victim, or both (Bradshaw et al., 2007 and Nansel et al., 2001). Furthermore, it is commonly reported that both bullies and victims experience poor psychosocial adjustment (Nansel et al., 2001). It is well established in the literature that victims of bullying tend to report low self-esteem, poor peer relations, poor academic achievement, and greater levels of internalizing and externalizing distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, aggression) than their peers (Hawker and Boulton, 2000, Hunter et al., 2007, Lopez and Dubois, 2005 and Paul and Cillessen, 2007). Bullies may also be vulnerable to a myriad of issues. For example, significant relations among bullying behavior and anger, misconduct, depression, impulsivity, and maladaptive social skills have been found (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999). While there are some inconsistencies in the way that bullying and victimization are defined, many agree that bullying can be defined as proactive aggression where the behavior is repetitive, intended to be harmful, and within a disproportionate power relationship (Olweus, 2010). Some researchers define bullying as physical (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing) or relational (e.g., teasing, spreading rumors, excluding), while others define bullying as direct (i.e., physical or verbal confrontation) or indirect (less overt behaviors, such as spreading rumors or excluding) behaviors (Sveinsson & Morris, 2007). Bullying behaviors can be initiated by an individual student or a group of students, just as the victim can be an individual or a group of students (Elinoff, Chafouleas, & Sassu, 2004). 1.2. Agreement rates in bullying and victimization The different assessment methods utilized in bully research tend to result in a wide range of prevalence rates for bullying and victimization (Swearer, Siebecker, Johnsen-Frerichs, & Wang, 2010). However, few studies have investigated the relations between who is reporting the bullying behavior and prevalence rates. Even fewer studies have examined convergence and divergence across sources within the same student. The current study utilized a unique sample that included school-wide participation consisting of students, their teachers, and the majority of their parents. The few researchers that have investigated agreement rates in bullying have generally found that teachers report lower estimates of bullying than students (Houndoumadi and Pateraki, 2001 and Stockdale et al., 2002). For example, Bradshaw et al. (2007) examined the discrepancy between school staff and student perceptions of bullying behavior and bully-related attitudes in a large-scale study that included over 15,000 elementary, middle, and high school students and over 1500 school staff members in a public school district. Bradshaw and colleagues found that school staff underestimated the number of students involved in bullying, with the majority of staff reporting bullying rates of less than 10% and students reporting bullying rates between 20% and 30%. Furthermore, the results of this study indicated that the discrepancy between teacher-reported and student-reported bullying rates was larger in elementary school, with less than 1% of elementary school staff reporting bullying rates similar to elementary school students. Similar results were found in a study examining agreement rates among teachers and students in seven rural elementary schools in the United States (Stockdale et al., 2002), as well as among a British sample in an inner-city secondary school (Pervin & Turner, 1994). A recent meta-analysis investigating predictors of bullying behaviors found that informant source counted for significant variation in the reported prevalence rates. Cook, Williams, Guerra, and Kim (2010) found that prevalence rates reported by peer nominations were significantly lower than student and teacher reports (parent report was excluded from the meta-analysis due to the limited number of studies using parent report). Interestingly, the researchers found that prevalence rates reported by teachers and students were not significantly different. These results differ from the findings generally reported in the literature that find teachers report lower levels of bullying than students. Research examining parent reports of bullying has generally found that parents also underestimate the extent of bullying behavior; however, to a lesser extent than teachers. The difference in discrepancy between student and parent reports as opposed to student and teacher reports may be due to the fact that children are more likely to tell their parents rather than their teachers when they are victimized. Houndoumadi and Pateraki (2001) examined teacher and parent awareness of bullying from the students' perspectives in a sample of 3rd through 6th grade students. Students reported that parents were more aware of and have talked to their children about being victimized, however teachers were more aware of and have talked to students about bullying others. This is consistent with prior research that has found that bullies are more likely to have damaged relationships with parents and perceive lower levels of parental