Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: "Crystal Meth Addiction and Abuse Problems in Los Angeles County"

Group Community Health Promotions Project Guidelines

Group Community Health Promotions Project Guidelines and Grading Criteria

Each Team will select a community health problem and design a health promotions project

1. Introduce the topic for analysis (Crystal Meth drug addiction and abuse) and the potential impact for public health nursing, include background for the issue and the purpose of the paper 10%

2. Identify current publications concerning the issue being analyzed ? literature 30% review
In this section the team must demonstrate analysis and synthesis of the extant
literature. The review should include information published in refereed journals,
authoritative websites, government and other publications. References should be
current and reflective of contemporary thought with regard to the selected issue

3. Conceptual Framework 10%
Identify the theoretical model the team will use to support the conceptual framework
that guides the constructs of your paper ( Milio?s Framework for Prevention,
Health Belief Model, Pender Health Promotion Model, Critical Social Theory,
Orem Self Care Deficit Theory, Leventhal?s Self-Regulation Model, Precede-
Proceed Model, etc)

4. Project Plan 30%
This section should include an identification and review of the health information
needed, description of the manner by which the data will be collected and analyzed,
presentation of possible solutions to the problem, identification of key community
partnerships, and the plan for monitoring, assessing and evaluating.

5. Conclusion 15%
This section should include how the team perceives a potential resolution for the
problem addressed and how that resolution might contribute to the advancement of
primary care nursing practice

6. Scholarly writing style 5%
The writing style for the paper should adhere to APA guidelines with regard to
format, citations, spelling, and correct use of grammar and punctuation. Length of the
paper should not exceed 20 double-spaced pages, including reference list.

Citations should be current & reflective of contemporary thought.

TOPICAL OUTLINE for your

I. Introduce the topic of Crystal Meth Drug Abuse for analysis and the potential impact for public health and design a health promotions project

How to:
Step 1: Identify health information needed for population served

A. Determinants of health
1. Demographics of Los Angeles County
a. Total population
b. How is Crystal Meth used (snorted, smoked, injected, ingested?)

Various street names it is called
How much it costs
Why it is so addictive (related to dopamine?) and depending if it's snorted, injected, etc. for "rush" or other high.
c. How drug addicts may stay up for days and pychosis
d. Population age group for drug addicts; also what age range does Crystal Meth start; how others in family are negatively impacted (e.g. neglected children, domestic violence against spouses when drug addicts are "tweaking"
e. Ethnic group membership (Hispanic, African-American, Caucasian, Asian, Native-American Indian, etc.)
f. Any gang affiliations
g. How it is widely used in gay community

The introduction must
INCLUDE brief background of Crystal Meth and the Purpose of This Paper

Other useful items for possible inclusion throughout paper:
Healthcare access points for Crystal Meth treatment of addiction and abuse
a. Acute care hospitals
b. Community health centers
c. Faith-based
d. Other treatment providers or support groups (like Narcanon--similar to Alcoholics Anonymous?)
e. Public health services (overburdened? not enough spaces to treat drug addicts?)

Assessing health indicators
1. poverty level or does Crystal Meth affect all economic groups?
2. death rate
3. Morbidity (how crystal meth affects mental health, physiological side effects--e.g.dental, cardiac, etc.)
4. Mortality
5. Use of health services (going to Emergency Room, Psychiatric Emergency Room, hospital, etc.)
a. Barriers to access
6. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions

THIS MUST BE INCLUDED in paper:

Step 2: IDENTIFY current publications concerning the issue being analyzed--
Literature Review (see many great government websites & sources below):

A. Access & review relevant databases and government statistical info and graphs

National Institute of Health on Drug Abuse Crystal Meth

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/topics-in-brief/methamphetamine-addiction-progress-need-to-remain-vigilant

National Institute of Health Drug Abuse Crystal Meth:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/methamphetamine

Google "SAMHSA, OAS, TEDS"

and www.dasis.samhsa.gov and

http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//METHPKT-11/METHPKT-11.pdf

(the government "store" mentioned directly above is FREE for all electronic reports), and

http://www.escapemeth.com/resources.html and

http://www.drugfree.org/drug-guide/crystal-meth and

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/methamphetamine-abuse-addiction

Co-Morbid Drug Abuse and Mental Illness:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/topics-in-brief/comorbid-drug-abuse-mental-illness

Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addition (Nat'l Inst.on Drug Abuse)

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/topics-in-brief/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction

and any others you may come across that are relevant, current, etc.

MUST include:

3. Conceptual Framework (see the very top of this entry for paragraph on identifying the theoretical model that the team will use to support the conceptual framework that guides the constructs of this paper (e.g. Milio's Framework for Prevention, etc.)

4. Project plan (see the very top of this entry for paragraph on this section)

5. Conclusion (see the very top of this entry for paragraph on this section)

THANK YOU SO MUCH!

Essay Instructions: This will be a 30 page problem and policy analysis paper, written in APA style. I would like at least 25 references, the more the better, and they should be sound references. I will be emailing a document that outlines SPECIFICALLY the questions that the professor would like answered in the policy paper. The policy analyzed will be specifically, the Florida ban on adoptions by homosexuals or lesbians. However, first, the writer must present the problem first. The problem is that neglected children or abandoned or orphaned children need safe, loving and nurturing homes. Include some statistics on the amount of children that are waiting to be adopted, etc. Before one can do a policy analysis, the problem must be presented and outlined. Therefore, the writer should do a complete, comprehensive and chronological history that outlines Adoption policy in the United States. Do Adoption on a national level, and then narrow it down to Florida. Then present the problem that in 1977,Florida passed a law that homosexual persons in Florida are excluded as an entire class of people that cannot adopt children. The writer might tie this into the interesting fact that homosexuals CAN be foster parents. Then further, do a complete analysis of how this law came to be, and how Anita Bryant in 1977 was able to convince Florida law to adopt this stance. Then, as the document emailed to you will document, do a complete policy analysis and discuss why or why not homosexuals should or should not be able to adopt. Legal, social, economic implications should be discussed. The document that I will email to you will be very comprehensive and will outline specifically what the writer should be pulling into the paper.

