How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research.

By K. Merrell, Barbara A. Gueldner, Scott W. Ross, Duane M. Isava. 2008

845 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Insect Science, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d9461177d105066b1c076726db03b3c4b03b6517

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Christina Salmivalli
2. Dorothy Espelage
3. E. Poskiparta
4. Maria M. Ttofi
5. David P. Farrington
6. Antti Kärnä
7. J. Polanin
8. Susan M. Swearer

In Insect Science

1. Christina Salmivalli
2. Dorothy Espelage
3. Maria M. Ttofi
4. David P. Farrington
5. M. Voeten
6. Peter K. Smith
7. Antti Kärnä
8. E. Poskiparta

In Social Psychology

1. Christina Salmivalli
2. Dorothy Espelage
3. David P. Farrington
4. Susan M. Swearer
5. Maria M. Ttofi
6. Shelley Hymel
7. E. Poskiparta
8. J. Polanin

Citations in the corpus

• Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review (2011, methodology): “Conclusions Some previous reviews (Ferguson et al. 2007; Merrell et al. 2008) concluded that anti-bullying programs had little effect on school bullying.”
• Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis (2015, methodology): “Recall that many past studies found a non-significant age moderation, such that program efficacy was slightly but not significantly lower for older students (Ferguson et al., 2007; Fossum, Handegård, Martinussen, & Mørch, 2008; Merrell et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007; Wilso”
• Predictors of Bullying and Victimization in Childhood and Adolescence: A Meta-analytic Investigation (2010, background): “Focusing on interventions for aggression in general may be an important avenue for bullying prevention efforts because those designed specifically to address bullying have not convincingly demonstrated their effectiveness in decreasing actual bullying behaviors (Merrell et al., 2008; J. D. Smith et ”
• Status Struggles (2011, background): “From a practical standpoint, our results have several implications for bullying prevention efforts, which currently fail to show substantial or lasting improvements (Merrell et al. 2008).”
• Effectiveness of the KiVa Antibullying Program: Grades 1-3 and 7-9 (2013, background): “The intervention effects on victimization have sometimes been larger for boys (Eslea & Smith, 1998; Olweus, 2004), whereas Olweus (2004) found larger reductions in girls’ reports on bullying.”
• High School Teachers' Perceptions of Cyberbullying Prevention and Intervention Strategies. (2012, background): “This study and others indicate the challenge schools face in implementing programs that ultimately reduce bullying (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004).”
• Casualties of Social Combat (2014, background): “More pragmatically, our results may provide new avenues to explore in school bullying prevention programs, programs whose effectiveness has been questioned (Merrell et al. 2008).”
• What Can Be Done About School Bullying? (2010, background): “, Olweus, 1993b). How one defines bullying has important implications for assessing the construct. Indeed, Vaillancourt et al. (2008) examined whether the provision of a definition (or not) would yield different prevalence rates in self-reported bullying.”