Scholarlink

<p>The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire has been widely used to estimate bullying prevalence. Using a version that included a preamble defining bullying as <i>potentially repetitive</i>, its developer recommended classifying only participants bullied at least two or three times a month as victims—arguing this avoids trivial, isolated cases and reflects a linear relationship with psychosocial distress. However, this cutoff has been adopted in numerous studies whose preamble defined bullying as repetitive in nature, leading to the exclusion of participants who reported having been bullied once or twice. This study revisited that cutoff using 2022 cross-sectional data from 5,691 school attendees aged 11–15 (48.2% female). Bullying victimization was assessed via a single item preceded by a preamble emphasizing repetition, power imbalance, and intent to harm. It was operationalized in three ways: (1) as an ordinal variable, (2) using the “once or twice” cutoff, and (3) using the “two or three times a month” cutoff. Correlational, ANOVA, and logistic regression analyses examined associations between victimization and anxiety, life satisfaction, loneliness, and risk for depression. Results showed that the “two or three times a month” cutoff yielded weaker associations with psychosocial indicators than the “once or twice” threshold. Moreover, participants reporting either frequency exhibited similar psychosocial profiles. These findings question the validity of the commonly used cutoff and suggest it may misclassify substantial numbers of victims, potentially distorting prevalence estimates and intervention efforts. Given its widespread and uncritical adoption, bullying researchers are urged to re-examine their data and consider including all self-reported victims in their analyses.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A Reassessment of Inclusion Criteria Within Olweus’ Framework in Bullying Research

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月29日

查看全文
  • Romain Brisson

摘要

The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire has been widely used to estimate bullying prevalence. Using a version that included a preamble defining bullying as potentially repetitive, its developer recommended classifying only participants bullied at least two or three times a month as victims—arguing this avoids trivial, isolated cases and reflects a linear relationship with psychosocial distress. However, this cutoff has been adopted in numerous studies whose preamble defined bullying as repetitive in nature, leading to the exclusion of participants who reported having been bullied once or twice. This study revisited that cutoff using 2022 cross-sectional data from 5,691 school attendees aged 11–15 (48.2% female). Bullying victimization was assessed via a single item preceded by a preamble emphasizing repetition, power imbalance, and intent to harm. It was operationalized in three ways: (1) as an ordinal variable, (2) using the “once or twice” cutoff, and (3) using the “two or three times a month” cutoff. Correlational, ANOVA, and logistic regression analyses examined associations between victimization and anxiety, life satisfaction, loneliness, and risk for depression. Results showed that the “two or three times a month” cutoff yielded weaker associations with psychosocial indicators than the “once or twice” threshold. Moreover, participants reporting either frequency exhibited similar psychosocial profiles. These findings question the validity of the commonly used cutoff and suggest it may misclassify substantial numbers of victims, potentially distorting prevalence estimates and intervention efforts. Given its widespread and uncritical adoption, bullying researchers are urged to re-examine their data and consider including all self-reported victims in their analyses.