powerpoint
Victoria falls
School_climate_peer_victimiza.pdf
School Climate, Peer Victimization, and Academic Achievement: Results From a Multi-Informant Study
Weijun Wang, Tracy Vaillancourt, and Heather L. Brittain
University of Ottawa
Patricia McDougall University of Saskatchewan
Amanda Krygsman and David Smith University of Ottawa
Charles E. Cunningham McMaster University
J. D. Haltigan University of Ottawa
Shelley Hymel University of British Columbia
School-level school climate was examined in relation to self-reported peer victimization and teacher-rated academic achievement (grade point average; GPA). Participants included a sample of 1,023 fifth-grade children nested within 50 schools. Associations between peer victimization, school climate, and GPA were examined using multilevel modeling, with school climate as a contextual variable. Boys and girls reported no differences in victim- ization by their peers, although boys had lower GPAs than girls. Peer victimization was related to lower GPA and to a poorer perception of school climate (individual-level), which was also associated with lower GPA. Results of multilevel analyses revealed that peer victimization was again negatively associated with GPA, and that lower school-level climate was associated with lower GPA. Although no moderating effects of school-level school climate or sex were observed, the relation between peer victimization and GPA remained significant after taking into account (a) school-level climate scores, (b) individual variability in school-climate scores, and (c) several covariates— ethnicity, absenteeism, household income, parental education, percentage of minority students, type of school, and bullying perpetration. These findings underscore the importance of a positive school climate for academic success and viewing school climate as a fundamental collective school outcome. Results also speak to the importance of viewing peer victimization as being harmfully linked to students’ academic performance.
Keywords: peer victimization, academic achievement, school climate, bullying, multilevel modeling
Children have the right to learn and interact in a safe environment (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). Schools, as a major component
of a broader community to which children belong, should be safe, engaging, and inclusive places that afford opportunities for them to develop their per-
Weijun Wang, Counselling, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa; Tracy Vaillancourt, Counselling, Faculty of Education, and School of Psychology, Fac- ulty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa; Heather L. Brittain, Counselling, Faculty of Education, Univer- sity of Ottawa; Patricia McDougall, Department of Psy- chology, University of Saskatchewan; Amanda Krygs- man and David Smith, Counselling, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa; Charles E. Cunning- ham, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neuro- sciences, McMaster University; J. D. Haltigan, Counsel- ling, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa;
Shelley Hymel, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia.
This study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Cana- dian Institutes for Heath Research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Tracy Vaillancourt, Canada Research Chair, Children’s Mental Health and Violence Prevention Fac- ulty of Education and School of Psychology, 145 Jean- Jacques-Lussier, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 Canada. E-mail: tracy.vaillancourt@ uottawa.ca
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
School Psychology Quarterly © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 29, No. 3, 360 –377 1045-3830/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000084
360
sonality, talents, and cognitive and physical abil- ities to their fullest potential. Unfortunately, schools are not always safe environments for stu- dents (Grover, Boberiene, & Limber, in press; Robers, Kemp, & Truman, 2013). For example, in a large study of Canadian students (5,493 girls and 5,659 boys) in Grades 4 to 12, Vaillancourt, Brit- tain, et al. (2010) found that 21% of elementary school students and 17% of secondary school stu- dents reported feeling unsafe at school.
Perceptions of safety in school can be directly linked to student experiences with peer victimiza- tion and/or bullying (Vaillancourt, Brittain, et al., 2010). Bullying is unwanted aggressive behavior that is intentional, repetitive, and involves an im- balance of power between two or more individu- als (e.g., Olweus, 1993). Bullying may include direct actions, such as hitting, taking or damaging possessions, taunting, or name-calling, or indirect actions, such as social exclusion, rumor-spread- ing, or manipulation of friendships (i.e., relational or social bullying). Bullying may also involve the use of electronic communications, which is often referred to as cyberbullying (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2012).
Studies of North American children and youth suggest that as many as 30% of students are bul- lied regularly at school, and of these students, 8% to 10% are abused on a daily basis (Nansel et al., 2001; Vaillancourt, Trinh, et al., 2010). The ex- perience of being bullied in schools may have long-term negative effects on the mental and physical health and academic achievement of chil- dren and youth (e.g., Anthony, Wessler, & Sebian, 2010; Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009). In the present study, we exam- ined the relation between peer victimization and students’ academic achievement, taking into ac- count school climate.
Peer Victimization and Academic Achievement
Research on the link between peer victimiza- tion and academic variables has shown that bul- lied children are more likely than their nonbullied peers to avoid school (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Rigby, 1996; P. K. Smith, Talamelli, Cowie, Naylor, & Chauhan, 2004; Vaillancourt, Brittain, McDougall, & Duku, 2013), and to have lower academic achievement on average (Eisen- berg, Neumark-Sztainer, & Perry, 2003; Vaillan- court et al., 2013). Buhs and colleagues (Buhs,
Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald- Brown, 2010) followed nearly 400 children in the United States from kindergarten through fifth grade in a study examining the relation between teacher-reported peer exclusion, self-reported vic- timization, and a standardized measure of stu- dents’ academic achievement administered by re- searchers. They found that the exclusion and victimization that some children experienced upon entering kindergarten persisted through the subse- quent school years. Notably, children who were excluded and victimized by their peers were also less likely than their accepted peers to participate in classroom activities and attend school, and, ultimately, they performed more poorly on a test of student achievement. Similarly, in a longitudi- nal study of middle school students, Juvonen, Wang, and Espinoza (2011) found that middle school students’ grade point averages (GPAs) and teacher-rated academic engagement were pre- dicted by both peer- and self-perceptions of vic- timization. Specifically, Juvonen et al. found that a one-unit increase in mean level of self-perceived peer victimization (on a scale of 1 to 4) was associated with a decrease in average GPA by 0.3 scale points (across six time points). They sug- gested that the effect of self-perceived peer vic- timization on GPA “can account for up to an average of 1.5 letter grade decrease in one aca- demic subject (e.g., math) across the 3 years of middle school” (p. 167). However, a recent meta- analysis of the association between peer victim- ization and academic achievement showed a small but significant negative relation between these two variables (Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010). Naka- moto and Schwartz (2010) suggest that a third variable may account for (i.e., buffer or exacer- bate) this negative relationship, and that “further exploration will be needed before any conclusions can be drawn” (p. 223) on the association between peer victimization and academic achievement.
Peer Victimization and School Climate
Peer victimization and students’ academic achievement are often linked to school climate. School climate refers to the quality and charac- ter of school life (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009), and involves the social, emo- tional, and academic experiences of students, their family members, and school personnel. School climate can be summarized as the col- lective beliefs, values, and attitudes that prevail
361SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
at school (Cohen, 2009; Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008; Modin & Östberg, 2009). Thus, school climate is more than an individual expe- rience. According to Cohen et al. (2009), school climate includes four essential dimensions: (a) safety (including clear and consistent rules, the extent to which individuals feel physically safe, attitudes about violence and bullying), (b) teaching and learning (such as the quality of instruction, the extent to which social-emotional and academic learning is valued, whether pro- fessional development is systematic and ongo- ing), (c) relationships (including respect for di- versity, a sense of connectedness among members of the school community, a pattern of positive relationships between and among stu- dents, educators, and families), and (d) environ- ment (including cleanliness, order, appeal of the facilities, and adequate resources).
Researchers investigating school climate also use other terms and constructs to study and measure school climate (e.g., school connected- ness, school engagement, student satisfaction with school). For example, in a literature sum- mary of measures that have often been used to explore students’ relationship to school, Libbey (2004) identified nine constructs that are partic- ularly relevant to understanding school climate: safety, peer relations, teacher support, academic engagement, discipline and fairness, belonging, school liking, student voice, and extracurricular activities.