Essay Instructions: For the article below, please provide a review that includes the following;
1. Incidence rates (measurement issues, definitional issues, perceptions)
2. Causation (who is blamed is another way to look at this)
Prevention efforts (evidence of effectiveness ? for whom, under what conditions)
3. Intervention (what level - 1-1, group, policy; evidence of effectiveness ? see above; ramping up?)
4. School/college climate issues (if they apply)
Concept of victimization
5. What do we know regarding race, sex, age, SES

Direct and relational bullying among primary school
children and academic achievement
Sarah Woodsa,*, Dieter Wolkeb
a Department of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, UK
bDepartment of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, ALSPAC, UK
Received 28 March 2003; received in revised form 30 July 2003; accepted 8 December 2003
Abstract
The association between bullying behaviour and academic achievement was investigated in 1016
children from primary schools (6?7-year-olds/year 2: 480; 8?9-year-olds/year 4: 536). Children
were individually interviewed about their bullying experiences using a standard interview. Key Stage
I National Curriculum results (assessed at the end of year 2) were collected from class teachers, and
parents completed a behaviour and health questionnaire. Results revealed no relationship between
direct bullying behaviour and decrements in academic achievement. Conversely, higher academic
achievement at year 2 predicted bullying others relationally (e.g. social exclusion at year 4).
Relational victimisation, Special Educational Needs (SEN), being a pupil from a rural school or
small classes and low socioeconomic status (SES) predicted low academic achievement for year 2
children. Findings discount the theory that underachievement and frustration at school leads to direct,
physical bullying behaviour.
D 2004 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bullying; Victimisation; Academic achievement; Special needs; Primary school students
According to Olweus (1993, 1999), victimisation refers to a student being exposed to
negative actions on the part of one or more other students? with the intention to hurt.
Bullying must be a repeated action and occur regularly over time (Olweus, 1999) and it
usually involves an imbalance in strength, either real or perceived (Craig, 1998;
Whitney & Smith, 1993). Bullying can be physical, verbal, or relational (Bjo?rkqvist,
0022-4405/$ - see front matter D 2004 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.12.002
* Corresponding author. Computer Science Department, University of Hertfordshire STRC, Hatfield
Campus, College Lane, Hatfield, Herts AL10 9AB, UK. Tel.: +44-1707-281-133; fax: +44-1707-285-073.
E-mail address: s.n.woods@herts.ac.uk (S. Woods).
Journal of School Psychology
42 (2004) 135?155
1994; Bjo?rkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukianen, 1992), whereby relational victimisation is
defined as the purposeful damage and manipulation of peer relationships leading to
social exclusion (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). The first two forms of victimisation have
sometimes been labelled as ??direct bullying?? as they include direct aggressive acts
such as hitting, kicking, pinching, taking belongings or money, pushing or shoving, or
direct verbal abuse (name calling, cruel teasing, taunting, threatening, etc.). In contrast,
relational or ??indirect?? bullying refers to social exclusion by spreading malicious
gossip or withdrawal of friendships (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000).
The prevalence of physical and verbal victimisation in primary schools has revealed
ranges from 8% to 46% and for bullying others between 3% and 23% across countries
worldwide (Smith et al., 1999; Wolke & Stanford, 1999; Wolke, Woods, Schulz, &
Stanford, 2001).
Initial research studies into the characteristics of bullying behaviour solely considered
those children who were ?pure? bullies or ?pure? victims. However, more recently, research
has revealed that a sizeable group of children cannot be simply classified as ?pure? bullies or
?pure? victims but both bully other children and are victimised at other times, and have been
termed bully/victims (Kumpulainen et al., 1998; Sutton & Smith, 1999; Wolke & Stanford,
1999; Wolke et al., 2000). Bully/victims have been found to be a distinct group of children
in terms of their behavioural characteristics (Schwartz, 2000) and are rated as being the least
popular by peers (Forero, McLellan, Rissel, & Bauman, 1999; Wolke & Stanford, 1999),
easily provoked, provoke others and are hot tempered (Schwartz, 2000). Furthermore,
bully/victims are characterised as having more behaviour problems with hyperactivity,
impulsivity, and conduct problems compared to ?pure? victims, ?pure? bullies, or neutral
children (Duncan, 1999; Kumpulainen et al., 1998; Wolke et al., 2000).
Less is known about the characteristics of those children involved in relational
bullying and an inconsistent profile emerges. Children who are relationally aggressive
have been found to be less liked by other children (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, 1996)
and there is also evidence that relational aggression is related to maladjustment in
terms of depression, loneliness, anxiety, and social isolation (Bjo?rkqvist, 1994; Crick,
Casas, & Hyon-Chin, 1999). In contrast, other findings have revealed that those
children who are relational ?pure? bullies are physically healthy, enjoy going to
school, have few absenteeism?s from school, have few behaviour problems in terms
of hyperactivity and conduct problems, but are characterised by low prosocial
behaviour (Wolke et al., 2000; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2001; Wolke,
Woods, Schulz, et al., 2001).
Bullying behaviour is a social, group process that is prevalent in the school environment
and there are well documented findings regarding the behavioural and health
consequences of bullying behaviour at school for both direct and relational bullying
profiles (Kumpulainen et al., 1998; Owens, Slee, & Shute, 2000; Williams, Chambers,
Logan, & Robinson, 1996; Wolke et al., 2000). However, there is a dearth of research that
has considered the association between bullying behaviour per se and academic achievement
among primary school children.
Olweus (1978, 1983) first speculated that aggressive behaviour of bullies towards
peers could be considered as a reaction to frustrations and failures at school. However,
data from a large sample of boys from Greater Stockholm provided no evidence to
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 136
suggest that aggressive behaviour was a consequence of poor grades at school. Rather, it
was found that both bullies and victims had lower than average marks than neutral
children (Olweus, 1978).
In a recent study, Schwartz, Farver, Chang, and Lee-Shin (2002) reported that children
who exhibited poor academic performance in school tended to emerge as frequent targets
of bullying. However, it was only a subset of victimised children, the aggressive victims
(or bully/victims) who were likely to be characterised by poor school performance
(Schwartz, 2000). What remains to be established by research studies is whether poor
academic achievement leads to bullying involvement or whether being bullied leads to
poorer school achievement, possibly mediated by less participation in school.
Research on peer rejection has also considered the relationship to academic
achievement and school adjustment. Peer rejection is predominantly assessed by standardised
scores that are comparable across classes and school, but does not take into
account individual bullying roles within classes. Ladd (1990) considered the academic
behaviour and school adjustment of children over the first year of school life and
reported that rejected children had less favourable school perceptions, significantly
