deea 10

7/28/2019 deea 10

1/31

Prevention & Treatment, Volume 6, Article 21, posted October 1, 2003

Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association

Predicting Teachers and SchoolsImplementation of the Olweus BullyingPrevention Program: A Multilevel Study

Jan Helge Kallestad

University of Bergen and Bergen University College

Dan Olweus

University of Bergen

ABSTRACT

Little is known about factors that predict or affect differences in teachers and schoolsimplementation of school-based intervention or prevention programs. The main purpose of the

present project was to study this important issue in a sample of 37 schools and 89 teachers who

provided data at 2 points in time, separated by 6 months. All of the teachers used, to varying

degrees, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, which has been shown to reduce

substantially bully/victim problems in school. Two measures of implementation were

constructed, the Classroom Intervention Measures (CIM) andIndividual Contact(with

bullied/bullying students and/or their parents; IC). Generally, substantial amounts of variance

in implementation could be predicted in multilevel models. In the 2 within-school models, 5

teacher-level factors predicted 53% (CIM) and 34% (IC) of the variance, respectively. Two of

the predictors, Perceived Staff Importance and Perceived Level of Bullying (in own class), werecommon to both models. At the school level, only CIM showed systematic between-school

variance; in the between-school model, 3 school-level predictors accounted for 50% of the

variance. The school climate measures Openness in (Staff)Communication and School

Attention to Bullying Problems were both important predictors. In summary, the meaningful

results from our study indicate that teachers were the key agents of change with regard to

adoption and implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in school. Generally,

we think our study has shed light on several factors of importance and has contributed to a

better understanding of the process of program implementation. The empirical results have also
http://www.apa.org/journals/copyrite.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/journals/copyrite.html

7/28/2019 deea 10

2/31

suggested ways in which implementation of the program can be improved, and several of these

amendments have already been incorporated in the program and its dissemination (Olweus, in

press).

This research was conducted as part of Jan Helge Kallestads fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral degree of

philosophy at the University of Bergen, Norway, under the supervision of Dan Olweus.

The research reported in this article was supported by grants from the Norwegian Research Council and from Rdet for

psykisk helse to Dan Olweus Jan Helge Kallestad, grants to Dan Olweus from the Ministry of Children and Family Affair

the Norwegian Public Health Association (Nasjonalforeningen for folkehelsen), and, in earlier phases, grants to Dan Olwe

from the Ministry of Education, which is gratefully acknowledged.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed either to Jan Helge Kallestad or Dan Olweus, Research Cen

Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Christies Gate 13, N-5015 Bergen, Norway.

E-mail:[email protected] or [email protected]

A strong societal interest in bullying or bully/victim problems among chool children was first aroused inSweden in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This interest resulted in a fair amount of public attention in

Scandinavia and initiation of what is generally regarded as the first systematic research project on the

phenomenon. The project was published as a book first in Sweden (Olweus, 1973) and a few years later

English under the titleAggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys (Olweus, 1978).

In Norway, bully/victim problems were for several years an issue of general concern in the mass media a

among teachers and parents, but the school authorities did not involve themselves officially with the

phenomenon. In the early 1980s, a marked change took place. More precisely, in late 1982, a newspaper

reported that three 1014-year-old boys from the northern part of Norway had committed suicide, in all

probability as a consequence of severe bullying by peers. This event aroused considerable uneasiness andtension in the mass media and the general public. It triggered a chain of reactions, the end result of which

a nationwide campaign against bully/victim problems in Norwegian comprehensive schools (Grades 19

corresponding to Grades 210 in the current grade system) launched by the Ministry of Education in the

of 1983. In that context, what has later become known as the Olweus Core Program against Bullying and

Antisocial Behavior (Olweus, 1993a, 2001b), or the Bullying Prevention Program (Olweus & Limber, 19

was developed and systematically evaluated.

The effects of this intervention program were evaluated in a research project involving 2,500 boys and g

in 42 primary and lower secondary/junior high schools in the town community of Bergen, during the 2-yperiod from May 1983 through May 1985. At the time of the first measurement, the students were enroll

112 classes in Grades 58 (according to the current grade system designation), with modal ages of 11, 12

and 14 years. The positive results of the intervention have been reported in several publications (e.g., Ol

1991, 1993a, 1993b; Olweus & Alsaker, 1991; Olweus & Limber, 1999). These results included the

following: (a) substantial reductionsby 50% or more in most comparisonsin students reports of bul

and victimization; (b) marked reductions in general antisocial behavior such as vandalism, shoplifting,

truancy, and alcohol use; and (c) significant improvements of the social climate of the classroom, as

reflected in students reports of improved order and discipline, as well as a more positive attitude toward

schoolwork and the school.
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c44http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c44http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c31http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c32http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c32http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c34http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c34http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c36http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c45http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c45http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c36http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c34http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c34http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c32http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c32http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c31http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c44http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c44

7/28/2019 deea 10

3/31

The results of the first systematic intervention project against bullying were thus very encouraging, with

findings having later been largely replicated and expanded in two new studies in Norway (Olweus, 1999

2001a; Olweus & Limber, 1999) and in similar partial replication projects in England (Smith & Sharp, 1

the United States, and Germany (see Olweus & Limber, 1999, for an overview).

The Focus of the Present Study

It is important to realize that the effect findings described earlier represent a kind of aggregate result,

reflecting the overall effects of an intervention package with several different components (see the nex

paragraph and Table 1). To get more detailed information about the nature and mechanisms of these effe

there are several issues that need to be pursued and researched in more detail.

Table 1

Overview of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program

General prerequisites

Awareness and involvement on the part of adults

Measures at the school level

Questionnaire survey

School conference day

Effective supervision during break times

Staff discussion groups

Formation of coordinating group

Measures at the class level

Class rules against bullying

Class meetings with students

Meetings with parents of the class

Measures at the individual level

Serious talks with bullies and victims

Serious talks with parents of involved students

Teacher and parent use of imagination

Development of individual intervention plans

A major issueconcerns factors that are of importance for the adoption and implementation of the program

natural precondition for any effects to occur is of course that the program or essential parts of it have act

been implemented and maintained. This issue can be divided into two separate but related subissues. One

concerns the general (main effect)conditionsorfactorsthat affect adoption and implementation of a

program or educational innovation. There exists a good deal of research on this subissue, in particular in

educational field and with a special focus on large-scale educational reforms (e.g., Fullan, 1991). Beca

of the aims and design of our project (described next), we do not have much research data to shed light o

this subissue. Nonetheless, some of the generalizations made by researchers in the educational field will
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c39http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c42http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c50http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c50http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c42http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c39

7/28/2019 deea 10

4/31

prove meaningful and relevant in the present context and are briefly commented on in the discussion of o

results.

