反欺负计划

A Large-Scale Evaluation of the KiVa Antibullying Program: Grades 4–6 Antti Ka¨rna¨ University of Turku Marinus Voeten Radboud University Nijmegen Todd D. Little University of Kansas Elisa Poskiparta, Anne Kaljonen, and Christina Salmivalli University of Turku This study demonstrates the effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program using a large sample of 8,237 youth from Grades 4–6 (10–12 years). Altogether, 78 schools were randomly assigned to intervention (39 schools, 4,207 students) and control conditions (39 schools, 4,030 students). Multilevel regression analyses revealed that after 9 months of implementation, the intervention had consistent beneficial effects on 7 of the 11 dependent variables, including self- and peer-reported victimization and self-reported bullying. The results indicate that the KiVa program is effective in reducing school bullying and victimization in Grades 4–6. Despite some evidence against school-based interventions, the results suggest that well-conceived school- based programs can reduce victimization. Bullying is a common problem in schools, affecting the lives of a large number of students. It is com- monly characterized as systematic abuse of power (Smith & Sharp, 1994). More specifically, bullying is defined as repeated aggressive behavior against a victim who cannot readily defend himself or herself (Olweus, 1999). Victims of bullying often experi- ence insecurity and various forms of psychosocial maladjustment, such as depression and anxiety; they sometimes even exhibit self-destructiveness (for meta-analyses, see Card, 2003; Hawker & Boul- ton, 2003). For a number of victims, their experi- ences continue to affect their lives later on in the forms of depression, low self-esteem, and difficulty in trusting other people (Isaacs, Hodges, & Salmival- li, 2008; Olweus, 1994). Not only are victims at risk: Compared to other children, bullies often become involved in delinquency and alcohol abuse (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela¨, Rantanen, & Rimpela¨, 2000; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Nansel et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2004; Olweus, 1993a, 1993b). The need to intervene effectively in bullying is thus clear and urgent. Accordingly, numerous antibullying pro- grams have been initiated by researchers, practitio- ners, and governments. The present study is the first evaluation of a new antibullying program, designed for national use in Finnish comprehensive schools. Antibullying Programs Several whole-school intervention programs have been developed to reduce bullying in schools (for reviews, see Baldry & Farrington, 2007; Farrington, & Ttofi, 2009; Ferguson, San Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007; Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; J. D. Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ana- niadou, 2004; P. K. Smith, Ananiadou, & Cowie, 2003; P. K. Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). A whole-school approach views bullying as a systemic problem with multiple causes at the individual, classroom, and school levels (J. D. Smith et al., 2004). This layered per- spective suggests that an intervention must target the entire school context, rather than just individual bullies and victims (J. D. Smith et al., 2004). In this regard, whole-school interventions differ from This research is part of the KiVa project for developing an antibullying intervention program for the Finnish comprehensive schools. The KiVa project is financed by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. In addition, the present study was sup- ported by the Academy of Finland Grants 134843 and 135577 to Christina Salmivalli. We thank the whole KiVa project team, and especially Marita Kantola and Jonni Nakari, for their contribu- tion in the data-gathering process. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Antti Ka¨rna¨, Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Assistentinkatu 7, 20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland. Electronic mail may be sent to ankarna@utu.fi. Child Development, January/February 2011, Volume 82, Number 1, Pages 311–330 � 2011 The Authors Child Development� 2011 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2011/8201-0021 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x more narrowly focused interventions, such as cur- riculum interventions, social-skills groups, and counseling (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). Most whole-school antibullying programs were inspired by Dan Olweus’s first Bergen study. Olweus (1991) utilized a multilayered approach by targeting individual, class, and school levels with different intervention components, such as serious talks with bullies and victims, classroom discus- sions, and staff meetings. The evaluation was con- ducted using a cohort-longitudinal design with time-lagged comparisons. With this design, stu- dents after the intervention were compared with students from the same grades in the same schools before the intervention. For instance, Grade 5 pre- test