higher levels of school avoidance and significantly lower school performance compared
to popular, average, and neglected children. In a similar vein, DeRosier, Kupersmidt, and
Patterson (1994) assessed three different cohorts of children over 4 consecutive years
and revealed that children who had experienced peer rejection displayed higher levels of
absenteeism, and that the youngest cohort of children who were more chronically
rejected, performed more poorly on academic tests compared to those children who had
never been rejected. However, it was concluded that there was no direct relationship
between peer rejection and later academic achievement, and instead an indirect pathway
was proposed. Further evidence for this contention was derived from a study by Buhs
and Ladd (2001) who found that the effects of peer rejection on children?s adjustment
were partially mediated through the processes of maltreatment and reduced classroom
participation.
Research studies to date have solely considered direct bullying and peer rejection,
and no consideration for the possible association between relational bullying status and
academic achievement is evident. The profile of relational ?pure? bullies remains
controversial, and academic achievement results for these individuals would shed light
on the overall characteristic profile for these children. For example, if relational ?pure
bullies are found to be characterised by outstanding academic achievement, this would
provide further support for the claim by Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham (1999) that
?pure? bullies or ring leaders are socially intelligent and have superior theory of mind
skills resulting in enhanced manipulation skills in peer group situations.
To further complicate the picture, academic achievement and school adjustment
have been employed interchangeably within research studies, which is potentially
problematic as both place different emphasis on aspects of children?s academic school
life. Academic achievement has been assessed by school records of composite
achievement test scores (DeRosier et al., 1994), Task Mastery subscale of the
California Preschool Social Competence Scale, (Ladd, 1990), verbal and quantitative
subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Tests (Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Tremlow et al.,
2001), and categorical variables rated by teachers as ?this child is excellent?, ?this
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 137
child is a good student?, or ?this child has difficulties with school work? (Schwartz,
2000; Schwartz et al., 2002).
Furthermore, no studies have considered the sole importance of academic achievement
and school adjustment in relation to bullying behaviour, but have instead included these
factors as much smaller aspects of larger research studies. School adjustment variables
have included negative school attitudes, social adjustment at school, school avoidance,
child?teacher relationships, cooperative classroom participation, involvement in school
activities, and adaptation to the classroom environment (Blankemeyer, Flannery, &
Vazsonyi, 2002; Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Ladd & Burgess, 2001).
Measurements that assess academic ability by tests and teacher assessments in the
same way across different schools are needed in order to provide consistency. The
National Curriculum Standard Assessment Tasks (SATs) employed to assess children?s
academic achievement in the U.K., combine tests with teacher assessments. Despite
scepticism, reliability on the SATs tests have revealed high values (Hurry, 1999;
Reeves, Boyle, & Christie, 2001). One strength of SATs assessments is that they
sample a broad range of skills compared to other standardised tests. SATs tests also
enable researchers to identify subtle and relative changes such as a decline in standards
(Hurry, 1999).
In summary, the literature reveals a noticeable gap concerning the possible causal
pathways between bullying behaviour and academic performance and the direction of
influence, i.e. does being involved in direct or relational bullying behaviour as a bully,
victim, or bully/victim contribute to the prediction of academic achievement or alternatively,
does poor academic achievement predict involvement in bullying behaviour?
Furthermore, previous studies have often concentrated on small sample sizes, on preschool
or grade one children, failed to consider relational bullying, and solely focused on
peer rejection and sociometric status, rather than bullying behaviour per se.
The current study with primary school children from the U.K. had two major aims:
(1) to assess the relationship between direct and relational bullying behaviour, and SATs
tests results and teacher assessments; (2) consider variables that predict children?s SATs
results and teacher assessments and determine whether SATs results and teacher
assessment results contribute to the prediction of being involved in direct and/or
relational bullying.
Method
Population
Parents of children in 82 classes in 39 primary schools in Hertfordshire and North
London in the United Kingdom were approached. Five schools (eight classes) failed to
provide Key Stage Level I National Curriculum results (SATs) resulting in an 87.2% return
rate and a total of 74 classes from 34 primary schools. Table 1 illustrates the sample data
for age, gender, non-consent rates, Special Educational Needs (SEN), and children with
full data sets (bullying interview, SDQ behaviour questionnaire, health questionnaire, and
SATs results).
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 138
Procedure
The study received ethical permission from the University of Hertfordshire Ethical
Committee and all instruments and information was lodged with the Hertfordshire
Education Council. When the head teacher and class teachers consented to participate
in the study written information about the study and a non-consent form (parents were
asked to sign when they wanted their child not to take part) was passed to all parents via
the pupils in sealed envelopes. On prearranged dates all pupils were interviewed
individually in a private room in the school by one of four trained interviewers
(postgraduate psychologists). The school was asked to provide a copy of the Key Stage
1 National Curriculum and Teacher Assessment results for those children that had
participated in the bullying interview.
Instruments
Bullying interview
Children were interviewed individually in a quiet, private room within the school
using a standard structured interview that enquired about friendships and peer relationships
(previously described in detail, see Wolke et al., 2000; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield,
et al., 2001; Wolke, Woods, Schulz, et al., 2001). The part of the interview that is
subject to this report was adapted from the Olweus (1993) Bullying Questionnaire. First,
children were asked whether they had experienced any of six behaviours in the last 6
months that had upset them: (1) having been called bad or nasty names, (2) having
belongings taken, (3) having lies told about them, (4) having nasty tricks played on
them, (5) having been threatened or blackmailed, (6) having been hit or beaten up. If the
child answered that s/he had experienced any of the six above behaviours, the child was
Table 1
Sample data
Variable/instrument Sample size (n)
Total available sample (bullying interview, SDQ N: 1639
behaviour questionnaire, health questionnaire) N: 722 (44.1%), year 2
N: 917 (55.9%), year 4
Total sample with complete data sets (SATs results,
bullying interview, SDQ behaviour questionnaire,
N: 1016 (62% of total
available sample)
health questionnaire) N: 480 (47.2%), year 2
N: 536 (52.8%), year 4
SATs return rate N: 34/39 schools (87.2%)
N: 74/82 classes
Age Overall: x: 7.52, S.D.: 1.02
year 2: x: 6.62 years, S.D.: 0.53
year 4: x 8.33 years, S.D.: 0.58
Gender Males: n: 498 (49%)