An important focus of school-climate re- search is on whether schools are places of com- munity for students. As defined by McMillan and Chavis (1986), community refers not only to a territorial or geographic unit but also to the quality or character of human relationships. Members of a community feel that they belong, that they matter to one another, and that their needs are met through their commitment to one another. School as a community reflects the collective experience of students, school adults, and parents in schools, in addition to their indi- vidual experiences and engagement.
Studies have indicated that students who are victimized by their peers hold poorer percep- tions of school climate. For example, students who reported being bullied by peers also re- ported lower school connectedness relative to nonbullied students (O’Brennan & Furlong, 2010; You et al., 2008). Corrigan, Klein, and Isaacs (2010) found that students’ trust in teach-
ers was negatively related to the likelihood of being victimized at school, but positively re- lated to their motivation to learn, concern for fellow students, sense of school community, and academic self-esteem.
School Climate and Academic Achievement
Teacher support is associated with students’ positive academic, social, and behavioral out- comes (Bryan et al., 2012). For example, Jen- nings and Greenberg (2009) suggest that the quality of students’ relationships with their teachers is related to student motivation, social and academic skills, and overall mental health. Teachers’ perceptions of students’ ability to meet their expectations (e.g., academic perfor- mance) strongly predicted teachers’ trust in stu- dents (Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2011), and teachers’ perceptions of school contexts (e.g., organizational justice) have been shown to be associated with students’ reports of their psy- chosocial school environment, mental health, academic performance, and absenteeism be- cause of truancy (Elovainio et al., 2011).
A positive school climate may improve stu- dents’ academic achievement. For example, Bryan and colleagues (2012) found that school bonding (i.e., attachment to school and school involvement) contributed to students’ academic achievement in mathematics in a sample of 10,426 12th graders. In a longitudinal study of students making the transition to middle school, Niehaus, Rudasill, and Rakes (2012) assessed school connectedness and academic outcomes (i.e., GPA) at three times during sixth grade and found that students who reported growth or slight decline in school support across the sixth- grade year had higher GPAs at the end of the school year than students who reported steeper declines in school support. Another study indi- cated that school bonding in the eighth grade was associated with a greater likelihood of ac- ademic achievement (i.e., school recorded test scores) later that same school year, which, in turn, predicted less school drop out by the end of the 10th grade (Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming, & Hawkins, 2004). In an intervention designed to improve school climate and school connectedness in high school, Osher and Kend- ziora (2010) found that positive changes in school community were related to significant improvements in scores on statewide achieve-
362 WANG ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
ment tests (e.g., reading, writing, and mathe- matics).
Academic difficulties and challenges may trigger students’ negative perceptions of school climate. For example, students with lower aca- demic self-efficacy (McMahon, Wernsman, & Rose, 2009), those who report lower academic performance (Bonny, Britto, Klostermann, Hur- nung, & Slap, 2000; Thompson, Iachan, Over- peck, Ross, & Gross, 2006), and those held back a grade (Bonny et al., 2000; Fan, Williams, & Corkin, 2011) have been shown to feel less connected to school. An atmosphere in which students do not feel comfortable taking per- sonal, group, and academic risks may limit their engagement in schools (Osher & Kendziora, 2010).
School Climate as a School-Level Variable
There has been little research focusing on school climate as a school-level variable, de- spite H. W. Marsh et al.’s (2012) strong sug- gestion that climate should be represented as a Level 2 (L2) variable, aggregated at the class- room or school level in statistical models. In- deed, to our knowledge, only a few such studies exist. Specifically, Gregory et al. (2010) found that high availability of caring school adults (aggregated at the school-level from students’ perceptions of school support), coupled with fair and consistent discipline (aggregated at the school-level from students’ perceptions of school structure), was associated with lower rates of bullying and victimization among stu- dents in high schools. Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, and Fan (2010) found that high school students who perceived their teachers and other school staff as supportive, and were within schools that had more supportive environments (aggregated at the school-level from students’ perceptions of supportive school climate), were more likely to indicate that they would seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Eliot et al. also found that school-level supportive school climate was related to school-level help-seeking attitudes. In addition, Gregory, Cornell, and Fan (2011) ex- amined the relation between school-level school climate (i.e., school structure, school support) and suspension rates among high school stu- dents. They found that student-rated discipline (school structure) and availability of supportive school adults (support) were related to school-
wide suspensions of students of different groups of races and ethnicities. For example, schools with low discipline (e.g., low rates of students’ perceptions that school rules as fair and uni- formly enforced) had the highest school-wide suspension rates for Black and White students. McNeely, Nonnemaker, and Blum (2002) also showed that the school environment, as re- flected in positive classroom management cli- mates, participation in extracurricular activities, tolerant disciplinary policies, and small school size, were related to higher school-level school connectedness. In each of these studies, school- level scores were created by averaging individ- ual student scores within each school.
Present Study: Peer Victimization, School Climate, and Academic Achievement
In sum, a healthy school climate has a posi- tive connection to academic achievement, whereas peer victimization is associated with poor achievement. There is an association be- tween a person’s perception of being bullied and their negative appraisal of their school’s climate. This association should be expected, considering that (a) safety and belonging are core components of school climate, and (b) in- dividuals are reporting on both their perception of victimization and their school’s climate, which likely leads to inflated associations (i.e., common method variance). What remains un- clear is the nature of associations between peer victimization, school climate, and academic outcomes.
In a recent review of school-climate research, Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, and Higgins- D’Alessandro (2013) argued that “in schools without supportive norms, structures, and rela- tionships, students are more likely to experience violence, peer victimization, and punitive disci- plinary actions, often accompanied by high lev- els of absenteeism and reduced academic achievement” (p. 360). However, this argument was based on separate studies rather than on a single study linking peer victimization, aca- demic achievement, and school climate. The American Psychological Association (2013) has also pointed out that peer victimization and school climate are linked to children’s academic achievement, learning, and development. Again, however, this position does not seem to be based on any study that has formally exam-
363SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
ined these variables in consort. According to Espelage, Hong, Rao, and Low (2013), most studies examining the links between peer vic- timization and academic outcomes have fo- cused on the mediating role of psychological adjustment, with far fewer studies examining potential moderating influences of school cli- mate. Espelage et al. further suggested that un- derstanding these relations is critical in devel- oping effective prevention and intervention efforts.
In the present study, we examined the ef- fects of self-reported peer victimization on teacher-reported students’ GPA, while taking into account school climate as a contextual (i.e., school-level; Level 2 [L2]) moderating variable using multilevel modeling. This ap- proach is novel in that most studies have examined school climate from the perspective of the individual (Level 1 [L1], e.g., O’Brennan & Furlong, 2010; You et al., 2008), with only a few studies examining the associations between school climate at the school level in relation to peer victimization (Eliot et al., 2010; Gregory et al., 2010). To our knowledge, no published study to date has examined the moderating role of school cli- mate (L2) on peer victimization and students’ academic performance (i.e., GPA).
It is possible that students can be bullied and yet be in a school in which most students report a positive school climate. The effects of this type of disjointed experience may pro- vide protection against harm and isolation for bullied students, and further buffer the nega- tive impact of peer victimization on academic achievement. For example, in a study exam- ining the impact of teacher–student relation- ships on peer preference for aggressive stu- dents, Hughes, Cavell, and Willson (2001) found that perceptions of teacher support had a buffering effect on peer social preference for aggressive students. Specifically, they found that students took cues from their teacher in determining whether a peer was likable or not. Accordingly, when examining the moderating role of school climate, we expected that peer-victimized students in schools with lower (i.e., more negative) school-level climate would have lower grades than peer-victimized students in schools with higher (i.e., more positive) school-level cli- mate. We also expected that, consistent with
previous research, experiences of peer victim- ization would negatively impact students’ GPA, and that positive school climate would be related to better academic functioning. Moreover, considering that (a) boys tend to report greater peer victimization than girls (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010), (b) girls tend to do better than boys academically (Duckworth & Seligman, 2006; Vaillancourt et al., 2013), and (c) girls appear to have more positive perceptions of school climate than boys (Koth et al., 2008; Mitchell, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2010; Niehaus et al., 2012), we also explored the possible moder- ating role of sex.
