A Comparison of Self and Peer Reports in the Assessment of Middle School Bullying

Abstract

Researchers examining the effectiveness of schoolwide anti-bullying programs typically use student self reports to measure reductions in bullying. In contrast, researchers who study peer aggression frequently employ peer nominations. This study compared self reports of bullying with peer nominations in a sample of 355 middle school students. Self report demonstrated low to moderate correspondence with peer nominations for bullying others (r = .18) and for victimization (.32). More than twice as many students were categorized as bullies using peer nomination (11%) as compared to self report (5%). Despite their limited agreement, both self- and peer-reported bullying/victimization were associated with school maladjustment. These results raise concern about the reliance on self or peer reports alone to assess the prevalence of middle school bullying.

KEYWORDS:

• bullying
• victimization
• self-report
• peer nomination
• cutoff point

This article was accepted under the editorialship of Dr. Charles A. Maher.

We would like to express our gratitude to the staff at Burley Middle School, particularly Dr. Bernard Hairston and Eleanor Biasioli, for the opportunity to collaborate on their anti-bullying program. We also thank the staff of the Virginia Youth Violence Project, including Dr. Peter Sheras, Lauren Ashbaugh, JoAnna Cole, Megan Eliot, Bernice Joo, Peter Thunfors, and Farah Williams for their contributions to this project.

Notes

^aCohen's d.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .001.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .001.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .001.

1. Additional analyses (available from the author) found that these 23 students earned significantly lower GPA, reported more aggressive attitudes, and earned more suspensions and discipline referrals than the other students, with Cohen's d effect sizes ranging from .48 to .93.

2. These students demonstrated small or insignificant differences from the rest of the sample on GPA, discipline referrals, and suspensions. They did endorse more aggressive attitudes than the rest of their peers (d = .68).

3. These analyses were repeated using cutoffs of one, three, and four nominations for peer report, but none of these analyses produced better results.

4. Additional analyses (available from the author) found that these 15 students did not differ significantly from other students in aggressive attitudes or number of failed validity items, suspensions, or disciplinary referrals.

5. These analyses were repeated using cutoffs of one, three, and four nominations for peer report, but none of these analyses produced better results.