Printer Friendly

Bullying Defined in Pakistani School Context: An Urdu Translation of Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire.

Byline: Rabia Khawar and Farah Malik

Keywords. Bullying, OBVQ, Olweus bully victims, school children, Pakistan

Bullying is a habitual and repeated behavior that is meant to impose domination over the weaker individual. Bullying behavior primarily revolves around coercion and intimidation by using a range of both direct and indirect forms of aggression. Direct forms of aggression may include physical (e.g., slapping, shoving, pushing, beating, snatching and damaging victim's property) and verbal (e.g., name-calling, shouting, abusing and insulting) acts of violence. Indirect forms involve gossiping, rumor spreading and socially rejecting the target (Beran and Lupart, 2009). Most widely accepted definition of bullying had been offered by Olweus (1993) who initiated the empirical investigation of the phenomenon (Olweus, 1978). He described bullying as an intentional, recurring exposure to negative actions, performed by an individual or a group, perceived to be more powerful and stronger than the victim.

In addition to the conventional features (harm, intentionality, repetition and power imbalance), Rigby added that bullying is also characterized by "Enjoyment by the aggressor and generally a sense of being oppressed on the part of the victim" (Rigby, 2002, p. 51). Recently, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) has described bullying as an undesirable and repetitive act of aggression that involves actual or perceived power imbalance. They further distinguished bullying from sibling and dating partner violence and also explained the nature of inflicted harm as physical, psychological, social and educational (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, and Lumpkin, 2014). Accurate assessment of bullying behavior is the basic step for a well-structured, synchronized and the systematic bullying prevention program in schools.

There are multiple methods and instruments available for assessment of bullying at schools including structured and unstructured observational methods, peer ratings, teacher nominations and ratings and self-report measures (Cornell and Cole, 2012; Hamburger, Basile, and Vivolo, 2011). Self-report measurement of bullying is considered efficient, economical and less sensitive to change (Frey, Hirschstein, Edstrom, and Snell, 2009). Self-report measures are either based on behavioral descriptions of bullying or include an operational definition of bullying that youth has to consider while responding to the statements (Furlong, Sharkey, Felix, Tanigawa, and Green, 2010).

Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996), Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale (Mynard and Joseph, 2000), Revised Bully Surveys by Swearer (2001) and the School Climate Bullying Survey (SCBS; Cornell and Sheras, 2003) are some of the most commonly used self-reports that incorporate definition of bullying. Revised version of Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1996) is the most extensively used comprehensive self-report instrument for primary, middle and high school students (Green, Felix, Sharkey, Furlong and Kras, 2013; Olweus, 2006). Unlike most of the self-reported measures of bullying/victimization, Olweus questionnaire has shown sound cross-cultural psychometric evidence (Vessey et al., 2014). OBVQ pays close attention to the dynamic nature of bullying process.

Besides estimating the prevalence of school bullying and victimization, OBVQ investigates the students' friendships; location, duration and reporting of being bullied; feelings, attitudes and reaction towards bullying, and general satisfaction with school. It introduces the concept of bullying by providing a standardized definition to be read aloud to the participants (Olweus and Solberg, 2003). Words such as bullying, bullied and being bullied have been used several times in the questionnaire statements. It is therefore, very important to reflect on the meaning and perception of the term "bullying' within the specific cultural framework, for which OBVQ is being translated. Different age groups may comprehend the word bullying differently.

Researchers have used recall and recognition tasks for investigating how different groups of people (children, parents and teachers) understand and define bullying (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson and Liefooghi, 2002; Smith, Talamelli, Cowie, Naylor and Chuahan, 2004). Recall tasks require participants to define bullying in terms of reporting whatever comes to their mind while thinking about it and provide examples for further explanation. Possible limitation of such approach is that children tend to describe physical and verbal behaviors in bullying; they are less likely to perceive or report indirect abuse (Naylor, Cowie, Cossin, Bettencourt, and Lemme, 2006). Recognition tasks include scenarios (such as vignettes or cartoons eliciting social situations) presented to participants who are probed for their understanding of bullying (Smith et al., 2002).

