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!