support, and therefore are less likely to talk to their parents about their experiences with bullying (Demaray and Malecki, 2003 and Rigby, 1993). Additionally, Houndoumadi and Pateraki (2001) found that girls and younger students were more likely to tell their parents about being victimized. In a recent study examining parent and child concordance regarding teasing among 5th grade students and their parents, only 5% of the sample indicated disagreement between the child being teased (i.e., the child reported being teased, but the parent did not report their child had been teased) (Holt, Kantor, & Finkelhor, 2009). Only 2% of the sample agreed on the child teasing peers (i.e., the child reported they had teased peers and the parent reported their child teased peers). However, for the majority of the sample (78%), both parents and children agreed that the child had not teased others. In a study examining parent and student perspectives of bullying at seven rural elementary schools, Stockdale et al. (2002) found that students and parents reported similar rates regarding verbal bullying, however parents' estimates of physical bullying and victimization in general were significantly lower than students' reports. Some studies have found that agreement in reported bullying rates may differ by type of bullying. In a study previously described, Bradshaw et al. (2007) found that students and staff generally agreed on the frequency of types of bullying, with direct verbal forms of bullying (e.g., name-calling, teasing) being the most frequently reported type of bullying by elementary, middle, and high school staff and students, followed by physical forms of bullying (e.g., pushing, hitting). In a recent study, Waasdorp, Pas, O'Brennan, and Bradshaw (2011) examined perceptual differences between students, staff, and parents regarding school safety, school belonging, and bullying among a sample of 11,674 students and 1027 staff at 44 elementary, middle, and high schools. Waasdorp and colleagues found that school level and type of bullying significantly impacted perceptions of bullying. The discrepancy between student and staff reports of witnessing bullying was smaller in elementary than middle and high schools. This finding differs from a study previously described that found that the discrepancies between teacher and student reports of bullying were larger in elementary than middle and high schools (Bradshaw et al., 2007). Surprisingly, Waasdorp et al. (2011) also found that as students reported higher rates of indirect bullying, teachers reported witnessing more bullying than students. This could be due to differing opinions between teachers and students on what “witnessing” bullying means. Students may not think that helping to spread a rumor or exclude a peer would represent a bullying situation. In addition to type of bullying, discrepant viewpoints may be due to differing opinions on definitions of bullying. Research has found that teachers are less likely to consider indirect behaviors (e.g., exclusion, spreading rumors, etc.) as bullying and include repetitive behavior in their definitions (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005). Parents and teachers may mistake verbal and social forms of bullying as playful behavior between friends and may not report it as bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). Characteristics of teachers, such as previous experience with bullying, may also affect reports of bullying. For example, Waasdorp et al. (2011) found that school staff members who reported being bullied in the past were more likely to report witnessing bullying. Other variables, such as the size and climate of school, the age and gender of students, and the social status of the bullies and victims may influence teachers' perceptions of bullying (Holt et al., 2009). There is limited research investigating variables that influence parents' perceptions of bullying, although it is thought that similar variables such as parents' previous experience with bullying, and age and gender of the child may influence parents' perceptions as well (Holt et al., 2009). Discrepant viewpoints among students, teachers, and parents on bullying have important implications for prevention and early intervention services. Many theories and much of the research on bullying behaviors support the notion of a social-ecological framework, which suggests that bullying and victimization are reciprocally influenced by the individual, family, peer group, school, community, and society (Espelage & Swearer, 2010). According to this perspective, the most effective bully prevention and intervention practices are those programs which take a multi-systematic perspective (Holt et al., 2009). Many of these programs (e.g., Bully-Proofing Your School, 2004) require collaboration among school staff, students and the community to appropriately implement the program and alter bullying behaviors and attitudes at school. Therefore, accurate assessment and interpretation of student, parent, and teacher reports of bullying is essential for these programs to be developed, implemented, and evaluated effectively. While these studies have made important