Females: n: 518 (51%)
SEN Yes: n: 44 (4.1%)
No: n: 972 (95.9%)
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 139
asked to give examples and describe how this happened. This was done to ascertain that
the behaviours experienced were carried out with intent by the perpetrator(s) to upset the
child rather than having occurred by accident or during play fighting, etc. Researchers
were also able to ensure that there was an imbalance of power between the perpetrator
and victim. Those children who had experienced one or more of these behaviours were
asked how frequently these incidents happened in the last 6 months (seldom: one to
three times during past 6 months, frequently: four times or more during past 6 months,
very frequently: at least once per week). To aid children?s reference to approximately 6-
month periods, anchors such as ??since last Christmas??, ??since the summer holidays??,
etc. were used. The six behaviours were then repeated and the child was asked whether
they have used these behaviours to upset other children and how often they had done
this over the last 6 months (never or seldom: one to three times during past 6 months,
frequently: four times or more during past 6 months, very frequently: at least once per
week).
Subsequently, children were asked four questions relating to relational bullying at
school: (1) other children saying that they did not want to play with them; (2) other
children saying that they would not be the child?s friend anymore; (3) other children telling
nasty stories that were not true about them; (4) Other children deliberately spoilt their
games. If the child responded that they had experienced any of the above behaviours, the
child was asked to supply a description with examples. This was carried out to ensure that
the behaviours had been deliberate, that there was a perceived imbalance of power, and
to ascertain that the perpetrator(s) were children that the child normally played with.
Children were then asked to express how frequently the incidents occurred in the last
6 months for each of the four questions.
Children?s frequency responses were subsequently coded according to three categories,
seldom, frequently, and very frequently (seldom: one to three times during the past 6
months, frequently: four times or more during the past 6 months, very frequently: at least
once per week).
The four types of relational bullying were then repeated to the child and they were
asked whether they had ever used any of the behaviours to upset other children over the
past 6 months (never or seldom: one to three times during the past 6 months, frequently:
four times or more during the past 6 months, very frequently: at least once per week).
At no time during the interview was the term ?bullying? used, i.e. only behavioural
(operational) descriptions were used.
According to the results of the interview and the frequency of bullying events reported,
children were classified using a standardised coding manuscript into the following groups
(Whitney & Smith, 1993; Wolke & Stanford, 1999; Wolke et al., 2000) for physical direct
bullying and relational bullying, separately: physical bullies [children who were involved
in physically bullying others frequently (at least four times during past 6 moths) or very
frequently (at least once every week) but are never or only rarely physically victimised],
physical victims (children who experienced any of the above described behaviours: being
called bad/nasty names, being threatened, having belongings stolen, having lies told about
them, being hit/beaten, having nasty tricks played on them, frequently or every week but
bully others rarely or never); physical bully/victims (children who both physically bully
others and become physical victims of the six described behaviours frequently or every
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 140
week), physical neutrals who neither physically bully others nor become physical victims
(never or rarely only).
For relational bullying the same classification system was employed to categorise
children as: relational bullies, relational victims, relational bully/victims, and relational
neutrals.
Each post-graduate psychologist received intensive training in a standard interviewing
and coding protocol which required them to carry out pilot supervised bullying
interviews and subsequently code them. Any inconsistencies or discrepancies were
individually discussed and rectified until there were no problems before the main study
commenced. The basis of determining whether behaviour constituted bullying and the
bullying classifications was made according to guidelines stipulated in the research
coding manual which as a result of a pilot study clearly outlined direct and relational
bullying behaviours. Researchers used standardised probing questions to determine the
frequency of bullying behaviours and researchers always asked the children to back up
statements by describing the behaviour they had made and to ensure consistency in
responses. Behaviours were recorded in standard datasheets and any difficulties in
decision making discussed in the coder group (consensus rating). Interviews were not
audio taped as this would have required a second consent form which was likely, from
previous experience to lead to higher and selective drop out (which ideally should be
avoided).
The bullying interview has shown high predictive validity for direct and relational
victimisation over 2?4 years (Wolke, Woods, & Samara, article in submission). Concurrent
validity is evident between bullying classification established from the bullying
interview (bully, victim, bully/victim, and neutral) and sociometric status (popular,
average, neglected, rejected, and controversial status) (Wolke & Stanford, 1999; Wolke,
Woods, Kropp, & Schulz, unpublished manuscript).
Behaviour questionnaire
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997) was given to
parents to complete after children had been interviewed. The SDQ comprises of 25 SDQ
items falling into 5 scales of 5 items each: conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional
symptoms, peer problems, and prosocial behaviour (Goodman, 1997). For each scale,
except for prosocial, higher scores indicate more problems. A total difficulties behaviour
score is computed by combining all scales except from the prosocial behaviour scale.
The current study reports on total difficulties behaviour scores only. The SDQ correlates
highly (>.80) with the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) total score and discriminates
as well as the Rutter Behaviour Scales (Elander & Rutter, 1996) and the Achenbach
(1991) CBCL between children with clinical behaviour problems and no problem
behaviour children. Goodman (2001) reported high reliability and validity of the SDQ
regarding Cronbach a, cross-informant correlations, and retest stability over 4?6
months.
For categorical analysis, Goodman (1997) suggested the following bandings for the
total behaviour problems subscale: 0?80th percentile are normal, between 81 and 90th
percentile are borderline, and those >90th percentile are in the clinical range. All
children in the study were classified according to the Goodman bandings as either
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 141
having normal/borderline behaviour difficulties or behaviour difficulties within the
clinical range.
Health questionnaire
Parents of children also completed a health questionnaire (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield,
et al., 2001) that comprised of two sections: (a) seven items about physical health
problems (PHP) over the previous 6 months rated on a seven-point scale (none to six or
more times) (headache, tummy ache, sore throat/ear ache, cold/cough, feeling sick,
breathing problems, skin problems); (b) seven items about emotional health problems
(EHP) (previously known as psychosomatic health problems) rated according to a fivepoint