A number of studies have demonstrated that until around 8 or 9 years of age, school students tend to use term bullying quite broadly, which seems to cover all nasty kinds of behavior even when no imbalance of power is involved (Smith and Levan, 1995; Smith, Madsen and Moody, 1999). Experts have emphasized the cautious use of words referring to the bullying experiences since it is difficult to decide where teasing or fighting ends and bullying begins (Green et al., 2013; Hellstrom, Persson, and Hagquist, 2015; Smith et al., 2002). Cross-cultural differences have been found in reporting bullying and victimization (Due et al., 2005). These differences may be attributed to the variety of conceptual frameworks of bullying across countries. With reference to translating the term bullying into other languages, Smith and Monks (2008) highlighted difficulties and controversies in finding equivalent word that encompasses the actual sense of "bullying'.

Cross-national discrepancies in description of school bullying is contingent on numerous factors such as behavioral inconsistencies, societal dissimilarities (e.g., individualistic vs. collectivistic society), organizational structure of schools, and suitable contextual meaning in target language words from vocabulary (Smith, 2016). When translated into a certain language, a word that denotes bullying may refer to the nature and range of bullying behaviors that actually occur in a particular culture, Ijime, for example, as the Japanese term for bullying emphasizes more on psychological and collective nature of the attack (Morita, Soeda, Soeda, and Taki, 1999). Similarly, the construct of bullying named as "Wang ta' in Korea was found to be less physical in nature (Koo, Kwak, and Smith, 2008). So, it is important to take the indigenous perspective into account and conceptualize "bullying' accordingly.

Research on bullying is sparse in Pakistan. In a study Shujja and Atta (2011) translated Illinois Bullying Questionnaire into Urdu, however, it did not include the term bullying. Behavior based measures are criticized for overestimating the prevalence rates of bullying (Sawyer, Bradshaw, and O'Brennan, 2008). In another study Akram and Munawar (2016) translated the Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale (MPVS; Mynard and Joseph, 2000) into Urdu, yet they had not provided any evidence of the psychometric properties. Moreover, MPVS is restricted to reporting of victimization only and provides no information with regard to perpetration of bullying. More accurate and thorough assessment of bullying perpetration and victimization is required to initiate school wide bullying prevention programs in Pakistan.

Objectives

* To translate Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) into Urdu for elementary grade students

* To acquire a wider comprehension of "bullying' by taking children's' understanding of the phenomenon into account.

* To establish initial psychometric properties of OBVQ Urdu version.

Method

Translation and adaptation of the Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire has been carried out in three phases.

Phase I: The translation process

Phase II: Preliminary testing with bilingual sample

Phase III: Initial psychometric properties of OBVQ

Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1996)

Olweus bully/victim questionnaire consists of 39 items. Most of the items provide both temporal (in the past couple of months) and spatial reference (at school). Two global questions about involvement in victimization (being bullied; item 4) and bullying (bullying others; item 24) along with 8 types each (verbal, physical, relational, racial and sexual victimization and bullying) can be answered on a 5 point scale with ""I haven't been bullied/bullied other students at school in the past couple of months, " coded as 1 and "several times a week" coded as 5. "2 or 3 times a month" (coded as 3) is considered the standard cutoff (Olweus and Solberg, 2003). OBVQ distinctly classifies students into four bullying roles: bullies, victims, bully/victims and uninvolved, and also provides an initial estimate of cyber bullying (items 12a and 32a).

According to Olweus and Solberg (2003), OBVQ revised version (Olweus, 1996) yielded high reliability coefficients (Cronbach's [alpha] =.80 to.90) and could be administered in a group setting. Moreover, it can produce clear factors for items assessing bullying (25 to 32) and victimization (5 to 12) (Bendixen and Olweus, 1999; Woods and Wolke, 2004).

Phase I: The Translation Process

Translation process usually involves forward and backward translation, committee review, cognitive debriefing and pilot testing of the target language version of the scale (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin and Ferraz, 2000; ITC, 2010; MAPI, 2012; Sousa and Rojjanasrirat, 2010). The present study considered the above mentioned guidelines and used forward, backward translation followed by cognitive debriefing and expert review. Permission to translate the questionnaire was sought from the author.

Forward translation. We recruited two bilingual judges. They were PhD scholars in child and educational psychology and they had an adequate fluency in Urdu (target) and English (source) languages. They translated the OBVQ into Urdu. Both translations were then evaluated by a committee comprising of three experts in the field of psychological assessment. They critically evaluated each item of scale and then came up with a synthesized version. However, there was disagreement in appropriate contextual translation of word "bullying' in Urdu (target language). The committee agreed to further investigate this empirically on the target population. Qualitative investigation is one of the numerous variations in translation procedure suggested by the researchers for certain type of complex and controversial concepts, phrases or words (Chavez and Canino, 2005). So, in order to find the suitable alternate for "bullying' we conducted a brief qualitative investigation using recall method.