contributions to the literature, a major limitation is that the teachers completed questionnaires asking them to make global ratings of students' victimization as opposed to rating each individual student's level of victimization. The current study is unique in that the teachers filled out a questionnaire about each of their students. Furthermore, parents filled out a questionnaire about each of their children. This allows the researchers to examine exact agreement among students, their teachers, and their parents on perceptions of victimization. In addition, prior research has investigated agreement on total scores, which may be misleading. For example, a teacher and child may have similar total scores for levels of victimization but have endorsed different items. The current study includes item-level data and analyses to further investigate the agreement among different sources on specific victimization experiences. 1.3. Purpose of the present study The present study investigated agreement among parents, teachers, and students in perceptions of victimization from bullying at a small K-8 private school. The current study added to the literature on agreement rates in victimization by investigating differences in agreement by gender and grade level, as well as by individual items (e.g., physical, verbal, etc.). To the authors' knowledge, no study to date has examined parent, teacher, and student perspectives on victimization utilizing parallel forms and comparing agreement on each item (as opposed to total scores). Therefore, many of the analyses are exploratory in nature. Few studies have been able to obtain cross-informant data from three sources. This is a unique sample because the study obtained school-wide participation, including full participation of the students, their teachers', and their parents'. The current study was guided by the following research questions: (1) What is the level of agreement among parents, teachers, and students in overall perceptions of victimization? Do total agreement rates vary by gender and grade level across these sources? (2) What is the level of agreement among parents and students and teachers and students at the item level for rates of victimization? Do item level agreement rates vary by gender across these sources? Given that prior research has found that teachers and parents tend to report lower levels of bullying than students (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2007 and Stockdale et al., 2002), the researchers expected students to report higher levels of bullying than both parents and teachers. Furthermore, based on past research (e.g., Houndoumadi & Pateraki, 2001), it was hypothesized that the discrepancy in agreement rate would be larger between teachers and students than parents and students regarding reported rates of victimization. Finally, regarding age and gender differences, it was hypothesized that there would be higher rates of agreement between girls and teachers, and between parents and younger students (Houndoumadi & Pateraki, 2001).

3. Results Means and standard deviations of the victimization scores reported by all sources can be found in Table 2. Descriptive data at the item level are presented in Table 3 (self report), Table 4 (parent report), and Table 5 (teacher report). Effect sizes were calculated (Cohen's d; Cohen, 1988) and correlations were compared using z-scores from Fisher's r-to-z transformation ( Fisher, 1921). Table 2. Victimization Scores reported by students, teachers, and parents by gender and grade level. Source M SD N Minimum Maximum Student Total sample 14.83 6.75 134 10 46 Gender Boys 14.75 7.24 72 10 46 Girls 14.92 6.18 62 10 31 Grade level 3rd/4th 17.43 7.16 49 10 36 5th/6th 13.67 7.14 42 10 46 7th/8th 13.00 4.81 43 10 31 Grade level/gender 3rd/4th boys 17.96 7.73 23 10 36 3rd/4th girls 16.96 6.74 26 10 30 5th/6th boys 14.41 8.45 27 10 46 5th/6th girls 12.33 3.70 15 10 25 7th/8th boys 11.82 2.40 22 10 19 7th/8th girls 14.24 6.28 21 10 31 Teacher Total sample 11.12 3.27 137 9 29 Gender Boys 10.73 2.47 75 9 25 Girls 11.60 4.01 62 10 29 Grade level 3rd/4th 10.67 1.61 51 10 18 5th/6th 11.09 3.54 43 10 25 7th/8th 11.70 4.30 43 9 29 Grade level/gender 3rd/4th boys 10.28 .74 25 10 13 3rd/4th girls 11.04 2.09 26 10 18 5th/6th boys 10.11 .31 28 10 11 5th/6th girls 12.93 5.64 15 10 25 7th/8th boys 12.05 4.27 22 9 25 7th/8th girls 11.33 4.41 21 10 29 Parent Total sample 13.03 4.58 104 10 30 Gender Boys 12.96 4.67 56 10 30 Girls 13.10 4.52 48 10 28 Grade level 3rd/4th 13.17 4.16 42 10 26 5th/6th 13.06 5.30 34 10 30 7th/8th 12.79 4.39 28 10 26 Grade level/gender 3rd/4th boys 13.62 4.88 21 10 26 3rd/4th girls 12.71 3.33 21 10 23 5th/6th boys 13.04 5.17 23 10 30 5th/6th girls 13.09 5.80 11 10 28 7th/8th boys 11.67 3.06 12 10 20 7th/8th girls 13.63 5.11 16 10 26 Table options Table 3. Student rating descriptives by gender and grade level. Item Group N M SD Range Been bullied in past Total 128 1.92 1.34 1–5 Boys/girls 69/59 1.84/2.02 1.30/1.40 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 43/42/43 2.51/1.67/1.58 1.56/1.16/1.07 1–5/1–5/1–5 Been called names, made fun Total 134 1.84 1.21 1–5 Boys/girls 72/62 1.75/1.94 1.18/1.24 