data served as a baseline against which the posttest data from students in Grade 4 were com- pared after 12 months of intervention. Most com- parisons showed reductions in victimization and bullying rates of 50% or more from the baseline fre- quency. Substantial decreases also emerged for other antisocial behaviors, such as vandalism, theft, and truancy, in addition to an increase in general satisfaction with school life. Since the first Bergen project, several effective- ness studies have been conducted in various coun- tries (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2004; Cross, Hall, Hamilton, Pintabona, & Erceg, 2004; Frey et al., 2005; O’Moore & Minton, 2004; Pepler, Craig, Zie- gler, & Charach, 1994; Pitts & Smith, 1995; Roland, 1989; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten, 2005; Smith & Sharp, 1994; Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost, 2000). Unfortunately, these studies have shown very inconsistent results, with the majority of studies nonsignificant, some negative, and only a few with beneficial outcomes (J. D. Smith et al., 2004). J. D. Smith et al. (2004) con- cluded that the amassed evidence is simply too var- iable to justify adopting such programs to the exclusion of other procedures. One potential explanation of the inconsistencies in the evaluation findings is that Olweus’s remark- able success is due to the high quality of Scandina- vian schools, with, for instance, particularly well- trained teachers (J. D. Smith et al., 2004). In addition, Baldry and Farrington (2007) proposed that the inconsistent findings may be associated with variations in assessment methods and evalua- tion designs (see also Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). The variable and often weak results may be, at least partly, explained by methodological weak- nesses of the studies (Baldry & Farrington, 2007). Several authors have lamented the methodological problems inherent in the effectiveness studies of antibullying intervention programs (Baldry & Farr- ington, 2007; J. D. Smith et al. 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). Somewhat surprisingly, all previous bullying intervention studies lack at least one and often several methodologically important features, such as an appropriate control condition, random assignment, multilevel modeling of hierarchical data, multimethod and multi-informant outcome assessment, psychometrically sound measures, sys- tematic implementation monitoring, proper sample size, attrition analysis or missing data imputation (Baldry & Farrington, 2007; Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; J. D. Smith et al., 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). As a result, the studies clearly fall short of the standards of evidence required for interventions to be considered efficacious (see Flay et al., 2005, for the standards); therefore, only limited empirical support exists for the effectiveness of school- based antibullying programs (J. D. Smith et al., 2004). Numerous reviews of the effectiveness of the antibullying programs have called for fur- ther research using higher methodological stan- dards to rigorously investigate whether such programs actually are effective or not (Baldry & Farrington, 2007; J. D. Smith et al., 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). KiVa Antibullying Program The Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture funded the development and evaluation of a new, national antibullying program named KiVa (an acronym for Kiusaamista Vastaan, ‘‘against bully- ing’’). The program was developed at the Univer- sity of Turku, in collaboration between the Department of Psychology and the Centre for Learning Research. It was introduced in the inter- vention schools across Grades 4 through 6 during the 2007–2008 school year. Theoretical Background of the KiVa Program KiVa enjoys a multifaceted theoretical back- ground (e.g., Salmivalli, Ka¨rna¨, & Poskiparta, 2010a). The program is built on a view of bullying that is based on two lines of research: (a) studies on the social standing of aggressive children in general (e.g., Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000) and bullies in particular (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003) and (b) research on participant roles in bullying (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjo¨rkqvist, O¨sterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996). Furthermore, social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 312 Ka¨rna¨ et al. 1989) is used as a framework for understanding the processes of social behavior. Recent research suggests that bullying behavior is at least partly motivated by a pursuit of high sta- tus and a powerful position in the peer group (e.g., Juvonen & Galva´n, 2008; Salmivalli & Peets, 2008). Bullying is also a group phenomenon, in which bystanders have an effect on the maintenance of bullying and on the adjustment of the victims (Salmivalli, 2009; Salmivalli et al., 1996). More spe- cifically, bystanders can contribute to the mainte- nance of bullying by assisting and