The other subissue, and the one we mainly address in this article, is concerned with differences or variab

in implementation of the program. As expected, some teachers and schools clearly implemented more of

program than others. What were then the characteristics of the teachers/schools that can predict or explai

these differences? The main concern of the present study was with the teachers/schools responses to a

specific, circumscribed intervention program offered to the schools/teachers at a particular point in time.

There seems to exist much less research on this subissue to relate to and to build upon. To the best of our

knowledge, empirical, quantitative studies of factors predicting differences in implementation of a

circumscribed intervention program in the personal/social-development area are very scarce.

It is obvious, however, that systematic research on this subissue can presumably be very useful and, in

particular, can help make implementation of a program or educational innovation more effective. Such

knowledge may also contribute to the establishment and development of a science of effective

implementation. As emphasized by Biglan (1995), The adoption of an effective practice is itself a beh

in need of scientific research (p. 15).

Given the absence of a developed implementation science, our empirical analyses in the present article h

be guided and structured by some general expectations about factors affecting implementation derived fr

prior theorizing and empirical findings. These general theoretical expectations and their bases are brief

outlined in the next section.

The present article sketches first our general theoretical expectations, which is then followed, in the Meth

section, by a summary description of the intervention program and its goals. After having presented the k

components of the program at the school, classroom, and individual levels, we introduce the two measur

degree of implementationthe Classroom Intervention Measures andIndividual Contactindicesalon

with a brief description of the selected predictors. We use multilevel techniques for most of our statisticaanalyses because of the hierarchical structure of the data and because of our interest in identifying factor

related to implementation at both the teacher/classroom and the school levels. The empirical analyses are

followed by a discussion of the findings and some of their implications.

Specifically, the key research questions of our study can be summarized in the following way: What fact

if any, can predict degree of or differences in implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program

the teacher/classroom level? Additionally, what factors, if any, can predict differences in teacher

implementation aggregated at the school level (school differences), over and above what has been predic

at the teacher/classroom level?

General Theoretical Expectations

Perceived need for a program. As emphasized by Fullan (1982, 1991, 1998), among others, successful

implementation of a new intervention program or educational reform is probably possible only if it meet

clear need in the targeted persons or institutions. In the present study, we assumed that a teachers

experienced need for a program was related to his or her Perceived Level of Bullying in his or her own

classroom, which was one of the predictors of degree of implementation (see the Method section).
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c4http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c8http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c10http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c10http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c8http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c4

7/28/2019 deea 10

5/31

Teacher efficacy. As Smylie (1990) has shown, the concept of teacher efficacy (cf. Bandura, 1986) has b

defined in several different ways, but a common element is the beliefs that individual teachers hold abo

their own capacities or abilities to act in ways that bring about student learning and development (p. 49)

Despite the conceptual ambiguities, Research has identified a number of significant relationships betwe

teacher efficacy and teacher work performance and outcomes (Smylie, 1990, p. 57), including

implementation of educational innovations (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; McLaughlin

Marsh, 1990). In light of this research, we used a measure ofPerceived Staff Importance (with regard to

bullying) as a possible indicator of teacher efficacy and a predictor of program implementation.

Appropriate skills. In general, it is reasonable to assume that implementation of a program is facilitated

teachers have the appropriate skills for dealing with the targeted problem (cf. Calhoun & Joyce, 1998; Fu

1991; Green & Kreuter, 1999; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1990; Webster-Stratton, 1998). The aim of the

developed program information was to provide some research-based knowledge about bully/victim prob

and their characteristics and to give guidelines for how to deal with such problems. It is natural to regard

program information as a precondition to appropriate implementation, even though teachers may need ot

forms of support and assistance as well. In the present study, we measured the extent to which teachers h

read the printed program information received, which was captured in the predictorRead ProgramInformation.

Values and attitudes. Green and Kreuter (1999, p. 40, pp. 161164) have emphasized the importance of

teachers values and attitudes in their general model of program implementation. It is often argued that th

point is particularly relevant with regard to schools because teachers have a high degree of professional

autonomy and they typically perform their work in an isolated structure, within their own classrooms

(Hargreaves, 1992; Kirby, Stringfield, Teddlie, & Wimpelberg, 1992; Lagerweij & Voogt, 1990; Nias, 1

In the present study, we used two different indices of teachers attitudes toward bullying. One of these

measures,Readiness to Intervene,focuses on the perceived importance of making or getting into contact

the parents of the implicated children in a possible bully/victim problem. The other measure,Information

about Break Times, mainly reflects the perceived importance of having a good overview of the students

activities during break periods.

Affective involvement. We assume that teachers general emotional responsiveness and emphatic

identification with victims of bullying will increase their motivation to counteract such problems. Two

different measures were used in the present study:Affective Involvementand Self-Victimized as a Child.

School factors. In the international literature on innovations in schools, it is usually claimed that the role

the principal/leadership group is vital to almost any successful changes in schools (Berman & McLaughl1977, 1978; Fullan, 1991, 1997; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Mortimore, 1988; Stoll, 1999). It has also been

reported that other aspects of teachers work climate have considerable relevance for processes of change

schools. This point is clearly stated by Fullan (1991) when he concluded that the quality of working

relationships among teachers is strongly related to implementation (p. 77; see also Fullan, 1998;

McLaughlin, 1991, 1998; Stoll, 1999). In line with this research, our main interest was focused on variab

reflecting aspects of the school climate and the schools general involvement with and attention to bull

problems. The school climate was measured with four previously derived dimensions (Kallestad, Olweu

Alsaker, 1998): (a) TeacherLeadership Collaboration, (b) TeacherTeacherCollaboration, (c) Openne
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c6http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c14http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c28http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c54http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c14http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c15http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c22http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c23http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c19http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c3http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c10http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c24http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c30http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c53http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c11http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c26http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c27http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c53http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c53http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c27http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c26http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c11http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c53http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c30http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c24http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c10http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c3http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c19http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c23http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c22http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c15http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c14http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c54http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c28http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c14http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c6http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c51

7/28/2019 deea 10

6/31

Communication, and (d) Orientation to Change. In addition, we constructed an index labeled School

Attention to Bullying Problems.

Method

Participants

The present study is part of a large-scale, longitudinal research program under the direction of Dan Olwe

which is known as School as a Context for Social Development. The overriding focus of the project is on

bully/victim problems in school and, in particular, on the implementation and effects of the Olweus Bull

Prevention Program (see, e.g., Olweus, 1991, 1992, 1993a, 1994, 1999b, 1999c; Olweus & Limber, 1999

Data covering a wide range of variables and reported by different groups of informants including studen

teachers, principals, and parents were collected at several time points over a period of 2.5 years (May

1983October 1985). The key instruments of data collection were self-report questionnaires (see, e.g.,

Kallestad et al., 1998; Olweus, 1991).