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 49/42/43 2.14/1.57/1.74 1.38/1.16/1.07 1–5/1–5/1–5 Been left out, excluded Total 133 1.62 1.06 1–5 Boys/girls 72/61 1.58/1.66 1.07/1.06 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 48/42/43 1.85/1.55/1.42 1.17/1.13/.82 1–5/1–5/1–5 Been hit, kicked, pushed, shoved Total 134 1.45 1.00 1–5 Boys/girls 72/62 1.53/1.35 1.11/.85 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 49/42/43 1.98/1.24/1.05 1.32/.79/.21 1–5/1–5/1–2 Others told lies, spread rumors Total 134 1.48 .92 1–5 Boys/girls 72/62 1.46/1.50 .86/.99 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 49/42/43 1.78/1.29/1.33 1.12/.71/.74 1–5/1–4/1–5 Money taken or things damaged Total 133 1.25 .68 1–5 Boys/girls 72/61 1.26/1.23 .67/.69 1–4/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 49/41/43 1.49/1.22/1.00 .94/.57/.00 1–5/1–4/1–1 Been threatened or forced Total 132 1.27 .67 1–5 Boys/girls 71/61 1.34/1.20 .79/.48 1–5/1–3 3–4/5–6/7–8 49/41/42 1.49/1.27/1.02 .71/.84/1.54 1–4/1–5/1–2 Called names about looks Total 133 1.57 1.03 1–5 Boys/girls 72/61 1.51/1.64 1.02/1.05 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 48/42/43 1.81/1.45/1.42 1.23/.92/.85 1–5/1–5/1–5 Called names or gestures Total 133 1.46 .88 1–5 Boys/girls 71/62 1.46/1.45 .86/.90 1–4/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 48/42/43 1.54/1.40/1.42 .90/.83/.91 1–5/1–4/1–5 Been bullied on cell or internet Total 131 1.15 .60 1–5 Boys/girls 70/61 1.16/1.15 .58/.63 1–4/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 48/41/42 1.27/1.10/1.07 .82/.49/.34 1–5/1–4/1–3 Note. 1 = it hasn't happened to me in the past couple of months; 2 = only once or twice; 3 = 2 or 3 times a month; 4 = about once a week; 5 = several times a week. Table options Table 4. Parent rating descriptives by gender and grade level. Item Group “Don't know” N N M SD Range Been bullied in past Total 9 93 1.77 1.08 1–5 Boys/girls 3/6 52/41 1.77/1.78 1.17/1.13 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 5/2/2 37/31/25 1.95/1.74/1.56 1.20/1.18/1.00 1–5/1–5/1–5 Been called names made fun Total 13 91 1.79 1.12 1–5 Boys/girls 7/6 49/42 1.67/1.93 1.11/1.13 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 6/5/2 36/29/26 1.83/1.90/1.62 1.08/1.29/.98 1–5/1–5/1–5 Been left out, excluded Total 14 90 1.61 1.00 1–5 Boys/girls 8/6 48/42 1.60/1.62 1.03/.99 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 8/4/2 34/30/26 1.50/1.67/1.69 .62/1.15/1.23 1–3/1–5/1–5 Been hit, kicked, pushed, shoved Total 7 96 1.19 .69 1–5 Boys/girls 5/2 50/46 1.22/1.15 .74/.63 1–4/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 2/4/1 39/30/27 1.31/1.07/1.15 .83/.25/.77 1–4/1–2/1–5 Others told lies, spread rumors Total 17 86 1.29 .80 1–5 Boys/girls 7/10 49/37 1.29/1.30 .82/.78 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 6/8/3 36/26/24 1.28/1.31/1.29 .70/.88/.86 1–4/1–5/1–5 Money taken or things damaged Total 9 95 1.01 .10 1–2 Boys/girls 5/4 51/44 1.00/1.02 .00/.15 1–1/1–2 3–4/5–6/7–8 5/3/1 37/31/27 1.00/1.00/1.04 .00/.00/.19 1–1/1–1/1–2 Been threatened or forced Total 9 95 1.01 .10 1–2 Boys/girls 4/5 52/43 1.02/1.00 .14/.00 1–2/1–1 3–4/5–6/7–8 6/2/1 36/32/27 1.03/1.00/1.00 .17/.00/.00 1–2/1–1/1–1 Called names about looks Total 11 93 1.42 .85 1–5 Boys/girls 6/5 50/43 1.44/1.40 .97/.69 1–5/1–4 3–4/5–6/7–8 4/4/3 38/30/25 1.42/1.50/1.32 .89/1.01/.56 1–5/1–5/1–3 Called names or gestures Total 14 89 1.37 .91 1–5 Boys/girls 7/7 48/41 1.40/1.34 .98/.82 1–5/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 3/6/5 39/27/23 1.33/1.44/1.35 .87/1.01/.88 1–5/1–5/1–5 Been bullied on cell or internet Total 11 93 1.04 .33 1–4 Boys/girls 5/6 51/42 1.00/1.10 .00/.48 1–1/1–4 3–4/5–6/7–8 5/4/2 37/30/26 1.00/1.00/1.15 .00/.00/.61 1–1/1–1/1–4 Note. 1 = it hasn't happened in the past couple of months; 2 = only once or twice; 3 = 2 or 3 times a month; 4 = about once a week; 5 = several times a week. Table options Table 5. Teacher rating descriptives by gender and grade level. Item Group “Don't know” N N M SD Range Been bullied in past Total 84 53 1.60 1.15 1–5 Boys/girls 46/38 29/24 1.48/1.75 .95/1.36 1–4/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 48/23/13 3/20/30 2.00/1.45/1.67 .00/1.23/1.15 2–2/1–5/1–5 Been called names made fun Total 67 70 1.50 1.06 1–5 Boys/girls 39/28 36/34 1.33/1.68 .79/1.68 1–4/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 42/24/1 9/19/42 2.22/1.42/1.38 .44/1.26/1.01 2–3/1–5/1–5 Been left out, excluded Total 25 112 1.26 .67 1–5 Boys/girls 13/12 62/50 1.16/1.38 .45/.85 1–3/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 25/0/0 26/43/43 1.38/1.21/1.23 .64/.67/.68 1–3/1–5/1–4 Been hit, kicked, pushed, shoved Total 1 136 1.07 .44 1–4 Boys/girls 1/0 74/62 1.12/1.00 .60/.00 1–4/1–1 3–4/5–6/7–8 1/0/0 50/43/43 1.00/1.00/1.21 .00/.00/.77 1–1/1–1/1–4 Others told lies, spread rumors Total 61 75 1.23 .67 1–5 Boys/girls 36/25 38/37 1.05/1.41 .32/.86 1–3/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 29/13/19 22/30/23 1.32/1.20/1.17 .65/.76/.58 1–3/1–5/1–3 Money taken or things damaged Total 26 111 1.00 .00 1–1 Boys/girls 12/14 63/48 1.00/1.00 .00/.00 1–1/1–1 3–4/5–6/7–8 26/0/0 25/43/43 1.00/1.00/1.00 .00/.00/.00 1–1/1–1/1–1 Been threatened or forced