scale (never to most days) (bed wetting, problems going to sleep, nightmares, woken
in the night, poor appetite, excessive appetite, worried about going to school). Two
variables were constructed to examine the total amount of physical and emotional health
problems that children experienced.
Key Stage 1 national curriculum assessments
The Key Stage 1 National Curriculum Assessment (SATs 1) (www.qca.org.uk;
www.dffes.gov.uk/ncat) for 7-year-olds (year 2) comprised of five tests: (1) The Writing
Task (levels 1?3), (2) Spelling Task, (3) The Reading Comprehension Task (level 2 and
level 3), (4) The Reading Task (levels 1 and 2), and (5) Mathematics Task. The Writing
Task examines children?s ability to plan and write a non-narrative piece of work in a
single session. The length, sentence structure, vocabulary, punctuation, spelling, and the
structure and organisation of the piece of work are assessed. The Spelling Task consists
of 30 words and assesses a range of letter combinations and regular and irregular
spelling patterns. The Reading Comprehension Task tests children?s literal comprehension
in terms of retrieving information from a preset text, ability to make simple
inferences, understanding of the text?s organisation, and the author?s use of language.
The Mathematics Test is split according to levels. Level 1 assesses children?s ability to
identify properties of 3D shapes, money, and working with larger numbers. Level 2?3
examines children?s knowledge of number, calculations in terms of addition and
subtraction, multiplication and division, problem solving, handling data, and shape,
space and measures. The tests are not based on a multiple choice format, but require the
child to write their answers on standard examination forms and demonstrate their
workings out for questions where appropriate.
Results from each of the tests are individually graded as follows: working towards
grade 1(W), grade 1, grade 2C, grade 2B, grade 2A, grade 3, and grade 4. Children
who received a ?W? may have special educational needs and were underachieving.
Grade 1 is below the national curriculum average, grade 2C is slightly below the level
that should be achieved in accordance with national curriculum average, grade 2B is in
line with the national curriculum average, and grade 2A is slightly above the national
curriculum average. Grades 3 and 4 are substantially above the national curriculum
average. The following categories were formed for the analysis of SATs test results
(TR): (1) working towards level 1 or below level 1, (2) low level 2 (2C), (3) average
level 2 (2B), (4) high level 2 (2A), (5) above level 2 (levels 3 and 4), (6 missing) did
not sit SATs tests.
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 142
Summative teacher assessment (TA) for Key Stage 1
Teacher assessments for children at Key Stage 1 are carried out at the end of a unit
or the school year in order to make judgements about pupils? performance in relation
to national set standards. TA initially occurs in the form of formative assessment
which happens throughout the year in the classroom and involves the teacher and
pupil in a process of continual reflection and review about progress, leading up to the
Summative TA at the end of the year. TAs are based on level descriptions and are
frequently assigned a numerical value. The following teacher assessments were
recorded: (1) an overall English assessment, (2) speaking and listening, (3) reading,
(4) writing, (5) spelling, (6) mathematics (included: using and applying mathematics,
number, shape, space, and measures), and (7) science (included: experimental and
investigative science, life processes and living things, materials and their properties,
physical processes).
The following grading system was used to assess each teacher assessment: grade 0
to grade 4. In addition, children were rated according to whether they did not sit the
tests due to behavioural problems and whether they were absent on the day of the
assessment. (labelled ??disapplication due to absenteeism??). Children who had missed
a substantial amount of the curriculum relevant to their year group were exempt from
sitting the SATs tests. Level 0 denotes a child who is working towards level one and
usually has special educational needs. Level 1 refers to a child who is working below
the national average. Level 2 represents the national curriculum average. Levels 3 and
4 are both above the national curriculum average. For quantification purposes derived
from guidelines from the QCA (www.qca.org.uk), the following categories were
formed for TA statistical analysis: (1) working towards level 1 (W) or below the
threshold (X), (2) level 1 or (L) (substantially below curriculum average), (3) below
threshold of 2 but reached level 1 (not quite reached curriculum average, e.g. 2C),
(4) level 2 (2B or 2A, curriculum average), (5) level 3 or 4 (above curriculum
average).
Although National Curriculum SATs TR and TA are universally employed as the
standardised measure of assessment in U.K. schools, there are few studies which have
considered their reliability and validity. Hurry (1999) reported that the actual tests that
make up part of the SATs levels (SATs TR) have face validity according to curriculum.
Reliability has been measured using internal consistency and Cronbach?s a?s of between
.77 and .87 have been reported (Cronbach, 1960).
Reeves et al. (2001) argue that the teacher assessment (SATs TA) is an essential part of
the National Curriculum assessment arrangements.
The results of end of year key stage teacher assessment are reported alongside the test
results. Both have equal status and provide complementary information about the
pupils? attainment. The tests provide a standard ?snapshot? of attainment at the end of
the key stage, while teacher assessment, carried out as part of teaching and learning in
the classroom, covers the full range and scope of the programmes of study, and take
account of evidence of achievement in a range of contexts, including that gained
through discussion and observation. (QCA, 1999, p. 7)
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 143
Rose (1999) stated that TAs are an under used source of information and better use
should be made of them, particularly in the test development phase. An important question
concerns the relationship between TR and TA. Teacher expectations and test results are not
completely independent of one another and teachers are able to consult TR to assist them
with TA. Reeves et al. (2001) explored the relationship between SATs TR and SATs TA for
Key Stage 2 results for over 6000 children. Comparison of SATs TR and TA for individual
pupils revealed a remarkably high level of consistency across years in all three subjects
(Math, English, and Science) ranging from 73% to 77%. Where a difference was found
between TR and TA this was nearly always just by one level (e.g. level 2 on English TA
and level 3 on English TR). Tymms (1996) reported exact agreement between TR and TA
for 74% of pupils and agreement within one level for 99.6% from a study involving over
7000 pupils from schools in Avon, U.K.
The result from the study by Reeves et al. (2001) and Tymms (1996) suggest that a
certain level of non-agreement is not only acceptable but desirable, otherwise one measure
becomes redundant. The SATs TR and TA appear to be complimentary assessment
measures, which usually concur but have variability to justify the application of both.
However, what remains unknown is how many teachers consult the SATs TR before
making their own TA.
Cronbach a (Cronbach, 1960) for the current sample revealed high internal consistency
for SATs TR and SATs TA (Math TR and Math TA: a=.77; English TR and English TA:
a=.92).
SEN
Information was recorded for those children who were deemed as having SEN.
Guidelines set out by the British Education Act (1996) to identify and assess SEN were
adhered to. There are 5 recommended stages for addressing the different levels of