reinforcing the bully, which provides bullies with the position of power that they seek. On the other hand, defending the victim may make bullying an unsuccessful strategy for attaining and demonstrating high sta- tus. KiVa is predicated on the idea that a positive change in the behaviors of classmates can reduce the rewards gained by bullies and consequently their motivation to bully in the first place. KiVa places concerted emphasis on enhancing the empa- thy, self-efficacy, and antibullying attitudes of onlookers, who are neither bullies nor victims. This strategy is based on sound evidence relating these characteristics to defending and supporting victim- ized peers (Caravita, DiBlasio, & Salmivalli, 2009; Po¨yho¨nen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2010; Po¨yho¨nen & Salmivalli, 2008; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). The aim is to make bystanders show that they are against bullying and to make them support the vic- tim, instead of encouraging the bully. As another equally important component, the KiVa program includes procedures for handling the acute bullying cases that come to the attention of the school personnel. A prior Finnish bullying intervention study (Salmivalli et al., 2005) was also based on similar principles. That program, however, mainly consisted of teacher education (making the actual program content rather loose) without concrete materials that teachers could utilize when working with students and classrooms. It also lacked a program manual needed for accurate repli- cation. KiVa Program Components KiVa includes both universal and indicated actions to prevent the occurrence of bullying as well as to intervene in individual bullying cases (e.g., Salmivalli et al., 2010a, 2010b). The program has three different developmentally appropriate versions for Grades 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9 (i.e., for 7–9, 10–12, and 13–15 years of age). Universal actions. The KiVa program for Grades 4–6 includes 20 hr of student lessons (10 double les- sons) given by classroom teachers during a school year. The central aims of the lessons are to: (a) raise awareness of the role that the group plays in main- taining bullying, (b) increase empathy toward vic- tims, and (c) promote children’s strategies of supporting the victim and thus their self-efficacy to do so. The lessons involve discussion, group work, role-play exercises, and short films about bullying. As the lessons proceed, class rules based on the central themes of the lessons are successively adopted one at a time. A unique feature of KiVa is an antibullying com- puter game included in the primary school versions of the program. Students play the game during and between the lessons described earlier. The game involves five levels, each of them consisting of three components named: I KNOW, I CAN, and I DO. Students acquire new information and test their existing knowledge about bullying (I KNOW), learn new skills to act in appropriate ways in bullying situations (I CAN), and are encouraged to make use of their knowledge and skills in real-life situa- tions (I DO). KiVa provides prominent symbols such as bright vests for the recess supervisors to enhance their visibility and signal that bullying is taken seriously in the school and posters to remind stu- dents and school personnel about the KiVa pro- gram. Schools get presentation graphics they can use to introduce the program for the whole per- sonnel and for parents. Parents also receive a guide that includes information about bullying and advice about what parents can do to prevent and reduce the problem. Indicated actions. In each school, a team of three teachers (or other school personnel), along with the classroom teacher, addresses each case of bullying that is witnessed or revealed. Cases are handled through a set of individual and small group discus- sions with the victims and with the bullies, and sys- tematic follow-up meetings. In addition, the classroom teacher meets with two to four prosocial and high-status classmates, encouraging them to support the victimized child. Trainingdays and school networkmeetings. Support to implement the program is given to teachers and schools in several ways. In addition to 2 full days of face-to-face training, networks of school teams are created, consisting of three school teams each. The network members meet three times during the school year with one person from the KiVa project guiding the network. Evaluation of KiVa Antibullying Program 313 KiVa naturally shares some features with exist- ing antibullying programs, such as Olweus’s bully- ing prevention program (OBPP). These features are shared principles, or ideas, rather than actual pro- gram contents. For instance, both OBPP and KiVa include actions at the level of individual students, classrooms, and schools, both tackle acute bullying cases through discussions with the students involved, and both suggest developing class rules against bullying. KiVa, however, has at least three features that, when taken together, differentiate it from OBPP and other antibullying