Total 1 136 1.00 .00 1–1 Boys/girls 1/0 74/62 1.00/1.00 .00/.00 1–1/1–1 3–4/5–6/7–8 0/0/1 51/43/42 1.00/1.00/1.00 .00/.00/.00 1–1/1–1/1–1 Called names about looks Total 86 51 1.31 .99 1–5 Boys/girls 51/35 24/27 1.08/1.52 .41/1.28 1–3/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 26/40/20 25/3/23 1.00/4.67/1.22 .00/.58/.74 1–1/4–5/1–4 Called names or gestures Total 86 51 1.33 .79 1–5 Boys/girls 51/35 24/27 1.29/1.37 .62/.93 1–3/1–5 3–4/5–6/7–8 25/41/20 26/2/23 1.12/3.00/1.43 .33/.00/.99 1–2/3–3/1–5 Been bullied on cell or internet Total 137 0 Boys/girls 75/62 0/0 3–4/5–6/7–8 51/43/43 0/0/0 Note. 1 = it hasn't happened in the past couple of months; 2 = only once or twice; 3 = 2 or 3 times a month; 4 = about once a week; 5 = several times a week. Table options 3.1. Preliminary analyses Gender and grade level differences in levels of reported victimization and bullying were analyzed via three ANOVAs. In each ANOVA the victim score from OBVQ was entered as the dependent variable and Gender and Grade Level (3 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8) were entered as the independent variables. Grade levels were grouped due to lower n sizes in order to investigate developmental trends. See Table 2 for descriptive data. For parent-reported levels of victimization, the ANOVA was not significant by Gender, F (1, 98) = .149, p = .700; Grade Level, F (2, 98) = .109, p = .896; or the Gender by Grade Level interaction, F (2, 98) = .790, p = .457. For teacher-reported levels of victimization, the ANOVA was not significant for Gender, F (1, 131) = 2.942, p = .089, or Grade Level, F (2, 131) = 1.413, p = .247. The Grade Level by Gender interaction was significant, F (2, 131) = 3.146, p < .05. Visual analysis of the plot of the means indicated that teachers rated victimization similarly for boys and for girls except that at the 5th/6th grade level, teachers rated girls as being victimized more frequently than boys (Cohen's d = .71, medium). For student self-reported levels of victimization, the ANOVA was not significant for Gender, F (1, 128) = .036, p = .850, nor was the Gender by Grade Level interaction, F (2, 128) = 1.37, p = .259. However, the main effect of Grade Level was significant, F (2, 128) = 6.62, p < .01. Post hoc comparisons using a Bonferroni correction indicated that students in 3rd/4th grade reported higher victimization than the 5th/6th (Cohen's d = .53, medium) and the 7th/8th grade students (Cohen's d = .73, medium). 3.2. Main analyses Question 1: What is the level of agreement among parents, teachers, and students in overall perceptions of victimization? Do total agreement rates vary by gender and grade level across these sources? This question was answered by conducting repeated measures ANOVAs (RMANOVAs) and correlations among the victim score across sources (parent, teacher, and student). These RMANOVAs and correlations were conducted on the total sample, by gender, and by grade level (grades 3 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8). The correlations were also conducted by grade level and gender. See Table 6.1, Table 6.2 and Table 6.3 for descriptive analyses and effect sizes comparing rater scores. Additionally, see Table 7.1 and Table 7.2 for the correlations of victim scores. Table 6.1. Agreement rates by rater. Rater M SD N Comparison Cohen's d Label Parent 13.09 4.60 102 Parent/teacher .53 Medium Teacher 11.01 3.04 102 Parent/student .34 Small Student 15.11 7.15 102 Teacher/student .75 Medium Table options Table 6.2. Agreement rates by gender and rater. Gender Rater M SD N Comparison Cohen's d Label Girl Parent 13.10 4.52 48 Parent/teacher .37 Small Teacher 11.58 3.72 48 Parent/student .41 Small Student 15.40 6.45 48 Teacher/student .73 Medium Boy Parent 13.07 4.72 54 Parent/teacher .70 Medium Teacher 10.50 2.18 54 Parent/student .28 Small Student 14.85 7.77 54 Teacher/student .76 Medium Table options Table 6.3. Agreement rates by grade level and rater. Grade level Rater M SD N Comparison Cohen's d Label 3rd/4th Parent 13.33 4.20 40 Parent/teacher .81 Large Teacher 10.73 1.77 40 Parent/student .68 Medium Student 17.33 7.16 40 Teacher/student 1.27 Large Note. There were no significant differences in reported victimization levels by rater in 5th/6th and 7th/8th grade levels. Table options Table 7.1. Correlations and z-scoresa between student, parent, and teachers' victim total scores. Parent and student victim score correlation Teacher and student victim score correlation Rater z-scoreb Total sample .465⁎⁎ .123 2.85⁎⁎ Gender Boys .597⁎⁎ − .024 3.86⁎⁎ Girls .280 .260⁎ .11 Gender z-score 1.96⁎ 1.64 Grade level and gender 3rd/4th .592⁎ .533⁎⁎ .39 Boys .769⁎⁎ .610⁎⁎ .92 Girls .327 .651⁎⁎ 1.39 Gender z-score 1.97⁎ .22 5th/6th .362⁎ .061 1.32 Boys .471⁎ .174 1.11 Girls .046 .382 .78 Gender z-score 1.11 .64 7th/8th .485⁎ .116 1.62 Boys .575 − .050 1.74 Girls .459 .236 .70 Gender z-score .37 .88 a Fisher r-to-z transformation. b Rater z-score is the comparison of the parent/student correlation and the teacher/student correlation. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options Table 7.2. Correlations and z-scoresa between parent and teachers' victim total scores. Parent and teacher victim score correlation Total sample .331⁎⁎ Gender Boys .069 Girls .542⁎⁎ Gender z-score 2.65⁎⁎ Grade level and gender 3rd/4th .401⁎⁎ Boys .700⁎⁎ Girls .517⁎ Gender z-score .89 5th/6th .464⁎⁎ Boys − .125 Girls .875⁎⁎ Gender z-score 3.54⁎⁎ 7th/8th .086 Boys .111 Girls .205 Gender z-score .22 a Fisher r-to-z transformation. ⁎ p < .05 ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options On the total sample, examining the three victimization scores (self, parent, and teacher), the repeated measures ANOVA was significant, Wilks' Lambda = .732, F (2, 100) = 18.268, p < .001, indicating significant differences among students', parents', and teachers' perceptions of levels of victimization. Follow-up comparisons found that all three scores differed significantly (ps < .001), with students reporting the highest levels of victimization and teachers reporting the lowest levels of victimization (see Table 6.1). For boys and for girls, examining the three victimization scores (self, parent, and teacher), the repeated measures ANOVAs were significant for both boys and girls, Wilks' Lambda = .744, F (2, 52) = 8.94, p < .001, and Wilks' Lambda = .691, F (2, 46) = 10.31, p < .001, respectively indicating significant differences among students', parents', and teachers' perceptions of levels of victimization. Follow-up comparisons for both boys and girls again found that all three scores differed significantly (ps < .001), with both students reporting the highest levels of victimization and teachers reporting the lowest levels of victimization (see Table 6.2). Finally, the same analysis was conducted for each grade level that had ratings from all three sources (3rd/4th, 5th/6th, and 7th/8th). The repeated measures ANOVAs were not significant for 5th/6th grade and 7th/8th grade students, Wilks' Lambda = .865, F (2, 32) = 2.50, p = .098, Wilks' Lambda = .850, F (2, 26) = 2.29, p = .121, respectively. The repeated measures ANOVA was significant for 3rd/4th grade, Wilks' Lambda = .458, F (2, 38) = 22.47, p < .001. Follow-up comparisons for the 3rd/4th grade followed the same pattern as previous analyses with all three scores differing significantly (ps < .001), with students reporting the highest levels of victimization and teachers reporting the lowest levels of victimization (see Table 6.3). Correlations indicate that on the total sample for third through eighth grade, parents and students had moderate agreement (.47, p < .01) on overall levels of victimization. The correlation between teacher and student scores was not significant, but the correlation between parent and teacher scores was (.33, p < .01). A correlation of .60, p < .01 indicated that parents of boys in grades three through eight had strong agreement in their reports of the boys' victimization. No such relation was found for teachers and boys' ratings nor between parent and teacher ratings for boys. For girls, the relations between girls' and their parents' and teachers' reports of victimization were not as strong. Interestingly, parents and teachers showed strong agreement about their reports of girls' victimization (r = .54, p < .01). When examining results overall by grade level, the 3rd/4th graders' reports of victimization were strongly correlated with the reports of their parents (r = .59, p < .05) and their teachers (r = .53, p < .01). Parents and their 5th/6th graders showed moderate agreement (r = .36, p < .05) with no relation between teachers and their 5th/6th graders' reports of victimization. There was moderate relation between 7th/8th grade student reports with their parents (r = .49, p < .05). It is interesting that at the 3rd/4th and 5th/6th grade level parents and teachers agreed overall at a moderate level (r = .40 and .46, p < .01, respectively). Looking even more specifically at these relations by grade level and gender, there were moderate to strong relations between 3rd/4th graders' reports and those of their parents and teachers. At the 5th/6th grade level, parents' and boys' ratings and teachers' and girls' ratings were moderately related. Parents' and teachers' ratings were related for girls but not for boys. Finally, 7th/8th grade girls' and boys' ratings were related to their parents' ratings at a moderate level, but not so with their teachers. See Table 7.1 and Table 7.2 for these specific correlations and comparisons of these correlations. Note that there are several significant z-scores comparing correlations that will be noted in the Discussion section. Question 2: What is the level of agreement among parents and students and teachers and students at the item level for rates of victimization? Do item level agreement rates vary by gender across these sources? In order to look at agreement rates among the sources at the item level, responses at the item level were recoded to be dichotomous with 1 = did not experience victimization and consisted of items rated as “1 = It hasn't happened” or it happened “2 = only once or twice a month” and 2 = experienced victimization if the item was rated it happened “3 = 2 or 3 times a month” “4 = about once a week” or “5 = several times a week”. In order to investigate item level agreement rates across the