Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review

  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

271 Scopus citations

Abstract

Bullying is a social phenomenon. About 30% of school children are involved in bullying as victims, bullies, or bully/victims. The victims of bullying suffer multiple negative consequences, including poor social and academic adjustment, depression, and anxiety. This paper extends Farrington and Ttofi's (2009) meta-analysis of controlled trials of 44 bullying interventions, which suggests that bullying programs are effective in decreasing bullying and victimization. We review controlled trials of bullying interventions published from June, 2009 through April, 2013, focusing on substantive results across 32 studies that examined 24 bullying interventions. Of the 32 articles, 17 assess both bullying and victimization, 10 assess victimization only, and 5 assess bullying only. Of the 22 studies examining bullying perpetration, 11 (50%) observed significant effects; of the 27 studies examining bullying victimization, 18 (67%) reported significant effects. Although the overall findings are mixed, the data suggest that interventions implemented outside of the United States with homogeneous samples are more successful than programs implemented in the United States, where samples tend to be more heterogeneous. Few studies have measured bullying with sufficient precision to have construct validity. Finding strong measures to assess the complex construct of bullying remains a major challenge for the field.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)532-544
Number of pages13
JournalAggression and Violent Behavior
Volume19
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2014

Keywords

  • Bullying
  • Bullying intervention
  • Bullying prevention
  • Victimization

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this