Finally, we considered several covariates in our examination of the moderating roles of school climate and sex on the relation be- tween peer victimization and students’ aca- demic achievement. Children of different races or ethnic groups may experience differ- ent amounts of bullying. In a recent analysis of the health behavior in school-aged children data involving 7,182 U.S. students in Grades 6 through 10, Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel (2009) found that Black adolescents reported more involved in bullying perpetration (phys- ical, verbal, and cyber), but less involvement in victimization (verbal and relational), than White, Hispanic, and adolescents of other rac- es/ethnicities. Hispanic adolescents were more likely to be categorized as physical bul- lies or cyber “bully victims” than White ad- olescents. However, in Canada, few studies have found significant racial/ethnic differ- ences in terms of bullying and victimization (e.g., McKenney, Pepler, Craig, & Connolly, 2006; Pepler, Connolly, & Craig, 1999; Schu- mann, Craig, & Rosu, 2013). Ethnicity is also associated with students’ perceptions of school climate (Fan et al., 2011; Koth et al., 2008). For example, some studies show that students of minority racial groups are less likely to seek help for a variety of behavior problems (Koth et al., 2008). Minority stu- dents are also less likely to regard school adults as supportive sources of help for a problem (T. Marsh & Cornell, 2001). In the United States, Black students, compared with White and Asian students, tend to feel less connected to schools (Bonny et al., 2000; McNeely et al., 2002), and students who come from culturally or linguistically diverse
364 WANG ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
backgrounds experience greater challenges in bonding to school (Nasir, Jones, & McLaugh- lin, 2011; Sulkowski, Demaray, & Lazarus, 2012). Considering evidence that school peer racial/ethnic composition has important ef- fects on individual-level achievement (Lee, 2007; Warikoo & Carter, 2009), and family, school, and community are all important fac- tors related to children’s racial/ethnic atti- tudes and to their academic achievement (E. P. Smith, Atkins, & Connell, 2003), we controlled for student race/ethnicity (White and non-White, in our case). We also con- trolled for the proportion of minority students as a contextual variable.
Although studies have indicated that absen- teeism is not correlated with peer victimiza- tion (Forero, McLellan, Rissel, & Bauman, 1999; Gastic, 2008; Vaillancourt et al., 2013), GPA has been shown to be negatively asso- ciated with absenteeism (Gottfried, 2009; Vaillancourt et al., 2013). As well, socioeco- nomic status (SES) has been shown to be a robust predictor of bullying involvement (Pe- skin, Tortolero, & Markham, 2006) and aca- demic functioning (e.g., Duncan, Morris, & Rodrigues, 2011; Sirin, 2005). Accordingly, we also controlled for absenteeism and the SES indicators of household income and pa- rental education (L1 and L2) to allow for a more rigorous exploration of how peer vic- timization, school climate, and academic achievement interacted with one another. In this study, some students attended schools that included students from kindergarten (K) to Grade 8, whereas others attended schools that included students from K to Grades 5 or 6. Given these differences, we controlled for school type in our analyses. Lastly, consider- ing that students who bully others may expe- rience poorer school adjustment (Nansel et al., 2001), we controlled for bullying perpe- tration in our analyses.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from a random sample of 501 elementary schools in a southern Ontario city, reflecting the demographics of the entire public school board from which they were drawn (e.g., compared on ethnicity, house-
hold income, parental education, gender distri- bution, and school type). Twenty-six schools housed students from K to Grade 8, 15 schools housed students from K to Grade 5, and another nine housed students from K to Grade 6. In the spring of 2008, all Grade 5 classrooms in these schools were approached for recruitment. A to- tal of 1,535 students were eligible for participa- tion and 1,121 students received parental per- mission to participate. On the days of the data collection, 1,023 predominately White (75.5%; see Measures section for a breakdown of eth- nicity), fifth-grade students (Mage � 10.93, SD � 0.40; 53.5% girls) were present and par- ticipated in the research. Participants came from primarily middle class families with a median household income of $70,000 to $80,000.2
Within the participating school board in the 2007/2008 school year, the average classroom size was 25.5 students (Grades 4 to 8). In the 2008/2009 school year, the average classroom size was 25.6 students (Grades 4 to 8). In June 2007, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario passed Bill 212, the Education Amendment Act (Progressive Discipline and School Safety Act), which compelled all school boards in Ontario to develop and implement policies on bullying prevention and intervention effective February 1, 2008.
Procedures
Parents provided active consent for their child’s participation in a student survey, access to Ontario Student Records (i.e., grade reports), and their own participation in a telephone inter- view. Students with parental consent also pro- vided assent for their survey data to be used. All procedures were approved by the investigators’ university research ethics boards.
Students completed paper-and-pencil surveys in their classrooms. All participating classrooms received a book, and each student who returned a signed consent form (regardless of whether they received parental consent to participate) received a package of sugar-free gum. Parent
1 Although 51 schools were recruited at Time 1, one school opted out of the classroom portion of the study. Students in this school did not have data for Time 1, but were retained in the longitudinal study.
2 The median income for the city from which participants were recruited at Time 1 was $76,222, and for the province it was $70,910 (Statistics Canada, 2008).
365SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
interviews were conducted over the phone by a trained research assistant or using a paper-and- pencil version for those who did not have access to a telephone. The person most knowledgeable (PMK) about the child was asked to complete the interview, and he or she was compensated with a gift card ($5). The PMKs were most often biological mothers (85%), over 40 years of age (55%), and over half (71%) had postsec- ondary education.
Measures
Peer victimization. Students’ peer-victim- ization experiences were measured using a short version of the Vaillancourt and Hymel Bullying Involvement Questionnaire to assess student in- volvement in bullying and victimization (Vail- lancourt et al., 2008; Vaillancourt, Trinh, et al., 2010). Following recommendations from Vail- lancourt et al. (2008), students were first given the following definition of bullying:
These questions are about bullying in school. There are lots of different ways to bully someone but a bully wants to hurt the other person (it’s not an accident), and does so repeatedly and unfairly (the bully has some advantage over the victim). Sometimes a group of students will bully a student. It is not bullying when two students of about the same strength quarrel or fight.
Participants were then asked to respond to a series of five questions about their experiences with bullying (e.g., “Since the start of the school year (September) . . . How often have you been bullied at school?”) using a 5-point frequency scale (0 � not at all; 1 � only a few times this year; 2 � every month; 3 � every week; 4 � many times a week), first responding to a gen- eral question and then responding to four dif- ferent questions about different forms of peer victimization (physical, verbal, social, and cy- ber victimization). A composite victimization score was created for each participant by taking the average of all five items (� � .79), with scores ranging from 0.00 to 3.80 (M � 0.83, SD � 0.76). Vaillancourt, Trinh, et al. (2010) have showed that the current measures are more sensitive in identifying true cases of victimiza- tion and bullying than the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996), whose two se- lected variables or general questions have often been used to identify cases of bullying involve- ment (see Solberg & Olweus, 2003). The aver-
age school-level victimization was 0.83 (SD � 0.20, minimum � 0.41, maximum � 1.38).