sources, each item was considered an agreement if both the adult (parent or teacher) and the child/student rated the item a 1 (did not experience victimization) or both rated it a 2 (experienced victimization). If the adult rated the item “I don't know” this was considered missing data. Table 8 presents agreement data across the four possible options: 1) both adult and student rated the child as having experienced victimization; 2) both the adult and student rated the child as not experiencing victimization; 3) the adult rated the child as victimized but the child rated themselves as not victimized (adult overestimate); and 4) the adult rated the child as not victimized but the child rated themselves as victimized (adult underestimate). The table also includes the total agreement rate (sums of items 1 and 2 above) and the total disagreement rate (sums of 3 and 4 above). Lastly, Cohen's Kappa data are presented in the last column of the table. Cohen's Kappa is an estimate of the agreement between two sources and adjusts for the levels due to chance alone. A Kappa of 0 would indicate chance agreement and a Kappa of 1.0 would indicate perfect agreement. According to Viera and Garrett (2005), Kappa values can be interpreted as follows: slight agreement = less than 0.20; fair agreement = 0.20 to 0.40; moderate agreement = 0.41 to 0.60; substantial agreement = 0.61 to 0.80; and almost perfect agreement = 0.81 to 1.00. Table 8. Parent and teacher with student percent agreement and Kappa by item level on victim items. Item Adult rater Yes–yes agreement No–no agreement Total agreement Yes–no overestimate No–yes underestimate Total disagreement Kappa Been bullied in past Parent 9 (10.3%) 60 (69%) 69 (79.3%) 6 (6.9%) 12 (13.8%) 18 (20.7%) .37 Teacher 1 (1.9%) 37 (71.2%) 38 (73.1%) 6 (11.5%) 8 (15.4%) 14 (26.9%) − .03 Been called names made fun Parent 9 (10%) 64 (71.1%) 73 (81.1%) 6 (6.7%) 11 (12.2%) 17 (18.9%) .40 Teacher 3 (4.3%) 46 (65.7%) 49 (70%) 6 (8.6%) 15 (21.4%) 21 (30%) .06 Been left out, excluded Parent 5 (5.7%) 66 (75.9%) 71 (81.6%) 8 (9.2%) 8 (9.2%) 16 (18.4%) .28 Teacher 2 (1.8%) 92 (84.4%) 94 (86.2%) 5 (4.6%) 10 (9.2%) 15 (13.8%) .14 Been hit, kicked, pushed, shoved Parent 2 (2.1%) 82 (87.2%) 84 (89.4%) 2 (2.1%) 8 (8.5%) 10 (10.6%) .24 Teacher 0 (0%) 114 (85.7%) 114 (85.7%) 3 (2.3%) 16 (12.0%) 19 (14.3%) − .04 Others told lies, spread rumors Parent 1 (1.2%) 72 (85.7%) 73 (86.9%) 5 (6%) 6 (7.1%) 11 (13.1%) .08 Teacher 1 (1.4)% 64 (88.9%) 65 (90.3%) 4 (5.6%) 3 (4.2%) 7 (9.8%) .17 Money taken or things damaged Parent 0 (0%) 88 (94.6%) 88 (94.6%) 0 (0%) 5 (5.4%) 5 (5.4%) na Teacher 0 (0%) 102 (93.6%) 102 (93.6%) 0 (0%) 7 (6.4%) 7 (6.4%) na Been threatened or forced Parent 0 (0%) 88 (95.7%) 88 (95.7%) 0 (0%) 4 (4.3%) 4 (4.3%) na Teacher 0 (0%) 125 (94.7%) 125 (94.7%) 0 (0%) 7 (5.3%) 7 (5.3%) na Called names about looks Parent 5 (5.5%) 74 (81.3%) 79 (86.8%) 5 (5.5%) 7 (7.7%) 12 (13.2%) .38 Teacher 0 (0%) 37 (75.5%) 37 (75.5%) 5 (10.2%) 7 (14.3%) 12 (24.5%) − .14 Called names or gestures Parent 3 (3.5%) 72 (83.7%) 75 (87.2%) 4 (4.7%) 7 (8.1%) 11 (12.8%) .28 Teacher 0 (0%) 35 (72.9%) 35 (72.9%) 5 (10.4%) 8 (16.7%) 13 (27.1%) − .15 Been bullied on cell or internet Parent 1 (1.1%) 85 (94.4%) 86 (95.5%) 0 (0%) 4 (4.4%) 4 (4.4%) .32 Teacher na na na na na na na Note. na = question was not asked or data did not allow computation of Kappa. Table options First, the item level agreement between adult and child sources (parent–child and teacher–student) was examined on the overall sample of 3rd through 8th grade students (see Table 8). Teachers and students demonstrated very little agreement, with Kappas for most items in the “slight agreement” or “less than chance” range. Percentage agreement on the items where Kappa could be calculated ranged from 70% to 90%. Kappas were not able to be calculated on three items because of lack of variability in responses, specifically having things stolen, being threatened or forced to do something, and being bullied on the internet or cell phone. Teachers rated the first two of these items as not happening with little to no variability (with 94 and 95% agreement with their students that it had not happened) and on the cell/internet item, they uniformly answered “don't know” resulting in missing data. Overall, when teachers and students did not agree, the disagreement was an underestimate rather than an overestimate on the teachers' part on all items but one (“others told lies, spread rumors”). The percentage of teachers' underestimate of students' victimization ranged from 4% to 21% of the time. Parents and their children had better agreement with most Kappa values in the “fair agreement” range. Percentage of total agreement for the items where Kappa could be calculated ranged from 79% to 96%. Again, Kappas were not calculated for the items regarding having things stolen and being threatened or forced to do something due to lack of response variability. Percent agreement for those two items was 95 and 96%, respectively. When parents and their children disagreed, the disagreement was an underestimate rather than an overestimate on the parents' part on all items but one (where there was equal under- and overestimate; “been