children?s SEN. Stages 1?3 are school based, with support from specialists from outside
the school at Stage 3. Stage 4 involves the Local Education Authority (LEA), which
considers whether a multidisciplinary assessment of the child?s needs is necessary. Stage 5
involves the LEA issuing and monitoring a statement of SEN. Children at stages 2?5 were
considered as having SEN in the current sample, where the decision was made for a child
to receive extra support either from within the school or an outside party.
School variables
Data was collected from schools regarding social class distribution (records of free
school lunches were noted), school location in terms of urban (inhabitants of community>
50,000) or rural (inhabitants of community<50,000), and mean school and class size.
School absenteeism for each pupil was also recorded.
Statistical analyses
First, frequency analysis was carried out for the SATs TR and TA. As a result of this, it
was decided that spelling TA (N: 229), Reading Task (N: 960), and Spelling Test (N: 711)
should be dropped from the final analysis due to substantially reduced sample sizes. Factor
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 144
analysis (extraction method: principal component analysis with varimax rotation) was
computed to determine whether TR and TA constituted the same or different factors.
Differences in SATs results according to direct and relational bullying status for year 2 and
year 4 on standardised scores from the factor analysis were computed using one-way
ANOVA. Final data analysis was carried out only for children who had full data sets (N:
1016) (bullying interview, SATs TR and TA, SDQ behaviour questionnaire, and health
questionnaire).
Prospective analysis was carried out between bullying status assessed before sitting
SATs tests (year 2 children) using ANOVA with bullying status as the IV and the SATs
result as the DV. Furthermore, logistic regression analyses were computed to determine the
best combination of factors predicting SATs TR and SATs TA. For year 4 children, logistic
regressions were carried out with SATs results at year 2 as predictors for bullying status at
year 4 as the DV (Fig. 1).
Results
SATs TR and TA scales
Factor analysis (principal components analysis) with varimax rotation including nine
variables from the SATs results revealed two distinct factors, SATs TA and SATs TR,
respectively. Eigenvalues for the solution were 4.7 and 1.7 accounting for 70.7% of
the total variance. Factor I accounted for 51.7% of variance and Factor II 19% of
variance. All variables loaded onto the primary factors at .59 or greater (Table 2).
Factor I had six primary loadings (Table 2), and constituted all SATs TA items and
three variables loaded on the second factor (Table 2) identified as SATs TR items.
Fig 1. Sample characteristics for statistical analysis.
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 145
Standardised factor scores with a mean of 0 and S.D. of 1 were computed for SATs
TR and SATs TA.
SATs results and the relationship with bullying and victimisation behaviour for year 2 and
year 4 children
Table 3 illustrates the frequencies for direct and relational bullying classifications.
SATs TR
ANOVA analyses carried out on standardised factor scores for SATs TR revealed no
significant differences between bullying status (bully, bully/victim, victim, neutral) for
both direct [F(3,770)=0.33, p<.80] and relational bullying [ F(3,769)=0.52, p<.67] for
year 2 children (6?7-year-olds). In contrast, children in year 4 (8?9-year-olds) who were
involved in relational bullying had significantly higher SATs TR 2 years previously (in
year 2) than those children not involved in relational bullying, F(3,890)=4.25, p=.005.
A posteriori contrasts (Tukey-HSD test) indicated that those children in year 4 who
relationally bullied other children had significantly higher SATs TR previously in year 2
compared to relational victims and neutral children (relational bullies M=0.60 vs.
relational victims M=_0.12 and neutrals M=_0.05).
SATs TA results
ANOVA analyses carried out on standardised factor scores for SATs TA revealed no
significant differences between year 2 children and SATs TA for direct [ F(3,714)=0.15,
p=.93] and relational bullying status [F(3,713)=0.52, p=.67]. However, significant differ-
Table 2
Factor analysis of SATs Teacher Assessment (TA) items and SATs TR items (N: 1016)
Item Factor 1 Factor 2
English TA .93 .15
Speaking and listening TA .86 .10
Reading TA .86 .16
Writing TA .85 .17
Math TA .81 .11
Science TA .78 4.87(E_02)
Reading comprehension TR 8.44(E_02) .86
Writing task TR .12 .90
Math TR .12 .59
Table 3
Physical and relational bullying classifications
Bully Victim Bully/victim Neutral
Direct bullying (N: 1015) N: 35 (3.4%) N: 419 (41.3%) N: 111 (10.9%) N: 450 (44.3%)
Relational bullying (N: 1014) N: 11 (1.1%) N: 424 (41.8%) N: 60 (5.9%) N: 60 (5.9%)
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 146
ences were uncovered for SATs TA and relational bullying status for year 4 children
[F(3,782)=3.78, p=.01].
The a posteriori contrasts highlighted that year 4 children involved in relationally
bullying others had significantly higher SATs TA results 2 years earlier than those
children who were relationally victimised or not involved in any relational bullying
(neutral) (relational bullies M=0.63 vs. relational victims M=_0.08 and neutrals
M=_0.05).
Predictors of children?s SATs results
Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine the best combination of
factors predicting the following dependent variables: (1) SATs TR in year 2 and (2)
SATs TA in year 2. The independent variables were categorised as follows for year 2
analyses predicting SATs TR and SATs TA: (a) whether the child was involved as a
relational victim (yes vs. no); (b) whether the child was involved as a relational bully
(yes vs. no); (c) whether the child was involved as a direct victim (yes vs. no); (d)
whether the child was involved as a direct bully (yes vs. no); (e) gender (boy vs. girl);
(f) behavioural problems (clinical vs. normal/borderline); (g) total number of emotional
health problems (no emotional health problems vs. at least one emotional health
problem); (h) total number of physical health problems (0?2 physical health problems
vs. 3?6 physical health problems); (i) school absenteeism (0?11 vs. 12?21 days); (j)
ethnic minority (native English vs. non English native); (k) school location (urban vs.
rural); (l) social class (SES) (lower vs. upper/middle); (m) class size (small vs. medium/
large); (n) school size (small vs. medium/large); (o) whether the child had a statement
of SEN (SEN vs. no SEN).
First a full model was built forcing, all independent variables into the prediction
function and then removing those variables (backward stepping), which did not make a
significant contribution to the model (no significant change in fit when removing
variables).
SATs TR
The final model for predicting SATs TR is shown in Table 4 [v2(507)=40.17,
df=6, p=.000]. Factors which had a significant impact on predicting SATs TR were
Table 4
Final logistic regression models for predicting SATs TR (Year 2) (Backward Stepwise Method) (N: 507)
Predictor B S.E. Wald df Significance Exp. (B) 95% C.I. for Exp. (B)
Lower Upper
SEN (yes) _1.74 0.51 11.86 1 .001 0.18 0.07 0.47
Relational victim (yes) 0.99 0.35 7.93 1 .005 2.71 1.35 5.40
School location (rural) 0.91 0.41 4.94 1 .026 2.49 1.11 5.56
Class size (small) _0.83 0.37 5.01 1 .025 0.44 0.21 0.90
SES (lower) _0.77 0.35 4.71 1 .030 0.46 0.23 0.93
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 147
in order of importance: SEN (odds ratio: 0.18, CI (95%): 0.65?0.47), relational
victimisation (odds ratio: 2.71, CI (95%): 1.35?5.42), school location (odds ratio:
2.49, CI (95%): 1.11?5.56), class size (odds ratio: 0.44, CI (95%): 0.21?0.90),
and social class (odds ratio: 0.46, CI (95%): 0.23?0.93). Children were more