Brief Qualitative Investigation of Bullying Phenomenon

Step 1. Sixty students (30 boys and 30 girls) between 9 to 12 years of age (M = 10.63, SD = 1.05) studying in three private tuition centers were included in this investigation. Researcher enlisted all the behaviors and actions corresponding bullying according to the Olweus Questionnaire and asked the participants to name the phenomenon. They were also asked to write down the term they used to describe the person who is involved in such kind of behaviors as a perpetrator and victim.

School boys identified perpetrators of bullying as "ghunda (gangster, delinquent), "fasaadi, "badmash (black guard, culprit), "bhae log (native term used for gangster etc), "dhansoo' (powerful and dominant in negative connotation), "akroo (arrogant) and a few related terminologies to villainous characters of movies. Girls described them as "mirchi (termagant), "fasaadi ' (rowdy), "ziddi (obstinate, stubborn) and "laraka (quarrelsome). The victims of bullying were commonly recognized with weaker psychological attributes such as "bechara, bechari (miserable), "machu (weak), "miskeen (miserable), "buzdil (coward) and "shareef (good). A few students also mentioned the physical characteristics while describing terms for victims such as "kaloo (tanned complexion), "motoo (obese), "thigna (short heighted).

A total of 10 terms of bullying were identified, among these six terms with higher frequencies were presented to the expert committee for discussion. Two of the identified terms "badmashi and gunda gardi' (hooligan) were excluded to these being colloquial and redundant in Urdu, and the experts were of the opinion that these terms are inappropriate and sensitive, and thus not to be used with young children. Remaining four terms "Bohat tang karna, "Sataana, "Roab dalna and "Dhouns jamana were considered for further empirical evaluation to arrive at final decision.

Table 1 Frequency of Words, Representing "Bullying" by Gender and Grade (N=120)

Words###Gender###Grade

###Boys###Girls###Total###4th###5th###6th###total

Urdu###English###(n=30)###(n=30)###l###(n=20)###(n=20)###(n=20)

###Blackguardism###16###4###20###4###5###11###20

###Teasing too much###9###10###19###8###6###5###19

###Hooliganism###14###4###18###2###6###10###18

###Pestering###6###11###17###6###7###4###17

###To impress with an###5###7###12###2###6###4###12

###awe

###To Oppress/ intimidate###3###6###9###0###2###0###6

###Quarrel/Fight###1###5###6###4###2###0###6

###Tyrannize/ Cruelty###3###3###6###3###2###1###6

###Fracas/ Agitation###2###3###5###0###2###3###5

###Terrorism###3###0###3###0###1###2###3

Step 2. To further investigate the meaning of these 4 terms identified through above mentioned procedure, recall method was employed. Another sample of 20 students (10 boys and 10 girls) (M = 10.45, SD = 1.09) was drawn from a private tuition centre. They were presented with the list of six identified terms representing bullying, and were asked to express them each in detail by recalling their experiences at school. They were instructed to describe behaviors relevant to the listed terms one by one. They were encouraged to report whatever comes to their mind after reading each term. Following behaviors were identified. Table 2 shows the frequency of behaviors described for each of the four terms.

Table 2 Behavioral Descriptions of the Terms Corresponding the Word "Bullying'

Components of###Behaviors###teasing/vexing)###impressing)###pestering###opressing)###Total

Definition###(beyond limits###(with an awe###and intimdating

Inflicting Harm

through Abuse###, (smacking), (beating)

###, (pushing), (slapping)

###, (dragging)

###, (hitting)

###18###13###15###12###58

Direct physical###pulling hairs or

abuse###, (cloths tying)

###, (indoors locking)

###(up

###, (scanning terrifying)

Intimidation###, (ingreatenth)###16###20###15###20###71

###(blackmailing)

###, (abusing)

###name), (hooting)

###, (mocking), (calling

Verbal abuse###(becoming, (yelling)###20###17###18###19###74

###, (enraged

###(badmouthing someone's family

###stealing, snaching, breaking)