The sampling procedure was based on classes/schools in a quasi-experimental design with four different

cohorts of students who were in Grades 69 in the presented analyses (according to the current grade sys

Classes/schools were allocated to cohorts by a basically random procedure. For the present study, we

analyzed teacher questionnaire data from two time points: here referred to as Time 1 (October/November

1983) and Time 2 (May/June 1984). All teachers included in the study were homeroom (main) teachers a

in accordance with Norwegian practice, taught a majority of the lessons in their own classrooms (on aver

19 lessons per week). The classes were fairly evenly spread over Grades 69. Only teachers with valid d

both time points were included in the multilevel analyses, which reduced the original, longitudinal sampl

from 112 to 89 teachers distributed across 37 schools. Data from the student participants were not includthe following analyses.

The school system in Bergen (the second largest town in Norway, with approximately 200,000 inhabitan

does not deviate markedly from the school system in other town communities of Norway. Accordingly, t

sample of teachers in the present study is likely to be broadly representative of teachers in the communit

Bergen and other town communities of Norway as well.

A Brief Description of the Olweus Bullying Preventi

Program

The overriding goals of the program can be stated as follows (Olweus, 1993a): (a) to reduce as much as

possible, if not eliminate, existing bully/victim problems inside and outside of the school setting; (b) to

prevent the development of new bully/victim problems; and (c) to achieve better peer relations at school

create conditions that allow victims and bullies, in particular, to get along and function better inside and

outside of the school setting.

These goals may be summarized in one general statement to the effect that schools should be safe and
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c34http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c37http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c40http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c41http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c37http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c37http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c41http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c40http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c37http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c34

7/28/2019 deea 10

7/31

positive learning environments.

Given the considerable stability of aggressive behavior over time (e.g., Olweus, 1979) and the generally

or modest success in reducing such behavior with a number of individual-oriented approaches, an import

premise of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is that bullying behavior can be checked and redirec

into more prosocial directions through a systematic restructuring of the social environment. Among othe

outcomes, this restructuring is expected to result in changes in the opportunity and reward structures

bullying behavior, resulting in fewer opportunities for bullying and fewer or smaller rewards (e.g., in theform of material rewards, prestige, or peer support) for displaying such behavior (see Olweus, 1993a, 20

Olweus & Limber, 1999).

Generally, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is built around a limited set of key principles and

findings derived chiefly from research on the development and modification of implicated problem

behaviors; particularly, aggressive behavior (see, e.g., Olweus, 1993a, 1994). An overview of the progra

presented in Table 1. More details about the specific measures to be used at the school, classroom, and

individual levels are found in other publications (Olweus, 1993a, 2001b; Olweus & Limber, 1999).

The intervention program was introduced to the schools in the fall (October/November) of 1983 and

continued to be in place (to varying degrees) for the remaining period of the project. More concretely, th

following materials were used in the intervention part of the project.

A booklet for teachers/school personneldescribing what is known about bully/victim problems (or rathe

what was known in 1983) and giving guidelines and suggestions about what teachers and the school coul

to counteract and prevent problems (Olweus & Roland, 1983). Efforts were also made to dispel common

myths about the nature and causes of bully/victim problems that might interfere with an adequate handlin

them. All main/homeroom teachers of the participating classes (and most other teachers in the participati

schools) received a copy of this booklet.

A four-page folder with information and advice for parents of victims and bullies as well as ordinary

children. This folder was distributed by the teachers to the families of participating students.

A 25-min video cassette showing episodes from the everyday lives of two bullied children: a 10-year-old

and a 14-year-old girl. All participating schools received one or more copies of this video.

As indicated previously, our small project group had regular contact with the schools in connection with

several surveys conducted. Fifteen months after the program was first offered to the schools, individual

feedback information was presented in meetings with the staff at each of the 42 participating schools. Th

meetings focused on the level of problems in the particular school and the social environments (teachers

parents, and peers) reactions to the problems. The main principles of the program and the major procedu

proposed for intervention were also presented and discussed. Generally, this addition to the program, as

as the program itself, was quite favorably received by the teachers, as expressed in their ratings and

comments (Manger & Olweus, 1985).

Two Measures of Implementation
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c33http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c43http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c37http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c43http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c47http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c29http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c29http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c47http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c43http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c37http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c43http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c33

7/28/2019 deea 10

8/31

The individual homeroom teacher is a key person in the implementation and maintenance of the Olweus

Bullying Prevention Program. Accordingly, we developed two different indices of the degree of

implementation at the teacher or classroom level: the Classroom Intervention Measures andIndividual

Contactindices (measuring contact with students and parents of involved students). Because we also wan

to explore possible school differences in degree of implementation, these two measures were aggregated

the school level as part of the statistical analyses.

The Classroom Intervention Measures is an additive index consisting of seven specific intervention meaand three questions about the degree to which the individual teacher, in his or her own view, had involve

him- or herself, the students in the class, and their parents in counteracting bullying during the past sprin

term (45 months in the Norwegian school system). The individual items of this index were scored on 2-

point scales (01 or 02, respectively). Brief information on the content and coding of the items is presen

in Table 2.

Table 2

Percentage of Teachers With a Positive Scorea on Items Included in

Classroom Intervention Measures

Items/scales %

Classroom Intervention Measures (sum of items 110) 89

Specific Intervention Measures (sum of items 17 below) 83

1. Role-play 11

2. Literature 49

3. Class rulesb 27

4. Class meetingsc 25

5. Video 21

6. Information folder to parentsd 32

7. Other actions 23

Involvement (sum of items 810 below) 64

8. General teacher involvemente 43

9. Involvement of students 53

10. Involvement of parents 6

Note.n (number of teachers) varying between 80 and 89.

aApplied once or several times. bNo class rules against bullying (0) / had class

rules already (1) / introduced class rules (2). cNo class meetings on bullying (0) /

regular class meetings (2). dInformation folder distributed (1) / not distributed

(0). eDegree of involvement recoded to 3-point scale (02).

The correlation between the sum scores of the seven specific intervention measures and the three items o

teacher involvement was .59 (p = .000). In addition, preliminary multilevel analyses with these two aspe

classroom intervention gave similar results. Accordingly, we decided to combine all 10 items of Table 2

7/28/2019 deea 10

9/31

one Classroom Intervention Measures index. However, to provide somewhat more detailed information,

also present summary data on these two different aspects of classroom intervention in Table 2 (named

Specific Intervention Measures and Involvement, respectively, in the table).

