A process view on implementing an antibullying curriculum: How teachers differ and what explains the variation": Correction to Haataja et al. (2015).

Reports an error in "A process view on implementing an antibullying curriculum: How teachers differ and what explains the variation" by Anne Haataja, Annarilla Ahtola, Elisa Poskiparta and Christina Salmivalli (, 2015[Dec], Vol 30[4], 564-576). In the article, there was an error in the abstract. The abstract incorrectly stated: “Finally, good lesson preparation and student engagement were associated with a higher levels of implementation throughout the school year (the high group). Neither participation in preimplementation training nor classroom management skills were related to 3 implementation profiles.” The statement about student engagement as a significant predictor was incorrect. The abstract should have stated: “Finally, good lesson preparation was associated with higher levels of implementation throughout the school year (the high group). Student engagement, participation in preimplementation training or classroom management skills were not related to 3 implementation profiles.” The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2015-16487-001.) The present study provides a person-centered view on teachers’ adherence to the KiVa antibullying curriculum over a school year. Factor mixture modeling was used to examine how teachers (N = 282) differed in their implementation profiles and multinomial logistic regression was used to identify factors related to these profiles. On the basis of lesson adherence across time, 3 types of implementers emerged: (a) high implementers (53%) started at a very high level and remained so over time, (b) moderate implementers (30%) consistently utilized more than half of the lesson material, and (c) surrenders (17%) started at a high level that soon declined. Teachers’ beliefs toward program effectiveness were positively associated with starting at higher levels of fidelity (high and surrenders), whereas principal support for antibullying work predicted maintaining the initial level of implementation over the school year (high and moderate). Finally, good lesson preparation and student engagement were associated with a higher levels of implementation throughout the school year (the high group). Neither participation in preimplementation training nor classroom management skills were related to 3 implementation profiles. The findings highlight the importance of individual and interpersonal factors for successful implementation of school-based bullying prevention programs.