Harm to###and throwing things away)###17###11###17###14###59

Property###gloating after

###eating or)(wasting someone's lunch

###excluding from)

###, complains)(false, (play

###, (blaming)

###, (backbiting)

###, (belittling)

Social###(sketching grim pictures of###12###9###14###12###47

exploitation###other's one writing board)

###someone's (distorting defaming)

###image and reputation and others

###afflicting pain hurting)

Psychological###repeatedly)

abuse###, (schadenfreude)###16###10###14###13###53

###, (annoying)

###(disturbing)

###showing off/exhibiting)

###, disdaining (others

Power and###considering)

Coercion###, (yourself as hero###10###12###9###14###45

###, (coercing)

###unauthorized) (use of

###power every time

###pulling

Sexual abuse###, other's)(dress forcefully###1###0###2###2###5

###talking)

###(obscene

###unauthorized use of

Repetition###, power)(every time###7###3###3###9###22

###repeatedly)

###(hurting

Others###(embittering)###3###0###2###0###5

Total###Behaviours reported under###120###95###109###115###431

###one category

Step 3. The results were analyzed by the expert committee and two most comprehensive and suitable words were chosen and incorporated in the Urdu version of OBVQ

Backward translation. Two bilingual experts, with cross-cultural background and experience/exposure (of at least 8 years) independently translated the Urdu version of the questionnaire back into English. The expert committee again reviewed both translations and came up with a converged version of reverse translation that was further compared to the original version and was found identical and acceptable in terms of semantic equivalence.

Cognitive debriefing and expert review. Few sentences were modified in the light of findings from cognitive debriefing as OBVQ Urdu version was administered to 8 students from the target population. This step provides insight to the suitability of alternative wording in translation/adaptation, enhances understandability and cultural significance. This semi-structured interview allows an examination of the construct, method, and item bias (Wild et al., 2005). Experts then reviewed the results of cognitive debriefing. For example, the term sexual typically translated as "jinsi was replaced with "gandi batein (obscene and vulgar remarks). Thus a pre-final Urdu version was produced.

Phase II: Preliminary Testing with Bilingual Sample

The purpose of this pilot study was to empirically evaluate the OBVQ Urdu version for a sample of students studying in 4th, 5th and 6th grades. Another aim was to determine the concurrent validity of the OBVQ-Urdu version and to serve this purpose; response from the original English OBVQ version were compared with those from the translated Urdu version using bilingual respondents.

Sample I. Three English medium schools were contacted and informed about the purpose of study for obtaining a sample of bilingual students. Only one school agreed to participate. Finally, a sample of 36 students (50% girls), studying in 4th, 5th and 6th grades was drawn with the age ranging between 9 to 12 years (M = 10.53, SD = 1.1).

Assessment measures. Both the original Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire in English and the pre-final Urdu version were used.

Procedure. Permission for data collection was sought from an English medium school. Initially 45 students were identified as fluent in both Urdu and English but finally 36 agreed to participate in the study. The participants were informed about the confidentiality of data and their right to withdraw during the study, despite their previous consent. The participants first completed the Urdu version of OBVQ during 40 minutes session of regular school hours. The definition of bullying was read aloud to them and they were asked to complete the instrument by keeping this definition in mind. One week later, the same participants completed the English version of the instrument. The items in both versions were presented in a different order.

Phase III: Exploratory Factor Analysis and Psychometrics Properties

This part of the study includes exploratory factor analysis and the initial psychometric evaluation of OBVQ Urdu version such as internal consistency, scale-item characteristics and convergent/divergent validity. These psychometric properties were established on a separate sample (sample II).

Sample II. The sample for the empirical evaluation of psychometric properties of the measures included 122 students (Mage = 11.13, SD = 1.1) studying in 4th, 5th and 6th grades. Girls (n = 70) and boys (n = 52) were drawn from two private schools of Lahore. Their mothers were also approached with the help of school administration, who rated their children on anxious/depressed and aggressive behavior subscales of Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and Rescorla, 2001). There are several guidelines about the sample size for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Principle Component Analysis (PCA) including both absolute sample size and subject to item ratio. Several researchers have recommended a minimum subject to item ratio of at least 5:1 in EFA.In terms of overall size, sample should not be less than hundred (Gorsuch, 1983; Hatcher, 1994).

Assessment measures. Following measures were used in this stage:

Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire Urdu Version. First three questions and two set of items measuring victimization (item 4-12a) and bullying (24-32a) were used in the current investigation.