likely to underachieve on SATs TR if they had SEN compared to no SEN, were
relationally victimised compared to not victimised, went to rural schools compared
to urban schools, were in small class sizes compared to medium/large class sizes,
and went to schools in lower social class areas compared to middle/upper class
areas.
SATs TA
The final model for predicting SATs TA was significant [v2(462)=26.43, df=3, p=.000].
Only one factor remained in the final model and had a significant impact in predicting
SATs TA, SEN (odds ratio: 0.19, CI (95%): 0.75?0.49). Children were more likely to be
low achievers on SATs TA if they had SEN compared to no SEN.
Predictors of children?s bullying status
Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine the best combination of
factors predicting the following dependent variables in year 4: (1) direct bullying
involvement, (2) direct victimisation, (3) relational bullying involvement, (4) relational
victimisation.
The independent variables were the same as for the SATs results, but with the omission
of bullying status, and the inclusion of (a) achievement on SATs TR (average/high
achievement vs. low achievement), (b) achievement on SATs TA (average/high achievement
vs. low achievement).
Direct bullying
The final model for predicting direct bullying involvement in year 4 was significant
(v2(514)=21.67, df=2, p=.000]. Two factors had a significant impact in predicting
involvement in direct bullying: gender (odds ratio: 0.35, CI (95%): 0.21?0.57) and class
size (odds ratio: 0.56, CI (95%): 0.33?0.96). Those children involved in direct bullying
were more likely to be boys rather than girls, and from small class sizes compared to
medium or large class sizes.
Direct victimisation
The final model for predicting direct victimisation in year 4 was significant
[v2(514)=36.34, df=3, p=.000]. Three factors had a significant impact on predicting
direct victimisation: behaviour problems in the clinical range (odds ratio: 0.23, CI
(95%): 0.12?0.45, school location (odds ratio: 1.74, CI (95%): 1.20?2.52), and gender
(odds ratio: 0.62, CI (95%): 0.43?0.89). Direct victims were more likely to be
children who had behaviour problems within the clinical range compared to normal/
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 148
borderline, came from rural schools compared to urban schools, and were boys rather
than girls.
Relational bullying
A significant model was revealed for predicting involvement in relational bullying
[v2(514)=17.50, df=4, p=.002] (Table 5). Those factors that had a significant impact in
predicting involvement in relationally bullying others were in order of importance: high
achievement on SATs TR (odds ratio: 5.74, CI (95%): 0.77?42.72), gender (odds ratio:
0.42, CI (95%): 0.21?0.86), class size (odds ratio: 0.48, CI (95%): 0.23?0.99), and
emotional health problems (odds ratio: 0.50, CI (95%): 0.25?0.99). Children who were
involved in relationally bullying others were more likely to have average/above average
achievement compared to low achievement on SATs TR, be boys rather than girls, came
from schools with small class sizes as opposed to medium/large class sizes and had at least
one emotional health problem compared to no emotional health problems.
Relational victimisation
A significant final model for predicting involvement in relational victimisation in year 4
was revealed [v2(514)=23.44, df=4, p=.000]. Factors that had a significant impact in
predicting relational victimisation were in order of importance: school absenteeism (odds
ratio: 2.18, CI (95%): 1.12?4.25), behaviour problems (odds ratio: 0.52, CI (95%): 0.30?
0.93), school size (odds ratio: 0.60, CI (95%): 0.41?0.88), and school location (odds ratio:
1.48, CI (95%): 1.02?2.14). Children involved in relational victimisation were more likely
to have had fewer days (0?11) off school (compared to more days (12?21)), had
behaviour problems within the clinical range compared to the normal/borderline range,
came from small schools compared to medium/large sized schools, and went to a rural
school compared to an urban school.
Discussion
The present study investigated the association between direct and relational bullying
behaviour, and academic achievement among primary school children in the U.K.
Table 5
Final logistic regression models for predicting relational bullying (Backward Stepwise Method) (N: 514)
Predictor B S.E. Wald df Significance Exp. (B) 95% C.I. for Exp. (B)
Lower Upper
SATs TR
(average/above average)
1.75 1.02 2.91 1 .088 5.74 0.77 42.72
Gender (boys) _0.87 0.36 5.69 1 .017 0.42 0.21 0.86
Class size (small) _0.74 0.37 3.93 1 .048 0.48 0.23 0.99
Emotional health problems
(at least 1 problem)
_0.70 0.35 3.94 1 .047 0.50 0.25 0.99
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 149
Predictors of academic achievement and being involved in bullying behaviour were also
examined. The major findings of the present research study were:
1. There was a higher incidence of direct bullying behaviour among primary school
children compared to relational bullying.
2. No association between direct bullying and academic achievement was uncovered at
year 2. However, relational ?pure? bullies in year 4 had significantly higher SATs TR
and SATs TA at year 2 compared to victims and neutral children.
3. Important predictors of academic achievement for year 2 children were relational
victimisation, SEN, rural schools, small classes, and low socioeconomic status (SES).
4. Important predictors of involvement in bullying behaviour in year 4 were small classes,
behaviour problems, rural schools, being male, having average/above average
achievement, small schools, and emotional health problems.
The finding that primary school children were involved in more direct bullying than
relational bullying fits in with a developmental explanation of bullying behaviour.
Bjo?rkqvist (1994) proposed that young children lack essential verbal skills, which results
in aggressive behaviour being predominantly physical in nature. Once verbal skills and
more importantly complex social skills develop, children will demonstrate more
sophisticated styles of aggression such as relational aggression, usually in secondary
school.
This is the first study to report results concerning the relationship between direct and
relational bullying behaviour and academic achievement among primary school children
in the U.K. No significant associations were revealed for children in years 2 and 4 and
direct bullying status for ?pure? bullies, ?pure? victims, bully/victims, and neutral
children and academic achievement as assessed by SATs TR and SATs TA. In contrast,
children in year 4 who were involved as relational ?pure? bullies had had significantly
higher SATs TR and SATs TA results in year 2. Olweus (1993) argued that aggressive
direct bullies? behaviour could be explained as a reaction to frustration and failure at
school although future research studies were unable to confirm this claim (Tremblay et
al., 1992; Olweus, 1994). The current findings provide further substantiation that having
lower academic grades does not seem to be related to involvement in direct bullying
behaviour. No support was generated for the findings by Schwartz et al. (2002) where
children who exhibited poor academic performance in school tended to emerge as
frequent targets of bullying.
A number of explanations could account for the lack of association between direct
bullying and academic achievement. Direct victims and neutral children did not differ
from each other in terms of academic ability. One account previously proposed is that
children who are victims of bullying actually turn to school work and related activities
as an escape route from the problems they are experiencing with bullying behaviour
(Sharp, 1995) therefore increasing their academic capabilities and grades. Research
findings from work carried out on peer rejection and school adjustment could provide an
