DAPHNE II Questionnaire

Bologna TeamThessaloniki, 20-21 June 2011

2

BOLOGNA TEAM

COORDINATORS- Maria Luisa Genta- Antonella Brighi- Annalisa Guarini

STAFF- Sandra Nicoletti (researcher) - Pia Colangelo (researcher)- Silvia Galli (advice for statistical analyses)

METHOD: participants

GENDER

First data collection

Second data collection

Male 1024 53% 745 47%

Female 921 47% 833 53%

First data collection (2007-2008): 1964 questionnairesSecond data collection (2010-2011): 1641 questionnaires

3

χ2 (1, N=3523)=10.30, p=.001

AGE

4

First data collection

Second data collection

12 years 695 35% 528 32%

14 years 689 35% 313 19%

16 years 580 30% 475 29%

18 years 303 19%

METHOD: participants

LIVING LOCATION

First data collection

Second data collection

Large city 631 32% 386 24%

Town 747 38% 833 51%

Village/rural community 570 29% 404 25%

5

χ2 (2, N=3571)=62.94, p<.001

First data Collection

Second data collection

Yes 58 3% 1882 97%

No 50 3% 1561 97%

DISABILITY χ2 (1, N=3551)=0.04, p=.844

METHOD: participants

METHOD: participants

FATHER’S EDUCATION

First data Collection

Second data collection

Primary 490 26% 370 24%

Secondary 886 47% 772 49%

High education 505 27% 418 27%

6

χ2 (2, N=3441)=2.87, p<.239

First data Collection

Second data collection

Primary 463 24% 299 19%

Secondary 929 48% 855 53%

High education 543 28% 443 28%

χ2 (2, N=3532)=16.31, p<.001 MOTHER’S EDUCATION

METHOD: the questionnaire

Used an anonymous self-report questionnaire

Questionnaires were carried out in a school setting, during school time and with teacher and researcher supervision

Three sections:

I: about you

II: about your school

III: about bullying and cyberbullying

I SECTION: about you

• Self esteem: Revised version of Melotti & Passini, 2002. Included six measures of self esteem: global, sport, school, body, peers and family.

• Loneliness: Adapted from Melotti, 2006, included four measures of loneliness related to:– Parents – closeness to family– Peers – closeness to friends, members of their peer group– Aversion – how much participants like/dislike being alone– Affinity – how participants feel about being alone

METHOD: the questionnaire

II SECTION: about school

• Eight questions relating to school climate

III SECTION: About bullying and cyberbullying

• Based on existing questionnaire developed by Smith et al (2005), shortened and adapted by Ortega (2006).

• Includes questions on involvement in four types of bullying: direct, indirect, through mobiles and through the internet

METHOD: the questionnaire

RESULTS

TECHNOLOGIES ACCESSIBILITY

10

First data collection

Second data collection

Owns a mobile 1859 96% 1236 96%

Internet access 1635 83% 1250 95%

Internet in own bedroom 949 48% 773 59%

• Internet access χ2 (1, N=3273)=100.49, p<.001, increase

• Internet in own bedroom χ2 (1, N=3273)=33.57, p<.001, increase

RESULTSSCHOOL CLIMATE

11

First data collection

Second data collection

Yes No Yes No

1. Do you feel that your school is a happy and caring school?

84% 16% 88% 12%

2. Do you feel safe at school? 89% 11% 92% 8%

3. Does your school care for and support pupils who are worried?

81% 19% 85% 15%

4. Does your school seek and listen to the opinions of pupils?

85% 15% 86% 14%

• Question 1 χ2 (1, N=3170)=10.32, p=.001, increase• Question 2 χ2 (1, N=3106)=7.28, p=.007, increase• Question 3 χ2 (1, N=3091)=6.49, p=.011, increase

RESULTSSCHOOL CLIMATE

12

First data collection

Second data collection

Yes No Yes No

5. Do you have good relationships with most of the teachers in your school?

87% 13% 89% 11%

6. Do you trust most adults in your school?

79% 21% 82% 3%

7. Do you have good relationships with other students in your class?

97% 3% 97% 15%

8. Do you have good relationships with the other students in your school?

93% 7% 95% 5%

• Question 6 χ2 (1, N=3114)=3.99, p=.046, increase

RESULTS

DIRECT BULLYING

13

First data collection

Second data collection

Not involved Occasional Severe Not involved Occasional Severe

Victims 85% 11% 4% 89% 7% 4%

Bullies 85% 11% 4% 90% 7% 3%

Bystanders 49% 34% 17% 58% 30% 13%

• Victims χ2 (2, N=3263)=13.54, p=.001, decrease

• Bullies χ2 (2, N=3248)=20.00, p<.001, decrease

• Bystanders χ2 (2, N=3256)=25.31, p<.001, decrease

RESULTS

INDIRECT BULLYING

14

First data collection

Second data collection

Not involved Occasional Severe Not involved Occasional Severe

Victims 77% 16% 7% 81% 12% 6%

Bullies 78% 17% 6% 85% 11% 4%

Bystanders 56% 28% 16% 65% 22% 12%

• Victims χ2 (2, N=3254)=9.51, p=.009, decrease

• Bullies χ2 (2, N=3245)=23.84, p<.001, decrease

• Bystanders χ2 (2, N=3245)=27.86, p<.001, decrease

RESULTS

CYBERBULLYING (MOBILE)

15

First data collection

Second data collection

Not involved Occasional Severe Not involved Occasional Severe

Victims 91% 7% 2% 92% 6% 2%

Bullies 91% 6% 3% 94% 4% 1%

Bystanders 77% 18% 5% 82% 14% 3%

• Victims χ2 (2, N=3207)=2.64, p=.267

• Bullies χ2 (2, N=3250)=12.32, p=.002, decrease

• Bystanders χ2 (2, N=3250)=14.97, p=.001, decrease

RESULTS

CYBERBULLYING (INTERNET)

16

First data collection

Second data collection

Not involved Occasional Severe Not involved Occasional Severe

Victims 93% 5% 2% 90% 7% 2%

Bullies 93% 5% 2% 93% 4% 2%

Bystanders 83% 13% 4% 82% 13% 4%

• Victims χ2 (2, N=3221)=6.68, p=.035, increase

• Bullies χ2 (2, N=3223)=1.49, p=.474

• Bystanders χ2 (2, N=3225)=0.31, p=.855

• How can we explain this decrease in the incidence of traditional bullying (both direct and indirect) and cyberbullying (through Internet) in three years?

• What about the second data collection in Spain and UK?

• Which parts of the questionnaire can be analysed in order to compare the two collections among Countries?

• What about pubblications on such data?

OPEN QUESTIONS