Academic achievement. Academic achieve- ment was assessed through teacher-assigned grades at the end of the Grade 5 year (June 2008). Specifically, teacher-assessed grades for English, French, math, science, and social stud- ies for each term were obtained directly from students’ official Ontario School Records through the participating school board. Partici- pants’ grades ranged from �D� � 0 to A� � 12 (D� � 50% to 52%; D � 53% to 56%; D� � 57% to 59%; C� � 60% to 62%; C � 63% to 66%; C� � 67% to 69%; B� � 70% to 72%; B � 73% to 75%; B� � 76% to 79%; A� � 80% to 84%; A � 85% to 89%; A� � 90% to 100%). When participants had more than one grade within a subject (e.g., English reading, writing, and oral), grades were aver- aged prior to computing term averages. The GPA composite had excellent reliability (� � .91) and ranged from 2.93 to 11.55 (M � 8.08, SD � 1.73) in the current sample (school-level: M � 8.10, SD � 0.68, minimum � 6.56, max- imum � 9.24).
School climate. School climate was mea- sured using the Sense of School as a Commu- nity Scale (SSCS; Developmental Studies Cen- tre, 1997), a 14-item scale that examines how supported, welcomed, and safe students feel at their school. Participants were asked to rate items on a 5-point scale (0 � disagree a lot, 1 � disagree a little, 2 � maybe, 3 � agree a little, 4 � agree a lot). The item “I feel that I can talk to the teachers in this school about problems that are bothering me” from the SSCS scale was replaced with the item “We help new students feel accepted in this school,” at the request of the participating school board. Items were av- eraged to create a global school-climate variable for each participating student, with higher scores indicating more positive school climate. Sample items included, “My school is like a family” and “Students in this school help each other, even if they are not friends.” Individual- level school-climate scores were computed as the average of the SSCS items (� � .91). A school-level school-climate score was created by averaging all students’ SSCS scores within each school. In the present sample, individual- level school-climate scores ranged from 0 to 4.00 (M � 2.42, SD � 0.81), and school-level
366 WANG ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
school-climate scores ranged from 1.86 to 3.46 (M � 2.44, SD � 0.37).
Control Variables
School absences. The number of days ab- sent from school for the year was obtained from participating school board. Days absent ranged from 0 to 79.50 (M � 7.71, SD � 7.17). School- level average scores ranged from 3.30 to 15.79 (M � 7.64, SD � 2.48).
Ethnicity. Students and PMKs were asked to self-report their ethnic or cultural heritage (White, South Asian, African, Eastern Asian, Middle Eastern Asian, South American, Ab- original, Other, or unknown). Students were categorized as European-Canadian (White; 75. 5%), Middle-Eastern-Canadian � 3.2%, Afri- can/West-Indian-Canadian (Black) � 5.5%, South-Asian-Canadian � 5.2%, Asian-Cana- dian � 3.2%, Native-Canadian � 2.7%, South/ Latin American-Canadian � 1.9%, and Other � 2.8%. Given the low sample sizes for many of these ethnic/racial backgrounds, stu- dents were recategorized as White (75.5%) or non-White (24.5%). The average percentage of minority students per school was 25.15% (SD � 19.49, minimum � 0, maximum � 90.0%).
Income and parental education. PMKs reported on their household income at Time 1 across eight categories (1 � �$20,000; 2 � $20,000 to $30,000; 3 � $30,000 to $40,000; 4 � $40,000 to $50,000; 5 � $50,000 to $60,000; 6 � $60,000 to $70,000; 7 � $70,000 to $80,000; 8 �$80,000). PMKs also reported the highest level education they attained (1 � did not complete high school; 2 � completed high school; 3 � college diploma or trades certificate; 4 � university undergraduate de- gree; 5 � university graduate degree). For the current sample, the average household level of income was 5.96 (SD � 2.39), and school-level average income ranged from 2.00 to 7.52 (M � 5.73, SD � 1.30). The average PMK education was 3.06 (SD � 1.04), and school-level average PMK education ranged from 1.90 to 3.86 (M � 2.97, SD � 0.44).
School type. Schools were classified as el- ementary schools (K to Grade 8) or primary schools (K to Grade 5, and K to Grade 6). Approximately half of the schools sampled were elementary schools (52%) housing 53% of participating students.
Bullying perpetration. Similar to the as- sessment of peer victimization, students were asked a general question about the frequency with which they had bullied others at school “since the start of the school year (September),” and were also asked how often they had bullied other stu- dents in four specific ways (physical, verbal, so- cial, cyber; parallel to the questions about peer victimization). A composite index of bullying per- petration was computed as the average of the five bullying items, with higher scores indicating greater bullying perpetration, with individual- level scores ranging from 0.00 to 3.60 (M � 0.24, SD � 0.38), and school-level averages ranging from 0.02 to 0.48 (M � 0.23, SD � 0.11). The bullying perpetration measure demonstrated good internal consistency (� � .77).
Analytic Plan
Analyses were performed using multilevel modeling. The following multilevel model was used as a template: yij � �0X0 � �1X1ij � . . . � �m Xmij � (u0j � eij), where �0 is the fixed intercept, and there exist m fixed effects for pre- dictor variables, and two random effects—eij, rep- resenting the residual variation at the student level, and u0j, representing the residual variation at the school level. Analyses were performed in Mplus version 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998 –2012) using maximum likelihood robust (MLR) estima- tion and TYPE � TWOLEVEL. To take advan- tage of full information maximum likelihood (FIML) for missing data, means, variances, and covariances of predictors with missing data were estimated. Models were compared using the log likelihood (LL) ratio test, in which the change in �2�loglikelihood (�2LL) was compared with a chi-squared distribution ( df), adjusting for scal- ing correction factors obtained with MLR estima- tion (Satorra, 2000; Satorra & Bentler, 2001). Sta- tistically significant reductions in �2LL indicated a better fitting model. In this model, sex, ethnicity and school type were coded using unweighted effects coding (�1 � boy, 1 � girl; �1 � White, 1 � non-White; �1 � elementary, 1 � primary). For ease of interpretation, self-reported peer vic- timization and bullying, absences, income, PMK education and school-level income, PMK educa- tion, proportion minority students, and school cli- mate were grand mean centered. In order to par- tition the effect of school climate into school effects and individual effects, individual- and
367SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
school-level school-climate variables were en- tered simultaneously. Individual-level school cli- mate was group mean centered to account for individual variation from the school mean.
Results
Descriptive statistics for the dependent vari- able (i.e., GPA) and the independent variables (i.e., peer victimization, school climate, and a number of covariates) can be found in the Mea- sures section. Given the nature of the present study, we provided descriptive statistics at both the individual level and the school level (see Measures section). Peer victimization and indi- vidual-level school climate were negatively re- lated, r � �.21, p � .001, as were peer victim- ization and GPA, r � �.33, p � .001. Individual-level school climate was positively related to GPA, r � .22, p � .001. A series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were com- puted to examine sex differences in peer vic- timization, school climate, and GPA. Results indicated that girls (M � 8.37, SD � 1.63) had higher mean scores than boys (M � 7.74, SD � 1.78) on teacher-rated GPA, F(931, 1) � 31.97, p � .001. Girls (M � 2.49, SD � 0.80) also had higher mean scores than boys (M � 2.34, SD � 0.81) on school climate, F(1020, 1) � 8.53, p � .01. Boys and girls did not differ in terms of reported victimization, F(1018, 1) � 2.18, p � .05.
Multilevel Models
The number of students per school ranged from seven to 56 (M � 20.46; �10 students per school, n � 3 schools; 10 to 19, n � 24; 20 to 29, n � 15; 30 to 39, n � 7; �40, n � 1). To determine the amount of variance at L1 and L2, an intercept-only model predicting GPA (Model 1) was performed (see Table 1). The resulting intraclass correlation, � .1078, indicated that 10.78% of the variability in GPA was accounted for by between-school differences. In Model 2, individual-level predictors of sex and victimiza- tion were entered in the model. The addition of these predictors resulted in a better fitting model, �2LL � 73.19, df � 2, p � .001. In this model, sex was related to GPA, b � 0.36, p � .001; boys had significantly lower GPAs than girls (7.69 vs. 8.42). Victimization was found to be negatively related to GPA, b �
�0.44, p � .001. A one-unit increase in peer victimization was associated with a decrease in GPA by 0.44 scale points.
