1) identify the published measures developed to assess youth bullying, and
2) to evaluate their psychometric properties.
Searches
A systematic search strategy was developed by a research librarian in consultation with study investigators to comprehensively identify relevant studies published in four databases. The EBSCO search interface was employed to query the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Educational Research Information Clearinghouse (ERIC), and Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO) electronic databases. Each resource was queried from its inception until April 2012 using the following search terms:
bullying; teasing; aggression; AND questionnaires; surveys; measurement; AND child; teen or adolescent.
A targeted, hand search of the bibliographies of papers meeting our inclusion criteria was also conducted in an effort to identify additional relevant studies. In addition, Google and Google Scholar searches were conducted as a means of identifying pertinent gray literature. Finally, the Compendium of Assessment Tools (Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011) on the United States (U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services, Health Services Resource Administration’s Stop Bullying Now website (www.stopbullying.gov) were also reviewed for germane studies or resources.
Types of study to be included
Primary psychometric articles.
Condition or domain being studied
Adolescent peer bullying and/or teasing.
Participants/ population
Youths age 6 through 21 years
Intervention(s), exposure(s)
None
Comparator(s)/ control
None
Context
Studies will be considered for inclusion in the review if they meet the following criteria:
1) they are primary psychometric studies,
2) the instruments evaluated were designed to measure peer bullying in youths between the ages of 6 and 21 years, and
3) the study was published in an English language peer-review journal.
Papers will be excluded if the primary objective of the investigation is not to evaluate the psychometric properties of the instrument under study.
Outcome(s)
Primary outcomes
Instrument reliability and validity when utilized to measure bullying behavior and/or experience in youths aged 6 to 21 years.
Not applicable.
Secondary outcomes
None
Not applicable.
Data extraction, (selection and coding)
Study Selection
The search strategy detailed above will be used to identify studies for review. Three investigators (AW, RLD, TDS) will independently review the results of the literature search, screening article titles and abstracts for possible inclusion. If an abstract does not provide enough information to make a determination as to whether the study meets our inclusion criteria, the full text of the article will be reviewed. Discrepancies amongst the screeners will be discussed until consensus regarding eligibility is reached.
Data Collection and Processing
The quality of each article will be assessed by pairs of investigator raters using a standardized assessment form and interpretation guide developed by MacDermid (MacDermid, 2008a; MacDermid, 2008b). The assessment form and guide were developed specifically to assess the quality of psychometric articles and have been used to do so in previously published research. To establish interrater agreement, all authors will independently review a single paper and then discuss each item to clarify the assessment and interpretation of each critical appraisal item. After establishing consensus amongst the study group, pairs of raters will independently evaluate an assigned subset of articles using MacDermid’s quality appraisal form and guide.
Interrater reliability on quality ratings will be computed using Cohen’s kappa statistic. When there is disagreement amongst the raters on individual quality assessments, we will use the following process to reach consensus agreement. First, the raters will determine whether their disagreement is based upon a question regarding the factual content of the article. If so, the original manuscript will be consulted to resolve the disagreement. Second, if disagreement is with regard to the degree to which the manuscript in question adheres to the item requirements as described in MacDermid’s interpretation guide, both the manuscript and the guide will be consulted and discussed until consensus is established. Finally, if consensus cannot be reached through these processes, the entire study team will meet to discuss, with the first author (JAV) serving as the final decision-maker as required. The final quality score for each paper will used to rank order the papers, with the rank to be considered when conclusions and recommendations are made.
References
MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, evaluation form. In: Law M, MacDermid JC, eds. Evidence-based Rehabilitation. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc; 2008a: 387-388.
MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, interpretation guide. In: Law M, MacDermid JC, eds. Evidence-based Rehabilitation. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc; 2008b: 387-388.
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Risk of bias (quality) assessment:
Two review authors will independently assess the risk of bias in included studies by considering the following characteristics (from MacDermid 2008a and 2008b):
Documentation: Were specific descriptions provided or referenced that explain the measures and their correct application/interpretation (to a standard that would allow replication)?
• The authors provided or referenced a published manual/article that outlines specific procedures for administration, scoring (including how scoring algorithms handle missing data), and interpretation of test procedures that includes any necessary information about positioning/active participation of the subject, any special equipment required, calibration of equipment if necessary, training required, cost, and examiner procedures/actions. If no manual is referenced, then the text describes the procedures in sufficient detail so that they can be replicated.
• Procedures are referenced without any details, or a limited description of procedures is included in the text.
• Minimal description of procedures is provided and without appropriate references.
Standardized Methods: Were administration and application of measurement techniques within the study standardized, and did they consider potential sources of error/misinterpretation?
• All of the measurement techniques, including administration and scoring of the measurements were performed in a standardized way. This would include calibration of any equipment, use of consistent measurement tools and scoring, a priori exclusion of any participants likely to give invalid results/unable to complete testing (no exclusion after enrollment participants); use of standardized procedures.
• No obvious sources of bias, but minimal attention or description to ascertain the extent to which the above standards were maintained.
• No description of the extent to which the above standards were maintained or an obvious source of bias in data collection methods.
Disagreements between the review authors over the risk of bias in particular studies will be resolved by discussion, with involvement of a third review author where necessary.
Strategy for data synthesis
We will provide a narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies, structured around the type of instrument (self-report, peer nomination, teacher report), target population characteristics (age groupings), setting, and clinical utility. We will provide summaries of each instrument’s psychometric properties and the quality of the studies included in the review.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
None planned.
Dissemination plans
We plan to disseminate our results through future scientific presentations and publications.
Contact details for further information
Tania Strout
Maine Medical Center
Department of Emergency Medicine
22 Bramhall Street
Portland, ME 04102
strout@mmc.org
Organisational affiliation of the review
Maine Medical Center; Boston College; Children's Hospital Boston
None
Review team
Dr Tania Strout, Maine Medical Center Dr Judith Vessey, Boston College, Children's Hospital Boston Ms Rachel DiFazio, Boston College, Children's Hospital Boston Ms Allison Walker, Boston College
Details of any existing review of the same topic by the same authors
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria
Data extraction
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Data analysis
Prospective meta-analysis
PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites.
