Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Effectiveness of antibullying school programmes: A systematic review

by evidence levels
Jose Antonio Jimnez Barbero a,, Jose Antonio Ruiz Hernndez a,
Bartolom Llor Esteban a, Mara Prez Garca b
a
b

University of Murcia, Faculty of Pshychology, Espinardo, CP: 30100 Murcia, Spain

University of Murcia, Faculty of Medicine, Espinardo, CP: 30100 Murcia, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 10 February 2012
Received in revised form 14 April 2012
Accepted 20 April 2012
Available online 27 April 2012
Keywords:
Systematic review
Intervention programme
School violence
Prevention
Attitudes
Effectiveness

a b s t r a c t
Increasingly more educational centres are, therefore, carrying out programmes aimed at preventing or reducing
violence in schools.
This study seeks to examine the efciency of such programmes in Primary and Secondary schools. The methodology used is the systematic search of electronic databases (Medline, Trip Database, Cochrane, Academy Search
Premier, PsycINFO, ERIC and PsycARTICLES) for studies published after January 1, 2000, on the assessment of the
effectiveness of school interventions to prevent or reduce violence and bullying. The study population comprises
school-age (616 years) children and adolescents of both sexes. Initially, 299 articles were detected that met the
inclusion criteria and that had been independently peer-reviewed. For the nal evaluation, 32 studies were
selected which met the previously established selection and quality criteria, and analysed by level of evidence.
The review nds evidence of the efciency of the programmes assessed, although serious limitations are also
detected, which should be taken into consideration when designing future interventions. The likelihood of
success is enhanced when all the disciplines of a centre are involved, and also the parents. It is also essential to
adapt the diverse programmes to the social and cultural characteristics of the school population in which the
programme is to be carried out. Finally, the ndings indicate the need for continuity in the programmes if
their long-term efciency is to be guaranteed.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
School violence includes behaviours that cause physical and emotional harm, ranging from verbal aggression, humiliation, ostracism,
physical harm and destruction of property (Benbenishty & Astor,
2005), and including various categories such as classroom disruption,
disciplinary problems and maltreatment among classmates (Olweus,
1993).
We are facing a phenomenon that has probably always been present
in schools, although it has become the subject of increasing attention
and a social alarm in recent years. Several studies have analysed its
prevalence nding that 20 to 30% of pupils have been involved in
violent episodes, ranging from simple verbal intimidation to physical
or sexual aggression (Currie et al., 2008; Department of Health and
Human Services & Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006;
Ruiz, Exposito, & Bonache, 2010).

Corresponding author at: Plaza Vistabella, 17, 2L, CP: 30820, Alcantarilla, Murcia,
Spain. Tel.: + 34 646350366.
E-mail addresses: barbero49@hotmail.com (J.A. Jimnez Barbero), jaruiz@um.es
(J.A. Ruiz Hernndez), bllor@um.es (B. Llor Esteban), mariapg78@hotmail.com
(M. Prez Garca).
0190-7409/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.025

The consequences it may have for children's mental health and

future behaviour must also be considered (Abada, Hou, & Ram, 2008;
stberg, 2003). Some studies show that extended exposure to violence
is linked to the development of: (a) emotional and psychosomatic problems in victims and bullies alike (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton,
2001; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009); (b) low self-esteem, depression and suicidal tendency (Brunstein, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2007;
McMahon, Reulbach, Keeley, Perry, & Arensman, 2010); and (c) antisocial behaviours, which lead to legal, economic and social problems
(Cunningham & Henggeler, 2001).
All of this has led to a heightened awareness of this problem in recent
years and the proliferation of prevention programmes (Farrell, Meyer,
Kung, & Sullivan, 2001). Habitually, the main components of these interventions are: (a) globally focused policies emphasizing the democratic
participation of all school members, which are generally the main part
of any long-term interventions; (b) the improvement of the classroom
atmosphere, based on pupilpupil and teacherpupil relations; (c) the introduction of peer support systems; (d) intervention in the recreational
area or the school surroundings; (e) pro-social activities in the classroom,
as part of the curriculum; and (f) specic work with bullied students or
those at risk of being bullied (Cowie, 2000; Cunningham et al., 1998).
Despite efforts to establish them in schools, there is a notable lack
of evaluation of these programmes, so the effectiveness of which was

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

really unknown (Surgeon General, 2001). The United States' Agency

for Healthcare Research and Quality (2010) indicates that metaanalyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the studies that
offer the best scientic evidence of therapeutic interventions, followed by the RCTs themselves. Yet, given their scope and cost, RCTs
are beyond the means of many organisations, which are obliged to
rely on published reviews.
The aim of our study is to examine the effectiveness of the intervention and violence prevention programmes carried out in the last decade.
It continues and updates earlier studies (Scheckner, Rollin, Kaiser-Ulrey,
& Wagner, 2002; Wilson, 2000). Studies published since the beginning of
2000 up to the present were evaluated, selecting them on the basis of the
quality of their methodological design and on their level of scientic
evidence. This allows us to establish the degrees of recommendation
of the various programmes (National Institute for Clinical Excellence
(NICE), 2008).
2. Methods
2.1. Inclusion criteria
Studies were included in this review if they fullled the following
criteria: (a) in empirical studies, the aim had to be the evaluation of
the effectiveness of an intervention programme in reducing violence
in the school environment; (b) in review studies, the main aim required
was to examine the effect of school violence prevention or reduction
programmes; (c) the evaluated interventions had to directly target
the study population (Primary or Secondary school pupils), not the
teachers and parents.
2.2. Search strategy
A systematic search was made through the following electronic
databases: Medline, Trip Database, Cochrane, Academy Search Premier,
PsycINFO, ERIC and PsycARTICLES. The keywords and terms used were:
bullying, school violence, attitudes toward violence and adolescents, intervention or prevention program and self-esteem or empathy, among others. In order to guarantee the currency of the ndings,
the search was restricted to works published after January 1, 2000.
The titles were examined, as were the abstracts when available, and
those that did not meet the criteria were rejected.
2.3. Selection criteria
The complete texts of the accepted articles were carefully read,
and the lists of references were studied to identify possible relevant
articles not detected by our initial search. The selection of studies
was made by two independent reviewers following two stages:
1) Level of evidence: We used the categories proposed by the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality (2010) in order to limit the
review to articles that offered a high level of scientic evidence:
(1A) meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials; (1B) randomized controlled clinical trials; (2A) suitably designed, nonrandomized controlled studies; and (2B) uncontrolled studies, such
as pre-post studies and cohort studies.
2) Methodological quality: Two independent reviewers assessed the
methodological quality of the studies selected with a high interrater reliability (Pearson correlation coefcient, r = 0.83), using the
following evaluation criteria:
- For studies of 1A level of evidence (reviews), the criteria used
were those described by Jadad, Moher, and Klassen (1998) for systematic reviews, which assign a quality score from 0 to 8. Studies
that scored below 4 were rejected. Meta-analyses of randomized
clinical trials were included at this level, as were other metaanalyses of prospective studies or systematic reviews of special