School climate was added in Model 3. In addition to school-level school climate (L2), students’ individual scores, group mean cen- tered, were included at L1 to control for indi- vidual variability from the school-level school- climate mean. This addition increased model fit, �2LL � 13.42, df � 2, p � .01. School-level school-climate scores were positively related to GPA, b � 0.89, p � .001. Specifically, for each 1-point increase in average school-climate score, individual’s GPA increased by nearly 1 grade point. In this model, victimization re- mained statistically significant, b � �0.39, p � .001, but its effect was decreased by 11% (from �0.44 to �0.39), compared with Model 2.
We next tested the moderating role of school- level school-climate scores on the relation be- tween victimization and GPA, and whether this relation depended on sex. In Model 4, the ad- dition of the interaction terms did not result in an improved model, �2LL � 3.55, df � 4, p � .05, indicating that school-level climate (L2) and sex did not influence the relation be- tween individual victimization and GPA.
Impact of covariates. We examined possi- ble effects of covariates (Model 5) by introduc- ing individual-level absences, ethnicity, bully- ing perpetration, household income, and PMK education, as well as school-level proportion of minority students, school type, and aggregate household income and PMK education. We found an improved fit over Model 4, �2LL � 166.05, df � 9, p � .001, indicating that the covariates accounted for a significant portion of variability in GPA. Importantly, the inclusion of covariates did not impact the statistical signifi- cance of any predictors already included in the model.
Follow-up analyses for sample effects. We also tested our Model 4 using two reduced samples to determine whether interaction ef- fects could be found with a more stringent sam- ple selection. The first subsample included schools that had �20 students per school, and the second sample included schools in which consent rate was �70%. In total, 23 schools included 20 or more participating students (N students � 654). With this subsample, we found that victimization, b � �0.39, p � .001, sex, b � 0.38, p � .001, and school-level school
368 WANG ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
climate, b � 1.79, p � .001, were significantly related to GPA, whereas individual-level school climate and each of the interaction terms did not reach statistical significance, similar to results using the full sample. Of the 50 participating schools, 31 had parental consent rates �70% (N students � 669). With this subsample, we found that victimization, b � �0.45, p � .001, sex, b � 0.36, p � .001, and school-level school climate, b � 0.92, p � .01, were the only independent variables statistically significantly related to GPA; no moderating effects were evident.
Discussion
We examined whether students’ collective perceptions of school climate (measured at the school level; L2) moderated the concurrent re- lation between peer victimization and GPA in a
large cohort of fifth-grade students who were nested within 50 different schools. Contrary to our hypothesis, school climate did not moderate the connection between peer victimization and GPA. Why might this be the case?
First, it could be that the effects of peer victimization simply overpower the protective effects of a positive school climate. Second, it could also be that our moderating assumption is based on a literature in which researchers have often “inappropriately” represented school cli- mate as “student-level (L1) responses in single- models rather than more appropriate multilevel models” (H. W. Marsh et al., 2012, p. 106). Interestingly, in the present study, poor percep- tions of school climate at the individual level were associated with increased reporting of peer victimization and lower teacher-rated GPA, consistent with other published studies (Bryan et al., 2012; Catalano et al., 2004; Corrigan et
Table 1 Effects of Sex, Victimization, School Climate, and Controls on GPA
Model 1 Intercept only
Model 2 Victimization
Model 3 School climate
Model 4 Moderators
Model 5 Control variables
Fixed effects Intercept 8.09 (0.10)��� 8.06 (0.10)��� 8.04 (0.08)��� 8.04 (0.08)��� 8.04 (0.07)���
Individual Victimization �0.44 (0.07)��� �0.39 (0.07)��� �0.40 (0.07)��� �0.32 (0.07)���
Sex 0.36 (0.05)��� 0.35 (0.05)��� 0.36 (0.05)��� 0.35 (0.05)���
School climate 0.11 (0.07) 0.10 (0.07) 0.12 (0.07) Absences �0.03 (0.01)��
Ethnicity �0.06 (0.07) Perpetration �0.02 (0.15) Income 0.13 (0.02)���
PMKedu 0.46 (0.08)���
School level School climate 0.89 (0.26)��� 0.88 (0.25)��� 0.41 (0.16)��
Avg income 0.16 (0.07)�
Avg PMKedu 0.05 (0.18) Proportion minority 0.47 (0.48) School type 0.07 (0.06)
Interactions Vic � Avg SC �0.14 (0.15) �0.01 (0.13) Vic � Sex �0.04 (0.06) �0.02 (0.06) Avg SC � Sex �0.06 (0.13) �0.10 (0.12) Vic � Avg SC � Sex 0.23 (0.16) 0.10 (0.15)
Random effects Individual 2.63 (0.15)��� 2.40 (0.14)��� 2.40 (0.14)��� 2.40 (0.14)��� 1.97 (0.12)���
School 0.32 (0.08)��� 0.30 (0.07)��� 0.19 (0.06)�� 0.18 (0.06)�� 0.06 (0.03)�
Model comparison 2 vs. 1 3 vs. 2 4 vs. 3 5 vs. 4 �2LL (df) 73.19 (2)��� 13.42 (2)�� 3.55 (4) 166.05 (9)���
Note. PMKedu � education of person most knowledgeable of child; Avg � average; SC � school climate; �2LL � �2�loglikelihood. Change in �2LL tested using the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi square for robust standard errors. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.
369SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
al., 2010; Niehaus et al., 2012; O’Brennan & Furlong, 2010; Osher & Kendziora, 2010; You et al., 2008). The perception of the individual is certainly important in determining outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). However, we argue that school climate ought to be measured at the school level, as it is a measure of the overall quality and character of school life (Cohen et al., 2009), derived from the perspective of stu- dents interacting within a classroom, grade, or school. Third, the null finding for moderation could also be related to the fact that the associ- ations between peer victimization and academic achievement are less straightforward than those linking peer victimization to other outcomes such as mental health functioning (Vaillancourt et al., 2013). Indeed, pathways from peer vic- timization to academic achievement are often not found (e.g., Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), or are only present when indirect pathways are examined (e.g., Beran, 2008), or are far from consistent (Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010). Ac- cordingly, although our null finding is in keep- ing with other studies in this area, it does point to the need to consider other moderators (and mediators). Fourth, it could be that the sample size for the present study was not large enough. A common rule recommended for testing cross level interactions is the 50/20 rule (i.e., 50 groups with 20 individuals per group; Hox, 2010). In the present study, 50 schools were included; however, approximately one half of schools had less than the recommended 20 stu- dents within each school. Increased sample size within each school may have provided suffi- cient power to detect the cross-level interaction of school-level school climate and individual- level peer victimization. This important point notwithstanding, a subanalysis that included two reduced samples of schools in which con- sent rate was �70%, and in schools that had �20 students per school yielded the same results to those obtained with all 50 schools.
Although our measure of school climate, the SSCS (Developmental Studies Centre, 1997), did not function as a moderator, it is possible that specific core elements of school climate, such as safety and belonging, may still buffer the negative impact of peer victimization on GPA. It is also possible that a student can be bullied and yet be in a school in which most students report a high availability of caring and supportive school adults, and strong trust in
school adults, which are positively associated with their motivation to learn, academic self- esteem, social and academic skills, and willing- ness to seek help for bullying (Bryan et al., 2012; Corrigan et al., 2010; Eliot et al., 2010; Gregory et al., 2010, 2011; Jennings & Green- berg, 2009).