alternative explanation. Buhs and Ladd (2001) reported no direct pathway between peer
rejection and school adjustment including academic achievement and instead proposed a
model of mediation by other factors such as peer maltreatment and reduced classroom
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 150
participation. The current study did not consider levels of classroom participation or
cooperation and therefore no direct conclusions can be made. The school milieu and
ethos in the current study may have contributed to the lack of association between direct
bullying and academic achievement. Twemlow et al. (2001) carried out a highly
controlled intervention study based on zero tolerance for bullying. A significant increase
in academic performance and a reduction in disciplinary referrals was found in the
experimental school, but not in the control school. Schools in the current sample may
have had a similar ethos towards bullying behaviour.
The relationship uncovered between being a relational bully and obtaining significantly
higher academic achievement is new to the literature and proffers several
explanations. The current controversy regarding the individual characteristics of bullies
and whether they are ?cool? planners of their torment towards others, or are anxious,
depressed, insecure individuals with behaviour problems is one account for the current
findings. Support is generated for the theory proposed by Sutton and Smith (1999) and
Sutton et al. (1999) that bullies, in particular those children who use social manipulation,
are socially skilled and intelligent individuals who avoid being caught in the act of
bullying other children. Previous findings have also revealed that ?pure? relational bullies
enjoy going to school, have few days absent from school and are physically and
psychologically healthy (Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, et al., 2001; Wolke, Woods,
Schulz, et al., 2001). The current findings add substance to the profile of ?pure?
relational bullies and their strong and successful demeanour in school environments.
Conversely, the findings do not support the assertion that bullies lack self-esteem, are
anxious and depressed individuals (Farrington, 1993, 1995; Salmon, James, & Smith,
1998, Salmon, James, Cassidy, & Javaloyes). The developmental concept that relational
bullying follows on from direct bullying is also supported by the present results in that it
was only year 4 children who were classified as relational ?pure? bullies that had
significantly higher academic results (Bjo?rkqvist, 1994). Children in year 4 (aged 8?9)
are more likely to have the developed social skills to use relational bullying as opposed
to younger children in year 2. It appears that children with high academic abilities have
the social skills available to employ relational manipulation.
Bullying role for both direct and relational bullying, with the exception of relational
victimisation, was not an important predictor for children?s academic achievement.
Children were nearly three times more likely to have under achieved on SATs TR if they
were relational victims. Relational victimisation could have more deleterious effects on the
child?s academic achievement in terms of firstly being more hurtful and long-term than
direct physical bullying and secondly, could be more classroom focused compared to
direct bullying, therefore distracting the child from concentrating on school tasks.
Interestingly, school absenteeism and health problems did not contribute to the prediction
of SATs TR or SATs TA.
Previous research has often discounted the association between bullying behaviour and
school factors such as school size, class size, school location, and SES. Results reported by
Wolke et al. (2001) found more bullying problems in small schools and classes in rural
locations compared to large urban schools. In a similar vein, the current study found that
small schools, small class sizes, rural locations and schools with lower SES significantly
contributed to the prediction of lower SATs TR. Indirect pathways between bullying
S. Woods, D. Wolke / Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004) 135?155 151
behaviour and school characteristics may be having an impact on SATs results. The nature
of these pathways is unknown resulting in the need for research studies to determine the
underlying factors that characterise these schools in terms of lower school attainment and
bullying problems.
A discussion of the limitations of the current study includes the reliance on individual
interviewers to classify children as being direct or relational bullies, victims, bully/victims,
or neutral. Ideally, reliability analyses based on tape recorded interviews should have been
conducted across researchers to ensure that direct and relational bullying classifications
were assigned consistently and reliably. However, this was not within the capability of the
study for several reasons. Firstly, due to the study taking place within a school setting,
teaching staff would not permit the same child to be interviewed about bullying
experiences on repeated occasions by different researchers. This was deemed unethical
and impractical due to time constraints. Secondly, the research team did consider and
approach schools about the possibility of videotaping and audio taping each interview to
permit reliability testing. Again, teachers had serious reservations about breaching children?s
confidence and viewed this practise as unethical. Furthermore, this required a second
consent form and thus likely increased selective dropout of pupils. It would be imprudent
to assume that the bullying interview methodology is entirely objective as bullying
behaviour due to its complex social nature and the fact that 6?9-year-olds took part is
bound to reveal some subjective issues. Nonetheless, the bullying interview is highly
structured and all researchers received a highly structured comprehensive training
schedule. A pilot study revealed 90% agreement across bullying classifications across
four interviewers. The procedural manual was adhered to throughout the study, which
contained concrete examples of the distinctions between what constitutes bullying
behaviour and what does not. Any problems were discussed and consensus coding
applied. Interviewer ratings are at least as valid and reliable as would be obtained by
questionnaire and the interview method has the advantage to not be influenced by reading
age. The age range of children chosen for the current study only allows conclusions about
the association between bullying behaviour and academic achievement in primary school.
Other studies may want to consider adolescent samples in addition to primary school aged
children. Furthermore, the predictive power of bullying behaviour for academic achievement
could only be carried out with children in year 2 and the time lag between bullying
and SATS assessment was less than 1 year. Future studies may consider prospective
investigation of the causal pathways over a longer period of time. Finally, despite the
application of national tests with hundred of thousands of children every year, there are
few studies on the validity and reliability of SATs TR and TA. However, the ecological
validity is high as national markings of schools? and supply of financial resources are
dependent on SATS results.
In sum, the current study provides empirical evidence that direct bullying behaviour is
not largely associated with decrements in academic achievement in primary school. No
support was generated for the theory that under achievement and frustration at school leads
to direct physical bullying behaviour in 6?9-year-olds. Conversely, it was ascertained that
relational bullies are often average or high achievers. Important factors contributing to the
prediction of SATs results were revealed including SEN, behaviour problems and school
characteristics such as school size, class size, and school location.