Aggressive Behavior and Anxious/Depressed Subscale of CBCL. Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and Rescorla, 2001) measures severity of various behavior problems in children and adolescents. The present study assessed the Anxious/Depressed Domain and Aggressive Behavior Domain for establishing the construct validity of the OBVQ. The measure has already been translated into Urdu. The translated version has been used in several investigations which have reported adequate psychometric properties (Anjum and Malik, 2010).

Procedure

Permission was sought out from schools and an informed consent was obtained from the parents. Mothers were also requested to fill the enclosed questionnaire. It included questions pertaining to anxious/depressed and aggressive behavior domains of CBCL. Out of 140 requests, 18 were turned down thus the final sample constituted of 122 students and their mothers. All the students voluntarily participated in the study. They were also informed about the right to withdraw from their participation at any point of time. Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire was administered to the students in their regular class rooms. After instructing the students about filling the questionnaire, they were asked to answer the first two questions. The definition included in the questionnaire was read aloud to them. They were asked to mention any difficulty while answering the questions. It took only 15 minutes to complete this brief version of OBVQ. Students reported no difficulty in comprehending the questions.

The questionnaire was filled anonymously and the information provided by mothers was matched to the student data by code numbers mentioned on both of the measures.

Results

Comparison of English and Urdu Version Administration of OBVQ

First of all inter-item correlation was computed between English and Urdu versions of the OBVQ. There was a gap of one week between the administrations of both versions. Results are presented in table 3.

Table 3 Inter-Item Correlation between English and the Urdu Versions of OBVQ

Items###R###Items###R

Item 1###.79***###Item 21###.85***

Item 2###1***###Item 22###.79***

Item 3###.84***###Item 23###.71***

Item 4###.82***###Item 24###.90***

Item 5###.80***###Item 25###.89***

Item 6###.87***###Item 26###.81***

Item 7###.91***###Item 27###.86***

Item 8###.83***###Item 28###.85***

Item 9###.82***###Item 29###.96***

Item 10###.91***###Item 30###.78***

Item 11###.89***###Item 31###.83***

Item 12###.78***###Item 32###.85***

Item 12a###.90***###Item 32a###.84***

Item 13###.79***###Item 33###.67***

Item 14###.78***###Item 34###.89***

Item 15###.88***###Item 35###.91***

Item 16###.81***###Item 36###.84***

Item 17###.89***###Item 37###.89***

Item 18###.66***###Item 38###.93***

Item 19###.78***###Item 39###.85***

Item 20###.89***

Strong correlation coefficients, ranged from.67 to.96 were found between the items of English and Urdu versions of OBVQ. Moreover, Urdu and English versions yielded good internal consistency with Cronbach alpha of.84 and.83 respectively.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The present study was conducted to see if the set of items in OBVQ measuring bullying and victimization represent two distinct behavior patterns that could further distinguish the students into different bullying roles. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax method of rotation was used for current data set. KMO was found to be.86 that exceeds the minimum value of.50 suggested by Field (2005) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity yielded highly significant findings, I2(190) = 1733.3, p <.001, which showed the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis. We chose minimum of.35 as loading standard for an item that is recommended by Stevens (as cited in Field, 2005).

Table 4 Summary of Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation for OBVQ Urdu Version (N = 122)

###Factor 1###Factor 2###Factor 3

Items###(V)###(B)###(CBV)

OBVQ item 6###.84

OBVQ item 5###.83

OBVQ item 4###.83

OBVQ item 8###.83

OBVQ item 11###.83

OBVQ item 12###.83

OBVQ item 9###.82

OBVQ item 10###.82

OBVQ item 7###.78

OBVQ item 26###.85

OBVQ item 31###.84

OBVQ item 25###.81

OBVQ item 27###.80

OBVQ item 29###.78

OBVQ item 28###.76

OBVQ item 24###.76

OBVQ item 30###.70

OBVQ item 32###.68

OBVQ item 32a###.83

OBVQ item 12a###.78

Eigen values###7.51###4.42###1.51

% of Variance###37.53###22.10###7.55

Cumulative %###37.53###59.63###67.17

Table 4 shows the factor loadings of 20 items from OBVQ Urdu version. These items measure the bullying and victimization status of the students by asking about general and specific behaviors that are often linked to bullying. The results showed high communalities for all the items. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation resulted in factor solution that converged in 3 iterations and high ladings ranging from.68 to.84. The three factor solution showed Eigen values greater than 1 and the extraction was confirmed by scree plots. The items indicating the global question about being bullied (item 4) and different types of traditional bullying experienced (5-12) by students made the first factor named Victimization (V). It had the highest Eigen value (7.51) explaining the largest part (37.53%) of the total variance.