Previous research has documented that stu- dents’ academic achievement is negatively as- sociated with their experience of being victim- ized by their peers (see meta-analysis by Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010) and positively related to their perception of their school’s cli- mate (Bryan et al., 2012; Jennings & Green- berg, 2009; O’Brennan & Furlong, 2010; Osher & Kendziora, 2010; You et al., 2008). Accord- ingly, we expected peer victimization would be negatively linked with students’ academic achievement and that a positive school climate would be associated with better academic func- tioning. Overall, results supported our initial hypotheses. We found that the effect of victim- ization on GPA remained significant (but de- creased by 11%) with the inclusion of school- level climate (controlling for individual variation in school-climate scores). Specifically, Grade 5 students reporting more victimization were rated by teachers as lower in academic performance. A one-unit increase in peer vic- timization was associated with a decrease in GPA by 0.44 scale points (0.39 scale points after accounting for school climate). These re- sults speak to the importance of viewing vic- timization as harmful to students’ academic per- formance.
Consistent with other studies examining links between self-reported peer victimization and school climate, we found that school-level cli- mate was significantly related to students’ teacher-rated GPA. Specifically, an increase of 1 point in school-level school-climate scores was related to nearly a 1-point increase in GPA. This finding is important insofar as it delineated an association that was independent of reporter bias. Indeed, in this study, an individual’s per- ception of their school climate, which is likely highly influenced by their perception of how well they are treated by their peers, was statis- tically controlled for. Thus, the relation between school climate and academic achievement re- flected a more objective association, further highlighting the importance of a positive school climate for academic success. This result also
370 WANG ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
underscores the importance of examining school climate as a school-level variable (H. W. Marsh et al., 2012), consistent with research suggesting that school climate is a measure of community that is thus reflected in the collec- tive experience of students and their interactions with peers and school adults (e.g., McMillan & Chavis, 1986). In other words, as expected, we found that school climate at L2 rather than individual-level school climate (L1) signifi- cantly impacted students’ grades in the multi- level modeling. We argue that school climate ought to be researched at the school level (L2; see H. W. Marsh et al., 2012). However, given that prior research supports individual-level measurement of school climate, some scholars may argue that school climate should be viewed as an interactive effect between school-level processes and individual perceptions of the cli- mate of the school. Thus, future studies should further examine this assumption using the mul- tilevel modeling.
Sex differences in peer victimization and GPA were also explored in the present study. Contrary to previous studies (e.g., Cook et al., 2010), we found that boys and girls did not differ in reported peer victimization. Given that girls and boys differ in the types of victimiza- tion experienced, averaging across items may have masked these differences. For example, boys are more likely than girls to be physically bullied by peers, whereas girls are more likely to be bullied through rumor spreading, verbal, and social exclusion (Nansel et al., 2001; Rob- ers et al., 2013).
We also found that teachers rated the aca- demic performance of girls higher than boys, replicating previous findings (Duckworth & Seligman, 2006; Vaillancourt et al., 2013). The fact that boys had significantly lower GPAs than girls indicates a need to ensure that school ac- tivities have a particular focus on boys, for example, by improving their sense of belonging and engagement (e.g., Willms, 2003). This is also supported by our finding that boys reported more negative perceptions of school climate than girls, consistent with previous studies (e.g., Koth et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2010; Niehaus et al., 2012).
As previously discussed, we recognize that a positive school climate can reduce involvement with bullying among children and youth, and can buffer the impact of peer victimization on student
academic performance (and other school out- comes), and that victimization may overpower the protective effects of a positive school climate for some victims or in some schools. This appears to suggest that restructuring school culture and im- proving students’ perception of school climate may not be sufficient to reduce bullying or over- come the impact of peer victimization on student grades. The easy accessibility to the Internet and new information and communication technologies both at school and, especially, at home and in the community may afford more opportunities for children to be more easily bullied (i.e., cyberbul- lying). The anonymity associated with being vic- timized on the Internet, coupled with new infor- mation and communication technologies, may make bullied children feeling more fearful of at- tending school and less focused on their learning and development (e.g., cyberbullying often in- volves social exclusions and threats, rumors, and relationship manipulations). Children do not often tell school adults (and parents) about bullying (Kowalski, Limber, Agatston, & Wang, 2012). Efforts should be made to ensure that caring adults who understand bullying are available for consul- tation and that risks attached to improvident deci- sions are minimized.
Limitations
The present study included 50 schools; how- ever, approximately one half of schools had less than the recommended 20 students within each school (Hox, 2010). Although our follow up analyses for sample effects with two sub- samples produced similar results to those using the full sample, increased sample size may fur- ther provide sufficient power to detect the cross- level interaction of school-level school climate, individual-level peer victimization, and teacher- rated student academic performance.
The present study focused only on fifth-grade students. It is possible that school climate may influence the relation between victimization and GPA differently across age groups. A number of studies have documented that age is negatively associated with students’ perceptions of school climate, and that declines are particularly note- worthy and concerning in the middle school grades (M. T. Wang, Selman, Dishion, & Storm- shak, 2010; Way, Reddy, & Rhodes, 2007). Re- search that has focused specifically on school con- nectedness has also documented that as students
371SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
get older, they feel less attached to school (Mc- Neely et al., 2002; Niehaus et al., 2012). It may be the case that school climate may influence the relation between victimization and academic func- tioning in older age groups. Moreover, our focus on fifth-grade students assesses school climate from a limited perspective (i.e., perceptions of how supported, welcomed, and safe students feel at their school). It is clear that students interact with individuals outside of their class and grade, and these varied interactions may impact students’ perceptions of school climate. Therefore, using a broader range of grades is recommended to test how this diversity in interactions may impact our variables of interest.
Although the current study considered several covariates and their concurrent influence on the association between teacher-rated GPA, peer vic- timization, and school climate, we recognize that other “third variables,” such as age, mental health symptoms, family academic support, and commu- nity interactions (Swearer et al., 2012; Totura et al., 2009; Vaillancourt et al., 2013), may play a role in assessing students’ academic achievement outcomes. We suggest that researchers should consider measuring the interactions of peer vic- timization and factors such as these with students’ academic functioning in future work. Given the cross-sectional nature of our data, we suggest that future studies should also tackle the possible ef- fects of peer victimization and these factors on students’ education over time. Specifically, it may prove useful to track how peer victimization af- fects academic functioning in a new school. In addition, although the negative association be- tween peer victimization and teacher-rated GPA was observed in the current study and other stud- ies (e.g., the meta-analysis of Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010), this concurrent relation does not necessarily suggest that all victimization will have negative impact on grades.
In addition, GPA was used as the primary de- pendent variable in the present analysis. As an index of student learning, success, and school academic outcome, GPA has been one of the most studied variables in education and educational psychology (e.g., Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Gutman, Sameroff, & Cole, 2003; Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, 2005; Wentzel, 1998; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). GPA can represent student learn- ing, success, and school academic outcome. Some scholars have argued that GPA is more valid than standardized test scores when evaluating student
academic performance (e.g., Duckworth & Selig- man, 2005), but others have argued that GPA does not necessarily represent a standardized variable that can be readily compared. In addition, Nakamoto and Schwartz (2010) argued that esti- mates of academic functioning based on GPAs may produce stronger associations with peer vic- timization than estimates based on standardized test scores, student self-reports of grades, and teacher ratings of academic functioning. We rec- ognize that GPA may reflect only one aspect of student achievement and acknowledge the impor- tance of other indicators such as academic engage- ment. Considering that 50 schools were analyzed in the present study, there might be biases in terms of how teachers from different schools assessed GPA, although the GPAs in our study reflected a composite across multiple school subjects with excellent reliability.