left out, excluded”). The percentage of parents' underestimate of students' victimization ranged from 4% to 14% of the time. Next, the item level agreement between parents and their children was examined for 3rd through 8th grade boys and girls separately by gender (see Table 9). Overall, Kappa values indicate that parents and their boys showed stronger agreement than parents and their girls. Kappa values on the overall “has your child/you been bullied” item was in the “substantial agreement” range for boys (Kappa = .64) and in the “slight agreement” range for the girls (Kappa = .14). Similarly, for parents and their boys, the majority of the Kappas on the remaining items (where Kappa could be computed) were in the “moderate agreement” range; whereas for girls and their parents, Kappas were mostly in the “less than chance agreement” category. One notable exception was on the cyberbullying item where parents and their girls showed “substantial agreement”. Table 9. Parent with child percent agreement and Kappa by item level on victim items by gender. Item Gender Yes–yes agreement No–no agreement Total agreement Yes–no overestimate No–yes underestimate Total disagreement Kappa Been bullied in past Boys 6 (12.8%) 36 (76.6%) 42 (89.4%) 3 (6.4%) 2 (4.3%) 5 (10.7%) .64 Girls 3 (7.5%) 24 (60.0%) 27 (67.5%) 3 (7.5%) 10 (25.0%) 13 (32.5%) .14 Been called names, made fun Boys 5 (10.4%) 35 (72.9%) 40 (83.3%) 3 (6.3%) 5 (10.4%) 8 (16.7%) .46 Girls 4 (9.5%) 29 (69.0%) 33 (78.5%) 3 (7.1%) 6 (14.3%) 9 (21.4%) .34 Been left out, excluded Boys 4 (8.7%) 37 (80.4%) 41 (89.1%) 3 (6.5%) 2 (4.3%) 5 (10.8%) .55 Girls 1 (2.4%) 29 (70.7%) 30 (73.1%) 5 (12.2%) 6 (14.6%) 11 (26.8%) − .004 Been hit, kicked, pushed, shoved Boys 2 (4.2%) 41 (85.4%) 43 (89.6%) 1 (2.1%) 4 (8.3%) 5 (10.4%) .39 Girls 0 (0%) 41 (8.7%) 41 (8.7%) 1 (2.2%) 4 (8.7%) 5 (10.9%) − .04 Others told lies, spread rumors Boys 1 (2.1%) 31 (83.0%) 31 (85.1%) 3 (6.4%) 4 (8.5%) 7 (14.9%) .14 Girls 0 (0%) 33 (89.2%) 33 (89.2%) 2 (5.4%) 2 (5.4%) 4 (10.8%) − .06 Money taken or things damaged Boys 0 (0%) 46 (93.9%) 46 (93.9%) 0 (0%) 3 (6.1%) 3 (6.1%) na Girls 0 (0%) 42 (95.5%) 42 (95.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.5%) 2 (4.5%) na Been threatened or forced Boys 0 (0%) 46 (93.9%) 46 (93.9%) 0 (0%) 3 (6.1%) 3 (6.1%) na Girls 0 (0%) 42 (97.7%) 42 (97.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.3%) 1 (2.3%) na Called names about looks Boys 4 (8.3%) 39 (81.3%) 43 (89.6%) 3 (6.3%) 2 (4.2%) 5 (10.5%) .56 Girls 1 (2.3%) 35 (81.4%) 36 (83.7%) 2 (4.7%) 5 (11.6%) 7 (16.3%) .14 Called names or gestures Boys 3 (6.7%) 37 (82.2%) 40 (88.9%) 2 (4.4%) 3 (6.7%) 5 (11.1%) .48 Girls 0 (0%) 35 (85.4%) 35 (85.4%) 2 (4.9%) 4 (9.8%) 6 (14.7%) − .07 Been bullied on cell or internet Boys 0 (0%) 46 (93.9%) 46 (93.9%) 0 (0%) 3 (6.1%) 3 (6.1%) na Girls 1 (2.4%) 39 (95.1%) 40 (97.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.4%) 1 (2.4%) .66 Note. na = data did not allow computation of Kappa. Table options Finally, the item level agreement between teachers and their students was examined for 3rd through 8th grade boys and girls separately by gender (see Table 10). Overall, Kappa values indicate that regardless of gender, teachers showed “slight agreement” or “less than chance agreement” with their students. One exception was “fair agreement” for teachers and their female students on the item regarding students being left out or excluded. Table 10. Teacher with student percent agreement and Kappa by item level on victim items by gender. Item Gender Yes–yes agreement No–no agreement Total agreement Yes–no overestimate No–yes underestimate Total disagreement Kappa Been bullied in past Boys 0 (0%) 22 (78.6%) 22 (78.6%) 3 (10.7%) 3 (10.7%) 6 (21.4%) − .12 Girls 1 (4.2%) 15 (62.5%) 16 (66.7%) 3 (12.5%) 5 (20.8%) 8 (33.3%) .00 Been called names, made fun Boys 0 (0%) 26 (72.2%) 26 (72.2%) 3 (8.3%) 7 (19.4%) 10 (27.7%) − .13 Girls 3 (8.8%) 20 (58.8%) 23 (67.6%) 3 (8.8%) 8 (23.5%) 11 (32.3%) .16 Been left out, excluded Boys 0 (0%) 51 (86.4%) 51 (86.4%) 2 (3.4%) 6 (10.2%) 8 (13.6%) − .05 Girls 2 (4.0%) 41 (82.0%) 43 (86.0%) 3 (6.0%) 4 (8.0%) 7 (14.0%) .29 Been hit, kicked, pushed, shoved Boys 0 (0%) 58 (81.7%) 58 (81.7%) 3 (4.2%) 10 (14.1%) 13 (18.3%) − .07 Girls 0 (0%) 56 (90.3%) 56 (90.3%) 0 (0%) 6 (9.7%) 6 (9.7%) na Others told lies, spread rumors Boys 0 (0%) 33 (94.3%) 33 (94.3%) 1 (2.9%) 1 (2.9%) 2 (5.8%) − .03 Girls 1 (2.7%) 31 (83.8%) 32 (86.5%) 3 (8.1%) 2 (5.4%) 5 (13.5%) .21 Money taken or things damaged Boys 0 (0%) 57 (91.9%) 57 (91.9%) 0 (0%) 5 (8.1%) 5 (8.1%) na Girls 0 (0%) 45 (95.7%) 45 (95.7%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.3%) 2 (4.3%) na Been threatened or forced Boys 0 (0%) 66 (93.0%) 66 (93.0%) 0 (0%) 5 (7.0%) 5 (7.0%) na Girls 0 (0%) 59 (96.7%) 59 (96.7%) 0 (0%) 2 (3.3%) 2 (3.3%) na Called names about looks Boys 0 (0%) 19 (86.4%) 19 (86.4%) 1 (4.5%) 2 (9.1%) 3 (13.6%) − .07 Girls 0 (0%) 18 (66.7%) 18 (66.7%) 4 (14.8%) 5 (18.5%) 9 (33.3%) − .20 Called names or gestures Boys 0 (0%) 16 (76.2%) 16 (76.2%) 2 (9.5%) 3 (14.3%) 5 (23.8%) − .13 Girls 0 (0%) 19 (70.4%) 19 (70.4%) 3 (11.1%) 5 (18.5%) 8 (29.6%) − .16 Note. na = data did not allow computation of Kappa.