Lessons From a Concurrent Evaluation of Eight Antibullying Programs Used in Sweden

American Journal of Evaluation - Tập 34 Số 2 - Trang 170-189 - 2013
Erik Flygare1, Peter Edward Gill2, Björn Johansson1
1School of Law, Psychology and Social work, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
2Academy for Education and Economics, University College Gävle, Gävle, Sweden

Tóm tắt

Sweden has a low prevalence of bullying and Swedish schools are legally obliged to have anti-bullying policies. Many commercial programs are available. A mixed methods, quasi-experimental, concurrent evaluation of 8 programs, chosen from a pool of 21 widely used anti-bullying programs, was planned. Preliminary data, based on 835 stakeholder interviews, both individual and group, revealed extensive program-contamination in "treatment" schools ( n = 31), and extensive program use in nominally designated control/comparison schools ( n = 8). An evolved evaluation strategy focused on arrays of program components, use of which was assessed through detailed qualitative data gathered from principals, teaching and non-teaching staff, anti-bullying teams, and pupils. Bullying victimization, Grades 4-9, in 39 schools, was assessed by questionnaire, administered in three waves. Response rates were 76.1% (with N = 10,919) at the first wave, 74.3% (of 10,660) at the second wave, and 70.6% (of 10,523) at the final wave. Longitudinal aggregate and individual outcomes (3,487 pupils answered all three questionnaires) were assessed. Prevalence of victimization was 8.1% at first wave and (7.4% at last). Based on individual data, persistent victimization (bullied at both waves) was estimated at 1.5% with 4.7% experiencing a worsening situation (not bullied at the first wave but bullied at last) and 4.8% with an improved situation. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to designate intervention types (shared arrays of strong, weak, or absent component use) and schools with similar approaches. A quasi-experimental, longitudinal design with individual data and an aggregate cross-sectional follow-up indicated differences in effective, ineffective, and iatrogenic components, component clusters (intervention types), and successful schools.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Ahlström B., 2009, Bullying and social objectives: A study of prerequisites for success in Swedish schools

10.1002/ev.368

10.1093/eurpub/cki105

Farrington D. P., Ttofi M. M. (2009) School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6. Retrieved November 22, 2011, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org

10.1037/a0015808

10.1177/0734016807311712

10.1093/bjsw/30.6.755

10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26

Myndigheten för skolutveckling, 2007, Granskningar av utvärdering av program mot mobbning 2007

Olweus D., 2000, Blueprints for violence prevention series

10.4135/9781849209120

Pawson R., 1997, Realistic evaluation

10.1177/0193841X04266335

10.1007/s11121-009-0128-y

10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100

Skolverket, 2009, Allmänna råd och kommentarer. För att främja likabehandling och förebygga diskriminering, trakasserier och kränkande behandling

Skolöverstyrelsen, 1980, Läroplan för grundskolan: Lgr 80

10.1007/s11292-012-9142-3

10.1080/02796015.2004.12086267

10.1108/17596599200900003

10.1007/s11292-012-9161-0

Ttofi M. M., 2008, Effectiveness of programs to reduce school bullying: A systematic review

Utbildningsdepartementet, 1994, Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet Lpo 94

Utbildningsdepartementet (2006). Lag (2006:67) om förbud mot diskriminering och annan kränkande behandling av barn och elever. Svensk författningssamling (SFS). [Ministry of Education and Research (2006). Law Prohibiting Discrimination and other Degrading Treatment of Children and Pupils, Children and Student Safety Act, Swedish Code of Statutes, 2006:67].

Utbildningsdepartementet, 2007, Uppdrag om utbildningsinsats i forskningsbaserade åtgärdsprogram mot mobbning i skolan

10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78

Walker S. L., 2004, Learning environment research: a review of the literature

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

American Journal of Evaluation

Tập 34 Số 2

170-189

Thông tin tác giả