Finally, examining the relation between school climate, peer victimization, and academic achievement using a nested longitudinal design is recommended. In the present study, we used only Time 1 data collected from a large longitudinal study, although annually collected data from Time 1 to Time 6 were available. This approach was taken because after Time 1, approximately half of participants moved into different schools, thus compromising the nested structure of the data. Given our interest in the moderating role of school climate as a collective phenomenon (L2 variable), we could not examine this question over time, as transitioning to a new school meant changes in school climate. Indeed, examining school-level variables over time requires studies that retain their nested data structure. This would require very large data sets (i.e., whole school boards or districts) that can handle the transitioning of stu- dents into different schools. If not, transitioning students would be embedded in classes with non- participating students from whom no data would be available to examine L2 variables.
Conclusion
There have been many advances in bullying research, especially in recent years. The extant bullying literature has indicated that there are bi- variate relations between peer victimization, school climate, and students’ academic function- ing, which are also supported in the current study. Although school climate is often understood as a group experience, few studies have examined the
372 WANG ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
relations between academic achievement and peer victimization and the contextual influence of school climate (H. W. Marsh et al., 2012). The present study attempted to fill this gap in knowl- edge by considering how peer victimization was linked to academic achievement in late childhood, while taking into account school climate as a group phenomenon and exploring school-level school climate as a moderator. The results suggest that both individual-level peer victimization and school-level school climate have important influ- ences on teachers’ evaluations of students’ aca- demic functioning. Pursuing evidence-based pro- grams that focus on reducing peer victimization and fostering a positive school climate may pro- mote academic success for children and youth.
References
American Psychological Association. (2013). Bully- ing and school climate. Retrieved from http:// www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/cyf/bullying-fact- sheet.pdf
Anthony, B. J., Wessler, S. L., & Sebian, J. K. (2010). Commentary: Guiding a public health ap- proach to bullying. Journal of Pediatric Psychol- ogy, 35, 1113–1115. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsq083
Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: Much ado about nothing? Psychological Medicine, 40, 717–729. doi:10.1017/S00332 91709991383
Beran, T. (2008). Consequences of being bullied at school. In D. Pepler & W. Craig (Eds.), Under- standing and addressing bullying: An interna- tional perspective (pp. 44 – 66). Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse.
Bonny, A. E., Britto, M. T., Klostermann, B. K., Hurnung, R. W., & Slap, G. B. (2000). School disconnectedness: Identifying adolescents at risk. Pediatrics, 106, 1017–1021. doi:10.1542/peds.106 .5.1017
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryan, J., Moore-Thomas, C., Gaenzle, S., Kim, J., Lin, C. H., & Na, G. (2012). The effects of school bonding on high school seniors’ academic achieve- ment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90, 467– 480. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00058.x
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achieve- ment? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.1
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., Herald-Brown, S. L. (2010). Victimization and exclusion: Links to peer rejection, classroom engagement, and achieve- ment. In S. R. Jimerson & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 163–172). New York, NY: Rout- ledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Flem- ing, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The impor- tance of bonding to school for healthy develop- ment: Findings from the social development research group. Journal of School Health, 74, 252– 261. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08281.x
Cohen, J. (2009). Transforming school climate: Ed- ucational and psychoanalytic perspectives. Schools: Studies in Education, 6, 99 –103. doi: 10.1086/597659
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, prac- tice, and teacher education. Teachers College Re- cord, 111, 180 –213.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, G. A. Res. 44/25, annex, U.N. GAOR, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 167, U. N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989).
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65– 83. doi:10.1037/a0020149
Corrigan, M. W., Klein, T. J., & Isaacs, T. (2010). Trust us: Documenting the relationship of stu- dents’ trust in teachers to cognition, character, and climate. Journal of Research in Character Educa- tion, 8, 61–73.
Developmental Studies Centre. (1997). Student per- ceptions of feelings about classroom and school. Oakland, CA: Author.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self- discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic per- formance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939 –944. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005 .01641.x
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2006). Self- discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self- discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 198 –208. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.198
Duncan, G. J., Morris, P. A., & Rodrigues, C. (2011). Does money really matter? Estimating impacts of family income on young children’s achievement with data from random-assignment experiments. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1263–1279. doi: 10.1037/a0023875
Eisenberg, M. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Perry, C. (2003). Peer harassment, school connectedness, and academic achievement. Journal of School Health, 73, 311–316. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561 .2003.tb06588.x
373SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 533–553. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.07.001
Elovainio, M., Pietikäinen, M., Luopa, P., Kivimäki, M., Ferrie, J. E., Jokela, J., . . . Virtanen, M. (2011). Organizational justice at school and its associations with pupils’ psychosocial school en- vironment, health, and wellbeing. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 1675–1682. doi:10.1016/j .socscimed.2011.09.025
Espelage, D. L., Hong, J. S., Rao, M. A., & Low, S. (2013). Associations between peer victimization and academic performance. Theory Into Practice, 52, 233–240. doi:10.1080/00405841.2013.829724
Fan, W., Williams, C. M., & Corkin, D. M. (2011). A multilevel analysis of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of social and academic risk factors. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 632– 647. doi:10.1002/pits.20579
Forero, R., McLellan, L., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (1999). Bullying behaviour and psychosocial health among school students in New South Wales, Australia: Cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 344 –348. doi:10.1136/bmj .319.7206.344
Gastic, B. (2008). School truancy and the disciplinary problems of bullying victims. Educational Review, 60, 391– 404. doi:10.1080/00131910802393423
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta- analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059 –1065. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-1215
Gottfried, M. A. (2009). Excused versus unexcused: How student absences in elementary school affect academic achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 392– 415. doi:10.3102/ 0162373709342467
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2011). The relationship of school structure and support to sus- pension rates for Black and White high school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 904 –934. doi:10.3102/0002831211398531
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school dis- cipline: High school practices associated with lower student bullying and victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483– 496. doi: 10.1037/a0018562
Grover, H. M., Boberiene, L. V., & Limber, S. P. (in press). Are U.S. schools places of commu- nity? Does it matter? In G. B. Melton (Ed.), Good neighbors: Safe and humane communities for chil- dren and families. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Spring- er.
Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Cole, R. (2003). Academic growth curve trajectories from 1st grade
to 12th grade: Effects of multiple social risk fac- tors and preschool child factors. Developmental Psychology, 39, 777–790. doi:10.1037/0012-1649 .39.4.777
Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the quality of the teacher-student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 289 –301. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491–525. doi:10.3102/0034654308325693
Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bul- lying experiences and compromised academic per- formance across middle school grades. The Jour- nal of Early Adolescence, 31, 152–173. doi: 10.1177/0272431610379415
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305– 1317. doi:10.2307/1131701
Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student percep- tions of school climate: The effect of classroom- level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 96 –104. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2012). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley/Blackwell.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., Agatston, P. W., & Wang, W. (2012). Children’s experiences with tra- ditional forms of bullying. In R. M. Kowalski, S. P. Limber, & P. W. Agatston, Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age (2nd ed., pp. 18 –55). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63– 82. doi:10.3102/003465 43075001063
Lee, H. (2007). The effects of school racial and ethnic composition on academic achievement dur- ing adolescence. Journal of Negro Education, 76, 154 –172.
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relation- ships to school: Attachment, bonding, connected- ness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 274 –283. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004 .tb08284.x
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J., Abduljabbar, A. S., & Köller, O. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual and methodological issues in the eval-
374 WANG ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
uation of group-level effects. Educational Psy- chologist, 47, 106 –124. doi:10.1080/00461520 .2012.670488
Marsh, T., & Cornell, D. (2001). The contribution of student experiences to understanding ethnic differ- ences in high-risk behaviors at school. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 152–163.
McKenney, K. S., Pepler, D., Craig, W. M., & Con- nolly, J. (2006). Peer victimization and psychoso- cial adjustment: The experiences of Canadian im- migrant youth. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 239 –264.
