View
218
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
JIMERSON, S., STIFEL, S., RUDERMAN, M., RENSHAW, T., & EARHART, J.
University of California, Santa Barbara
jimerson@education.ucsb.edu
FEBRUARY 23, 2011
Presentation available on NASP website
Effects of the Promoting Positive Peer Relationships (P3R) Classroom Resource
School Violence and Bullying
School violence has been a global concern for several decades (Astor, Benbenishty, & Marachi, 2006) Ecological Characteristics
Bullying has received increasing attention because it is common and recurring (Dupper & Meyer-Adams, 2002)
Bullying Intrigue
• 3 publications in 1960-69• 6 in 1970-79• 36 in 1980-89 • 395 in 1990-99• 6,639 publications in 2000-2009• 12,036 so far in 2010-2011
(personal PsycINFO search on December 28, 2010)
Bullying Prevention/Intervention
• From school ecology to social-ecological• Focus on bully to more comprehensive approach
• Recent estimates project that there are over 300 published school-based violence prevention programs (Howard, Flora, & Griffin, 1999; Kerns & Prinz, 2002)• However, less than a quarter of these are empirically
validated and only a fraction of them specifically target bullying (Swearer & Espelage, 2004).
• Effectiveness?
Promoting Positive Peer Relationships (P3R)
From problem-focused to strength-basedP3R
Middle-school bullying prevention program Social-ecological perspective Film-based resources with accompanying curriculum
Basic Overview of P3R
Basic overview of P3R intervention:
50 minutes/session5 lesson and 8 lesson versionsStandardized, semi-structured “Teacher’s
Guide”3 core components for each lesson:
Viewing of film segments Facilitated discussion and problem-solving Provision of school policy and support information
Present Study
• Investigate the effects of P3R on enhancing student attitudes toward bullying and school supports
• Investigate the social validity of P3R• Investigate dosage-response effects of P3R
on student attitudes and social validity
Research Methods
Basic overview of research design:
• Pre-post quasiexperimental design• Intervention group– 320 seventh-graders
• Control group– 316 eighth-graders
• Duration of intervention pre-assigned– 1-week, 5-week, and 8-week
• Data collection– Pre-post for intervention and control
Research Methods
• P3R Implementation Fidelity Checklists (e.g., Noell et al., 1997)– Varying items; 1 aligned with each lesson– Self-report by teacher after implementation– Independent observations on 25% of lessons
• Intervention Rating Profile for Teachers—P3R Adaptation (e.g., Martens et al., 1985)– 15 items; 6 point Likert-type scale– Goals, procedures, and outcomes of intervention– Completed by teacher after implementation– Higher composite scores = more favorable perceptions
• P3R Social Validity Questionnaire (e.g., Wolf, 1978)– 8 items; open-ended qualitative response format– 3 foci: goals, procedures, and outcomes of intervention– Intervention overall and differences between duration
iterations
Research Methods
Bullying Attitudinal Scale—Short Form (Song et al., 2001) 5-point Likert-type scale Higher composite scores = more prosocial Test-retest reliability: r = .83 Cronbach’s α = .88 Unidimensional factor loading: r = .58 to .83
Perceptions of School Bullying Supports Scale (Jimerson, 2009) 5-point Likert-type scale Higher composite scores = more positive Test-retest reliability: r = .70 Cronbach’s α = .73 Unidimensional factor loading: r = .55 to .70
Findings - Overall
The P3R-CR is a socially valid intervention for use within a general education classroom when implemented by a general educator.
The P3R-CR was found to be effective in enhancing students’ general attitudes toward bullying (small effect size).
The P3R-CR was not found to enhance students’ perceptions of their local school bullying supports.
Findings
The implementation duration of P3R did not have a differential effect on enhancing students’ general attitudes toward bullying or on enhancing students’ perceptions of their local school bullying supports.
The effect of the P3R-CR on students’ general attitudes toward bullying and students’ perceptions of their school bullying supports did not vary as a function of their baseline attitudes and perceptions.
Discussion & Future Directions
• Intervention: Dosage-response effects Environmental pervasiveness? Duration-threshold? Internal potency?
• Design: Sampling bias & research design effects Uncontrolled random fixed-factors?
• Assessment: Problematic measurement effects Ceiling effects? Social desirability/positive school climate? Lack of profiling possibilities? Wrong attitudes?
Currently Working On
Perceived RealismBullying Attitudinal Measure (BAM)
Communication Self-Efficacy Bystander Self-Efficacy Positive School Perceptions Empathy
Bullying Groups and Positive Constructs School Connectedness Hope Empathy Self-Efficacy
Questions?
Please contact Shane Jimerson, PhD
jimerson@education.ucsb.edu
Thank you!
Recommended