Similarly, set of items asking general question about bullying others (item 24) and related types of traditional perpetration of bullying (items 25-32) resulted in the second factor that is called Bullying (B). Factor II showed Eigen value of 4.42 which explained 22.09% of variance. This was an expected depiction except for two items that accounted for the third factor (item 32 and 12a) having an Eigen value merely crossing one (1.51) and accounting for minimal variance (7.55%) of the total. Both of these it1wems represent the cyber bullying and victimization respectively. The third factor itself may not be meaningful having low indices yet we decided to retain both its items as they measure an important aspect of bullying and results can be subjected to smaller sample size. The total amount of variance explained by three factors was 67.17%.

Scale-item Characteristics

This portion includes the reliability coefficients and descriptive statistics of the extracted factors and total set of items. Additionally, it presents means and standard deviations for each item, item total correlation and Cronbach's alpha if the particular item is deleted.

Table 5 Descriptive and Item-Total Statistics of the Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire

Item ####M###SD###rit###if item deleted

Item 4###2.75###1.38###.58###.91

Item 5###2.59###1.51###.54###.91

Item 6###2.39###1.46###.61###.91

Item 7###2.13###1.43###.62###.91

Item 8###2.40###1.46###.69###.90

Item 9###2.25###1.41###.65###.90

Item 10###2.21###1.43###.75###.90

Item 11###2.25###1.44###.67###.90

Item 12###2.07###1.48###.73###.90

Item 12a###1.09###0.36###.02###.91

Item 24###0.15###0.48###.67###.90

Item 25###2.35###1.41###.41###.91

Item 26###1.75###1.10###.45###.91

Item 27###1.86###1.24###.53###.91

Item 28###1.84###1.28###.52###.91

Item 29###1.70###1.14###.51###.91

Item 30###1.72###1.14###.57###.91

Item 31###1.84###1.20###.56###.91

Item 32###1.88###1.24###.48###.91

Item 32a###1.69###1.17###.09###.91

Item total correlations were computed to evaluate each item in order to confirm whether all the items significantly measure the bullying phenomenon. Table 5 displays that deletion of any individual item changes alpha values to range between.90 and.91. Item to total scale correlations ranged between.41 to.74, except for two items measuring cyber victimization (12a) and cyber bullying (32a) showing correlation of.01 and.08 respectively. However we decided to retain the items for final Urdu version, considering the sample size constraints for current findings. Mean scores of victimization items (4-12) were greater than items measuring bullying (24-32). The subscale of Bullying shows a mean of 21.05 and a standard deviation 10.78, and the Victimization subscale shows a mean of 16.63 and a standard deviation of 8.56. Victimization ([alpha] =.94) and bullying ([alpha] =.80) showed high estimates of reliability coefficient.

Reliability of Cyber bullying and victimization factor was also moderately high ([alpha] =.78) and mean scores were quite low (M = 2.14, SD =.63) subjected to fewer number of items. Overall internal consistency of the 20 set of items measuring bullying and victimization aspect of OBVQ was also very high with alpha coefficient of.91. Bullying and victimization scales that represented traditional nature of bullying experience were significantly correlated with each other, r =.26, p <.01, yet the magnitude of this relationship was found to be not so strong. Cyber bullying and victimization was not related to the bullying, r =.04, p =.18, and victimization, r =.05, p =.30.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of OBVQ Urdu Version

The construct validity of a questionnaire is ascertained by computing convergent and divergent validity of the measure. To fulfill this purpose, two subscales of Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Aggressive Behavior and Anxious/Depressed) were used.

Bullying subscale despite being correlated with anxious/depressed dimension of CBCL exhibited stronger relationship with aggressive behavior, r =.78, p<.001 vs. r =.41, p<.001. Similarly victimization was significantly related to anxious/depressed tendency, r =.49, p.90), still good internal consistency for bullying subscale (.80) and moderate reliability for items measuring cyber bullying and victimization (.78). It also proved to be reliable across grades and gender. Previous literature on psychometric properties of translated versions of OBVQ has provided similar evidence (Papacostaab, Paradeisiotiab, and Lazarou, 2014). However, further investigation with larger sample is required to confirm the findings. Moreover, current Urdu version was found suitable for elementary school children.

