JIMERSON, S., STIFEL, S., RUDERMAN, M., RENSHAW, T., & EARHART, J.
University of California, Santa Barbara
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