ABSTRACT
Self-reported measures of school bullying can be divided into two subtypes. Definition-based measures present a bullying definition followed by one question about being bullied and one question about bullying others, while behavior-based measures avoid using terms like "bully" and "bullying," do not provide an explicit bullying definition, include items describing specific bullying behaviors, and respondents are asked to rate how often they have engaged in or have been a target of each behavior. The current study aimed to compare bullying perpetration and victimization prevalence rates between a definition-based scale and a behavior-based scale. The current study was part of a 4-year longitudinal research project, where students in Sweden completed an annual web-based survey at five waves starting with the school year of 2015 to 2016 (Wave 1; approximately age = 10.5 years) and ending in the school year of 2019 to 2020 (Wave 5; approximately age = 14.5 years). Because they responded to both measurement conditions, the study controlled for their possible individual differences. In this study, data from 1,469 to 1,715 students were analyzed. Findings revealed that the behavior-based scale displayed higher bullying perpetration and victimization prevalence than the definition-based scale. The behavior-based scales used in this study offer researchers and practitioners a self-report bullying measurement that includes power imbalance, concrete, and specific negative behaviors, and the ability to estimate repetition, but without using bullying terminology. Still, pros and cons of both approaches can be further discussed, and both definition-based and behavior-based self-report measures are vulnerable to a number of biases while they provide estimates or approximations-not exact pictures-of bullying prevalence.
ABSTRACT
Though school children tend to view peer victimization as morally wrong most do not to intervene on the victim's behalf and some instead choose to aid the victimizer. The aim of this longitudinal study was to investigate how students' defending and pro-aggressive bystander behaviors evolved over the course of one school year and their association to basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement, and defender self-efficacy. Three-hundred-fifty-three upper elementary school students (55% girls; 9.9-12.9 years of age) each completed self-report surveys at three points during one school year. Results from latent growth curve models showed that pro-aggressive bystander behavior remained stable over the year, whereas defending behavior decreased. Moreover, students who exhibited greater basic moral sensitivity were both less likely to be pro-aggressive and simultaneously more likely to defend. Students with defender self-efficacy were not only associated with more defending behavior at baseline but also were also less likely to decrease in defender behavior over time. Conversely, students reporting a higher degree of moral disengagement were linked to more pro-aggressive behavior, particularly when also reporting lower basic moral sensitivity. These short-term longitudinal results add important insight into the change in bystander behavior over time and how it relates to students' sense of morality. The results also highlight the practical necessity for schools to nurture students' sense of morality and prosocial behavior in their efforts to curb peer victimization.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to examine whether collective moral disengagement and authoritative teaching at the classroom level, and student-teacher relationship quality at the individual level, predicted individual moral disengagement among pre-adolescent students 1 year later. In this short-term longitudinal study, 1,373 students from 108 classrooms answered a web-based questionnaire on tablets during school, once in fifth grade (T1) and once in sixth grade (T2). The results showed, after controlling for T1 moral disengagement, gender, and immigrant background, that students with better student-teacher relationship quality at T1 were more inclined to score lower on moral disengagement at T2, whereas students in classrooms with higher levels of collective moral disengagement at T1 were more inclined to score higher on moral disengagement at T2. In addition, both collective moral disengagement and authoritative teaching were found to moderate the associations between student-teacher relationship quality at T1 and moral disengagement at T2. These findings underscore the importance of fostering positive relationships between students and teachers, as well as minimizing collective moral disengagement in classrooms. These measures may prevent the potential escalation of moral disengagement in a negative direction.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Early extensive surgery is a cornerstone in treatment of diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGGs), and an additional survival benefit has been demonstrated from early radiochemotherapy in selected "high-risk" patients. Still, there are a number of controversies related to DLGG management. The objective of this multicenter population-based cohort study was to explore potential variations in diagnostic work-up and treatment between treating centers in 2 Scandinavian countries with similar public health care systems. METHODS: Patients screened for inclusion underwent primary surgery of a histopathologically verified diffuse WHO grade II glioma in the time period 2012 through 2017. Clinical and radiological data were collected from medical records and locally conducted research projects, whereupon differences between countries and inter-hospital variations were explored. RESULTS: A total of 642 patients were included (male:female ratio 1:4), and annual age-standardized incidence rates were 0.9 and 0.8 per 100 000 in Norway and Sweden, respectively. Considerable inter-hospital variations were observed in preoperative work-up, tumor diagnostics, surgical strategies, techniques for intraoperative guidance, as well as choice and timing of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite geographical population-based case selection, similar health care organizations, and existing guidelines, there were considerable variations in DLGG management. While some can be attributed to differences in clinical implementation of current scientific knowledge, some of the observed inter-hospital variations reflect controversies related to diagnostics and treatment. Quantification of these disparities renders possible identification of treatment patterns associated with better or worse outcomes and may thus represent a step toward more uniform evidence-based care.