When teachers recognize or suspect that there is a bully/victim problem in their classroom, the program

strongly recommends that they contact the students involved and, usually, their parents (cf. see Measures

the Individual Level in Table 1). Against this background, we constructed an index,Individual Contact,

reflecting the degree of contact made with bullied/bullying students and their parents. There were thus fo

possible targets of contact, the bullied and the bullying student(s), respectively, and their parents. Each

variable was scored dichotomously (1 = contact and 0 = no contact), and, accordingly, a teacher could ge

maximum score of four on this index.

Predictors in the Multilevel Models

The selected potential predictors were measured at either Time 1 or Time 2, with one exception in which

were available at both time points. Time of measurement (T1 and T2) is indicated within parentheses for

of the potential predictors in the following paragraphs.

Perceived Level of Bullying (T1 + T2). Three items were used to measure the degree to which teachers

perceived bullying as a problem in their own classrooms. The teachers reported the estimated number of

students participating in bullying, being bullied, and being excluded by other students. The index was

constructed as a mean score of the three items at Time 1and Time 2. The internal consistency reliability

the scale (Cronbachs alpha) was .78.

Perceived Staff Importance (T1). Three separate questions were used to measure the importance of the

homeroom teacher, other teachers, and leadership group (including the principal and vice principal),

respectively, with regard to counteracting bullying in school. Each question was answered on a 6-point swith responses ranging from 0 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). The empirical analyses showe

that, on average, the teachers considered themselves, their colleagues, and the leadership group to be of

almost equal importance for reducing bullying in school. The data showed considerable individual

differences, however, and the index comprising the three items showed an internal consistency reliability

.80 (Cronbachs alpha).

Read Program Information (T2). The teachers reported whether they had read the information booklet o

bully/victim problems distributed to all teachers in the project. The response alternatives were 0 (no),

1(superficially), and 2 (yes). The teachers were also asked whether they had read the four-page folderdeveloped for parents, with response categories 0 (no) and 1 (yes). The Read Program Information index

constructed as a sum score of the two items mentioned previously. The Pearson productmoment correla

between the two items was .32 (p = .003).

Readiness to Intervene (T2). This indicates the extent to which teachers were inclined to make contact w

the parents of a possible victim or bully in situations in which there was only a suspicion, and not clear

evidence, of a bully/victim problem. Two items focused on the teachers own possible contacts with pare

of victims and/or bullies, whereas the two remaining items asked about whether he or she thought such
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl1

7/28/2019 deea 10

10/31

contacts should be made by the parents in such somewhat ambiguous situations. The questions were scor

on a 4-point scale, representing 0 (no), 1 (maybe), 2 (quite likely), and 3 (definitely yes). This index repre

the mean score of the four items. The internal consistency reliability of the index (Cronbachs alpha) wa

Information About Break Times (T1) The teachers reported whether they had a reasonably good overview

the students activities during break times and whether they considered such information to be important

them. These two items were scored on a 6-point scale, with responses ranging from 0 (not important at a

5 (veryimportant). The index was constructed as a mean score of the two items. The Pearson correlation

between the two items was .31 (p = .004).

Affective Involvement (T2). Two items covered teachers attitude and affective involvement with regard

bullying. The teachers were asked about their emotional reactions to the individual students bullying of

students (reactions varying from [understanding] to [being very upset]), and what they felt if they saw or

realized that a student was being bullied (from [feeling nothing] to [being very upset]). The items were sc

on a 4-point scale (03). The indexAffective Involvementwas constructed as a mean score of the two item

(Cronbachs alpha .68).

Self-Victimized as a Child (T2). The teachers were asked about whether they themselves had been victimas children in school. This single item was scored on a 4-point scale, with response categories indicating

extent to which they had been bullied (from [no], [never], to [yes, in several different time periods]).

Teacher background variables (T1). Several background variables were included in the regression analy

the teachers age and gender, number of years of education, years of service at the school, and type of

employment contract (ordinary/substitute teacher). In addition, we included the grade level of the teache

homeroom class.

School climate (T1). In considering potential, conceptually meaningful predictors at the school level, ourmain focus was on variables reflecting aspects of the school climate and the schools general involvemen

with and attention to bullying problems. As detailed in a previous paper (Kallestad et al., 1998), school

climate was measured in this project (using the same samples of teachers as in this article) with four key

factorially derived dimensions: (a) TeacherLeadership Collaboration (e.g., The collaboration between

teachers and the leadership group is generally good), (b) TeacherTeacher Collaboration (Teachers at

school are helpful toward each other), (c) Openness in Communication (I talk openly with the other

teachers at school about my relationship with my students), and (d) Orientation to Change (I am very

interested in trying new ways of dealing with students). These climate dimensions showed good

psychometric properties (e.g., in terms of reliability and stability over time; see Kallestad et al., 1998) al

at the level of the individual teacher; they had as expected even better such properties when the teacher d

were aggregated by school.

School Attention to Bullying Problems (T2). A special index, consisting of five items, measuring the sch

attention to bullying problems was also constructed. The items referred to whether the school leadership

group had presented results from the questionnaire survey (made in October/November 1983) for its own

school to the staff and whether a special working group of teachers at the school had discussed and

summarized the results. Included in this index were also questions about possible formal and informal sta

discussions about bullying and whether the school had arranged a special school conference day on bully
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20

7/28/2019 deea 10

11/31

Three of the items were scored asyes or no (10), whereas two items were scored on a 3-point scale

reflecting frequency of meetings and informal discussions (20). The responses to these questions derive

from individual teachers, were aggregated across schools and combined into a sum score for each school

The Pearson correlations among the predictor variables at the teacher/classroom and school levels are

presented in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

As indicated previously, the selected potential predictor variables were (with one exception) measured ateither Time 1 (before implementation of the intervention program) or Time 2. Accordingly, when using t

termprediction, we do it in the general regression-analytic sense of estimating values on an outcome var

on the basis of information from one or more other (predictor) variables. However, several of the

relationships reported actually reflect true temporal prediction, with the predictor variables (such as

Perceived Staff Importance andInformation about Break Times) being measured about 6 months before

outcome variable. For other relationships, predictor and outcome variables were measured at the same tim

(Time 2; in some cases, however, the information contained in the predictor variable referred to

events/activities that presumably occurred several months earlier, as with regard toRead Program

Information, for example). The items included in School Attention to BullyingProblems were measured

Time 2, but most of these items referred to activities that normally took place in the early stages of theimplementation process.

Multilevel Analyses

As mentioned, the data of the present study have a hierarchical structure with teachers nested within scho

Because of this structure, and with possible predictor variables at both the teacher and school levels, it is

only natural but actually required to analyze the results with multilevel model techniques (see, e.g., Bryk

Raudenbush, 1992; Goldstein, 1987).

In the present study we used the ML3E-program (Prosser, Rasbash, & Goldstein, 1991) for the statistical

analyses. Estimation in multilevel analyses is usually performed in three steps that are referred to in the n

section as the unconditional model, the within-school model, and the between-schools model.