Separate Urdu version must be used with adolescents or high school and college students after incorporating more precise translation of the word bullying. Nearly all the item-total correlations were above.40 demonstrating that these items should be retained for questionnaire. Only two items (12a and 32a) showed below average correlations. However considering the distinct nature of cyber bullying (as it also emerged as a separate factor) and minimal impact on overall internal consistency of the measure (.90 to.91), both of the items were retained in the final Urdu version. Additionally, construct validity of the questionnaire was determined by computing the relationship between bullying victimization and two important subscales of Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) that were Anxious/Depressed and Aggressive behavior. Each of these subscales represented internalizing and externalizing dimensions of behavior respectively.

Both of these scales were significantly correlated with bullying and victimization subscales of OBVQ. Yet the nature of relationship was stronger between bullying and aggressive behavior; victimization and anxious/depressive tendencies. A number of existing studies have supported this association. Olweus and Solberg (2003) reported that students who scored higher on global item of victimization showed significant inclination towards depression. Other earlier and recent studies have demonstrated consistent support for positive association between peer victimization and internalizing symptoms such as depression and anxiety and also strong relationship between bullying and externalizing behaviors (Boivin, Hymel, and Bukowski, 1995; Reijntjes et al., 2010). The directionality of the relationship is however questionable and future investigations should determine the predictive strength of this relationship.

Conclusion. It can be concluded that Urdu version of Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ) for elementary grades is comparable to the original version in terms of semantic and linguistic equivalence. Additionally, without compromising the psychometric strength, it demonstrated adequate psychometric properties and hence is considered suitable to identify students in different bullying roles in Pakistani schools.

Limitations and Suggestions. Students' perception reflects the complexity of bullying phenomenon and also the need for more careful investigation. Since the present study was not basically focused on investigating the perception of students about bullying, therefore gender, age and grade-wise differences were not taken into account in the first part. Moreover, recall method used in this study may not represent the full range of children's knowledge. Sample size was also small and confined to elementary grades that restricts the generalizability of the translated version. Psychometric properties of OBVQ Urdu version should be further investigated with larger samples of elementary, secondary and higher secondary school students using more sophisticated techniques such as confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Indigenous appraisal of bullying may help in developing culturally relevant prevention and intervention programs.

References

Achenbach, T. M., and Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles: an integrated system of multi-informant assessment Burlington, VT: University of Vermont. Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, 16-17.

Akram, B., and Munawar, A. (2016). Bullying victimization: A risk factor of health problems among adolescents with hearing impairment. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, 66(1), 13-17.

Anjum, N., and Malik, F. (2010). Parenting practices in mothers of children with ADHD: Role of stress and behavioral problems in children. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8(1), 18-38.

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., and Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.

Bendixen, M., and Olweus, D. (1999). Measurement of antisocial behavior in early adolescence and adolescence: Psychometric properties and substantive ndings. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 9(4), 323-354.

Beran, T. N., and Lupart, J. (2009). The Relationship between School achievement and peer harassment in Canadian adolescents. School Psychology International, 30(1), 75-91. Doi: 10.1177/014303430810185

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., and Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7(4), 765-785.

Chavez, L. M., and Canino, G. (2005). Toolkit on translating and adapting instruments. Cambridge, MA: Human Services Research Institute.

Cornell, D. G., and Cole, J. C. M. (2012). Assessment of bullying. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, and M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of School Violence and School Safety (pp. 289-304). New York, NY: Routledge

Cornell, D., and Sheras, P. (2003). School Climate Bullying Survey. Charlottesville: Virginia Youth Violence Project

Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S. N., Scheidt, P., and Currie, C. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: international comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 15(2), 128-132.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M., Edstrom, L. V., and Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 466-481. Doi: 10.1037/a0013839

Furlong, M. J., Sharkey, J. D., Felix, E. D., Tanigawa, D., and Green, J. G. (2010). Bullying assessment: A call for increased precision of self-reporting procedures. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, D. L. Espelage, S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, and D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 329-345). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

Koo, H., Kwak, K., Smith, P. K. (2008). Victimization in Korean schools: The nature, incidence, and distinctive features of Korean bullying or wang-ta. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 119-139.