programs. First, KiVa includes a broad and encompassing array of concrete and professionally prepared materials for students, teachers, and parents. Rather than offer- ing ‘‘guiding principles’’ or ‘‘philosophies’’ to school personnel, it provides them with a whole pack of activities to be carried out with students. Second, KiVa harnesses the powerful learning media provided by the Internet and virtual learning environments. Third, while focusing on the bystanders, or witnesses of bullying, KiVa goes beyond ‘‘emphasizing the role of bystanders,’’ men- tioned in the context of several intervention pro- grams, by actually providing ways to enhance empathy, self-efficacy, and efforts to support the victimized peers. Furthermore, students’ private attitudes are made salient in order to reduce the (often false) impression that ‘‘others think that bul- lying is OK’’ (so-called pluralistic ignorance; see Juvonen & Galva´n, 2008). Although other programs share some of these features, none of them has assembled these features into the coordinated whole-school, multilayered intervention that is the hallmark of the KiVa program. With regard to research, the clear structure, well-defined content and concrete materials of KiVa make it easy to use and amenable to replication in further studies. These features distinguish KiVa from some other antibullying programs, for which such specific components are not described in sufficient detail to enable accurate replication (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). The Present Study The present study expands knowledge about the effectiveness of antibullying interventions by examining the effects of the new KiVa antibully- ing program on bullying, victimization, and other key outcomes. We focused in this study on Grades 4–6 because these were included in the first phase (2007–2008) of program evaluation. Results involving Grades 1–3 and 7–9 from the second phase (2008–2009) will be presented in upcoming reports. We used several outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the KiVa program. The program effects were examined by comparing intervention- school students with control school students at two time points: in the middle and in the end of the school year (i.e., 4 and 9 months after beginning of program implementation; 7 and 12 months after pretest measures). As the main outcomes, we used self-reported and peer-reported bullying and vic- timization. We hypothesized that the KiVa program would yield substantial reductions in these prob- lem behaviors. We also expected beneficial changes in other outcomes; specifically, we expected increases in defending victims and decreases in assisting and reinforcing bullies. We also hypo- thesized that the intervention would increase anti- bullying attitudes, empathy toward victims, and self-efficacy for defending. Finally, we expected the program to improve students’ well-being at school. The evaluation was done using best practice methodology and stringent standards for effective- ness (Flay et al., 2005). The present study is respon- sive to Baldry’s and Farrington’s (2007) call for high-quality evaluations with theoretically grounded interventions, randomized designs, and multiple measures of effectiveness. Method Sampling and Design To recruit schools, letters describing the KiVa project were sent in the fall of 2006 to all 3,418 schools providing basic education in mainland Finland. These included both Finnish-language and Swedish-language schools, because the basic educa- tion in Finland is given in both official languages. The letter included information about the goals and content of KiVa and an enrollment form. In this first phase of program evaluation (Grades 4–6), the 275 volunteering schools were stratified by prov- ince and language and 78 of them were randomly assigned to intervention or control condition (spe- cial-education-only schools were excluded). We oversampled Swedish-language schools (15.3% of the sample schools were Swedish, whereas 9.4% of all Finnish comprehensive schools are Swedish- language schools), but adjusted for this in the analyses. The participating schools were located throughout the country and resembled other com- prehensive schools in such characteristics as class size and proportion of immigrant students. As such, 314 Ka¨rna¨ et al. they can be considered representative of Finnish comprehensive schools. Procedure The school year in Finland ranges from mid- August to the end of May. Data collection took place three times: in May 2007, December 2007 or January 2008, and May 2008. Students filled out Internet-based questionnaires in the schools’ com- puter labs during regular school hours. The process was administered by the teachers, who were sup- plied with detailed instructions about 2 weeks prior to data collection. In addition, teachers were offered support through phone or e-mail prior to and dur- ing data collection. Teachers distributed individual passwords to the students, who used them to log in to the questionnaire. At the beginning of the ses- sion, the term bullying was defined for the students in the way f