Results

Some Descriptive Data on the Implementation

Measures

As shown in Table 2, 83% of the teachers reported that they had used in their own classroom at least one

specific measure proposed in the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Use of literature (in order to de

and make concrete the meaning of bullying and to increase empathy with victims) was the specific meas

most frequently used (49%), whereas role-play was least frequently applied (11%). Table 2 also shows th

64% of the teachers reported at least one positive answer on the three-itemInvolvementindex. It may be

noted that few of the teachers (6%) had specifically involved parents in antibullying work at the classroo
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Ahttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c13http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c48http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c48http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c13http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#A

7/28/2019 deea 10

12/31

level (in parent classroom meetings, for example; however, the percentage was clearly higher with regard

individual contacts, see next paragraph). Overall, a total of 89% of the teachers had at least one positive

on the summary Classroom Intervention Measures index.

Table 3 shows that 60% of the teachers had at least one positive score (reported contact) onIndividual

Contact. The table also displays the percentage of teachers who had minimum one positive score on each

the individual items included in the summary index. Contact with students was more common than conta

with parents, as expected. More detailed analyses showed that 58% of the teachers reported contact with

students (positive score on Item 1 or Item 2 in Table 3), whereas 38% of the teachers had made contact w

parents of involved students (positive score on Item 3 or Item 4 in Table 3).

Table 3

Percentage of Teachers With a Positive Scorea on Items

Included in Individual Contact

Items/scales %

Individual Contact (sum of items 14 below) 60

1. Contact with victimized student 40

2. Contact with bullying student 44

3. Contact with parents of victimized student 24

4. Contact with parents of bullying student 25

Note.n (number of teachers) = 89.

aAt least one contact in the past 34 months.

Decomposition of Variance in Outcome Measures(Unconditional Model)

First, a simple variance components model was fitted to the two outcome variablesClassroom Interven

Measures andIndividual Contactto decompose the variance into a within-school and a between-schoo

component. In this model, the unconditional model, no predictor variables were included. Estimation of t

within-school (2) and the between-school variances () permits calculation of the total variance (2 +

the outcome measures and the proportion of the total variance in individual teacher reports that is within between schools, respectively.

The between-school variance was estimated at .14 for Classroom InterventionMeasures and at zero for

Individual Contact. There was thus no reliable between-school variance for theIndividual Contactindex

whereas 14% of the total variance in the Classroom Intervention Measure index was reliable variance

between schools (cf. Kallestad et al., 1998). Introduction of within-school (teacher-level) predictors will

usually reduce the within-school variance. It should be noted, however, that introduction of within-schoo

predictors may also affect the estimate of the between-schools variance, making it smaller or larger

depending on the pattern of relations among the predictors and the outcome variable (see next section).
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl3http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl3

7/28/2019 deea 10

13/31

Predicting Implementation With Teacher-LevelPredictors: The Within-School Models

In the second stage of analysis, we predicted the two implementation measures on the basis of the selecte

predictors at the teacher/classroom level. Estimation of the within-school model was performed in the

following way, modeled on the approach used by Rowan, Raudenbush, and Kang (1991). In the first runentered all predictors into the model. Predictors with regression coefficients less than 1.5 times their

estimated standard error were dropped from the analyses, and the model was reestimated. In the final mo

the coefficients had to be at least twice their standard errors to be considered significant (but near-signifi

predictors were kept in the model). Proportion of predicted variance was calculated by subtracting the ne

(residual) within-school variance component from the corresponding component in the unconditional mo

(without predictors) and by dividing by the latter component.

Predictors and proportions of predicted variance are reported in Table 4. Although for convenience the ta

also shows the results for the between-school model, in this section we focus on the within-school analy

Table 4

Predicting Classroom Intervention Measures

Predictor

Regression

coefficient

Standard

error

(SE)

Within-school predictor

Perceived Staff Importance 1.552** .288

Read Program Information 1.272** .280

Perceived Level of Bullying 1.310* .465

Self-Victimized as a Child 0.724* .332

Affective Involvement 0.609* .299

Between-school predictor

Openness in Communication 1.270* .519

School Attention to Bullying Problems 0.517* .228

TeacherTeacher Collaboration 1.100 .770

Unconditional variance

Within schools 9.055

Between schools 1.528

Residual variance (within model)



Residual variance (between model)
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c49http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c49

7/28/2019 deea 10

14/31



Percentage of explained variance

Within schools 53.4a

Between schools 50.2b

Note.n = 84.

a Percentage variance explained is calculated as the difference in variance estimates between

unconditional model and within-school model: 53.4%: (9.055 4.216) 100/9.055. b

Percentage variance explained is calculated as the difference in between-school variance

estimates in within-school model (residual variance) and between-school model: 50.2%: (2.678

1.335) 100/2.678.

* Denotes a coefficient (an unstandardized regression coefficient) that is at least twice as large as

its standard error (SE). ** Denotes a coefficient that is at least three times as large as its standard

error.

As evident from Table 4, 53.4% of the within-school variance (a reduction from 9.055 to 4.216) in degre

implementation of the Classroom Intervention Measures could be predicted by the five predictors listed the upper panel of the table(Perceived StaffImportance,Read Program Information, Perceived Level of

Bullying, Self-Victimized as a Child, andAffective Involvement).

One of the two strongest predictors wasRead Program Information indicating that teachers who had

themselves actually read the distributed information about the program, the teacher booklet, and the four

page parent folder implemented more of the Classroom Intervention Measures. Similarly, teachers who

believed that the actions of the staff (themselves, other teachers, and the school management) were impo

for the outcome in counteracting bullying in the classroom (Perceived Staff Importance) implemented m

of the specific classroom measures.

Furthermore, teachers who perceived more bully/victim problems in their own classrooms, as indicated b

Perceived Level of Bullying, tended to have higher scores on the Classroom Intervention Measures. The

two significant predictors were both related to the individual teachers degree of affective involvement in

bully/victim problems. Teachers who reported that they had themselves been exposed to some degree of

victimization in their school years (Self-Victimized as a Child) and who reacted more negatively and wer

more upset about victimization of students (Affective Involvement) tended to implement more of the

Classroom Intervention Measures.

It should be noted that all of the teacher background variables (Appendix A) were only marginally relatethe implementation measure and, therefore, were not included in the final model.

The results from the within-school model, with regression coefficients standardized (the B coefficients

multiplied by the ratio of the within-school standard deviation in the relevant predictor variable to the wi

school standard deviation in Classroom Intervention Measures), are graphically displayed in Figure 1. It

be noted that the correlations among the predictors were generally quite low, the highest value being .23

.031, between Self-Victimized as a Childand Perceived Level of Bullying;Appendix A).
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Ahttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Ahttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Ahttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#A

7/28/2019 deea 10

15/31

Figure 1. Teacher-level factors predicting implementation ofClassroom InterventionMeasures (within-

school model). Figures close to arrows are standardized regression coefficients.