Guerin, S., and Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils' definitions of bullying. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17(3), 249-261.

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., and Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education

Gordillo, I. C. (2011). Repetition, Power Imbalance, and Intentionality: Do These Criteria Conform to Teenagers, Perception of Bullying? A Role-Based Analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1608-1615.

Gorusch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Green, J. G., Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Furlong, M. J., and Kras, J. E. (2013). Identifying bully victims: Definitional versus behavioral approaches. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 651-657.

Hamburger, M. E., Basile, K. C., and Vivolo, A. M. (2011). Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc.

Hinduja, S., and Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, Cyber bullying, and Suicide. Archives of Suicide Research 14(3), 206-221. Doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.494133

Hellstrom, L., Persson, L., and Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying-adolescents' own views. Archives of Public Health, 73(1), 4. Doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-73-4

International Test Commission. (2010). International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. Retrieved from http://www.intestcom.org

MAPI Institute. (2012). Linguistic Validation Manual for Health Outcome Assessments, (2nd ed.). Lyon: MAPI Research Trust Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, K., and Taki, M. (1999). Japan. In P. K.

Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective, (pp. 309-323). London: Routledge

Mynard, H., and Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 26(2), 169-178.

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., Bettencourt, R., and Lemme, F. (2006). Teachers and pupils' definition of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 553-576.

Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495-510.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do?. American Psychologist, 53(1), 754-760. Doi:10.1002/pits.10114

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press, Wiley.

Olweus, D., and Solberg, M. E. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239-268. Doi: 10.1002/ab.10047.

Olweus, D. (2006). Olweus' core program against bullying and antisocial behavior: A teacher handbook. Hazelden Publishing and Educational Services

Papacosta, E. S., Paradeisioti, A., and Lazarou, C. (2014) Bullying phenomenon and preventive programs in Cyprus's school system. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 16(1), 67-80, DOI: 10.1080/14623730.2014.888894

Reijntes, A., Albert, B., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, K., Peter, P., and Michael, J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34(4), 244-252.

Rigby, K. (2002). Towards a definition of bullying. New Perspectives on Bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley

Sawyer, A. L., Bradshaw, C. P., and O'Brennan, L. M. (2008). Examining Ethnic, Gender, and Developmental Differences in the Way Children Report Being a Victim of "Bullying" on Self-Report Measures. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43(2), 106 - 114.

Shujja, S. and Atta, M. (2011). Translation and validation of Illinois Bullying Scale for Pakistani children and adolescents. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(1-2), 79-82.

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R., and Liefooghe, A. (2002). Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and sex differences, in a 14-country international comparison. Child Development, 73(4), 1119-1133. Doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00461C.

Smith P. K., and Levan, S. (1995). Perceptions and experiences of bullying in younger pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(4), 489-500.

Smith, P. K., Madsen, K. C., and Moody, J. C. (1999). What cause the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied.Educational Research, 41(3), 267-285.

Smith, P. K., and Monks, C. P. (2008). Concepts of bullying: Developmental and cultural aspects. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20(2), 101-112.

Smith, P. K. (2016). Bullying: Definition, types, causes, consequences and intervention. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 519-532.

Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., and Chauhan, P. (2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 565-581.

Sousa, V., and Rojjanasrirat, W. (2010). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-274.

Swearer, S. M. (2001). The bully survey (Unpublished survey). University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Vaillancourt, T, McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., and Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 486-495.

Vessey, J., Strout, D. T., DiFazio, R. L., and Walker, A. (2014). Measuring the youth bullying experience: A systematic review of the psychometric properties of available instruments. Journal of School Health, 84(12), 819-843. Doi:10.1111/josh.12210

Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health, 8(2), 94-104.

Woods, S., and Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement. Journal School Psychology, 42(2). 135-155.

Ybarra, M. L., and Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressors, victims, and aggressor/victims: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308-1316.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Knowledge Bylanes
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Behavioural Sciences
Geographic Code:9PAKI
Date:Dec 31, 2018
Words:7210
Previous Article:Teaching Styles as Moderator between Metacognitive Awareness and Study Habits among University Students.
Next Article:Relationships between Corporate Social Responsibility, Work Engagement and Organizational Commitment: Explanatory Role of Organizational...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters