Presentation on theme: "JIMERSON, S., STIFEL, S., RUDERMAN, M., RENSHAW, T., & EARHART, J. University of California, Santa Barbara FEBRUARY 23, 2011."— Presentation transcript:
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 in in in ,639 publications in ,036 so far in (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-based P3R 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/session 5 lesson and 8 lesson versions Standardized, semi-structured Teachers 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 TeachersP3R 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 ScaleShort Form (Song et al., 2001) 5-point Likert-type scale Higher composite scores = more prosocial Test-retest reliability: r =.83 Cronbachs 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 Cronbachs 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 Realism Bullying Attitudinal Measure (BAM) Communication Self-Efficacy Bystander Self-Efficacy Positive School Perceptions Empathy Bullying Groups and Positive Constructs School Connectedness Hope Empathy Self-Efficacy