Bullying, which includes cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying, is amongst the most pervasive threats to the wellbeing of children and young people.  Schools are important social environments, at the forefront of managing bullying behaviours.  The rapidly changing and complex nature of bullying requires schools to put in place and maintain systems to prepare for and respond to such activities.  Schools must also continually test and refine these systems to ensure optimal performance.  Despite this clear need, there is a lack of school level, self-assessment tools that enable schools to assess and measure their preparedness to deal with bullying and other disruptive activities.

This study draws from the Social Ecological Theory of bullying and victimisation, in which bullying is seen as embedded in a larger social context that includes peer groups, schools, families, neighbourhoods, communities, etc. (Bauman & Yoon 2014).  In addition, the study is informed by school climate literature, which draws from multiple theories, including behaviourism, social learning theory, prevention science, and systems change (Bosworth & Judkins 2014).

The aim of this study was to describe the development and reliability and validity testing of a systems-level, self-assessment tool.  The tool can be used by schools to evaluate their level of preparation to prevent and respond to bullying and cyberbullying, and other events that negatively disrupt the social cohesiveness of their school.  This work forms part of a larger project conducted with the Alannah & Madeline Foundation to evaluate their eSmart Schools program. eSmart is a long-term change program designed to educate, track, monitor, and prevent bullying and cyberbullying.

The initial generation of items to include was based on a review of the relevant Australian and international literature (academic and grey), Australian government guidelines, and input from eSmart staff at the Alannah & Madeline Foundation. This foundational work identified five “focus areas” with a total of 40 items developed. The five focus areas were: Gathering, Analysis, and Use of Data; Gateway Behaviours; Response; Reporting; and School Climate. In addition to these 40 items, schools were asked to respond to two “global” questions that asked schools to rate their overall systems-level preparation to: (a) prevent, and (b) respond to bullying and cyberbullying. These questions were asked immediately prior to, and immediately after, the more specific 40 items. Prior to being asked the first global question, participants listened to a short audio vignette depicting a bullying scenario. Participants were asked to respond to all questions with this scenario in mind. The second set of “global” questions was followed by three questions evaluating the audio vignette. Finally, participants were provided with the opportunity to provide any additional comments or feedback. The initial tool was piloted with 12 school principals. Participating schools included primary, secondary, and combined schools, from all three Australian school sectors – government, Catholic, and Independent. Feedback from the pilot resulted in minor changes to the tool. A further 36 school principals then completed the tool. The original target sample size was 50 schools; however, COVID-19 negatively affected participation rates. Both classic Item Response Theory and Rasch Analyses were used to examine and refine the 40-item instrument.

An examination of individual items for very high mean values (>3.5 on the 4-point scale), coupled with small standard deviations (<.70), low Corrected-Total Item Correlation scores (<.4), and increase in Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted, resulted in a reduction of the original 40-item tool to 24 items. Rasch Analysis of the 24-item tool suggested the deletion of two additional items and a reduction of response options from a four-point to a three-point scale. The final instrument consisted of 22 items. It demonstrated good internal reliability, discriminant validity, convergent validity, and unidimentionality. Schools may use the SSAT-22 in several ways. They may, for example, use it as a monitoring tool – to track progress over time – overall and/or in each of the five Focus Areas. In its current format, the tool is designed to be used by schools once a year. They may also wish to examine individual SSAT-22 items within Focus Areas, to identify at a more granular level their strengths and challenges. In this study, the SSAT was completed by one person at each school – usually the Principal or eSmart Advisor. However, schools may find it useful to have multiple staff complete the tool, including the health and wellbeing advisor, and discuss any discrepancies in responses. Finally, as part of a broader school consortium, schools may want to compare results with other schools, and collaboratively explore ways to improve. Recognising the small sample size used to test and validate the instrument, it is hoped that a larger administration will be conducted in subsequent years, with additional analyses to further refine the instrument. Future research should test the usefulness of the tool for schools outside Australia.

Chalmers, C., Campbell, M. A., Spears, B. A., Butler, D., Cross, D., Slee, P., & Kift, S. (2016). School policies on bullying and cyberbullying: perspectives across three Australian states. Educational Research, 58(1), 91-109. doi:10.1080/00131881.2015.1129114 Cook, S. (2021). Cyberbullying facts and statistics for 2018 – 2021. Retrieved from https://www.comparitech.com/internet-providers/cyberbullying-statistics/ Craig, W., Boniel-Nissim, M., King, N., Walsh, S. D., Boer, M., Donnelly, P. D., . . . Pickett, W. (2020). Social media use and cyber-bullying: A cross-national analysis of young people in 42 countries. Journal of adolescent health, 66(6), S100-S108. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.03.006 Farrell, A. D., Sullivan, T. N., Sutherland, K. S., Corona, R., & Masho, S. (2018). Evaluation of the Olweus Bully Prevention Program in an urban school system in the USA. Prevention science, 19(6), 833-847. doi:10.1007/s11121-018-0923-4 Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Examining the efectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1(1), 14-31. doi:10.1007/s42380-019-0007-4 Hall, W. J., & Chapman, M. V. (2018). The Role of school context in implementing a statewide anti-bullying policy and protecting students. Educational Policy, 32(4), 507-539. Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311-322. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003 Jadambaa, A., Thomas, H. J., Scott, J. G., Graves, N., Brain, D., & Pacella, R. (2019). Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(9), 878-888. doi:10.1177/0004867419846393 Nikolaou, D. (2017). Do anti-bullying policies deter in-school bullying victimization? International Review of Law and Economics, 50, 1-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2017.03.001 Pennell, D., Campbell, M., & Tangen, D. (2020). What influences Australian secondary schools in their efforts to prevent and intervene in cyberbullying?. Educational Research, 62(3), 284-303. Slee, P., Sullivan, K., Green, V. A., Harcourt, S., & Lynch, T. E. (2016). Research on bullying in schools in Australasia. In P. K. Smith, K. Kwak, & Y. Toda (Eds.), School bullying in different cultures : Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 55-72). Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Tiller, E., Greenland, N., Christie, R., Kos, A., Brennan, N., Di Nicola, K., & Yáñez-Marquina, L. (2021). Youth Survey Report 2021. Sydney, NSW: Mission Australia.