1647

importance, provided they reached the required score on this

scale.
- For studies of 1B level of evidence (RCTs), studies were included
if they fullled at least one of the following conditions:
(a) A score of 6 or above on an ad hoc scale of methodological
quality based on the guide published by the University of
York in 2001 for the preparation of systematic reviews (NHS
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001). The scale
comprised 10 items: (1) operative denition of the constructs
and terms used in the study; (2) appropriate method for
sample selection; (3) appropriate sample size; (4) a priori
distinction of sub-groups or use of suitable clustering techniques; (5) validity of the evaluation (direct collection of
information by the researchers); (6) reliability of the evaluation (use of a validated tool and/or a high level of internal consistency to evaluate the intervention); (7) follow-up of the
results; (8) use of outcome measures that match the aim of
the study; (9) appropriate statistical analysis; and (10) suitable presentation of the ndings through graphs or similar.
(b) A score of 3 or above on the scale of Jadad et al. (1996), for
randomized clinical tests.
- For the evaluation of the quality of the quasi-experimental studies
(2A and 2B levels of evidence) the ad hoc quality scale was used.
Articles scoring 6 or above were included in the review.
2.4. Tabulation and analysis of the information
The studies selected were grouped according to their level of scientic evidence (1A, 1B, 2A and 2B) and methodological design.
The data from each study were arranged according to the following
categories: date and country of study; quality of the methodological design; research aim; name of the prevention or intervention programme
evaluated; sample size and age of the study population.
The analysis of the studies selected was descriptive, as meta-analysis
was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the results.
3. Results
The electronic search initially returned 9386 publications. After
reviewing the titles, abstracts and references, 299 potential articles
were identied. Of these, 245 were excluded due to not having a methodological design at the levels of evidence 1A, 1B, 2A or 2B. Of the
remaining 54 studies, 32 were nally selected that fullled the criteria
required. Of these, there were 2 meta-analyses of RCTs (1A level of evidence), 2 meta-analyses of prospective studies, 1 systematic review, 12
RCTs (1B level of evidence), 11 non-randomized controlled studies (2A
level of evidence), and 4 pre-post uncontrolled studies or studies of
cohorts (2B level of evidence) (see Fig. 1).
3.1. Level of evidence 1A: meta-analysis of RCT and systematic reviews
3.1.1. Description of the studies
We found 5 studies that fullled the inclusion criteria for this category. Of these, two are meta-analyses of RCTs, which constitute the
maximum level of evidence (Mytton, DiGuiseppi, Gough, Taylor, &
Logan, 2006; Park-Higgerson, Perumean-Chaney, Bartolucci, Grimley,
& Singh, 2008). Due to their interest and their relation to the aim of
the study, we also include two meta-analyses of prospective studies
(Merrel, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Tto & Farrington, 2011) and
one systematic review of prospective studies (Vreeman & Carroll,
2007). Details are shown in Table 1.
The 2 meta-analyses of RCTs (Mytton et al., 2006; Park-Higgerson
et al., 2008) included 82 randomized clinical trials that assess the efciency of violence prevention programmes in schools. The meta-analysis
by Merrel et al. (2008) and the systematic review by Vreeman and
Carroll (2007) attempt to assess school interventions aimed at decreasing

1648

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

6 publications
selected from the
reference lists

9,386 potentially important

publications, identified via
electronic search: Medline
(1061); Cochrane (32);
Tripdatabase (326); Academic
Search Premier (4911),
PsycINFO (1578), ERIC
(1396), PsycARTICLES (82)

299 studies that met the inclusion

criteria:
-Medline: 40
-Cochrane: 9
-Academy Search Premier: 22
-Tripdatabase: 18
-PsycINFO: 104
-ERIC: 87
-PsycARTICLES:13
- Reference lists: 6

54 articles reviewed due to their

methodological quality:
-Medline: 9
-Cochrane: 6
-Academy Search Premier: 7
-Tripdatabase: 3
-PsycINFO: 11
-ERIC: 9
-PsycARTICLES: 5
- Reference lists: 4

32 articles included:
-Medline: 4
-Cochrane: 6
-Academy Search Premier: 3
-Tripdatabase: 3
-PsycINFO: 6
-ERIC: 4
-PsycARTICLES: 2
- Reference lists: 4

9,093 publications excluded on

the basis of titles and abstracts,
which did not meet the
inclusion criteria

245 articles excluded because

they did not belong to the
methodological categories:
-Medline: 31
-Cochrane: 3
-Academy Search Premier: 15
-Tripdatabase: 15
-PsycINFO: 93
-ERIC: 78
-PsycARTICLES: 8
- Reference lists: 2

22 Articles excluded for not

meeting the quality criteria:
-Medline: 5
-Academy Search Premier: 4
-PsycINFO: 5
-ERIC: 5
-PsycARTICLES: 3

Fig. 1. Search results.

bullying. Lastly, the most recent contribution is the meta-analysis by Tto

and Farrington (2011), which investigates the effectiveness of the components of the intervention programmes.
The ages at which the programmes were applied range from 5 to
16 years. In the meta-analysis performed by Mytton et al. (2006),
the age range was 512 years, whereas, in those published by ParkHiggerson et al. (2008) and Tto and Farrington (2011), it was
616 years. Merrel et al. (2008) worked with 612-year-olds, and the
systematic review by Vreeman and Carroll (2007) focuses on a target
population ranging from 6 to 13 years.
In order to assess the effectiveness of the diverse interventions,
the studies under review used the following main measurements
of outcomes: incidence of school bullying, victimization, aggressive
or externalizing behaviour, physical or relational aggression, knowledge and attitudes about violence and bullying at school, both of
the schoolchildren and the school staff. Other measures used were
assessment of school performance, emotional problems (anxiety,
depression), social and peer group acceptance, positive peer interaction, perception of safety, self-esteem, empathy and parental
involvement.

3.1.2. Effectiveness of the interventions evaluated

The study by Mytton et al. (2006) concludes that aggressive behaviour was signicantly reduced in the intervention groups compared to
the control groups in 34 of the 56 RCTs analysed, and these results
were maintained in the 7 studies that included follow-up. The authors
report that the secondary school prevention programmes aimed at
reducing aggressive behaviour can lead to signicant improvements
and they conclude that the most effective interventions are those
aimed at improving social relations and social skills.
Tto and Farrington (2011) also report positive ndings, in this case,
in the reduction of bullying and victimization. They highlight that intensive programmes and programmes that incorporate meetings with parents, rm disciplinary measures and greater supervision by teachers of
recreational areas are the most effective. Vreeman and Carroll (2007) report that multidisciplinary interventions achieve the best results, whereas those based on adaptations of the syllabus seem to prove less effective,
with signicant results in only 4 of the 10 interventions examined.
Merrel et al. (2008) conclude that there is evidence to support the
effectiveness of school interventions to improve social competence,
self-esteem and peer acceptance, although they admit that only one

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

1649

Table 1
Papers reviewed at level of evidence 1A: meta-analyses and systematic reviews of RCTs.
Authors, year of
publication

Papers reviewed

Age

Aims

Main results

Mytton et al. (2006)

56 RCTs/meta-analysis.

512 The effects of school violence

prevention programmes for children
identied as being aggressive or at risk
of being so.

