Huang Francis L, Cornell Dewey G
Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, College of Education, University of Missouri.
Department of Human Services, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia.
Psychol Assess. 2015 Dec;27(4):1484-93. doi: 10.1037/pas0000149. Epub 2015 May 4.
Accurate measurement is essential to determining the prevalence of bullying and evaluating the effectiveness of intervention efforts. The most common measurement approach is through anonymous self-report surveys, but previous studies have suggested that students do not adhere to standard definitions of bullying and may be influenced by the order of questions about types of victimization. In the current study, we have presented findings from 2 randomized experiments designed to determine (a) the impact of using or not using a definition of bullying and (b) asking about general versus specific types of bullying victimization and how the order of these questions affects victimization-prevalence rates. The study was conducted using a sample of 17,301 students attending 119 high schools. Findings indicate that the use of a definition had no impact on prevalence rates, but asking specific bullying-victimization questions (e.g., "I have been verbally bullied at school") prior to general bullying-victimization questions (e.g., "I have been bullied at school"), resulted in a 29-76% increase in victimization-prevalence rates. Results suggest that surveys that ask general-to-specific bullying-victimization questions, such as those found in national and international surveys, may be underreporting bullying victimization.
准确测量对于确定欺凌行为的发生率以及评估干预措施的有效性至关重要。最常见的测量方法是通过匿名自我报告调查,但先前的研究表明,学生并不遵循欺凌行为的标准定义,并且可能会受到关于受害类型问题顺序的影响。在当前的研究中,我们展示了两项随机实验的结果,这些实验旨在确定:(a)使用或不使用欺凌行为定义的影响;(b)询问一般性与特定类型的欺凌受害情况,以及这些问题的顺序如何影响受害发生率。该研究以119所高中的17301名学生为样本进行。研究结果表明,使用定义对发生率没有影响,但在询问一般性欺凌受害问题(例如,“我在学校受到过欺凌”)之前先询问特定的欺凌受害问题(例如,“我在学校受到过言语欺凌”),会导致受害发生率提高29%-76%。结果表明,像在国家和国际调查中所采用的那样,先问一般性再问特定性欺凌受害问题的调查,可能会低估欺凌受害情况。