 Bullying is a significant problem for ~ 20% of youths › Numerous associated issues:  Internal & external psychological disorders  Physical and psychosomatic problems  Poorer academic performance  Now considered a major public health problem  Current state legislation › 46 states have anti-bullying laws, many require prevention and/or intervention programs

 There is a lack of consistent measurement of bullying: › Wide range of instruments › Many with questionable psychometric properties  Therefore, unable to clearly ascertain: › Accurate prevalence › Programmatic results › Impact of legislation

 Identify the published measures developed to assess youth bullying  Evaluate the psychometric properties of these instruments

 Review protocol: › Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)  Review registration: › PROSPERO: International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (#crd )

 Primary psychometric study  Instrument designed to measure peer bullying in youths between the ages of 6-21 years  Instrument was a self-report measure  The study was published in English in a peer-reviewed journal

 Systematic electronic search, EBSCO search interface, 4 databases: › CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health Literature) › MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis & Retrieval System Online) › ERIC ( Educational Research Information Clearinghouse) › PsychINFO (Psychological Information Database)  Search strategy: bullying, teasing, and/or aggression AND questionnaires, surveys, and/or measurement AND child, adolescent, and/or youth  Timeframe: database inception to April 2012

 Targeted hand search of bibliographies of papers meeting inclusion criteria  Google and Google Scholar searches  Compendium of Assessment Tools, U.S. HRSA Stop Bullying Now website (

 Initial independent abstract review › Discussion and consensus across panel members  Each selected study assessed by a pair of investigators  Use of the MacDermid Interpretation Guide, designed for the assessment of psychometric articles  Interrater reliability on quality: › Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) › Cohen’s kappa statistic (ĸ) › Consensus panel on source of disagreement MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, interpretation guide. In: Law M, MacDermid JC, eds. Evidence-based Rehabilitation. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc; 2008:

Identification Screening Records Identified- database searches n=384 Records Identified- database searches n=28 Eligibility Included Records after duplicates removed n=402 Records after screening removed n=402 Records excluded n=361 Full-text articles assessed for eligibility n=41 Full-text articles excluded n=18 Non-English: n= 5 Wrong age/population: n =5 Not psychometrics papers: n =1 Not a bullying measure: n =6 Could not retrieve: n =1 Studies included in synthesis n=23

 Quality Assessments (MacDermid’s criteria) › Range: 18-91% › 6 papers had scores >75%  Pre-consensus interrater reliability: › ICC=0.62; 95% (CI= ) › ĸ=

 Test-retest › Limited evidence with 6/23 (26%) reporting › Few reported ICC; none reported minimum detectable change  Internal consistency › Limited evidence with 2/23 (9%) reporting › Cronbach’s α <0.70 for total scales or independent subscales of 4/23 instruments › 1-parameter IRT (Rasch) for 2/23  Item to total correlation › Limited evidence with 4/23 (18%) reporting

 Content validity › 12/23 (52%) reporting › Common approaches: Literature review, Expert panels, focus groups  Floor-ceiling effects › Very limited evidence; 1/23 (5%) reported a floor effect › No reports of ceiling effects

 Construct validity › 1-parameter IRT (Rasch): 3/23 (13%) › Factorial validity: 15/23(66%) reporting  EFA: 4/23(18%)  PCA: 6/23(26%)  EFA & PCA: 1/23 ( 5%)  CFA: 4/23(18%)  Criterion-related validity › Concurrent validity  Comparisons with numerous other instruments › Predictive validity  Limited evidence with 1/23 (5%) reporting

 Responsiveness to change › None 0/23 (0%) reported  Administrative burden › Limited evidence with 7/23 (31%) reporting › Administration time for majority minutes › Scoring time not reported  Language & Culture › Psychometric reports available for instruments in English, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Arabic, and Greek › Only 1/23 (5%) focused on cross-cultural validation

 In general, the methodological quality of the evaluated studies was inadequate  Without appropriate instrumentation, it will be difficult to accurately detect: › Programmatic results › Impact of legislation