Vreeman and Carroll (2007) 26 papers reviewed without meta-analysis: 613 To evaluate school interventions to
decrease bullying.
9 RCTs
11 pre-post with control group
2 cohort studies
4 pre-post quasi-experimental studies.

Park-Higgerson et al. (2008) 26 RCTs/meta-analysis.

616 The characteristics of school

programmes aimed at prevention of
violence.

Merrell and Gueldner (2008) 16 prospective studies/meta-analysis:

2 experimental designs
3 mixed design with control group
11 quasi-experimental designs.

612 The effectiveness of anti-bullying

school interventions.

Tto and Farrington (2011) 53 prospective studies:

44 studies/ meta-analysis
17 RCTs
21 pre-post + CG
4 (other controlled studies)
11 cohorts.

616 The effectiveness of the programme

components.

Prevention programmes to reduce aggressive

behaviour are effective (SMD = 0.41, CI(95%) =
0.56 to 0.26).
Interventions to improve social skills are more
effective than those that teach skills to avoid
responding to provocations.
4 curriculum-based interventions showed a signicant reduction of bullying.
7 multidisciplinary interventions achieved decreases in bullying.
4 interventions based on increasing social skills
achieved no signicant changes.
1 study based on tutoring showed a decrease in
victimization.
No signicant effects were reported for 4 of the 5
characteristics of the programmes examined.
Only single-focus interventions had any effect on
aggressive and violent behaviour (ES = 0.15).
Signicant positive effects for only one third of the
variables.
Main variables with positive results: knowledge of
bullying prevention (ES = 1.52), global self-esteem
(ES = 1.08) and perception of abusive conducts
(ES = 0.35).
Remaining measures showed no signicant
changes.
The most intensive programmes were more
effective, as were those that included meetings
with parents (OR = 1.57), rm disciplinary
measures (OR = 1.59) and improved supervision
of recreational areas (OR = 1.53).

Abbreviations: RCT, randomized clinical trial; CG, control group; SMD, Standardised Mean Difference; ES, Effect Size.
p b 0.001.

third of the variables measured showed positive changes following programmes aimed at reducing bullying. They underline that, whilst these
may be able to inuence awareness, knowledge and self-perception of
competence to cope with bullying, they cannot be expected to have a
drastic inuence on the incidence of bullying and victimization.
Lastly, Park-Higgerson et al. (2008) nd no signicant effects for
four of the ve characteristics examined in the prevention programmes.
3.1.3. Differences according to age and gender
Of the ve studies reviewed, only three interpret the ndings in
terms of age and gender. Of these, two meta-analyses (Mytton et al.,
2006; Park-Higgerson et al., 2008) nd no gender differences in the
effect size, although they do highlight age-related differences. ParkHiggerson et al. nd that the effectiveness of the programmes is greater
in children of 9 years and above, whereas Mytton et al. conclude that
the improvements are more signicant in the follow-up among Secondary school students.
Vreeman and Carroll (2007) suggest that the age differences observed in the effectiveness of the intervention are due to the focus of
the intervention, as programmes based on social skills obtain more
positive outcomes among younger children, who, notwithstanding,
respond worse to interventions based on the cognitive-behavioural
model. As regards gender, the same study nds that girls seem to
respond better than boys to multidisciplinary interventions.
3.2. Level of evidence 1B: randomized clinical trials (RCTs)
3.2.1. Description of the studies
In the second level of evidence, we include 12 randomized clinical
trials (RCTs) (see Table 2). In 8 of the articles, the authors establish as
their main aim the evaluation of the impact of an anti-bullying school
intervention (Baldry & Farrington, 2004; Berry & Hunt, 2009;

DeRosier, 2004; Farrell, Meyer, & White, 2001; Fekkes, Pijpers, &
Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006; Frey et al., 2005; Hunt, 2007; Stevens, Van
Oost, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2000). A further 3 studies evaluate the
effectiveness of a bullying and school violence prevention programme,
(Beets et al., 2009; Jenson & Dieterich, 2007; Teglasi & Rothman,
2001). Lastly, one study compares three types of intervention: a programme designed by the authors (Creating a Peaceful School Learning
Environment) versus school psychiatric consultancy versus habitual
intervention (Fonagy et al., 2009).
The age of the samples ranges from 8 to 16 years: seven interventions were evaluated in Primary schools, three in Secondary schools
and two in Primary and Secondary schools.
The main outcome measures in the evaluation of bullying or intimidation at school were: frequency and type of bullying and victimization,
exposure to bullying, frequency of aggressive and violent behaviours,
frequency of maladaptive responses to episodes of bullying and violence, bullying-related beliefs (acceptance of bullying, witness's responsibility, adult's perceived responsibility), attitudes towards violence and
bullying-related behaviours (direct and indirect aggression and victimization). Other measures used were behaviour inside and outside the
classroom, behavioural problems, use of drugs, interaction skills, selfeffectiveness/self-perception/self-esteem, anxiety and awareness.
3.2.2. Effectiveness of the interventions evaluated
Signicant differences were found between the intervention group
and the control group in nine of the interventions evaluated (Beets
et al., 2009; Berry & Hunt, 2009; DeRosier, 2004; Farrell, Meyer, &
White, 2001; Fekkes et al., 2006; Fonagy et al., 2009; Frey et al., 2005;
Stevens, Van Oost, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2000; Teglasi & Rothman,
2001). Follow-ups were carried out in eight of these, and the ndings
were maintained in only four cases. Noteworthy is the study by
Fonagy et al. (2009), which compares a school anti-bullying programme

1650

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

(CAPSLE) with two other interventions, nding that CAPSLE achieved a

greater reduction in victimization, aggression and the number of aggressive onlookers.
The other three studies evaluated obtained no signicant results
(Baldry & Farrington, 2004; Hunt, 2007; Jenson & Dieterich, 2007).

Stanbury et al. (2009) only obtained signicant changes in girls; however, Menesini et al. (2003) report that boys were more sensitive to the
intervention.

3.2.3. Differences according to age and gender

Frey et al. (2005) report that males are more sensitive to intervention programmes, whereas two other studies (Beets et al., 2009;
Farrell, Meyer, & White, 2001) conclude that there are no signicant
gender differences in the effectiveness of the intervention, although
greater stability was observed in boys during the follow-up. As for age,
older children (1315) seem to respond better (Baldry & Farrington,
2004; Frey et al., 2005) although one study declares that the changes
are most stable in the follow-up of younger children (Stevens, Van
Oost, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2000).

3.4.1. Description of the studies

At this level, we selected three studies of cohorts (Beran, Tutty, &
Steinrath, 2004; Bowllan, 2011; Metzler, Biglan, Rusby, & Spraque,
2001) and one pre-post study without a control group (Salmivalli,
Kaukiainen, & Voeten, 2005), whose goal was to determine the efciency of intervention or bullying prevention programmes (see Table 4).
The age ranges studied vary between 9 and 14 years, with two
studies carried out in Primary and two in Secondary schools.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions, the following measures were used: prevalence of bullying, school atmosphere,
physical or verbal aggressions, perceived safety, coping strategies, attitudes towards victims and bullies, beliefs about self-effectiveness in
intervening in situations of aggression, roles those participating in
bullying, disciplinary records related to bullying and the degree of
implementation of the programme.