With regard toIndividual Contact, 33.6% of the within-school variance (a reduction from 1.856 to 1.233

could be predicted by the five predictors listed in Table 5. Two of these predictors, Perceived Level of

Bullying and Perceived Staff Importance, were also significant in predicting Classroom Intervention

Measures. The third significant predictor wasInformation about Break Times (see Table 5 and Figure 2)

Table 5

Predicting Individual Contact

Predictor

Regression

coefficient

Standard

error

(SE)
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig2

7/28/2019 deea 10

16/31

Within-school predictor

Perceived Level of Bullying 1.063** .209

Perceived Staff Importance .289* .139

Information About Break Times .320* .155

Readiness to Intervene .296 .190

Ordinary/Substitute Teacher .710 .374

Unconditional variance

Within schools 1.856Between schools 0

Residual variance


Between schools 0

Percentage of explained variance

Within schools 33.6a

Between schools 0

Note.n = 89.

a Percentage variance explained is calculated as the difference in variance estimates

between the unconditional model and within-school model: 33.6%: (1.856 1.233)

100/1.856.

* Denotes a coefficient (unstandardized regression coefficient) that is at least twice as large

as its standard error (SE). ** Denotes a coefficient that is at least three times as large as its

standard error.

7/28/2019 deea 10

17/31

Figure 2. Teacher-level factors predicting degree ofIndividualContactwith involved students/their pare

(within-school model). Figures close to arrows are standardized regression coefficients.

In the final model forIndividual Contactthere were also two near-significant predictors:Readiness to

Intervene and Substitute/Ordinary Teacher. As expected, the contact readiness variable was positively re

toIndividual Contact. In addition, teachers with a permanent employment contract, in contrast to substitu

teachers, tended to have higher scores onIndividual Contact. The other teacher background variables we

again only weakly related to implementation and, consequently, were not included as predictors in the fin

model. The correlations among the predictors were generally quite weak also in this model, with a highe

value of .27 (p = .011; between Perceived Staff Importance andReadiness to Intervene; Appendix A).

Predicting Implementation with School-LevelPredictors: The Between-Schools Model

As evident from Table 5, there was no reliable between-school variance forIndividual Contactin the

Variance Components Model (Unconditional Model), and this estimate did not change after the teacher-l

predictors were included in the analyses. Accordingly, it was not considered meaningful to pursue the
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Ahttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#A

7/28/2019 deea 10

18/31

analyses at the school level for this implementation variable.

In contrast, for the Classroom Intervention Measures, the between-school variance became larger (an

increase from 1.528 to 2.678; see Table 4) when predictors at the teacher-level were entered and controll

for. This implies that the scores on the within-school predictors were not evenly distributed across schoo

When this fact was taken into account and adjusted for in the within-school model, the between-school

variance in implementation actually increased (the residual between-school variance now constituting 39

the total residual variance). This result indicates that prediction of the Classroom InterventionMeasurescould also be meaningfully pursued at the school level. For these analyses, it is natural to use the adjuste

(residual) between-school variance as a baseline for calculating proportion of predicted variance. Genera

estimation of the between-schools models followed the same procedure as those described for the within

school models.

Table 4 shows that 50.2% of the between-school variance could be predicted by three school-level predic

(the school climate dimensions): Opennessin Communication, TeacherTeacher Collaboration

(nonsignificant), and the index School Attention to Bullying Problems. If only the two significant predict

were included in the model, 43.5% of the variance could be predicted.

As suggested previously, the items making up the school climate dimension Openness in Communicatio

mainly concern questions about frequency of informal conversations with other colleagues about classro

work and relationships with students (see Kallestad et al., 1998). Schools characterized by openness in

communication among staff were thus more likely to implement more of the Classroom Intervention

Measures.

It is also worth noting that the other school climate dimension in the table, TeacherTeacher Collaborat

somewhat surprisingly, showed a negative relationship with the outcome variable (though it did not quite

reach significance in the final analyses). The implication is that schools characterized by good

collaboration among the teachers actually tended to implement less of the intervention program.

The special index School Attention to Bullying Problems, described previously, was also clearly related t

schools degree of implementation of the Classroom Intervention Measures. Teachers in schools that had

example, presented the questionnaire survey results in a plenary meeting and arranged a special school

conference day on bullying were thus more likely to implement the specific Classroom Intervention

Measures.

As shown in Appendix B, two pairs of variables were substantially correlated in school-level analyses, th

TeacherTeacher Collaboration and the TeacherLeadershipCollaboration dimensions, on one hand (r.68,p = .000; Appendix B), and the Openness inCommunication and Orientation to Change dimensions

the other (r= .52,p = .001; Appendix B). This is likely to have made it more difficult to disentangle the

unique contributions of the individual variables in these variable pairs in the school-level analyses.

Discussion of Results

The present study shows that at least some part of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program was actually
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl4http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl4http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c20http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl4http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl4

7/28/2019 deea 10

19/31

into practice by most teachers in our sample. Almost 90% of the teachers had at least one positive score o

Classroom Intervention Measures, and as much as 83% had at least one positive score on the items maki

up the subcategory Specific Intervention Measures in Table 2. Although this may be seen as a relatively

satisfactory overall result, it should be noted that the degree of implementation varied considerably amon

teachers (and schools). In particular, more advanced or maybe demanding measures such as role-play,

rules, and class meetings were used less frequently.

To foreshadow results to be reported in a separate article, degree of implementation of a particular

intervention component did not correspond directly with its effectiveness in reducing bully/victim proble

Nonetheless, there was overall a significant and substantial correlation between degree of implementatio

the Classroom Intervention Measures as a general index and degree of reduction of bully/victim problem

A positive score onIndividual Contactpresupposes, as mentioned earlier, that the teacher had identified,

suspected the existence of, a bully/victim problem in his or her classroom. As evident from Table 3, 60%

the teachers had a positive score onIndividual Contact. As long as we do not know how many of the tea

remained passive after having identified a (possible) bullying problem in their own classrooms, it is diffi

to give this result a precise interpretation. Nonetheless, 60% seems to be a relatively high percentage in

consideration of the fact that the reference period for reporting was this springa period of 45 mon

With regard to the key aim of the present study, that of predicting degree ofimplementation of the

intervention program, the results of the empirical analyses must be considered successful. For both outco

variables, Classroom Intervention Measures andIndividual Contact, substantial amounts of variance, 53

and 33.6%, respectively, were accounted for by the teacher-level predictors in the final within-school mo

for the Classroom Intervention Measures, a considerable 50.2% of the (adjusted) between-school varianc

could be predicted by three school-level predictors. As reported in the Results section, there was no relia

between-school variance for theIndividual Contactindex, and, accordingly, no school-level models wer

estimated for this outcome variable.

We now continue with a more detailed discussion of the empirical findings, starting with the within-scho

models followed by the between-school model for Classroom Intervention Measures.

Teacher-Level Predictors

Perceived Level of Bullying (in own class) was important with regard to prediction of both outcome varia

Individual Contact(with a standardized beta coefficient of .45; see Figure 2) and Classroom Intervention

Measures (with a standardized beta coefficient of .25; see Figure 1). It is natural to expect that teachers w

have recognized, or suspect the existence of, bully/victim problems in their own classrooms will be more

likely to make contact with involved students and their parents. It is also quite understandable that the

teachers perceptions of the level of bullying problems are likely to affect their willingness to introduce m

specific classroom measures.

As seen in the uppermost part of the program overview in Table 1, awareness and involvement on the pa

adults are seen as important general prerequisites to effective implementation of the program. In our rece

intervention work, systematic use of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996, in press; So
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl3http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c38http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c52http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c52http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c38http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig2http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl3http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl2

7/28/2019 deea 10

20/31

& Olweus, 2003) is considered an important vehicle for raising awareness and thereby increasing

involvement of the adults at school, in particular. To assess the level of problems, we strongly recommen

schools to carry out a survey with the questionnaire in an early phase as part of the intervention package

This is likely to give the teachers a reasonably realistic picture of the situation with regard to bully/victim

problems in their own school and thereby increase their readiness to engage in antibullying work, when

needed (which is actually needed in most schools, as of today). We also recommend schools to administe

questionnaire 1 year after the first assessment to find out what may have been achieved or not achieved a

what needs continuing or newly implemented efforts.

It is important to emphasize, however, that perceived level of bullying problems was by no means the on

important predictor of the outcome (implementation) variables concerned. With regard to Classroom

Intervention Measures, this index was most strongly predicted by Perceived Staff Importance (with a

standardized beta coefficient of .47; see Figure 1). This result implies that teachers who saw themselves,

colleagues, and the schools as important agents of change for counteracting bully/victim problems among

their students were more likely to involve themselves in antibullying efforts and to introduce specific

classroom measures. This finding is clearly in line with previous research concerning teacher efficacy,

which was mentioned in the introduction of the article. It is natural to assume that this result also implies

belief on the part of these teachers that it was actually possible to reduce the level of such problems throusystematic classroom and school activities.

Perceived Staff Importance also predictedIndividual Contact, but somewhat less strongly than Classroo

Intervention Measures (with a standardized beta coefficient of .19). This may possibly indicate that teach

considered such actions more demanding or difficult and that they were less convinced about the success

such contacts.

It may be suggested that Perceived Staff Importance not only measures teachers perceived influence but

likely also reflects their perceived responsibility for doing something about bullying in their own classro

With such an interpretation, this result also implies that teachers who saw it as their own, as well as theschools, task and professional responsibility to counteract bully/victim problems among their students w

more likely to involve themselves in antibullying efforts and to introduce specific classroom measures.

Forceful legislation in this area, with responsibility for preventing and counteracting bullying problems b

clearly placed with the teachers and the school leadership, is certainly one of several worthwhile means o

increasing teachers perceived importance and responsibility on this point (cf., e.g., Olweus, 1999b; Smi

1999).

The remaining predictors in Tables 4 and 5 were not common for the two outcome measures. Another

important predictor ofClassroom InterventionMeasures was the variableRead Program Information (wstandardized beta coefficient of .36; see Figure 1). The information materials, the teacher booklet, and th

parent folder had two key aims: to provide some research-based knowledge about bully/victim problems

to give guidelines for how to deal with such problems. A straightforward interpretation of this result is th

teachers who read more of the program information became more motivated to do something about the

problem and, in particular, acquired more knowledge about how to counteract the problems through

suggested classroom activities. This perspective was suggested in the introduction. It is, however, also

possible that teachers who were highly involved and motivated at the outset read more of the program

materials and were likely to implement proposed classroom activities to a greater extent than less motiva

colleagues. If the second interpretation is also true (for some teachers), the possible implicated mechanis
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c52http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c40http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c57http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c57http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl4http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl4http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c57http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c57http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c40http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#fig1http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c52

7/28/2019 deea 10

21/31

are likely to be more complex and may involve reciprocal causal processes between theRead Program

Information and the unmeasured motivation variable. Nonetheless, and irrespective of the underlying

mechanisms, having read the available program materials and acquired knowledge about the various pro

components can be seen as an important prerequisite to implementation of the program.

The information about the program and its components provided to teachers can in principle be made mo

less stringent and directive with regard to guidelines and other requirements. Additionally, as has been

pointed out in the literature, teachers general attitude to experts and highly structured programs seems

vary across different time periods (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Fullan, 1982, 1998). The relative lack

detailed advice and how-to-do-it information was probably an advantage for the project at the time when

was initiated. The Zeitgeist has changed markedly over the past 1520 years, however. Today, teachers a

for more detailed instructions, guidelines, and ready-made work materials, as also reflected in a new teac

manual (for details, see Olweus, 2001b; Olweus & Limber, 1999). Also, in order to secure better

understanding and knowledge of the program and its implementation in classroom and break periods, we

have usually established staff discussion groups at each intervention school, under the leadership of pers

who have received special training about the program. All of these activities and other quality control

measures are likely to enhance program fidelity, resulting in more uniform implementation of the progra

This will also imply less between-teachers and between-schools differences in implementation, which isprobably considered a desirable goal by most designers of intervention programs for our time.

The two remaining significant predictors ofClassroom Intervention Measures wereAffective Involvemen

and Self-Victimized as a Child. These variables concern the teachers general emotional responsiveness a

empathic identification with victims of bullying. Although the relationship of these two variables with

Classroom Intervention Measures was somewhat weaker than was the case with the three predictors

discussed earlier, the results point to the importance of the teachers affective involvement for a successf

result, here defined as a relatively high degree of implementation of the program.

This finding may have some implications for teachers who reported weak emotional reactions to bullyingamong students. Judging from reports by parents, it seems reasonable to believe that at least some teache

see victims of bullying in a fairly negative light, as a kind of nuisance that only creates problems and e

work for them. It is of course important to try to change such detached or even hostile views of victims, i

present. Research results on the typical characteristics of victims (Olweus, 1993a) may be of some help i

giving teachers a more realistic picture of the degrading and distressing situation of most victims, as well

providing long-term consequences of persistent victimization (e.g., Olweus, 1993b). Perhaps even more

important would be the use of detailed real-life, literary case descriptions or a well-designed video (such

the NorwegianBullying: Scenes from the Everyday Lives of Two Bullied Children from 1983 or its Ame

counterpartBullying from 1996) that may increase empathic responding and help teachers (and students)

the situation at least, in part, from the perspective of the victim. As suggested by our empirical analyses,

affective involvement is likely to increase the teachers readiness to counteract bullying in their own

classrooms.

With regard to the other outcome variable,Individual Contact, there was one more significant predictor i

final model (Table 5):Information about Break Times. Also, this result makes good sense, indicating tha

awareness about what goes on among the students during break periods is an important prerequisite to ac

intervention with (possible) victims and bullies as well as with their parents.
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c7http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c8http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c11http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c43http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c36http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c36http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c35http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c46http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c43http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c11http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c8http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c7

7/28/2019 deea 10

22/31

Two more predictors ofIndividual Contactwere retained in the model (Table 5), although they did not q

reach significance in the final analyses,Readiness to Intervene and Substitute/Ordinary Teacher. The fir

these variables reflects the teachers willingness to be contacted by the parents, or to make contact

themselves with the parents, if there is only a suspicion that a student is involved in bully/victim problem

Teachers with a low threshold for such contacts were somewhat more likely to initiate contact with bulli

bullying students and their parents than teachers with a higher threshold.

Finally, teachers with a temporary employment contract (substitute teachers) made fewer contacts than

teachers on the permanent staff (ordinary teachers). This result may be interpreted to suggest that the

substitute teachers were less knowledgeable of the peer relationships among the students in the class, ma

it more difficult to identify bully/victim problems among the students. In addition, or alternatively, these

teachers who are often newcomers to the school might be more reluctant to address these issues because

the possible trouble or negative attention such action may entail.

Before closing this section, we call attention to the lack of relationship between degree of implementatio

and the age variable. The common assumption that younger teachers have a more positive attitude to cha

and, consequently, are more open to new ideas and programs than their older colleagues received little

support in our study (cf. Huberman, 1988, p. 129). More generally, background variables such as teacherage, gender, and professional experience seemed to be of little importance with regard to adoption and u

the intervention program.

School-Level Predictors

First, we want to reiterate the finding that teachers degree of implementation ofClassroom Intervention

Measures varied systematically among schools, whereas degree ofIndividual Contactdid not. This latte

result suggests that few or no schools in the study had a clear school policy about handling identified or

suspected bully/victim situations; it was largely up to the individual teacher to decide how to address sucproblems. On the basis of this result, we limited our efforts to identify significant and meaningful predict

of theIndividual Contactvariable to the teacher/classroom level. For Classroom Intervention Measures,

however, we also examined potential predictors at the school level.

Our school-level analyses focused on work-related aspects of the school climate and the schools attentio

bully/victim problems. A major finding was that schools with a higher degree ofOpenness in Communic

among the teachers implemented more of the Classroom Intervention Measures (with a standardized bet

coefficient of .49). At the same time, considering the zero-order correlations, it is obvious that the climat

variable Orientation to Change was also substantially related to the Classroom InterventionMeasures

variable (r= .48,p = .003; see Appendix B). However, much of the variance predicted by Orientation to

Change was also predicted by the Openness in Communication variable, thereby reducing the contributio

the Orientation toChange variable to a nonsignificant level in the between-school model. Because of the

sizeable correlation between these two school climate predictors (r= .52,p = .001; see Appendix B), it s

reasonable to extend somewhat the previous conclusion to the effect that schools characterized by openn

in communication among staff and a generally positive attitude to change were particularly likely to

implement the program.

Our study thus shows that school climate measures were important predictors of school differences in
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl5http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c18http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c18http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl5

7/28/2019 deea 10

23/31

teachers implementation of the program. This finding relates to Fullans (1991) statement, mentioned in

introduction, that the quality of working relationships among teachers is strongly related to implementa

(p. 77). If we define quality of working relationships as openness in communication and positive attitu

change, our study clearly supports this statement. From this perspective, it will probably be easier for a

school to meet new challenges and, for example, implement a new school-based intervention program if

school has already acquired a basic capacity to handle changes. Our study suggests that openness in colle

communication and a generally positive attitude to change among staff may be important resources in su

processes.

However, if we define quality of working relationships by reference to the TeacherTeacher Collaborat

variable, our results actually run counter to Fullans (1991) generalization and our expectations. In the

between-school model in Table 4, there was a negative relationship between this variable and Classroom

Intervention Measures (the regression coefficient was nonsignificant, but the zero-order correlation was

rather substantial, r= .34,p = .037; see Appendix B). Obviously, high general satisfaction with the wor

relationships with other teachers does not always promote a proactive attitude toward problems and new

challenges. It may even be the other way around as the negative relationship suggests, implying that teac

actually try to avoid changes in schools where the collegial collaboration is particularly good. Such an

interpretation is strengthened by the substantial negative correlation of.40 (p = .014; see Appendix B)between TeacherTeacherCollaboration and (positive) Orientation to Change. Although somewhat

unexpected, these results are actually consistent with statements made by educational researchers such a

Little (1990) who said that to promote increased teacher-to-teacher contact may be to intensify norms

unfavorable to children (p. 524). At the very least, our findings do not support the common view that

improvement of the situation for the students in a school must start by creating better quality of the work

relationships among teachers.

The negative relationship between TeacherTeacher Collaboration and degree of classroom implementa

can also be assessed in light of the extensive research conducted by Andy Hargreaves (1992, 1994).Hargreaves described several typical school cultures, one of them being labeled Individualism. This type

school culture is seen as generally resistant to a range of various changes, including implementation of

externally imposed programs or innovations. Schools characterized by Individualism tend to have staff r

with a pleasant atmosphere and very little disagreement among the teachers. The negative relationship in

model may thus suggest that schools with good TeacherTeacherCollaboration and little program

implementation were characterized by an individualistic culture in Hargreavess (1992, pp. 221233) sen

At the same time, it should be emphasized that the TeacherTeacherCollaboration variable is a reflectio

the teachers general satisfaction with the collegial relationships and the degree of staff consensus about

working and teaching methods at the particular school; it does not reflect in detail what the teachers actuagree on. It may be an important task in future studies to examine more precisely the contents of such

collegial consensus and to explore under what conditions various content structures have positive or

negative effects, or no effects at all.

On the basis of earlier research, we expected to find a relationship between principal leadership and

implementation. Against this background, we were somewhat surprised to find that TeacherLeadership

Collaboration did not predict implementation of the program. It must be admitted, however, that this clim

variable was also based on items formulated in fairly general terms. Accordingly, we had very little
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c9http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#tbl4http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#Bhttp://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c25http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c15http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c16http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c15http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c15http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c16http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c15http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html#c25http://journals.apa.org/preve

deea 10

Documents