View in EDS

How Inconsistent Reporting Affects Bullying Victimization Estimates: A Data‐Adjusted Replication Study in 29 Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How Inconsistent Reporting Affects Bullying Victimization Estimates: A Data‐Adjusted Replication Study in 29 Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries.
Authors: Brisson, Romain1 (AUTHOR) sociodicy@outlook.com
Source: Journal of Adolescence. Jul2026, Vol. 98 Issue 5, p1832-1836. 5p.
Subject Terms: *Teenagers, *Victims of bullying, Victimization rates, Data quality, Developing countries, Replication (Experimental design), Low-income countries, Data scrubbing
Abstract: Introduction: Although inconsistent reporting can alter research findings, it is seldom accounted for in most research areas. This study assessed the impact of inconsistent reporting on bullying victimization prevalence through a partial replication of a study in 29 countries. Methods: Analyses were restricted to adolescents aged 12–15 years (n = 191,228). Inconsistent reporting was defined based on contradictions in the responses to two bullying victimization items. Unadjusted prevalence estimates (i.e., all reports included) were compared with adjusted estimates (i.e., inconsistent reports excluded) based on relative changes and Cohen's h. Results and Conclusions: The mean percentage of inconsistent reporters was 7.4%. On average, their exclusion reduced bullying victimization prevalence by 13.5% (M∆ = −13.5%; Mh = 0.107). In about two‐thirds of cases, adjusted estimates fell outside corresponding unadjusted confidence intervals. The present study confirms that inconsistent reporting can substantially bias bullying victimization prevalence estimates. It should therefore be systematically addressed whenever possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Adolescence is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Introduction: Although inconsistent reporting can alter research findings, it is seldom accounted for in most research areas. This study assessed the impact of inconsistent reporting on bullying victimization prevalence through a partial replication of a study in 29 countries. Methods: Analyses were restricted to adolescents aged 12–15 years (n = 191,228). Inconsistent reporting was defined based on contradictions in the responses to two bullying victimization items. Unadjusted prevalence estimates (i.e., all reports included) were compared with adjusted estimates (i.e., inconsistent reports excluded) based on relative changes and Cohen's h. Results and Conclusions: The mean percentage of inconsistent reporters was 7.4%. On average, their exclusion reduced bullying victimization prevalence by 13.5% (M∆ = −13.5%; Mh = 0.107). In about two‐thirds of cases, adjusted estimates fell outside corresponding unadjusted confidence intervals. The present study confirms that inconsistent reporting can substantially bias bullying victimization prevalence estimates. It should therefore be systematically addressed whenever possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:01401971
DOI:10.1002/jad.70166