3.3. Level of evidence 2A: controlled, non-randomized prospective studies

3.3.1. Description of the studies
At this level of evidence, we chose 11 studies (see Table 3) with analogous aims, thus allowing inter-comparison.
In these studies, the authors declare their main goals to be: (a) to
analyse the impact of school programmes aimed at reducing violence
and bullying (Ju, Wang, & Zhang, 2009; Sapouna et al., 2010; Stanbury,
Bruce, Jain, & Stellern, 2009; Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Van
Oost, 2000; Twemlow et al., 2001); (b) to evaluate the effectiveness of
bullying prevention programmes (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007;
Evers, Prochaska, Van Marter, Johnson, & Prochaska, 2007; Menesini,
Codecasa, Benelli, & Cowie, 2003; Rahey & Craig, 2002); (c) to study
the impact of an anti-bullying programme on school achievement
(Fonagy, Twemlow, Vernberg, Sacco, & Little, 2005); and (d) to raise
awareness and perception of self-effectiveness when intervening in
bullying situations (Andreou, Didaskalou, & Vlachou, 2008). The age
range of the study samples was 6 to 16 years. Five interventions were
performed in Primary schools (611 years), three in Secondary schools
(1116 years) and three in Primary and Secondary schools (616 years).
The main measures of outcomes in these studies were: bullying behaviour, the frequency of physical and verbal aggressions, the description and characteristics of victimization, the places where this occurs,
attitudes towards bullying, empathy, the roles of the participants in
the bullyvictim relationship, peer interaction and perception of selfeffectiveness to intervene in bullying incidents.
Other associated variables were also measured, such as the perception of safety, commitment and school performance, disciplinary
problems, coping strategies, knowledge of bullying, problems of externalizing and internalizing behaviours and the positive reinforcements
employed by the school staff.
3.3.2. Effectiveness of the interventions evaluated
Statistically signicant results were obtained in most of the measures in nine of the studies, of which only ve included a follow-up,
with the changes persisting in three of these. However, in two studies,
the results of the intervention showed no signicant differences
(Bauer et al., 2007; Rahey & Craig, 2002).
3.3.3. Differences according to gender and age
Regarding age, Rahey and Craig (2002) and Menesini et al. (2003)
indicate that victimization tends to decrease in older children. The latter
paper also reports that episodes of bullying increase in older children,
whilst the role of the defender and anti-bullying attitudes prevail
more among younger children. Lastly, Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, and
Van Oost (2000) nd positive changes in bullying and victimization
only for Primary schools (i.e., children aged 611 years).
There is a disparity in the results of the diverse authors in terms
of gender. Rahey and Craig (2002) report better results for girls;

3.4. Level of evidence 2B: non-controlled studies and studies of cohorts

3.4.2. Effectiveness of the interventions evaluated

Statistically signicant results were obtained for the four studies selected. The variables most sensitive to the interventions were frequency
of observed and experienced bullying, attitudes towards victims and
bullies and the number of verbal and physical aggressions. In three of
the studies, a follow-up was carried out and the ndings were reported.
3.4.3. Differences according to gender and age
Only the study by Bowllan (2011) reports gender and age differences,
with better results obtained by girls of younger ages (1213 years) than
by the remaining subjects of the sample.
4. Discussion
The studies reviewed at the various levels of evidence generally
coincide that school programmes aimed at reducing violence can produce benecial effects in the overall social environment of schools.
Thus, the most efcient interventions are those that are developed
from a multidisciplinary perspective or global focus and that are directed at improving social and interpersonal skills and at modifying
attitudes and beliefs.
As in previous studies ahead Rigby (1997), the most sensitive variables in the interventions examined seem to be those related to attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. Within this concept, students' attitudes
and beliefs about bullying, destructive or intimidating behaviour and
the spectator's role are noteworthy. Even in those cases in which the
results are modest or nonsignicant for these measures, some authors
consider that small changes in attitude within the peer group may contribute to general changes in bullying dynamics (Farrell, Meyer, &
White, 2001; Frey et al., 2005). Nevertheless, these changes are complex
due to the difculty of their continuity over time unless accompanied in
the programme by techniques for maintaining behaviour, such as anticipating risk situations, positive reinforcement of peers who intervene to
put a stop to the bullying, etc. (Stevens, Van Oost, & De Bourdeaudhuij,
2000). The authors reviewed herein also highlight the importance of the
role of the passive onlooker in bullying (Cowie, 2000; Twemlow et al.,
2001). Spectators' silence or complicity may imply a strong support
for the bullies and indirectly favour a violent culture. Menesini et al.
(2003) propose a global approach based on social relationships among
peers in order to help to break this pact of silence and foster peer responsibility and empathy.
Signicant results in school programmes were also obtained in the
frequency of violent behaviour. In this respect, several authors nd
that the interventions are more effective among adolescents showing

Table 2
Papers reviewed at level of evidence 1B: randomized clinical trials.
Aim

Sample size

Age

Programme/intervention

Duration/follow-up

Signicant results

The effect of anti-bullying intervention programme in children's

attitudes.

13 PS
11 SS
N = 2193

1016

The curriculum-based intervention among peers.

7 months.
1-year follow-up.

Farrell, Meyer, et al. (2001),

Farrell, Meyer, and White
(2001)
USA

The impact in 6th year pupils of an

intervention programme on
knowledge, attitudes and
behaviours concerning violence.

3 SS
N = 626:
IG = 305
CG = 321

1015

Evaluation of Responding in
Peaceful and Positive Ways
(RIPP).

7 months.
6- and 12-month follow-up.

Teglasi and Rothman (2001)

USA

The effectiveness of a school

programme to reduce aggressive
behaviour in the classroom.

1 PS
N = 59
IG = 8 aggressive
CG = 8 non-aggressive

910

The Structure/Themes/Open
Communication/Reection/
Individuality/
Experiential Learning/Social
Problem-Solving (STORIES)
Programme.

15 weeks.
No follow-up.

Baldry and Farrington (2004)

Italy

Evaluation of an intervention
programme to reduce bullying
and victimization.

2 MS and 1 SS
N = 239
IG = 131
CG = 106

1015

Ad hoc intervention: Develop

social skills to understand the
negative consequences of
bullying.

3 days.
No follow-up.

DeRosier (2004)
USA

The effectiveness of school group

intervention based on social skills
for children suffering from social
anxiety and bullying.

11 PS
N = 381:
IG = 187
CG = 194

Social Skills Group Intervention

(S.S.GRIN).

6 months.
1-year follow-up.

Frey et al. (2005)

USA

The impact of a school

programme aimed at:
Reducing bullying and
destructive behaviours of the
bystanders.
Promoting pro-social behaviours.
Increasing socio-emotional skills
of children involved in bullying.

6 PS
N = 1126:
IG = 549
CG = 577

810

Steps to Respect: A Bullying Prevention Programme.

5 months.
1-year follow-up.

Signicant changes in the

variables measured at post-test 1
(pro-bully factor = 1.73; provictim factor = 3.43), which disappeared at follow-up, except for
PS, where they were maintained.
Reduction of disciplinary
violations in the IG:
Reduced participation in a ght:
OR = 2.5.
Increased participation in peer
mediation: OR = .6.
At post-test, the effects of the intervention were almost signicant, especially in boys.
Signicant reduction of
externalizing and anti-social behaviours for non-aggressive children (F = 10.02; F = 6.36,
respectively).
Among the aggressive children,
there were signicant improvements in the IG.
Reduction of some types of
victimization, but only in older
subjects (1415 years),
(F = 4.83).
Increase in bullying and
victimization among younger
subjects (1113 years),
(F = 8.31; F = 10.37,
respectively).
Increased peer friendliness
(F = 5.13), self-esteem
(F = 6.46), and self-efcacy
(F = 4.03), and lower social
anxiety (F = 4.16) and anti-social
afliations (F = 4.28) in the IG.
A decrease in the acceptance of
bullying, (F = 8.51) and greater
intervention by onlookers was
observed in the IG when friends
were bullied.
Recreation area behaviour
showed a signicant decrease in
physical and verbal bullying,
(F = 5.02).

1651

(continued on next page)

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

Author/country
Stevens, Van Oost, and De
Bourdeaudhuij (2000)
Belgium

1652

Table 2 (continued)
Aim

Sample size

Age

Programme/intervention

Duration/follow-up

Signicant results

Fekkes et al. (2006)

Holland

The effects of a school antibullying programme in Primary

schools.

47 PS
N = 3816
IG = 3816
CG 1 = 1552
CG 2 = 1050

912

Programme based on the Olweus

Bullying Prevention Programme.

2 academic years.
No follow-up.

Hunt (2007)
Australia

The educational impact of an antibullying programme in Secondary

schools.

1215

Ad hoc prepared intervention.

1 academic year.
1-year follow-up.

Jenson and Dieterich (2007)

USA

The effects of a bullying and

victimization prevention
programme based on Primary
school children's aptitudes.

6 SS
N = 444
IG = 152
CG = 258
28 PS
N = 1126:
IG = 670
CG = 456

Reduction of the percentage of

bullied children, of victimization
and of bullying behaviour.
No signicant differences at
follow-up.
Intervention group:
Victims of harassment in the
post-test
RR = 0.75 (0.570.78)
Stalking in the post-test
RR = 0.81 (0.511.15)
Non signicant distances in most
measures.

810

Youth Matters Programme.

2 academic years.
12-month follow- up.

Beets et al. (2009)

USA
(Hawaii)

The effectiveness of a school

programme designed to prevent
violent and risk behaviours
among Primary school children.

20 PS
N = 1714:
IG = 976
CG = 738

Pre-test: 1011
Post-test:1516

The Positive Action Programme.

4 years.
No follow-up.

Berry and Hunt (2009)

Australia

The effectiveness in anxious,

bullied boys of a cognitivebehavioural intervention focused
on factors that increase vulnerability to bullying.

7 SS
N = 46 (boys):
IG = 22
GC = 24

1214

Condent Kids Programme.

8 weeks.
3-month follow-up.

Fonagy et al. (2009)

USA

The effectiveness of the school

psychiatric consultation (SPC) vs.
a school programme (CAPSLE) vs.
treatment at use (TAU) in order to
reduce aggression in PS.

9 PS
N = 1345:
CAPSLE = 563
SPC = 422
TAU = 360

810

SPC
Creating a Peaceful School
Learning (CAPSLE)
TAU

24 months.
36-month follow-up.

No signicant results in most of

the measures over time.
Tendency towards a decrease in
victimization.
Positive change in school
environment.
Reduction of drug abuse.
Decrease in risky sexual
behaviour.
Reduction of drug abuse:
RR = 0.41
Decreased sexual activity:
OR = 0.24
Reduction of bullying experiences
(F = 26.52), of symptoms of
anxiety (F = 32.88) and
depression (F = 13.88).
No signicant differences in selfesteem or maladaptive responses.
The intervention programme
(CAPSLE) moderated the
tendency towards victimization
and aggression and reduced the
number of aggressive bystanders,
compared to other interventions
(SPC and TAU): M = 101.2(0.45)
vs 102.2(0.63) vs 102.7(0.71).

Abbreviations: N, sample size; IG, Intervention Group; CG, Control Group; PS, Primary Schools; MS, Middle School; SS, Secondary Schools; RR, Relative Risk; OR, Odds Ratio; M, Mean; F, FisherSnedecor's F-test.
p b 0.05.
p b 0.001.

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

Author/country

Table 3
Papers reviewed at level of evidence 2A: non randomized controlled prospective studies.
Aim

Sample size

Age

Programme/intervention

Duration/follow-up

Signicant results

Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij,
and Van Oost (2000)
Blgium

The effectiveness of the antibullying approach in emish

schools.

9 PS + 9 SS
N = 1104
1 IG = 435
2 IG = 426
CG = 243

1016

Programme adapted from the

Olweus Bully Prevention
Programme.

7 months.
1-year follow-up.

Twemlow et al. (2001)

USA

The impact of an anti-violence

programme based on learning
environment in a PS with the results from a control school.

2 EP
N = 192:
GI = 101
GC = 91

810

Psychodynamic/social system
interventions against violence.

3 years.
Follow-up: at the end of each
academic year.

Rahey and Craig (2002)

Canad

The short-term effects of a school

anti-bullying programme.

2 Elementary schools (PS and MS )

N = 491:
GI = 240
GC = 251

613

Ad hoc programme based on

Bully Proong your School.

12 weeks.
No followup.

Menesini et al. (2003)

Italy

The effectiveness of school antibullying intervention.

1114

The Befriending Intervention.

1 school year.
No follow-up.

Fonagy et al. (2005)

USA

The impact of an anti-bullying

programme in educational
achievement in PS.

1012

The Creating a Peaceful School

Learning Environment (CAPSLE)..

5 years.
Follow-up: evaluation at the end
of each academic year.

Andreou and Didaskalou (2008)

Greece

The effectiveness of an
intervention that sought to
improve awareness, selfreection and the capacity to
solve bullying situations.

2 EM
N = 293:
GI = 178
GC = 115
5 EP and ES
N = 2206:
GI = 1106
GC = 1100
10 PS
N = 454
CG = 206
IG = 248

Signicant reduction of bullying

(F = 3.44), and victimization
(F = 2.84) in PS.
No signicant results in SE.
No signicant differences
between the 1st IG (only intervention) and the 2nd IG (with
external support and training sessions for teachers).
Signicant decrease in discipline
problems (51.35% for physical
aggressiveness, and 4% for
suspensions), and improved
academic performance in the
school with the intervention,
(F = 8.50, for Mathematics).
No signicant reduction in school
bullying.
Older children (913) beneted
from the programme whereas
younger ones (68) showed no
signicant changes.
Changes were observed in some
measures of results: victimization,
internalization and
externalization, which vary
according to age and sex.
The pro-bullying roles and those
of the bystander were reduced or
remained stable steady in the IG.