McMahon, S. D., Wernsman, J., & Rose, D. S. (2009). The relation of classroom environment and school belonging to academic self-efficacy among urban fourth-and fifth-grade students. The Elemen- tary School Journal, 109, 267–281. doi:10.1086/ 592307
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6 –23. doi:10.1002/ 1520-6629(198601)14:1�6::AID-JCOP22901401 03�3.0.CO;2-I
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evi- dence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72, 138 –146. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2002.tb06 533.x
Mitchell, M. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of school climate: A multilevel exploration of patterns of discrepancy. The Journal of School Health, 80, 271–279. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00501.x
Modin, B., & Östberg, V. (2009). School climate and psychosomatic health: A multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20, 433– 455. doi:10.1080/09243450903251507
Muthén, K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victim- ization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221–242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00539.x
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simmons-Morton, B., & Schmidt, P. (2001). Bul- lying behaviors among US youth. JAMA: Journal of American Medical Association, 285, 2094 – 2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
Nasir, N. S., Jones, A., & McLaughlin, M. (2011). School connectedness for students in low-income urban high schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 1755–1793.
Niehaus, K., Rudasill, K. M., & Rakes, C. R. (2012). A longitudinal study of school connectedness and academic outcomes across sixth grade. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 443– 460. doi:10.1016/j .jsp.2012.03.002
O’Brennan, L. M., & Furlong, M. J. (2010). Rela- tions between students’ perceptions of school con- nectedness and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 9, 375–391. doi:10.1080/ 15388220.2010.509009
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion, University of Bergen.
Osher, D., & Kendziora, K. (2010). Building condi- tions for learning and healthy adolescent develop- ment: A strategic approach. In B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J. Yoon (Eds.), Handbook of youth prevention science (pp. 121–140). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pepler, D., Connolly, J., & Craig, W. (1999). Bully- ing and harassment: Experiences of minority and immigrant youth (CERIS Report). Retrieved from http://www.ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Libr ary/education/pepler1/pepler1.html
Peskin, M. F., Tortolero, S. R., & Markham, C. M. (2006). Bullying and victimization among black and Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence, 41, 467– 484.
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publish- ers.
Robers, S., Kemp, J., & Truman, J. (2013). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Depart- ment of Justice. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid�2013036
Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment struc- tures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (eds.), Innovations in multivariate statisti- cal analysis. A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp. 233–247). London: Kluwer Academic Pub- lishers.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled dif- ference chi-square test statistic for moment struc- ture analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. doi: 10.1007/BF02296192
Schumann, L., Craig, W., & Rosu, A. (2013). Minor- ity in the majority: Community ethnicity as a con- text for racial bullying and victimization. Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 959 –972. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21585
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and aca- demic achievement: A meta-analytic review of re- search. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417– 453. doi:10.3102/00346543075003417
Smith, E. P., Atkins, J., & Connell, C. M. (2003). Family, school, and community factors and rela- tionships to racial– ethnic attitudes and academic achievement. American Journal of Community
375SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Psychology, 32, 159 –173. doi:10.1023/A: 1025663311100
Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., & Chauhan, P. (2004). Profiles of non-victims, es- caped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 565–581. doi:10.1348/ 0007099042376427
Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239 –268. doi:10.1002/ab.10047
Statistics Canada. (2008). Average income after tax by economic family types, 2007 to 2011. Catalogue Number: 75-202-X. Retrieved from http://www .statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/ famil21a-eng.htm
Sulkowski, M. L., Demaray, M. K., & Lazarus, P. J. (2012). Connecting students to schools to support their emotional well-being and academic success. The Newspaper of the National Association of School Psychologists, 40, 1–20.
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Koenig, B., Berry, B., Collins, A., & Lembeck, P. (2012). A Social- ecological model of bullying prevention and inter- vention in early adolescence. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), The Handbook of school violence and school safety: International research and practice (pp. 333–355). New York, NY: Routledge.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins- D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school cli- mate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385. doi:10.3102/0034654313483907
The Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario. (2007). Bill 212: An act to amend the Education Act in respect of behaviour, discipline and safety. Retrieved from http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills- files/38_Parliament/Session2/b212ra.pdf
Thompson, D. R., Iachan, R., Overpeck, M., Ross, J. G., & Gross, L. A. (2006). School connectedness in the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Study: The role of student, school, and school neighborhood characteristics. Journal of School Health, 76, 379 –386. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561 .2006.00129.x
Totura, C. M. W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Gesten, E. L., Gadd, R., Divine, K. P., Dunham, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Bullying and victimization among boys and girls in middle school: The influ- ence of perceived family and school contexts. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 571– 609. doi: 10.1177/0272431608324190
Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., Bennett, L., Arnocky, S., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., . . . Cunningham, L. (2010). Places to avoid: Population-based study of student reports of unsafe and high bullying areas at
school. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 40 –54. doi:10.1177/0829573509358686
Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., McDougall, P., & Duku, E. (2013). Longitudinal links between childhood peer victimization, internalizing and ex- ternalizing problems, and academic functioning: Developmental cascades. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 1203–1215. doi:10.1007/ s10802-013-9781-5
Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygs- man, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talk- ing about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 486 – 495. doi: 10.1177/0165025408095553
Vaillancourt, T., Trinh, V., McDougall, P., Duku, E., Cunningham, L., Cunningham, C., . . . Short, K. (2010). Optimizing population screening of bullying in school-aged children. Journal of School Violence, 9, 233–250. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.483182
Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). The quality of school life: Teacher-student trust relationships and the organizational school context. Social Indicators Re- search, 100, 85–100. doi:10.1007/s11205-010- 9605-8
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Phys- ical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adoles- cent Health, 45, 368 –375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth .2009.03.021
Wang, M. T., Selman, R. L., Dishion, T. J., & Storm- shak, E. A. (2010). A tobit regression analysis of the covariation between middle school students’ perceived school climate and behavioral problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 274 –286. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00648.x
Warikoo, N., & Carter, P. (2009). Cultural explanations for racial and ethnic stratification in academic achieve- ment: A call for a new and improved theory. Review of Educational Research, 79, 366 –394. doi:10.3102/ 0034654308326162
Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate during the middle school years: Association with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Commu- nity Psychology, 40, 194 –213. doi:10.1007/s10464- 007-9143-y
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motiva- tion in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202– 209. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.202
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to aca- demic achievement in middle school. Child Develop- ment, 68, 1198 –1209. doi:10.2307/1132301
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: Organization for
376 WANG ET AL.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ school/programmeforinternationalstudentassess mentpisa/33689437.pdf
You, S., Furlong, M. J., Felix, E., Sharkey, J. D., Tanigawa, D., & Green, J. G. (2008). Relations among school connectedness, hope, life satisfac-
tion, and bully victimization. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 446 – 460. doi:10.1002/pits.20308
Received December 16, 2013 Revision received July 3, 2014
Accepted July 7, 2014 �
Members of Underrepresented Groups: Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at [email protected]. Please note the following important points:
• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review.
• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research.
• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change” as well.
• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.
APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/ authors/review-manuscript-ce-video.aspx.
377SCHOOL CLIMATE, PEER VICTIMIZATION, AND GPA
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
- School Climate, Peer Victimization, and Academic Achievement: Results From a Multi-Informant Study
- Peer Victimization and Academic Achievement
- Peer Victimization and School Climate
- School Climate and Academic Achievement
- School Climate as a School-Level Variable
- Present Study: Peer Victimization, School Climate, and Academic Achievement
- Method
- Participants
- Procedures
- Measures
- Peer victimization
- Academic achievement
- School climate
- Control Variables
- School absences
- Ethnicity
- Income and parental education
- School type
- Bullying perpetration
- Analytic Plan
- Results
- Multilevel Models
- Impact of covariates
- Follow-up analyses for sample effects
- Discussion
- Limitations
- Conclusion
- References