912

Ecological approach. Intervention

based on the roles of the bullying
participants.

4 weeks.
6-month follow-up.

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

Author/country

A signicant improvement was

observed in the academic
performance of the IG, (Chi2
= 7.19 for Mathematics).
Reduction of the role of the
passive spectator (F = 10.301).
Improvement in self-effectiveness
beliefs to intervene in bullying
situations (F = 10.338)
Results were maintained at
follow-up.
1653

(continued on next page)

1654

Table 3 (continued)
Aim

Sample size

Bauer et al. (2007)

USA

The effectiveness of a bullying

prevention programme.

10 PS
N = 6518:
IG = 4959
CG = 1559

Evers et al. (2007)

USA

The effectiveness of transtheoretical model based on school

interventions to prevent bullying.

12 MS + 12 SS
N = 2452
CG = 792
1 IG = 863
2 IG = 797

Stanbury et al. (2009)

USA

A school programme aimed at

reducing bullying.

Ju et al. (2009)
China

To reduce the incidence of

bullying by establishing a
respectful and safe class
environment.
The effects of virtual teaching
aimed at reducing bullying and
the general rates of victimization
among SS students.

Sapouna et al. (2010)

UKGermany

Age

Programme/intervention

Duration/follow-up

Signicant results

Olweus Bullying Prevention

Programme.

2 years.
No follow-up

1116

Build Respect, Stop Bullying.

1 year: 3 sessions.
No follow-up.

1 SS
N = 172
IG = 86
CG = 86

1314

Programme designed to improve

empathy among school children.

7 weeks.
No follow-up.

1 PS
N = 354
IG = 233
CG = 121
27 PS
N = 1129:
IG. = 509
CG = 560

810

Programme designed by
researchers based on the action
research approach.

5 weeks.
No follow-up.

711

Fun with Empathic Agents to

achieve Novel Outcomes in
Teaching: FEAR NOT!

3 weeks.
5-week follow-up.

Intervention had no overall effect

on victimization.
Signicant results were found
when the sample was layered by
ethnic groups: relational and
psychological violence was
reduced among white pupils:
RR = 0.72 (0.530.98) and 0.63
(0.420.97) respectively.
Signicant reductions in student
involvement in bullying, in the
roles of the bully, the victim and
the passive onlooker both in MS
(treatment 1: t = 6.33; treatment 2: t = 7.55), and SS
(treatment 1: t = 5.33; treatment 2: t = 5.69).
Signicant differences among girls
in bullying behaviour
(F = 6.887), and at post-test between the IG and the CG,
(F = 4.499).
No differences found among boys.
Signicant reduction of
victimization on the journeys to
and from school in the IG
(t = 3.86).
Signicant improvement in the
capacity to escape victimization in
the IG (RR = 1.41 (1.021.81)).
A doseresponse relation was
found between the amount of interventions with virtual and the
capacity to escape victimization
(OR = 1.09 (1.0031.18)).

611

Abbreviations: N, sample size; IG, Intervention Group; CG, Control Group; PS, Primary Schools; MS, Middle Schools; SS, Secondary Schools; F, FisherSnedecor's F-test; RR, Relative Risk; OR, Odds Ratio; t, Student's t-test.
p b 0.05.
p b 0.001.

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

Author/country

Table 4
Papers reviewed at level of evidence 2B: uncontrolled studies and studies of cohorts.
Aim

Sample size

Age

Programme/ intervention

Duration/ follow-up

Signicant results

The effectiveness of a programme

involving school staff in order to
reinforce positive behaviour
among pupils.

3 SS
N = 1043:
IG = 645
CG = 758

1114

Effective Behaviour
Support Intervention.

1 school year.
1-year follow-up

Beran et al. (2004)

Canada

To reduce intimidating behaviours

and to create a safe school
environment.

4 PS
Phase 1
EC = 25
CC = 77
Phase 2
C1 = 20
C2 = 70

912

Dare to Care: bully proong your

school.

Phase 1:
Duration: 3 months.
No follow-up.
Phase 2:
Duration: 12 years.
Comparison of 2 PS of different
programme intervention lengths.

Salmivalli et al. (2005)

UK

The effects of an anti-bullying intervention programme.

16 PS
N = 1220

912

Global intervention based on the

roles played by those involved in
bullying.

6 months.
12-month follow-up.

Bowllan (2011)
USA

The prevalence of bullying in MS

and the impact of a prevention
programme.

1 SS
N = 270
EC = 112
CC = 158

1214

Olweus Bullying Prevention

Programme.

1 year.
No follow-up.

Increase of appropriate social

behaviours (20.4% increase for 6th
graders and 27.3% increase for 7th
graders) and reduction of physical
and verbal bullying in IG (35.2%
for 6th graders decrease, and
31.3% for 7th graders decrease).
Fewer disciplinary incidences
among 7th-year pupils,
(F = 3.64).
Greater perceived safety in the IG,
(27.5% for 6th graders increase,
and 22.3% for 7tth graders
increase).
Phase 1:
Frequency of bullying reduced in
the centre (t = 3.84). Attitudes
towards victims worsened in the
CC at post-test (t = 5.79).
Phase 2:
In C2 (after 2 years of the programme), more positive attitudes
towards victims were recorded
than in C1, after 1 year of the
programme (F = 2.74).
Fewer bullies ( = 1.72(0.78)),
and victims( = 0.90(0.50)).
Less bullying observed ( =
0.37(0.21)), and experienced
( = 0.27(0.15)).
Improved role of participants
( = 0.21(0.009) in role of
reinforcing).
Signicant, positive results among
girls in the 7th grade (1213) on
prevalence of bullying (27%
decrease) and in the teachers'
capacity to identify bullying
(48.8% increase).

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

Author/ country
Metzler et al. (2001)
USA

Abbreviations: N, sample size; EC, Exposed Cohort; CC, Control Cohort; C1, Cohort during rst year of programme; C2, Cohort during second year of programme; PS, Primary School; SS, Secondary Schools; t, Student's t-test; , regression
coefcient; F, FisherSnedecor's F-test.
p b 0.05.
p b 0.001.

1655

1656

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

high levels of violent behaviour (Beets et al., 2009; Farrell, Meyer, &
White, 2001). This may be due to the oor effect generated by students with low levels of aggression. This is consistent with prevention
programmes that proved more effective among students with high
pre-test levels of aggressiveness (Stoolmiller, Eddy, & Reid, 2000).
However, in interventions that were not focused on aggression,
Fonagy et al. (2009) report signicant reductions in this measure for
low-risk Primary school children.
Signicant changes in victimization caused by bullying were also
observed in the studies reviewed. The authors underline the importance
of teaching coping strategies and training in social skills in order to
be able to respond to episodes of bullying (Berry & Hunt, 2009; Jenson
& Dieterich, 2007), as Olweus reported in previous studies (Olweus,
1993, 1996).
The modulating effect of gender and age was not studied in depth
because most of the studies do not nd (or do not report) signicant
differences due to these variables. In the studies that indicate gender
differences, most of the authors report better results amongst males
(Beets et al., 2009; Farrell, Meyer, & White, 2001; Frey et al., 2005;
Menesini et al., 2003), although some studies contradict this (Jenson &
Dieterich, 2007; Rahey & Craig, 2002). The reason for these apparently
contradictory ndings does not seem to lie in the theoretical framework
of the interventions, as most of them stem from a pro-social model,
based on the development of anti-bullying beliefs and attitudes, or
form mixed models that combine the psychodynamic or global
approach (Frey et al., 2005; Rahey & Craig, 2002). Nevertheless, we
believe that these ndings may be due to the fact that the tools used
in the evaluation usually measure aggression and direct bullying,
which are more frequent among boys, and they ignore indirect violence
based on more subtle behaviours, such as isolating or rumours, which
are more prevalent among girls (Olweus, 2005). It has been observed
that boys usually reveal higher baselines in scales of aggression, bullying and victimization (Menesini et al., 2003). This may explain why
it is easier to obtain more positive results among boys than girls, as
these types of assessment tools are the most common in the studies
examined. On the other hand, the gender difference observed in the
differential use of violence may be related to girls' greater predisposition to develop internalizing behaviours, in contrast to boys, who
usually display externalizing ones (Wasserman, McReynolds, Ko, Katz,
& Carpenter, 2005; Zahn-Waxler, Shirtcliff, & Marceau, 2008).
Rahey and Craig (2002) report better results among girls and consider that this may be due to the intervention being more adapted to
these gender differences. However, an inuential factor may be the
use of indirect assessment tools, such as questionnaires administered
to teachers or parents, who usually give lower scores in victimization
and bullying for girls than for boys. This is consistent with the ndings
of other authors who do not nd signicant gender differences when
the same variable is measured through self-report questionnaires
(Elsea & Smith, 1998). This coincides with the conclusions of Frey
et al. (2005), who report that boys generally benet more from the
intervention, although girls obtain better results in the acquisition of
social skillsa measure that is assessed through teachers' reports.
With regard to age, most of the cases studied that offer ndings on
this variable report better results among older children (Secondary
schools). Indeed, despite the fact that interventions carried out with
younger children (Primary schools) produce signicant improvement
in the acquisition of social skills and increased empathy, no changes
are observed in the frequency and severity of bullying and victimization
episodes or those of physical and verbal aggression. There are several,
apparently contradictory, interpretations of these ndings. Some
authors state that children continually exposed to situations of bullying,
manage to adapt over time and acquire the social and assertive skills
necessary to cope with the situation. This would lead to less victimization when they are older (Jenson & Dieterich, 2007; Smith, Madsen, &
Moody, 1999). However, Rahey and Craig (2002) conclude that small
children who are victims of bullying can turn into bullies of younger

children as they get older and stronger, thus perpetrating a cycle of

violence. This would justify the need to administer intervention programmes simultaneously across the entire school age range. This interpretation is consistent with the ndings of other authors who have
carried out programmes at both Primary and Secondary school levels
(Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost, 2000) and who obtain better
results for younger aged children.
5. Conclusions
This review allows us to state that there is evidence for the effectiveness of school interventions aimed at reducing or preventing violence.
The most effective interventions appear to be those aimed at improving
social and interpersonal skills and modifying attitudes and beliefs. The
most sensitive variables used to evaluate the effectiveness of these
interventions are those related to attitudes, beliefs and behaviours and,
to a lesser extent, victimization and frequency of violent behaviours.
With regard to the modulating effects of gender and age on the effectiveness of the programmes analysed, the ndings are inconclusive, as most
of the studies do not take these variables into consideration. The few that
do so indicate that, in terms of gender, there is a better response among
males, whereas, in terms of age, older children (Secondary schools) seem
to benet more from the diverse programmes.
6. Recommendations
Our study has revealed certain aspects that need to be borne in
mind when designing future interventions:
1) The likelihood of success is greater when all the professional disciplines of the educational centres and the parents of the children
are involved.
2) It is essential to adapt programmes to the social and cultural characteristics of the school population in question and to consider any
possible inuence of age and gender.
3) The long-term effectiveness of interventions is vital. The few studies
that include follow-ups generally coincide that the effect decreases
when the intervention is not maintained. We suggest that it is necessary to adopt measures that favour this continuity, such as reminder
sessions or the implementation of prevention or intervention programmes within the academic curriculum.
7. Limitations
This review has a series of limitations that should be taken into
account. Firstly, the search strategy restricts the search to articles
published in English, which may exclude studies of interest in other
languages. Unpublished articles and articles providing low levels of
evidence are also excluded. Furthermore, the interventions evaluated
were generally performed in not very homogeneous populations. In
fact, some were carried out exclusively in Primary or Secondary schools,
whereas others covered the whole school-age range, from 6 to 16 years,
and therefore include subjects at very different stages of maturity. The
populations studied are also of diverse origins (USA, Australia, UK,
France, Greece, Canada) and therefore present diverse social and
cultural peculiarities. Finally, due to the heterogeneity of the different
programmes evaluated, the diverse models, methodologies and tools
used, it is not easy to compare ndings or to apply meta-analysis
techniques.
References
Abada, T., Hou, F., & Ram, B. (2008). The effects of harassment and victimization on
self-rated health and mental health among Canadian adolescents. Social Science
& Medicine, 67, 557567.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (2010). EPC evidence reports.
Rockville: AHRQ [Internet]. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcindex.htm. Accesed
12.12.2010.

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658
Andreou, E., Didaskalou, E., & Vlachou, A. (2008). Outcomes of a curriculum-based
anti-bullying intervention program on students' attitudes and behavior. Emotional and
Behavioural Difculties, 13, 235248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632750802442110.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Evaluation of an intervention program for the
reduction of bullying and victimization in schools. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 115.
Bauer, N. B., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 40, 266274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.005.
Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Snyder, F. J., Acock, A., Li, K., et al. (2009). Use of a
social and character development program to prevent substance use, violent behaviors, and sexual activity among elementary-school students in Hawaii. American
Journal of Public Health, 99, 14381445. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.142919.
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood,
family, school, and gender. New York: Oxford University Press.
Beran, T. N., Tutty, L., & Steinrath, G. (2004). An evaluation of a bullying prevention program for elementary schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 19, 99116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/082957350401900105.
Berry, K., & Hunt, C. J. (2009). Evaluation of an intervention program for anxious adolescent boys who are bullied at school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 376382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.023.
Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause
emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7311.480.
Bowllan, N. M. (2011). Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive, school-wide
bullying prevention program in an urban/suburban middle school. Journal of School
Health, 81, 167173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00576.x.
Brunstein, K. A., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007). Bullying,
depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 4049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000242237.84925.18.
Cowie, H. (2000). Stand by: The power of peer support against bullying. The New
Therapist, 7, 3033.
Cunningham, C. E., Cunningham, L. J., Martorelli, V., Tran, A., Young, J., & Zacharias, R.
(1998). The effects of primary division, student-mediated conict resolution programs on playground aggression. The Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 39,
653662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00365.
Cunningham, P. B., & Henggeler, S. W. (2001). Implementation of an empirically
based drug and violence prevention and intervention program in public
school settings. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 221232. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3002_9.
Currie, C., Gabhainn, S. N., Godeau, E., Roberts, C., Smith, R., Currie, D., et al. (2008).
Inequalities in young people's health. Health behaviour in school-aged children:
International report from the 20052006 survey (Rep. No. 5). Edinburgh: Health
policy for children and adolescents.
Department of Health and Human Services, & Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(2006). Youth risk behavior surveillanceUnited States, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 55, 67.
DeRosier, M. E. (2004). Building relationships and combating bullying: Effectiveness of
a school-based social skills group intervention. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 33, 196201.
Elsea, M., & Smith, P. K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in
primary schools. Educational Research, 40, 203218.
Evers, K. E., Prochaska, J. O., Van Marter, D. F., Johnson, J. L., & Prochaska, M. (2007). Transtheoretical-based bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle schools and
high schools. Educational Research, 49, 397414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00131880701717271.
Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A., Kung, E. M., & Sullivan, T. N. (2001). Development and evaluation
of school-based violence prevention programs. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30,
207220.
Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., & White, K. S. (2001). Evaluation of responding in peaceful and positive ways (RIPP): A school-based prevention program for reducing
violence among urban adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30,
451463.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2006). Effects of antibullying school
program on bullying and health complaints. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine, 160, 638644.
Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. W., Vernberg, E. M., Nelson, J. M., Dill, E. J., Little, T. D., et al. (2009).
A cluster randomized controlled trial of child-focused psychiatric consultation and
a school systems-focused intervention to reduce aggression. The Journal of Child
Psychology & Psychiatry, 50, 607616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.
2008.02025.x.
Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. T., Vernberg, E. M., Sacco, F. C., & Little, T. D. (2005). Creating a
peaceful school learning environment: The impact of an antibullying program on
educational attainment in elementary schools. Medical Science Monitor, 11,
317325.
Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. V., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J.
(2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental
trial of the steps to respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41, 479490.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.479.
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A
meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 10591065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-1215.
Hunt, C. (2007). The effect of an education program on attitudes and beliefs about bullying
and bullying behaviour in junior secondary school students. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12, 2126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00417.x.
Jadad, A. R., Moher, D., & Klassen, T. P. (1998). Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: How did the authors nd the studies and assess their quality? Archives of
Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 152, 812817.

1657

Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J., Gavaghan, D. J., et al.
(1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding
necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17, 112.
Jenson, J. M., & Dieterich, W. A. (2007). Effects of a skills-based prevention program on
bullying and bully victimization among elementary school children. Prevention Science, 8, 296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0076-3.
Ju, Y., Wang, S., & Zhang, W. (2009). Intervention research on school bullying in primary
schools. Frontiers of Education in China, 4, 111122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11516-009-0007-0.
McMahon, E. M., Reulbach, U., Keeley, H., Perry, I. J., & Arensman, E. (2010). Bullying victimisation, self harm and associated factors in Irish adolescent boys. Social Science &
Medicine, 71, 13001307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.034.
Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children's responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian
middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.80012.
Merrel, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school
bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23, 2642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26.
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Spraque, J. R. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive behavior management program to improve school-wide positive behavior
support. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 448479.
Mytton, J., DiGuiseppi, C., Gough, D., Taylor, R., & Logan, S. (2006). School-based secondary
prevention programmes for preventing violence. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, 19(3), CD004606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004606.pub2.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2008). Identifying the evidence. Information for national collaborating centers and guideline developers. [Internet].
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidelinesmanual [On-line].
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2001). Undertaking systematic reviews of
research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning
reviews (Rep. no. 4). York, UK: University of York.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996). Bullying at school: Knowledge base and an effective intervention
programme. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 794, 265276.
Olweus, D. (2005, October). Bullying at school: data and intervention. Paper presented at
the IX International Meeting about Biology and Sociology of Violence: Violence and
School, Valencia, Spain.
stberg, V. (2003). Children in classrooms: Peer status, status distribution
and mental well-being. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1729. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00006-0.
Park-Higgerson, H. K., Perumean-Chaney, S. E., Bartolucci, A. A., Grimley, D. M., &
Singh, A. P. (2008). The evaluation of school-based violence prevention programs: A meta-analysis. The Journal of School Health, 78, 465479. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00332.x.
Rahey, L., & Craig, W. M. (2002). Evaluation of an ecological program to reduce bullying
in schools. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 36, 281296.
Rigby, K. (1997). Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among australian school children.
Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 202220.
Ruiz, J., Exposito, F., & Bonache, E. (2010). Adolescent witnesses in cases of teen dating
violence: an analysis of peer responses. The European Journal of Psychology Applied
to Legal Context, 2, 3753.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465487.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X26011.
Sapouna, M., Wolke, D., Vannini, N., Watson, S., Woods, S., Schneider, W., et al. (2010).
Virtual learning intervention to reduce bullying victimization in primary school: A
controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 104112. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02137.x.
Scheckner, S., Rollin, S., Kaiser-Ulrey, C., & Wagner, R. (2002). School violence in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of current interventions. Journal of School Violence, 1, 533.
Smith, P. K., Madsen, K. C., & Moody, J. C. (1999). What causes the age decline in reports of
being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied.
Educational Research, 41, 267285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188990410303.
Stanbury, S., Bruce, M. A., Jain, S., & Stellern, J. (2009). The effects of an empathy building program on bullying behavior. Journal of School Counseling, 7, 127.
Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. D., & Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools:
An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
000709900158056.
Stevens, V., Van Oost, P., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2000). The effects of an anti-bullying
intervention programme on peers' attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Adolescence,
23, 2134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.0296.
Stoolmiller, M., Eddy, J. M., & Reid, J. B. (2000). Detecting and describing preventive
intervention effects in a universal school-based randomized trial targeting delinquent and violent behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
296306.
Surgeon General (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Department
of Health and Human Sciences. [Internet]. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
library/youthviolence/report.html. Accesed 15.01.2010.
Teglasi, H., & Rothman, L. (2001). STORIES. A classroom-based program to reduce aggressive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 7194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-4405(00)00060-1.
Tto, M. M., & Farrington, F. D. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 7, 2756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1.

1658

J.A. Jimnez Barbero et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 16461658

Twemlow, S. T., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F. C., Gies, M. L., Evans, R., & Ewban, R. (2001). Creating a
peaceful school learning environment: A controlled study of an elementary school
intervention to reduce violence. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 808810.
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions
to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 7888.
Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Ko, S. J., Katz, L. M., & Carpenter, J. R. (2005). Gender
differences in psychiatric disorders at juvenile probation intake. American Journal of
Public Health, 95, 131137. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2003.024737.

Wilson, S. (2000). Effectiveness of school violence prevention programs: Application of a

mean change approach to meta-analysis. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Marceau, K. (2008). Disorders of childhood and adolescence: Gender and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 275303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091358.